Has global warming stopped?
David Whitehouse
Published 19 December 2007

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'. Plus read Mark Lynas's response

Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt? 
Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp. 
With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months. 
But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No. 
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface causing some heat to be retained. 
Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble. 
The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.
But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980. 
The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued. 
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased. 
The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.
But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. 
But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data. 
It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then? 
Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so. 
Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on. 
I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble. 
The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped. 
David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).] His website is www.davidwhitehouse.com
Post this article to
•	Digg
•	del.icio.us
•	facebook 
•	newsvine
•	NowPublic
•	Reddit
1289 comments from readers
JZ Smith 
19 December 2007 at 21:18
Mr Whitehouse, 
Too bad the AGW has already left the station. As a skeptic moving further toward skepticism, I am disappointed that so many scientists have apparently accepted the finality of AGW. Those most strongly touting the "truth" of AGW are forcing themselves into the position of eventually either flip-flopping on the issue, or, more disturbingly, working to silence those voices with whom they disagree.
jimbeaux 
19 December 2007 at 21:34
I'm confused. On one hand, I've read that 2007 is shaping up to be the 8th warmest year on record, and that seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and the 10 warmest have all occurred since 1997. 
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/recor... 
On the other hand, we have this info here. 
So a poor layman like me is confused by the contradictory stories. Which is correct? Can references be posted?
NORMSMITH 
20 December 2007 at 03:04
Everything makes sense when you look at the graphs from the Vostok Ice cores. Earth goes through a predictable pattern of long ice ages which are separated by comparatively warm intervals called interglaciations. The ice ages last about 100,000 years and the warm intervals last about 12,000 years. 
This pattern has nothing to do with human activity, as it goes back before modern man was here. CO2 always rises with the temperature. 
Our current warm interval - The Holocene - is almost over. The previous warm interval - The Eemian - was way hotter than todays Holocene. If humans had been around 125,000 years ago there would have been some Al Gore type pointing to the rising temperature and CO2 and blaming it on human activity. 
I encourage all Global Warming alarmists to look at the Vostok graphs. You will quickly see that everything happens in a natural cycle. Read up on the |Holocene and the Eemian. 
Nothing new is happening. Mother Nature has her own patterns we barely understand. Humans don't have the ability to control the climate. That's ego and self-congratulatory backslapping taken to an unprecedented level. 
And one more thing - look at the Sea Level history charts that go back 18,000 years. Now there's a big reality check if you can handle it. The charts show a trend that is decreasing and about to plateau. 
Wake up and don't get suckered in by the carbon-taxers.
Frank 
20 December 2007 at 08:30
This will not suit Gordon Brown. No tax revenue in it.
DennisA 
20 December 2007 at 10:48
Since 1659, the hottest Central England temperatures are: 
winter - 1869, followed by 1834 
spring - 1893 followed by 1945 
summer - 1976 followed by 1826 
autumn - at last success for global warming, 2006, but followed by 1730, 1731 and 1729. This year ranked number 42 out of 349 years.
mitchy 
20 December 2007 at 13:33
I think I'll reserve judgement for now, 7 years isnt a long time to suddenly decide global warming isnt happening. 
Fact is, there are lots of factors affecting the planetary climate, its orbit, the sun's cycles, and the Earth's own natural cycles. However, I do not accept the arguement that our presence is not sufficient to affect the climate. I think this is a naive and frankly parochial view which fails to take into account the very clear effects we are indeed having on the planet. Massive deforestation, dying coral reefs, rampant loss of biodiversity, atmospheric and aquatic pollution are all having an effect, which is undoubtably contributing to what is happening overall. 
Dont get me wrong, I'm not of the view that we are the sole cause of climate change, but I do think we are messing about with a delicately balanced system and, given enough time, we will eventually tip the system beyond the effects solely caused by natural oscillations. 
Regardless of any of this, another inescapable fact is that we (particularly in the west) are consuming natural resources at an utterly unsustainable rate, which is reason alone to curb our excesses and try to think beyond immediate short-term gratification. China and India are catching up fast, so we really need to lead by example and start being a bit more sensible with our resources, before we start warring with each other over dwindling resources (like we arent already).
Mike 
20 December 2007 at 13:51
Thank you Mr. Whitehouse. 
In a day and age where the politics surrounding this issue have the potential to be far deadlier than the topic at hand, I am thankful for people like you. 
Mike in California
sprungmonkey12 
20 December 2007 at 13:53
jimbeaux - I'm with you, I'd like clarification on the conflicting reports, however, the link article you referred to is for US temps, not global temps. Perhaps that is where the difference lies. Wish someone would back this up. I need some ammunition before visiting some "over-the-top" global warming alarmists relatives for Christmas. We have to pack our own TP as they ration everyone's squares. True story.
SCEPTIC 
20 December 2007 at 14:36
YOUR ARTICLE IS PAID GOVERNMENT NONSENSE 
GLOBAL WARMING IS MEASURED NOT ONLY BY TEMPERATURES BUT ALSO BY AMOUNT OF MELTING ICE GO TO THIS LINK AND SEE YOURSELF...... 
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/10/01/science/20071002_ARCTIC_GRAPHIC.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/ 
thuntley 
20 December 2007 at 15:18
Hey SCEPTIC, you reference a site supportec by the New York Times. Not necessarily what one would call an "unbiased scientific resoure". Why not check out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They've got more weather data than anyone. Chillin'Out
david 
20 December 2007 at 16:21
It seems odd Mr Whitehouse doesn't provide any data to support his idea. Is it because they don't? 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Cybertiger 
20 December 2007 at 16:39
I agree - global warming is cobblers. Our global problems are too many people and rapidly diminishing fossilised carbon energy. George Bush may spew a lot of hot air but let us be confident that he will do something about our little problems.
drpaulz 
20 December 2007 at 17:06
Using year to year measures to determine the trajectory of global climate shifts is akin to measuring the effectiveness of a weight loss scheme over several hours. Take a step back from the data and the trends are clear. Average global temperatures are rising as was forecast by James Hansen, and others, due to increased carbon content in the atmosphere. The debate is over. It is time to adapt and respond. And to complete the analogy: if you are much more corpulent today than 2 years ago it matters little if your weight has remained constant for 7 hours.
DrColes 
20 December 2007 at 17:36
Political propaganda is NOT science. UK court says Gore is a fraud. August 2007 Update: Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming Not True. Unfortunately, Hansen is a political hack of George Soros. Further, flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros. In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework; a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/ Remember CONSENSUS is NEVER science it’s always a POLITICAL STATEMENT (a Party Line).
Eric the Half a Bee 
20 December 2007 at 17:59
Much as I'd like the finger-wagging doom-mongers to be wrong, I'm afraid this doesn't do it. As a few previous commentators have noted, it's just not possible to draw any conclusions even from a decade of data if it has large errors associated with it. And this does. Boring stat fact: the standard deviation of the annual measurement is around 0.05 deg. Compare that to the latest IPCC report (2007) temp rise trend of 0.2 deg/decade, ie 0.02 deg/yr. In other words, the predicted signal is less than half the size of the error associated with it, so it's just not possible to tell if the overall trend is right even over a decade or so - it is, as we statisticians say, "lost in the noise".
Effrontery 
20 December 2007 at 18:18
Can we keep this simple, please? Are we doomed or what?
Effrontery 
20 December 2007 at 18:20
PS - these charts, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ referenced above, seem to show that it's getting warmer. What's wrong with them?
JZ Smith 
20 December 2007 at 18:48
"It seems odd Mr Whitehouse doesn't provide any data to support his idea. Is it because they don't? 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/" 
The data referenced above has been shown to be manipulated heavily by James Hansen, from NASA, who could not be said to hold an objective POV. 
To wit: http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=40
Maz 
20 December 2007 at 19:02
We're not doomed. We need to look after our environment like any other precious resource. Of course we have an impact on the planet but to suggest we are catastrophically changing our climate is absolute cobblers. There is simply no evidence that what we are seeing is not just natural climate variability with possibly a small and ultimately limited superimposition related to human activity. Not necessarily a bad thing especially since the only certainty about future climate is that we WILL have another iceage. It will cause untold misery and destruction wildly exceeding anything the current doomsayers are trying to scare us with! Evidence of warming (melting Arctic ice - not Antarctic by the way, the sea ice there is actually growing and that continent is cooling not warming) is not evidence that we are causing the warming. The commonest mistake, even in comments above! 
Regarding the temp record - this is contentious to say the least. Do you believe the land based (remember the planet is mainly ocean) station data? Do you believe that the data is adequately corrected for urban heat islands? We can't tell because the chaps that do this refuse to make public how they do it!! Do you believe the satellite record which covers the whole globe but only goes back to 1979? 
The Hadley Centre in East Anglia (funded by the Govt to investigate, monitor etc Climate Change) publish their own record http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/Ha... The levelling off in temp is clearly seen. But we clearly need more data to establish a meaningful trend. If the temps start to drop as the drop in solar activity starts to take effect then the global warmers clearly have a problem and it could be Millenium Bug all over again. Except this scam is much bigger.
robrtl 
20 December 2007 at 19:19
please ,does rising co2 precede rising temperatures or do temperatures precede rising co2
Maz 
20 December 2007 at 19:48
Over the last century the graph for temperature and the graph for CO2 actually bear little resemblance to each other. 
If you look at ice core data to determine this relationship over the last series of ice ages then it appears that the temp rise leads the CO2 rise by about 800yrs. The logic is that the warming oceans released CO2 because the gas is less soluble in the warmer water.
Patrick Hadley 
20 December 2007 at 20:33
I don't think any one has replied to Jimbeaux, about how can this year be the 7th warmest etc if global warming has stopped. 
It is certainly true that 1998 at 0.546 degrees Celsius above average was the warmest year since proper records began to be kept in 1850. Global warming is a bit like putting on weight. Once the pounds are on you do not start back at your ideal weight next year. The warming that happened recently will have its effect for some time to come. However using the Met Office Data these are the figures for how much the years 2001 -2006 were above average: 0.409, 0.464, 0.473, 0.447, 0.482, 0.422. The figure for 2007 is estimated tobe 0.41 above average. The trend is now actually moving downwards (admittedly not yet in a statistically significant way). 
All of these figures are higher than any other year in the list since 1850, except 1998. That is why we see some effects of warmer temperatures. However the word warming implies that we are getting more warm. David Whitehouse is therefore correct when he says that global warming has stopped. We are still warm, but we are not getting any warmer. The IPCC report asumed a trend of ever rising temperatures which is not happening at present.
juchestyle 
20 December 2007 at 20:48
Hey Jim, 
This is obviously one of those websites that is sponsored by people who are ok with selling out the human race by misrepresenting the truth. You are right, the last couple years have been the warmest on record. And to clarify the article, we should be in a cooling period according to the natural cycles, but we are warming, that is proof positive that we are destroying our exosphere. I am not worried about the earth it will be here long after we are extinct.
JZ Smith 
20 December 2007 at 20:52
More interesting reading on this subject: 
http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=445
Patrick Hadley 
20 December 2007 at 22:39
JZ Smith, thank you for the link. 
drpaulz is obviously exaggerating for effect when he compares the time periods of warming with a diet. He says that it is like getting excited after 7 hours compared with 2 years of fatness. Well not really. The exceptional warming occurred between 1978 and 1998 - a period of 20 years. It was only during this period that global temperatures left the range it had been in since 1850. The flattening of the smoothed curve has been going on now for nearly 10 years. So a fairer description would be to say that we have stopped putting on weight for a year after two years of pigging-out and gaining weight pretty fast. We are still plumper than ever, but perhaps the tide has turned.
bobclive 
20 December 2007 at 22:52
Many temperature stations in rural areas have been closed within the last few years leaving mostly urban stations which are in heavily built up areas such as airports which suffer from the UHI effect, this would give a bias upwards for global temps as has been seen prior to 2001. 
Could it be that over the last 7 years the temps have stabilised at the higher level because the weather stations that are left are now predominantly urban. 
Could it be that the only actual temperature rise has been the urban heat island effect, that has been recently shown in China to be 65~80% of the overall warming in 1961~2000, and about 40~61% of the overall warming in 1981~2000. 
Ref.: Ren, G. Y., Z. Y. Chu, Z. H. Chen, and Y. Y. Ren (2007), Implications of temporal change in urban heat island intensity observed at Beijing and Wuhan stations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L05711, doi:10.1029/2006GL027927
JZ Smith 
20 December 2007 at 22:54
Mr. Hadley, 
Well put, but don't forget that CO2 emissions for the 1998-2007 time period continued to rise, as far as I know consistent with prior years, yet global temps were flat. That is not a strong argument that CO2 from human activity causes AGW. In fact, as has been noted above, CO2 levels typically follow rather than precede temperature changes. Perhaps CO2 levels will soon flatten or decline??
joseph_joseph1@hotmail.com 
20 December 2007 at 23:09
Now that the Arctic ice is melting, we need to open the Arctic up to oil drilling. We need cheaper oil close to home. And because there are no trees there, we will not have to worry about the tree huggers.
shibeg 
21 December 2007 at 02:30
George Monbiot always provides references for his articles. Where are Mr. Whitehouses's article references ?
grantnw 
21 December 2007 at 04:23
there's absolutely no doubt that central england is warming ... the record is here: 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
owl 
21 December 2007 at 07:00
Drinking this koolaide, global warming stops every night. 
Make the El Nino anomaly of 1998 the base ref point. Change the reference frame to work the angles. Ignore the trashheap of past cooling-soon claims that never materialized. Hire gunslingers to pinprick the science. Misquote and misrepresent both the science and the critics as required. 
Congrats, we're now on a course of overdrive mainlining greenhouse gases into the system. Sure hope all your re-assurances are valid - there's no mulligan on this one.
IanB 
21 December 2007 at 09:37
The flat to downward trend of surface temperatures suggests, to this geoscientist at least, that the effectiveness of CO2 as an agent to heat the planet (or more accurately to retain the heat energy in the atmosphere for longer) has been significantly over-stated by the IPCC and the computer models used to project temperature. 
One thing that really surprises me is that, whilst the topic of global warming was moving up the political agenda, the number of weather stations actually measuring temperature globally was decreasing, with about a 50% drop in the early 90s, principally in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and particularly in the high latitude rural locations where the signal of atmospheric warming would be strongest. Surely making sure that the maximum and highest quality real world data is obtained is essential to support the AGW hypothesis. 
The calculation (or more realistically, model construction) of the Earth's surface temperature includes mathematical/computational corrections to allow for this, but are difficult to validate, because what is the right answer? Something worth considering whenever you see a comment of how (something like) 15 of the warmest 20 years occurred since 1990, is that this could to some extent be an artefact of the correcions applied to the raw data.
mikh 
21 December 2007 at 09:48
"The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" H L Mencken
Maz 
21 December 2007 at 09:52
Central England is hardly global, Grantnw! 
You provide the link to the Hadley Centre for the CET series. The only value in this series is its continuity and duration. But as Philip Eden points out on his excellent website http://www.climate-uk.com/page5.html the nature of this series is not without controversy. 
Whilst you were browsing the Hadley Centre (Met Office) site for the CET why didn't you have a look at their own (albeit corrected ?How) Global Temp Series. I provided the link earlier but here it is again http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/Ha... I think you'll find the data behind Mr Whitehouse's article that some posters here seem to think does not exist. Regards.
Antipodes 
21 December 2007 at 10:14
Qualified: 
It is certainly untrue that "the science is settled" - science is never settled and in this case it is far from settled, starting with the basic spectroscopy. If you read any text book on climatology, you will also conclude that climate is above all a "chaotic system", meaning that responses to several factors are non-linear. What is absolutely settled for global warming and anything else is that once an issue has been politicised, knowledge goes out the window. Specifically, the panic-mongers lie, most conspicuously about the "hockey stick effect" (sharp global temperature rise) now proven to be an artifact (look up Steve McIntyre, Toronto) and unaccountably removed from its pride of place in global-warming publicity.
johnmarshall940 
21 December 2007 at 10:36
This intense argument is similar to the one in the 50's and 60's about Plate Tectonics. The only problem is that governments have jumped onto the band wagon and legislating left, right, and center for no good reason.
Jane Greene 
21 December 2007 at 10:38
This article is a complete load of old cock and I'm horrified the New Statesman ran it!
puzzle270 
21 December 2007 at 11:04
a commercial glasshouse is a closed system and in many currently used for food production co2 is raised up to 1500 ppm because the plants grow quicker, what is noticeable however there appears to be no increase in temperature at 1500 ppm compared with a standard glasshouse at 380ppm. can someone please explain why !
revel 
21 December 2007 at 11:25
Congratulations Mr Whitehouse. Nowadays, it takes a brave person to point out the Emeror has no clothes. 
Environmentalist priests now talk of Climate Change rather than Global Warming. They are 100% correct simply because climate has always changed and will always change. What they fail to prove is a causal relationship between human activity and climate change. Showing correlations, especially over short periods, is proof of nothing. 
Indeed temperatures have changed but seldom show increases in CO2 preceding temperature increases and vice versa. 
For example temperatures rose significantly after the centuries of the little Ice Age ended in the mid-19th century preceding the rapid increase in use of fossil fuels in the Industrial Revolution. 
We should expect substantial rises in temperature over the next decade as we move into the Solar Maximun Cycle. 
It requires a leap of faith, unsupported by scientific evidence, to believe humans can exert any significant influence either way on temeratures and climate.
RichardSCourtney 
21 December 2007 at 11:48
Several persons here seem to think there is an inconsistency between the global temperature having flat-lined for the last 7 years and the warmest years since 1880 being recent. Not so. 
Mean global temperature (MGT) has risen (with stops-and-starts) for the last 300 years as the globe has warmed from the Little Ice Age (LIA) when the Thames froze solid each winter. Around 1700, Londoners used to have “Ice Fairs” on the frozen Thames each year. The last Ice Fair was held in 1814, and the Thames has not frozen solid since. Of course the warmest years are recent because they are near the end of that warming trend that is recovery from the LIA. 
The existence of global warming (GW) is not evidence of man-made global warming known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW) because warming of the Earth does not prove that human activity warmed it. At issue is whether human activity is or is not affecting the changes to the Earth’s temperature that have always happened naturally. 
However, AGW asserts that human emissions of greenhouse gases will inevitably cause warming. But MGT reached a maximum in 1998 (an El Nino year) fell back in 1999 and recovered to nearly the 1998 value in 2000. Since then, MGT has been constant. 
For data, methods and graphs see 
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txt 
The cessation of global warming in 1998 is not consistent with the AGW hypothesis. But very little is consistent with the AGW hypothesis. For example the following facts do not support the scare. 
Sceptical arguments concerning anthropogenic global warming (AGW) 
The history of global temperature is not consistent with the suggestion that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (notably carbon dioxide) govern global temperature. For example, mean global temperature has not again reached the high it did in 1998 (an El Nino year) and it has been stable for the last 6 years despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of by 4% since 1998. (Assuming the measurements can be trusted) 
The regions of warming across the Earth are not consistent with AGW as projected by climate models. For example, global temperature has not increased since 1998 because, while the northern hemisphere has warmed, the southern hemisphere has cooled. Global warming was supposed to be global, not hemispheric. And the expected greatest warming of the atmosphere at altitude near the equator has not happened: indeed, radiosonde and MSU data both suggest a slight cooling of the atmosphere at altitude near the equator. 
The bi-stability of the climate system over geological ages despite gross changes (e.g ~30% increase in solar radiative forcing) suggests that the climate system is not subject to disturbance by relatively small effects such as increased radiative forcing (of ~0.4%) from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. 
Available evidence from ice cores and from analyses of recent atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations indicate that changes to the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration follow changes to temperature. A cause cannot follow its effect. 
No unprecedented climate changes have been observed in recent decades or centuries. Hence, there is no evidence that AGW has altered natural climate variability. 
There is no evidence that AGW has altered the rate of sea level rise. Indeed, measurements of sea level rise indicate it has not. 
There is no evidence that AGW has altered the incidence or the severity of extreme weather events. Indeed, hurricane frequencies and intensities have reduced in recent decades. 
It remains to be proven that the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is a result of human activity and historic measurements of carbon dioxide concentration suggest that the concentration was higher in the nineteenth century (before significant human emissions) than now. 
The available data of global climate are unreliable because they are based on imperfect measurements, are compiled using a variety of unsure compilation methods, and are biased (e.g. by the urban heat island – UHI – effect). Hence, the asserted recent changes to global temperature are not known with any certainty. 
Cloud effects (e.g. Lindzen Iris) could cancel any AGW. 
Observed climate variability over geological time is not explicable by the assumption that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations determine global temperature. But the observed climate variability over geological time may be explicable by other hypotheses that remain to be tested (e.g. the Svensmark hypothesis). 
A computer model’s output is only reliable to the degree that the model’s performance is validated. The computer models of the atmosphere are simplistic, contain gross assumptions and are not validated. Therefore, outputs of those models are evidence of how the models perform and are not evidence of anything concerning the world’s climate. 
I – and many other scientists – do not accept that the above facts suggest a need for precipitate and damaging economic actions such as constraint of greenhouse gas emissions. 
All the best 
Richard
revel 
21 December 2007 at 11:54
The Mediaeval Warm Period (11th to 14th Centuries) saw average temperatures significantly higher than at present. Without the assistance of industrially produced CO2 increases and human intervention.
revel 
21 December 2007 at 12:38
If Greenpeace, Al Gore acolytes and the motley gang of pseudo scientists (who claim consensus for their views) want to make sacrifices on the altars of their climate gods to avert the ravages of climate, that's their affair. 
But it becomes sinister once they subvert politicians and others who have the power to compel the rest of us to comply with their superstitions and prescribed behaviour. 
Mankind has always flourished and prospered in warmer times. So I say let's hope the temperatures do in fact rise. 
There is no evidence of past warm periods producing all the perils predicted by the environmental fundamentalists. 
If the Arctic melts completely, sea levels will not rise significantly because the Arctic Cap is a mass of floating ice. That indeed is why Al Gore bemoans the melting of 40% of the Arctic already, but has no explanation why sea levels haven't risen yet. Perhaps it's only the second 40% that has this effect. 
Also plants thrive with more CO2. Their growth is more luxuriant. Animals and humans thus have more food. 
It's great we are experiencing a revival of higher C02 levels approaching levels experienced many times in the past. 
Why are we shackling our economies and retarding growth to pander to those who prescribe behaviour that is clearly designed to impoverish us?
Cybertiger 
21 December 2007 at 12:56
How will the Americans power their F16 fighter bombers when the oil runs out?
stargazer 
21 December 2007 at 13:05
In say 50 years time this warming stuff will be brought out in classrooms. The kids being taught how science 'died' and mass hysteria took over around the 'turn of the century'. There has been no global warming for almost 10 years.1998 being the most recent warmest year. With the 1930's being the warmest decade and 1934 the warmest year. All this will turn out to be caused by the Sun...the Sun drives the climate as it always has. and the temp. goes up and down. Each of the last four interglacial's reached higher temps. than our current one. The temp has been higher at least 11 times during the past 10,000 years. Over the past 1000 years the medieval period being up to 2 deg C warmer than now...at the end of this period we had the 'little ice age' with very cold times between 1400 and 1850 when the temp. started to rise again. ~1850 is the date beloved by the AGW's they show this graph to 'prove' the temp.had gone up since... We can live with warm we should be glad it is. I think that the Sunspot-cosmic ray-cloud connection will turn out to be the 'smoking gun'. That said the next solar cycle (24) may be 'low' and the following one (25) lower still. This is from new research on a solar sub-surface 'conveyor' that has slowed in recent times. There is a pattern here (as there always is)... and I fear the immanent onset of a 'maunder' type sunspot minimum which bought on the little Ice age... We can live with warm...but millions may suffer (and worse) if we indeed get years/decades of extended cold...power/gas outages, crop failures, food/water shortages,all forms of transport snowed to a halt etc.And after this global warming stuff...who would now believe any scientist who says 'well we got it wrong... and forget what we said about warming ! global cooling is on its way so we must make it law to put Co2 into the atmosphere to counter it. We are being conned.... anyone interested please cut and paste these links onto your browser to see that there is no scientific consensus. The climate IS indeed changing but then it always has. 
See here http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968 http://icecap.us/ http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ http://www.junkscience.com/ http://www.climateaudit.org/ 
The so call scientific 'consensus is actually only about 2,500 people... and not all of them are scientists. Here is a list of 20,000 scientists who think that the 2,500 are WRONG http://www.oism.org/pproject/ 
Here is more... including the eminent professor, Freeman Dyson http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/pol/508587158.html There are many more lists like this from PHD's from almost every country.... So much for consensus !!!!
cronopio 
21 December 2007 at 13:29
I'm seeing claims and counterclaims that are equally hysterical. It all boils down to who you trust to give you reliable information, or whether you enter the debate with preconceived notions. I have no personal opinion on global warming. 
Call me crazy (and I'm sure some of you will) but I believe in the self-regulating qualities of Wikipedia, which states in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c...: 
"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate." 
Since the article does not have a 'disputed' or similar status, I'm inclined to believe dozens of groups of professional climatologists over a BBC journalist with a degree in astrophysics.
bitin 
21 December 2007 at 13:36
I think that the global warming phenomenon is way less related to climate change than it is related to the mass psychology of "Western" mind: 
The logic evolves the following way 
a. we (Western civilization) are evil 
b. therefore we inflict evil changes on the world 
c. but we can do something about it 
d. let's reverse these changes 
Enjoy
bsacr2007 
21 December 2007 at 13:50
People can absorb the extreme predictions that organisations like the Met Office blithely produce at the beginning of one year, 
"2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998" 
only to have them dismissed at the end of the year as tosh: 2007 was statistically no different from 2006, 2005, etc.. 
And yet, are we just supposed to 
- "wear it" 
- to accept that "The Science"TM is settled 
- individually and collectively obsess about our carbon footprint(s) 
- allow our politicians to pontificate with every scientifically illiterate bone in their collective body? 
The time has come for the scientifically literate amongst us to forcefully argue against anyone who indulges in scare-mongering from whatever side: 
when the science does not support them. 
The IPCC has never made a climate prediction since it was founded but does less to prevent its scenarios/**projections** from being treated as predictions the further you get away from its underlying Reports. 
It selects the scientists to undertake the work, and write the chapters, which are not subject to proper peer review themselves (with original authors rejecting comments as they see fit), and avoids contentious issues by sticking with the dogma that the GHG aspect is decisive: thus ignoring large swathes of properly peer-reviewed material that contradicts this view. 
And then of course, there is the Summary for Policymakers for each Working Group... 
But then what do you expect when the goal of the IPCC is "to find consensus": the extent to which this is its raison d'etre is the extent to which it ought to fail in being regarded as a "scientific entity". 
Really it is this blurring of science and politics that is damaging both AND our collective understanding of the issue. 
"Investigative journalism" into the IPCC? 
Why not start here -- at least you'll steal a march on the BBC. The House of Lords Report from 2006 and Lord Monckton's ongoing efforts might be a place to kick off. 
"What? Unthinkable!" you say? 
Well not, I wager, from here on in: 2007 will be seen as the high water mark for the anthropogenic global warming "theory". 
In fact, Bali (which thankfully doesn't really promise an awful lot without EVERYONE getting on board - vanishly small probability in itself) points the way: realism has just started to kick in. 
"Dissent is the native activity of the scientist, and it has got him into a good deal of trouble in the last years. But if that is cut off, what is left will not be a scientist. And I doubt whether it will be a man." 
Jacob Bronowski 
"No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power." 
Jacob Bronowski
truf76 
21 December 2007 at 13:54
It is astounding that such an ill conceived article can find its way into the pages of the New Statesman.
justaman37 
21 December 2007 at 14:01
Everyone blames the warming on humans but they never want to discuss the repeated global warming and cooling of the past which has been much worse than now. They cry that Lake Chad is drying up be cause of “man” but Lake Chad has dried up about 6 times in the last 3,000 years do to repeated global warming. It is not new. Global warm or global cooling might kill us but guess what … it is going to happen. All indications are this is a normal minor warming that will be followed by a minor cooling. But there is no money or control in that. There is only money and control in crisis.
scott 
21 December 2007 at 14:05
Our local high school participated in a government sponsored science program called "GLOBE". They faithfully recorded air temperatures (high/low/noon) for 12 years, even during vacations and summer breaks. No matter how the numbers crunched- no evidence for rising temperatures. Curious, we tapped into the data for all the other school's data participating- no evidence. We chalked it up to the fact that data since 1994 isn't a good enough time period ( but it feels like it when your doing the work).
ckingballwin 
21 December 2007 at 14:08
i appreciate the article but everything that was stated relative to temperatures presumes that we can accurately measure the earths temps to within .5 degrees or closer. this is simply not known. the data that is being used for the purposes of measuring the surface temps has to many problems with it to accurately measure worldwide average temps (if such a measurement is even possible) and even if we could measure it we have no idea what "normal' should be.
Chris in Utah 
21 December 2007 at 14:20
Two comments: 
1) The usually very conservative magazine Business Week ran a cover story on climate change in 2004 that sets the issue out very reasonably. 
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_33/b3896001_... 
2) Even if one accepts Whitehouse's conclusions (which I do not), the fact remains that an economy based on inefficient use of fossil fuels is, well, it's stupid. We have the smarts and the means to transition to a sustainable economy based on other energy sources. That transition will be marked by economic opportunity for those businesses smart enough to seize the moment. And the end result will be a less polluted world. That's good for all us, humans and nonhumans alike. 
So we can begin this transition now or not. I say begin now. 
Chris in Utah
Maz 
21 December 2007 at 14:37
To Jane Green who wrote 
"This article is a complete load of old cock and I'm horrified the New Statesman ran it!" and 
to truf76 who wrote 
"It is astounding that such an ill conceived article can find its way into the pages of the New Statesman." 
You epitomise what's wrong with the Climate Change issue. You bemoan the fact that someone has dared publish and speak out against your firmly held beliefs but provide precious little by way of evidence for your point of view. 
Do you just accept what "authorities" (whoever you perceive them to be) tell you? How about figuring things out for yourself. If you already have, why not tell how or why you reached your conclusions? Have you anything interesting to back up your point of view? 
Unfortunately, your current approach (and those of many others) is to conveniently say "the debate is over, let us tell you all how we think you should change your lifestyle (to save the planet - sic)". 
Perhaps that is, in the end, the actual point of it all.
Norm K 
21 December 2007 at 14:48
The harsh reality of the physics of the Earth is that there is a limited amount of energy radiated by the Earth that can be captured by CO2. 
This limits the possible warming from atmospheric CO2 to about 2.6°C and over 2/3 of this has been captured already. 
Because of the logarithmic decay in effect from increasing CO2 a doubling of CO2 to 760ppmv is limited to a maximum of 0.12°C of global temperature increase. 
None of the climate models that predict several degrees of increase take this limitation into consideration and are based on a limitless linear relationship with global temperatures. 
This is why the models predict that the current massive increases in global emissions should be producing a significant rise in global temperatures, but as your article points out the global temperature has stayed constant. 
The IPCC has managed to hide this fact by switching to a decadal average for temperature that gives no representation of the last 5 years of reduced warming. 
Global warming will officially come to an end on January 1, 2009 when this decadal average will no longer be propped up by the temperature spike from the 1998 el Nino, and the IPCC will be forced to admit that the drop in global temperature on their own manipulated statistical representation signals the official end of global warming.
Straydingo 
21 December 2007 at 15:33
Jane Greene states that this article is rubbish and that she is horrified that the New Statesman has run it. 
Jane what is more horrifying is the fact that you, and the rest of the Global Warming Scare Mongering Community, feel that there should be no debate or challenging of the current thinking (or Group Think to be more precise) on this subject. 
Tell me, would you have been one of the supporters of the then leading scientific community that challenged Christopher Columbus’s view that the world was not flat? 
Of course, I respect the fact you are entitled to your opinion, but please be reciprocal in allowing other equally educated people have theirs.
crakes 
21 December 2007 at 15:42
The satellite measures, the reduction of weather stations, the rural vs. urban measures all sound nice... but we are missing all that is right in front of us: 
The polar ice cap IS shrinking. Ski lodges are closing (except for those at the highest altitudes). Snow melt sources of water are diminishing. My mountain region in Blacksburg VA (hardly an urban area) is warmer, with new record heat being set each year, and less snow than in the past (records show it). That we are getting warmer is real... Look at the charts or look out the window! I recall a story about monks using the bible to argue how many teeth were in a horses mouth... Are the scientists haveing a similar religious debate? Looking out my window the contination of the warming effect is pretty obvious... It hasn't stopped.
Don 
21 December 2007 at 16:07
Once again the corrupt and dysfunctional UN is trying to force it’s will on nations. But why is this body so concerned with “global warming”. There is no money for these corrupt politicians in it……or is there? "The success of the conference signifies that the world is ready to take on active efforts, such as technology investments, to solve the problem of global warming…." “Carbon Sciences, Inc. is developing an innovative technology to transform earth destroying carbon dioxide (CO2) into earth friendly carbon products.” http://www.carbonsciences.com. 
Wait a minute if we are going to try and us technology to change the weather there can be very big bucks involved……ah ha! There is a motive for the UN. And think of the Grant money to follow for these companies that are going to solve our natural climate changes. What really scares me is that politics and the media are now trying to come up with ways man can alter the weather. I for one don’t think man should start tinkering with the weather when we really know so little about it.
truthsayer 
21 December 2007 at 16:21
Norm K 
Yous say that 2/3rds of the energy available for CO2 to absorb is already taken up. I have been looking for a source to prove to others that most is taken up.. little escapes to space. Where did you find your info. 
The problem I have with the anomaly in temperatures is that they take their base level from a period that includes the cool 70s they do not include the warm 30s. This makes things look worse.
crakes 
21 December 2007 at 16:25
Here's a question for ice sampling... 
If CO2 is associated with a warming planet, and if the ice melts as CO2 rises (as it is doing now), how can the ice core samples ever capture the CO2 level during the warming periods? The cap is disappearing and not gathering evidence, right? So when CO2 drops down and the caps grow again, we get a record of lower levels right? Is the peak CO2 ever revealed in the ice caps? How can it be?
Bobg 
21 December 2007 at 16:31
I agree with Don. I love this when all these closed minded alarmists ask us to prove something that does not exist. All you have to do is follow the money. The environmental groups and political groups that fund the studies, will make trillions and consolidate their power over the world and our economies. What a wonderful, wonderful world it will be........
New Age Contrarian 
21 December 2007 at 16:37
If the correction of the aerosol that was used to explain the unobserved rise in gloabl temperature (from Co2) over the period 1970-2000 were to be applied in the same way to adjust satellite temperature data over the same period, it would be concluded that the Northern Hemisphere, from about 40 degrees N lattitude to the pole, was covered by a sheet of ice
Eddie Gwinnet 
21 December 2007 at 16:38
Of course humans can't affect the climate of the whole planet by releasing gigatons of C02 into the atmosphere. It's patently absurd. Next those enviro-wackos will be telling us how human overfishing can deplete entire oceans or that lead pipes will make you sick or some other nonsense. People used to worry that human hunting could make dodo birds go extinct, but I see plenty of dodos around...especially on this website.
davef 
21 December 2007 at 16:41
Your statement of the physics is very interesting, but what evidence and physics do you base it on. 
Not attacking you .. just interested.
Patrick Hadley 
21 December 2007 at 17:02
Can the consensus of experts really be so very wrong? The answer to that question is certainly. 
Ten years all the experts and computer geeks were unanimous that the Millennium Bug had the potential to cause chaos. As a result $300 billion was spent in the USA alone on "fixing" it. Other countries spent little, and many businesses ignored it completely. 
It is fascinating to do a google search on "millennium bug". You can find lots of sites from the 1990s predicting the disaster that is going to happen because not enough people are spending vast amounts on Y2K fixes. Read a great speech from someone called Blair warning everyone about it in 1998. 
In fact there were no more computer problems in January 2000 than average, even in countries and organisations that had not spent a penny on fixing the so-called bug. 
The millennium bug was a goldmine for computer experts - who among them was going to say to a client, "Don't worry your systems will all work fine in 2000, so there is no need to give me thousands to fix them." 
The parallels with global warming are obvious.
longshotlouie 
21 December 2007 at 17:04
'Garcon ..... more Co2, please!'
Straydingo 
21 December 2007 at 17:14
Bobg - you are spot on with your comment as well...Al Gore has been reported to have made $100m and is the icon of 18+ Uni students around the world. 
I'm sorry but the usual factors such as fame, money and the sense of wanting to be morally superior (either consciously or subconsciously) are often what drive us humans to blindly follow a particular course of ideology.
yoddy 
21 December 2007 at 17:17
I'm not going to argue with a Ph.D. in astrophysics but I do know if you stick your mouth on car tailpipe and turn it on, if you don't move it, you're going to die. How can shit like that be good for the world? So even if there isn't global warming from a historical perspective, I'm glad people are finally getting the idea in their head that pollution is bad for people, plants and animals.
vphayden 
21 December 2007 at 17:45
- Global Warming is not about the environment. It's about money and power. 
- I am convinced that there is no long term temperature change. 
- I am convinced that the current temperature trend is part of a natural cycle that has happened many times since the begining. 
- I believe many average and poverty level people will suffer economically because of the politics/econimics involved in the global efforts to appear concerned. 
- Many corporate/political/econimic giants will get much richer. 
- All of their efforts will will have less than 0.000000000001 % effect on global temperature. 
- Americans will get hosed... 
P. Hayden
marcrandrew 
21 December 2007 at 18:05
The most lucid commentary in this debate is mitchy's. Climate change (or global warming) will likely go the way of prior apocolyptic forecasts. But what's clear is that incredible increases in carbon emissions are just one of the nasty environmental consequences of development. The planet simply doesnt have the resources to continue to power current trends, and the consequences will be heavy environmental degradation, more conflict, and eventually, poorer standards of living for all of us. 
That corporations and politicians are beginning to move on this is fabulous news, not evidence of some now power conspiracy.
revel 
21 December 2007 at 18:27
Yoddy is correct. 
However, the noble cause of combatting polution is a very separate issue to enforcing behaviour in the farcical belief one is saving polar bears and stopping cyclones or sea level rises.
SkyHunter 
21 December 2007 at 18:30
Mr. Whitehouse, 
Now why would you, as a scientist mislead people by telling them that a chaotic system should respond to forcing in and "exact" correlation? 
Shame on you, the entire premise is misleading. Solar activity is low, yet global temepratures are still at record levels. 
Since you are a scientist, I must conclude that you are deliberatly obfuscating the issue. 
That is correct sir. 
I just called you a liar!
Maz 
21 December 2007 at 19:24
Marcrandrew, 
just because we're not taken in by the Climate Change hysteria that has gripped politicians and the media (esp the BBC) doesn't mean we're advocating wanton disregard for our environment. It's a precious resource to be managed like any other. 
What's wrong with arguing for the truth in these matters? Are you suggesting that because the fallout from this scare is likely to be positive (in your view) that the end justifies the means. The trouble with making the wrong diagnosis is that there is every chance you will select the wrong cure. Instead of spending billions on stupidly trying to stop the climate from changing we could be spending the money on making sure that the poorest nations are developed enough to cope with anything Nature throws at us in the future. As it will do. 
How about a concerted world effort to make sure that every individual on this planet has access to clean drinking water? It's by far a better use of our limited financial resources than funding a bunch of self-serving politicians and looney greens playing King Canute. 
I don't trust Environmental Pressure Groups anymore than I trust Politicians and Multinationals to tell me the truth. Here's just one example of what can happen if you blindly follow what the environmentalists tell you. The ban on DDT was clinched on the strength of "research" (later shown to be seriously flawed) that it was detrimental to Osprey eggs. We lost a major weapon in the fight against Malaria. Malaria is not a tropical disease, by the way (regardless of what the climate doomsayers would have you believe). It is a disease of poverty. The poorest countries suffered the most with millions dying every year from Malaria. Some African countries are in fact now openly flouting the ban. Good on them. They know what their priorities are. 
Just like I want my doctor to prescribe according to evidence based knowledge so do I want to see environmental solutions based on science that is unadulterated by ideology, Anti-Americanism and the fashionable guilt complexes of the industrialised West. 
It's very easy to demonise fossil fuels from the comfort of your current standard of living. I prefer to remain appreciative of what we have managed to achieve in the past century because of fossil fuels whilst acknowledging that we are duty bound (to say the least) to minimise as much as possible the impact on our environment. Something that we have, admittedly, not been sufficiently aware of in the past.
Camaraderie 
21 December 2007 at 19:42
One problem I see here is people getting environmentalism confused with global warming/CO2. 
One can be a global warming skeptic (i.e. man made CO2 emissions are NOT contributing in any appreciable way to any global warming that might be naturally occurring) and still be very much in favor of cleaner cars, alternative energy solutions, clean water etc. I think it is disingenuous to equate the two. 
Several comments have been made here regarding LAND based temperatures. In the interest of those here that are really interested in DATA....I would refer you to this slide: 
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/page92.html 
Anthony Watts has been surveying the 1200 or so USA based temperature monitoring stations along with a small group of volunteers. They have been taking pictures of each station and what surrounds it and evaluating EACH stations siting vs. the NOAA guidelines for such stations. With over 1/3 of the stations now having been visited and photographed they are finding that 85% of the stations have errors between 1-5 degrees centigrade...more than ALL the warming reported in the past century. Quite simply...the BEST land based data in support of warming is badly scrogged up. Proof of warming must come from other sources...atmospheric or oceanographic. (Of course those sources don't show anything much happening to warrant catastrophic claims.)
bobclive 
21 December 2007 at 19:56
I refer again to the urban heat island effect, I believe this is the cause of the majority of the warming seen since the 1960`s, if I am wrong can someone put me right, see links below. 
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/01/29/do-urban-areas-hav... 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1616 
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/badwater.htm 
Ref.: Ren, G. Y., Z. Y. Chu, Z. H. Chen, and Y. Y. Ren (2007), Implications of temporal change in urban heat island intensity observed at Beijing and Wuhan stations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L05711, doi:10.1029/2006GL027927
StephenB 
21 December 2007 at 20:02
If I were an environmentalist, I would be concerned that the baby is going to be thrown out with the Global Warming Hype bathwater as Maz eloquently points out. Crying "Wolf!" will have its consequences.
Freewolf67 
21 December 2007 at 20:06
"Crakes 
Here's a question for ice sampling... 
If CO2 is associated with a warming planet, and if the ice melts as CO2 rises (as it is doing now), how can the ice core samples ever capture the CO2 level during the warming periods? The cap is disappearing and not gathering evidence, right? So when CO2 drops down and the caps grow again, we get a record of lower levels right? Is the peak CO2 ever revealed in the ice caps? How can it be?" 
Actually crakes, it's happening even now. The primary focus on the "disappearing" ice caps has neglected to inform folks that even though some are retreating/disappearing; other regions are in fact growing, becoming thicker, etc..... As more snow in these areas falls....more CO2 is trapped leaving a record behind for scientists a couple thousand years in the future. 
Do yourself a favor and do a search for glaciers that are growing AND do a search on what the rest of the Antarctic Ice Sheets are doing (not just Larsen B).... The Artic sheets appear to be decreasing in overall size, but in parts of it....the ice is actually growing thicker. 
Anyways.....yesterday was a balmy -47 degrees F at my house here in Fairbanks Alaska......could you blokes send some warming up this way?? 'Preciate it ;-) Thanks ;-)
rsknappmd 
21 December 2007 at 20:39
My summary of the article is: 1. the global warming curve appears to have flattened out briefly. 2. We don't know enough about climate cycles to know what this means. 
Implications: 1. Running off in all directions to reduce CO2 may not be the most prudent course of action, as the relationship appears to be correlative, not necessarily causal. 2. Better understanding of the phenomenon may lead to more effective countermeasures. 
Recommendations: 1. be on the lookout for "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacies. 2. Don't assume long-term trends from short-term data. 
My comments: Nothing in the article appears to suggest that we should continue to kill off the oceans, destroy the atmospheric quality, or nuke the whales. 
Global warming is a well-substantiated hypothesis, but is not an article of faith. As a hypothesis, it is always subject to refinement. Information which appears to contrast with projections should be used to refine the hypothesis, and not attacked as nefarious heresy. Of course, all data, not only that which appears to contrast with the projected data, should be analyzed carefully as to possible sources of experimental error. 
Summary: New information in not an inherent evil.
vphayden 
21 December 2007 at 22:55
Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. " 
Hmmmmmmm.........
vphayden 
21 December 2007 at 22:55
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction." 
Hmmmmmmm...........
bobclive 
21 December 2007 at 22:57
Jones et al of CRU collected the measurements made by many land-based weather stations. 
They started with around 250 stations, built up to 1700 in 1950. The period between 1970 and 2000, sees the number of stations dropping from 1600 down to 400. During that same period, the CRU global temperature estimate rises by 0.6°C. The stations left are mainly urban.
vphayden 
21 December 2007 at 22:57
Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process." 
Hmmmmm........
vphayden 
21 December 2007 at 22:58
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. 
Hmmmmm........
vphayden 
21 December 2007 at 22:59
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.S... 
Aaaahhhhh!!!!!!
bobclive 
21 December 2007 at 23:01
Jones et al of CRU collected the measurements made by many land-based weather stations 
They started with around 250 stations, built up to 1700 in 1950. The period between 1970 and 2000, sees the number of stations dropping from 1600 down to 400. During that same period, the CRU global temperature estimate rises by 0.6°C. The weather stations left are predominantly urban, I wonder what caused the rise.
moe146 
21 December 2007 at 23:32
This all has absolutely nothing to do with science OR the environment....it is about money. There is plenty to be made with fear mongering and propaganda. Which will go down as the biggest hoax in history -- WMD or GW? Hmmm. Lets wait and see.
hlb1121 
22 December 2007 at 00:01
Maybe I missed the part about how the climate is statistically the same over the past seven years. Did someone average together all the regions temperatures and determine the average for each year for the past seven years is the same? if so, this is a flawed way to determine whether or not global warming has stopped. Firstly, climatology 101 tells us that climate is phenomena over an extensive period of time and seven years is a JOKE for an appropriate length of time. Secondly, global warming doesn't mean every place on earth is going to get hotter. In fact, the warming of the oceans can cause the ice sheet on Greenland to essentially fall into the ocean and cause an ice age for Europe. This is something you learn in basic climatology. Some places will become colder due to global warming and other places hotter. As someone who possesses a doctorate in science, David Whitehouse is incredibly naive about aspects of weather and climate that is learned in a freshman class at university.
disgustedmerida 
22 December 2007 at 00:24
plus ҫa change ....
wonteach 
22 December 2007 at 00:26
It is clear that the claim that "the argument is setlled" is made only by the ignorant or the dishonest. Personally, as a quasi-scientist (I'm a mathematician) who has followed the issue about as closely as an informed layperson can be expected to do, I find it impossible to hold to a strong opinion one way or another. I suppose I'd say 55% yes global warming is real, and 45% no. 
One thing I can say with certainty, however, is that the scientific community is nowhere near as objective in its search for truth as we were led to believe in high school. Having spent decades in acedemia, I have been sorely disappointed in the degree to which political and philosophical agendas drive scientific opinions, including those held by the very most eminent scientists. Look at the furor over Lawrence Summers's comments at Harvard, where he speculated that women may be genetically less likely to have the capability to become great scientists or mathematicians. The research and the observable facts on that issue are so strongly in Summers's favor that one could almost say that THAT issue is settled - in the OPPOSITE direction from the conclusion espoused by the "eminent" faculty of Harvard University. 
The most interesting question regarding global warming is sociological: Given the fact that the issue is so very UNsettled, why do so many people WANT it to be true? The press, and the liberals, can easily identify the ulterior motive of those who want it to be FALSE - i.e., the remedies might cost them money, directly or indirectly. But it is rare for any media outlet to discuss the propensity of people to believe in doomsday scenarios because the acceptance of those scenarios will allow the believers to dictate the solutions. In this case, the proposed 'solutions' will involve a major disruption in the entire way of life of the developed world. What could be more titillating to the neo-Puritans who are offended by the spectacle of our comfort and affluence, than to be given the power to tell people what cars they can drive, how big their houses can be, and what kind of appliances they can use? The prospect of micromanaging the lives of hundreds of millions of people is utterly intoxicating.
hlb1121 
22 December 2007 at 00:27
It's also interesting to note that the oceans are becoming significantly warmer, particularly at the poles. Yes, land temperatures heating up or cooling down is a concern for humans, but a bigger problem is how much the temperature is increasing in the oceans and at the poles. You know what happened with Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans? It could happen again, and again, and again. Because global warming causes the oceans to heat up and that is fuel for storms like hurricanes. Just because a handful of scientists (that vphayden has been posting about) disagree, there must be something going on if most scientists believe that global warming is a real threat.
Boxorox 
22 December 2007 at 02:36
hlb1121-Not correct! Recent SSTs reading have confirmed a trend over the recent years that the sea surface temperatures are decreasing. Huh!
bartofsky 
22 December 2007 at 03:51
Mr.Whitehouse, 
Don't you think that your name alone says it all, or it is just a coincidence? Lets run to the nearest dealership to by as many SUVs as we can, lets have the time of our life! 
Are you really so brutally uneducated?
LionHeart 
22 December 2007 at 05:02
All models are wrong, some are useful. 
George Box (statistician)
wildebeest 
22 December 2007 at 06:04
If one needs to decide whom to believe, one should at least look at who has a motive to deceive: those who would like to continue a comfortable, though profligate lifestyle and those who profit from the sale of things that accommodate that lifestyle or those who say we all have to make uncomfortable changes?
Menckenwasright 
22 December 2007 at 07:05
hlb1121 has captured the evil and the essence of the exploitation of this complex phenomena. The world is being conditioned to believe that the USA is at fault for any extreme - excessive heat, excessive cold, excessive dryness, excessive wetness - more storms, less storms, more ice, less ice - and more (and less?) to come I’m sure. Just watch; regardless of how the climate changes, the USA will be blamed and will be expected to do something. (Remember that this same cabal of anti-fossil-fuel zealots made news in the 70s by reporting that fossil fuels were causing an imminent ice age.) Kyoto indicates that as long as wealth gets redistributed it really doesn’t matter what happens to the carbon output. It is remarkable and frightening that the world press has, in the main, ignored the input of thousands of respected and reputable international scientists under the politically popular mantra of USA bashing. It is really depressing to accept that the populous has reached the point where they replace “The Sky Is Falling” with any cry of climate extreme and blame it all on the same thing - fossil fuel consumption by the USA.
NORMSMITH 
22 December 2007 at 07:44
Sure - humans and overpopulation have caused a lot of environmental problems. No doubt in anybody's mind. But to say humans control the climate is pure fallacy. The long term graphs tell the story. Keep in mind many of these graphs are read from right(present) to left(the past). Here is the Ice core data: 
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev_png 
Notice our current "Global Warming" (AKA The Holocene) is actually much cooler than previous interglaciations(warm intervals between ice ages). 
Notice that CO2 and Temperature are NEVER STABLE. They always rise and fall in a natural cycle. 
Look at those squiggly lines going up and down. Does anyone think humans caused all these variations? Just because one of the many upticks is happening in our lifetime does not mean we caused it! 
Don't feel guilty or personally responsible. Please. 
Here is a sea level history chart. It's probably the best indicator of when the Holocene (current warm interval) will end. Let's enjoy the warm while we can !! 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
Cybertiger 
22 December 2007 at 09:09
@Menckenwasright 
"blame it all on the same thing - fossil fuel consumption by the USA." 
The Americans voted for George Bush and his disciples - and then wonder why they're hated!! 
PS. H.L. Mencken is my favorite curmudgeon. 
PPS. I think one critter out of every breeding pair of Americans should be culled - as a sacrifice to G-d - and the greater go-d of the planet.
Patrick Hadley 
22 December 2007 at 10:28
hlb1121 please have a good look at all the data on the Hadley Centre Met Office Site. Work out for yourself whether the trend of warming from 1978 to 1998 has been followed by a period of no warming for the last 9 years. You are right that climate trends can only be assessed in the long term, but the warming period was not long term either. We just do not know what will happen in the future. 
The comment from wonteach about the neo-puritans is well worth thinking about. Sadly there is sometimes a tendency that when we see other people enjoying themselves we want to stop them. We can rationalise this for religious reasons or pseudo-scientific reasons, but it is the same impulse to condemn.
Maz 
22 December 2007 at 10:34
hb1121, 
Yes 7yrs is not enough to declare a new trend. But then, is 30yrs enough to determine that the recent warming (contaminated as it is by the way we measured it) is any different to the changes that have occured over this planet's climate history? At least try to be consistent. 
Katrina was a Category 3 hurricane when it hit New Orleans. The devastation was due to the fact that the levees were poorly maintained to say nothing of the slow response in dealing with the aftermath. It was NOT the strength of the hurricane! 
Can you remember the names of any hurricanes that have made landfall in the last two years? So what's happened? Why has it gone so quiet? Did you just read the Stern Review and swallow it all? According to Stern (and his infamous extrapolation) we should have seen several. It's one of the reasons he put forward to recommend that it was cheaper to spend billions now on reducing CO2 emmisions than to pay the costs of the ravages of Nature in the future. A freshman class in economics could punch holes a mile wide in that report. But that's for another blog!
Ian Perrin 
22 December 2007 at 10:35
from: BBC World News - Monday, 12 November 2007 
IF THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS RISING, IT HAS NOW STOPPED 
Sceptic 
Since 1998 - almost a decade - the record, as determined by observations from satellites and balloon radiosondes, shows no warming. 
Counter 
1998 was an exceptionally warm year because of the strong El Nino event. Variability from year to year is expected, and picking a specific warm year to start an analysis is "cherry-picking"; if you picked 1997 or 1999 you would see a sharper rise. Even so, the linear trends since 1998 are still positive.
Chris Schoneveld 
22 December 2007 at 10:44
crakes on 21 December 2007 wrote: 
quote: "Here's a question for ice sampling... 
If CO2 is associated with a warming planet, and if the ice melts as CO2 rises (as it is doing now), how can the ice core samples ever capture the CO2 level during the warming periods? The cap is disappearing and not gathering evidence, right? So when CO2 drops down and the caps grow again, we get a record of lower levels right? Is the peak CO2 ever revealed in the ice caps? How can it be?" unquote. 
The answer is simple, at least for the Antarctic. Warmer years are not causing the melting of ice in the Antarctic, it's too cold down there. That's why the Vostok ice cores show a continuous record of 450,000 years spanning Glacials and Interglacials..
dsart 
22 December 2007 at 10:58
DR Whitehouse is entirely correct and has been very careful about sticking to the facts. The website quoted by Ian Perrin is plain wrong. 
Look at this BBC site about recent temperatures. With or without 1998 it doesn't make a difference. Look at the figures and then draw a graph - you will see it's a straight line. 
Of course it's significant. Temp has been rising since 1980 but it wasn't until 1993 that we saw it as significant. For a third of the time of the current warm spell the global temp hasn't been rising at all - that's highly significant. 
We should congratulate a real, honest and couragous scientist like Dr Whitehouse to have the integrity to stick to observational facts and not rhetoric (like many of the comments here). We should also congratulate the New Statesman as well. 
Interesting that Whitehouse has more comments than Dawkins. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7142694.stm
revel 
22 December 2007 at 10:59
20,000 REAL SCIENTISTS signed a petition to the effect that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would have a beneficial effect. And that the dire predictions of the climate scare lobby were unfounded (The Petition Project). 
See the document at: 
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm 
Every single scientist signed his or her name and provided qualifications and positions held. 
(Unlike reports from the environmentalist priests who generally remain anonymous and are often are mere bureacrats and pseudo-scientists and who always claim there is a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS) 
This report alone must tell us something about the scientific consensus fallacy. 
The responses to Mr Whiehouse's article are about 95% supportive (I see 5 opposing views, all of which are superficial and insulting), many of those supporters being scientists. 
The publishing of the Petition Project had the following consequences: 
1) Acrimonious accusations that the signatures were falsified. This was disproved. 
2) Many signatories lost their jobs and many found it impossible to have their views published in mainstream media 
3) There was almost total silence in the media about the existence of the document. The fraudulent claims of a scientific consensus for the new environmental cult's creed were intensified. 
There is no scientific consensus. 
It has become commonplace to hear "scientists (unnamed) say", "all scientists (unnamed) agree", "scientific consenseus". 
The mainstream media are at the heart of the censorship of scientific facts and of open debate.
jansz 
22 December 2007 at 12:52
The AGW believers are so shrill, capital letters, terms of abuse, no rational discussion and the continued quoting of sources that have long since been discredited. The consensus is swinging to the sceptics - the activists and their media supporters will soon feel as silly as the Y2K proponents.
Nelthon 
22 December 2007 at 13:45
So proponents of AGW continually link to 'sources that have long since been discredited'. Such delicious irony, given that the post above yours links to the Oregon Petition...
Nelthon 
22 December 2007 at 13:48
Anyway, I look forward to seeing the trend analysis Whitehouse used.
Ian Perrin 
22 December 2007 at 15:07
You can test the Goddard Institute of Space Studies data to show whether the BBC got it wrong or not at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ 
I suggest you use GISS for land temperatures, Hadley for Ocean, Annual for mean period, Begin 1998 to End 2007 for time interval and a statistically meaningful base period. Leave all the other values as you find them. 
This is hard data, not assertion.
Maz 
22 December 2007 at 15:48
Ian, (and Nelthon) 
you’re playing with statistics. No one is denying that the planet has warmed over the last 100yrs (longer even). If you’re on a peak any trend line is going to give you a positive value. 
The gist of David Whitehouse’s article is that the last seven years indicate a levelling off of Global Temperatures. I prefer to use the data from the UK’s publicly funded Hadley Centre because they are displayed nicely for all to see (ignoring for the moment the flaws inherent to all surface temperature records). Here’s the link again. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/Ha... Anyone can see what’s going on. The question is – is this just a blip or is it the start of a downward slope? Nobody knows. What we do know is that CO2 levels have continued to rise unabated and if CO2 level is the key driver of global temperature I would NOT expect to see the temp rise level off as it is doing. I’m not saying it’s impossible though. 
What is interesting is that recent indications of solar activity suggest we might be heading towards a period of reduced solar activity. This contrasts with the heightened activity in the 80s and 90s. Remember that the Solar Aa (Geomagnetic) index is still twice as high as it was at the start of the last century. So I don't think we're going to see obvious climatic effects immediately. 
This seems to suggest that Solar Activity has a far greater influence on global climate than CO2. You only need to superimpose the graphs of Solar Activity and CO2 on the temperature graphs from the Hadley Centre and it kind of shrieks at you! Perhaps the next seven years will make things more obvious. 
I’m prepared to wait.
taghioff.info 
22 December 2007 at 18:39
The other issue is that temperature changes in relation to rising CO2 levels are highly non-linear. This basically means that this relatively trend in the temperature record is not very conclusive. 
It is interesting that the skeptics used exactly this argument against a much longer and more pronounced warming trend, but now are strangely silent about the stochastic and non-linear character of short-term temperature variations. 
IF reduced solar activity is balancing out CO2 emmissions, it means they have a similar effect to CO2. But this is not an either or scenario, since CO2 response to solar emmissions tends to amplify its effects. In other words, both the non-linearity and the other causes, when viewed form the point of view of the highly erratic historical record, indicate that rising CO2 will have highly unpredictable outcomes, but some of these are highly amplified outcomes driven by positive feedbacks. 
Or in yet other words, these factors indicate that CO2 is more rather than less dangerous.
Nelson 
22 December 2007 at 19:47
'Begin 1998 to End 2007 for time interval ' I'm intrigued. Why are we always pointed to 1998 as the start year? Is it chance, serendipity that you chose an obvious statistical outlier with inflated temperatures (1998 was a strong El Nino)? Or is it just plain naughty? It's precisely because there's significant noise superimposed on a small signal that you need to analyse temperature trends carefully: 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/ 
Tamino has already analysed the GISS and HadCRU data sets. Both show a significant trend in warming over the past decade. Even if you pick 1998 as your starting year: 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/
Nelson 
22 December 2007 at 19:51
Regarding a correlation between solar activity and temperature - well, the field is a lot, lot murkier than you might suppose... 
http://preview.tinyurl.com/39emdw
Robin Guenier 
22 December 2007 at 19:55
I wholly agree with Maz and Patrick Hadley that “the consensus of experts” really can be very wrong. But I suggest they stop using the “Millennium Bug” as an example of this. The problem was all too real – if they are so sure it was not, perhaps they would explain for example how a banking system that assumed, as many once did, that “87” meant 1987 would, without being fixed, have automatically assumed that “07” meant 2007 and not 1907. Yet unfixed the impact on, say, interest calculations would have been serious. Fortunately, essentially all large organisations (the problem was most serious in the bespoke software used by such organisations) fixed it. It was largely done by junior IT staff (not “geeks” or “experts”) checking millions of lines of computer code for dates, fixing them and testing the fixes. It was mind-numbingly dreary work. There was no “goldmine” for “computer experts” – they were too busy hyping up the dotcom boom. All large organisations in the developed world had to check their systems. I think Mr Hadley would be unable to name, for example, any banking or social security organisation that did nothing. 
There were some problems. But very few because thousands of unsung people got on and fixed it. Precisely the opposite of the point they are (correctly) trying to make.
Alan Cooper 
22 December 2007 at 20:15
jimbeaux is unnecessarily perplexed by the apparent contradiction between the facts stated in the article and that "I've read that 2007 is shaping up to be the 8th warmest year on record, and that seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and the 10 warmest have all occurred since 1997." This is not in any way a contradiction. In fact 1998 was an upward spike in a very jagged graph, which the subsequent years have not yet climbed to match even though they have all been higher than any others in the record prior to that. It is quite unremarkable that no significant trend is observable in a short segment from the record of a variable which randomly fluctuates above and below an average which is increasing by a much smaller amount each year. 
I cannot believe that a person with a PhD in astrophysics could honestly believe that this was significant, so I join the other commenters who have accused David Whitehouse of dishonesty and I will try to remember his name so that I can avoid his prevarications in future.
JohnChwth 
22 December 2007 at 20:22
Well what we should be looking at is the trends from as far back as possible. Thatshows the current period is by far the warmest for over 150 years. 
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
andanotherthing 
22 December 2007 at 21:36
Its not the scientists spouting the Al Gore message that we have to worry about, its the politicians who have embraced this rubbish and will think of ever more ingenious ways to tax us, saying these are green taxes and will help to save the planet!!
NORMSMITH 
22 December 2007 at 21:47
re:JohnChw... 150 years is too short of a timescale to draw conclusions from. We are talking about climate which is controlled by long term cycles. Here is a graph of the last 12,000 years (since the last ice age melted away).: 
http://earthintime.com/holocene.jpg 
Note that 150 years ago we were coming out of a long cold period - "The Little Ice Age". The modern thermometer was invented after the Little Ice Age ended. Therefore thermometer data shows a rising trend. It's really that simple. What is important is the long term cycles and that trend is crystal clear: The Holocene Temperature peaked out 8,000 years ago and we are gradually cooling into the next glaciation (ice age). 
Here is another chart (based on Ice Core Data) that shows the long term trend and the NATURAL fluctuations of CO2 and Temperature . http://lbs.hh.schule.de/klima/klimawandel/treibhausgase/carb... 
Note that CO2 and Temperature are Never static/stable. Mother Nature has her own rhythm and we can't control the climate. We are not Gods.
Nelson 
22 December 2007 at 22:13
But the fact that CO2 fluctuated in the past (incidentally, you might want to read up on the effects this had on temperature) doesn't exonerate us in any way. It doesn't mean we can spew gigatons of the stuff into the atmosphere without a care in the world. It will affect the climate. It's basic, fundamental physics. We're proving to be very poor keepers of this planet.
Mike D 
22 December 2007 at 23:17
I located an artical by a group of scientists about the glaciers in the swiss alps that indicated that trees were growing where the ice currently is. Their conclusion is that the climate was warmer than now for 12 periods in the last 9000 years and colder than now for about 5000 years. there are similar reports of finding trees where there is now permafrost in northern canada. htere is a report from greenland that they located the remains of plants that had grown where the ice recently melted . 
These articles and more are on the web if you are truely interested in studing the history of climate. 
Also I would question any group such as your national weather service if they are telling you that the weather is getting hotter according to their adjusted data.
J. 
23 December 2007 at 00:27
It is not that the humans or the USA are evil and must be punished. It is not environmentalists trying to force us to all live impoverished lives. (Our ancestors could only wish for such "impoverished" lives that many of us currently lead.) 
It is the undeniable fact that with the ever expanding population of consumers on the planet, it means that everyone of us is responsible for the health of the planet.. The denial of this and that business as usual can just blissfully continue seems to be the convenient excuse of many of the global warming disputers. 
Regardless, if the climate models are in error, humans cannot continue forever on the personally destructive path we are on. The resources and other processes of life on this planet will not be able to function in our favor at this unsustainable pace. 
Now or later we will be forced to find alternative methods to produce and consume energy at reasonable and equitable rates. Most likely all of us will be have to find ways to live with less pressure on the ecology. I for one would love for our frenetic pace to slow down for the good of not only the earth but for our species sake. 
Those with innovative and iventive minds can clearly see that living with a lighter footprint on the earth does not mean reverting to a primitive existence. 
In the reality of biological terms there is not any real seperation from the earth, but it's only in our self made philosophical exclusions that we see ourselves as a special creation given life by supernatural agency. That is just part of the reason we do such a poor job of protecting and preserving the only home we will have probably for the long term future. Many of us feel this just a way station for some fantasy world after death instead of being in awe of our intrinsic connections to the richness of life as it is here and now. 
Our modern consumeristic distractions and comforts have given us the false sense that we are no longer a part of the natural world and can just live in self-absorbed, disregard for it's well-being. 
When we do that we are perhaps signing our own notice of impending extinction or at least a life of increasing discomforts because we are not willing to live sustainably now.
Nelson 
23 December 2007 at 02:08
'Hlobal warming stopped in 1998'. This is a meme you find a lot on the internet. But is it true? With some statistical tricks you can claim that it did. Temperature data are inherently noisy, and global warming is 0.2 degrees per decade. Incidentally, this might look modest, but it's important to recognise that historical warmings of a similar magnitude to that projected to occur over the next century took orders of magnitude longer to develop. 
I mentioned trend analysis above because it's easy to do wrong, it's easy to claim that global warming has 'stopped', or 'doubled', or 'reversed' using the same data. 
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2007/05/5-year-trends.p... 
Even something as simple as the length of your sample can colour your result. In this figure 5, 10, and 15-year trends are used. This is why Whitehouse should post his analysis. Has he chosen a period long enough to detect a signal rather than noise? I'd hope as a PhD he hasn't...
NORMSMITH 
23 December 2007 at 03:32
Please don't let me hear anyone else say "The science is settled." That's just a cop out for people too lazy to look at the science. Here is a new peer-reviewed study from the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society : http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908 
-And these eminent scientists are not alone. Click the Global Warming link on that same page and you will see that hundreds and hundreds of scientists are now admitting that humans cannot control climate. Al Gore has pulled off a hoax bigger than the "Millenium Bug" and scientists are jumping on his bandwagon so they can score some of the billions of dollars in UN "research" money. This is a good example of Follow The Money.
NORMSMITH 
23 December 2007 at 03:41
And here is the TRUTH about those poor "stranded polar bears.": 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uw5WdmuGSfM
Ted 
23 December 2007 at 04:18
OK, so the earth is warming. The alarmists automatically assume that change is necessarily bad. A warmer earth will extend the growing season in Canada, Scandinavia and Russia, increasing food production for the whole world. Rainfall patterns may change making some arid areas productive. There will be some displacement, of course, but who is to say that the overall effect is bad. There was a warm cycle form 900 to 1300 wherein temperatures were 2 degrees F higher than they are now and somehow the human and animal populations did just fine.
taghioff.info 
23 December 2007 at 05:08
@Ted 
Your assessment is based on the IPCC's headline finding that below 3 degrees of warming global net food production goes up. 
But that finding does not include effects from extreme weather events. Temperate zones are not immune to these. The 2003 heatwave in Europe knocked 10-20% of harvests in many countries that year. 
Also, if food supply declines in the poorest countries (which are generally in the tropics), this will hit the incomes of the poorest in those poor countries, the marginal rain-fed farmers. 
Amartya Sen made the observation that it is not lack of food in itself that starves people, it is the inability to obtain food. So poor farmers faced with crashing yields and no alternate form of income will starve, even IF we have food to spare in the North. 
This raises the possibility of mass starvation, which in turn raises the possibility of social collapse. It is for this reason that the UN secretary general is telling us we need to pay attention to Darfur, because it indicates what may be in store if we are all as complacent as you Ted.
mercury risin' 
23 December 2007 at 05:10
If you look at the temp graphs, there are other flat spots that follow peak years. Each time it eventually got hotter. It's been a trend, and it still is the trend.
Menckenwasright 
23 December 2007 at 05:18
Cybertiger 
"The Americans voted for George Bush and his disciples - and then wonder why they're hated!!" 
My, my; you are harboring such intense hatred! No wonder you think the planet is warm! 
I appreciate very much the logical and considered scientific analysis posted here and the links to a gathering amount of evidence that should reduce AGW obsession. However, I am cynical. The world has been whipped into a frenzy of intense dislike, or "hate" in some cases, for the USA. I have observed that emotion rules over logic. As long as that emotion continues there will be no moderation of the cry for "reducing the carbon footprint" at the expense (primarily) of the USA. As long as the world press and world leaders continue to bash the USA, well intentioned people will see no alternative but to drink the koolaid. All of the historical data and valid scientific analysis that refutes AGW will go for naught as long as that hatred is cultivated and exploited.
dmgreer 
23 December 2007 at 08:12
Nice. Also, the author doesn't seem to have much grasp of science or statistics... wait, what's this? David Whitehouse is an astrophysicist? More like an astro-charlatan. 
Whitehouse claims that the data show a complete leveling of temperature over the past 6 years, but that's an out and out lie. If you look at the data http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/glob_... you can see that there's no such leveling. 
Given that, it's pretty easy to posit that sulphate aerosols from China's prodigious coal burning might have contributed to a decceleration of warming. Whether that's true or not is another matter, but it certainly is _not_ true that the warming trend would have to be exactly equalized by the cooling effects of aerosols. 
David Whitehouse should be ashamed of himself for such a poor display of scientific understanding.
Robin Guenier 
23 December 2007 at 08:16
Groan. Normsmith - the so-called Millennium Bug was no hoax. See my comment yesterday.
garryf 
23 December 2007 at 09:14
I am frankly disgusted with some of the comments here - typical from the crowd that will take no crticiism - cherry pick the data and accuse the writer of dishonesty. Those who have done that should be ashamed of themselves, its dispicable. 
On this list has been posted a link to the BBC news report of recent temperature records issued durung the Bali conference and without doubt they point to 2001-2007 being statistically flat. To 1999 and 2000 being cooler. 1998 being warmer (a strong el nino year). Before that we have an obvious rise from 1980 -1997 though with 1997 being less than the 2001-2007 average - Whitehouse has clearly made his case looking at the DATA. As he said it's not a viewpoint but an observational fact. 
Also someone said earlier in these comments that sulphur particles could explain for the standstill because they reflect sunlight into space. Not so. Have you read the IPCC Synthesis report (obviously not). It says that sulphur aerosols (the only ones for which we have any data) have been declining for over a decade, so that blows your uninformed analysis out of the window "dmgreer." 
Clearly David Whitehouse has been careful to stick to scientifically accepted standard data (unlike many of the deniers posting vitriol against him) and is being attacked for pointing it out. As far as I can see none of the personal attacks against him are sensible and say more about the lack of knowledge and intolerance of thoise who have posted them. 
MODERATOR - please remove those personal comments from this list and do so oin the future. 
David Whitehouse is to be praised for using a scientists logic to point out something that we should havge all seen and in my view stands head and shoulders over the bitter cowards who make calls of dishonesty whilst hiding behind a nickname - you should be ashamed of yourself.
Patrick Hadley 
23 December 2007 at 11:59
Robert Guenier: Of course I know that there was something to be fixed in Y2K, but I invite you to compare the reality with the hype. If you do a google search for millennium bug you will find many examples of the doomsday scenarios. The Guardian article from 5th Jan 2000 gives a good summary and links to balanced articles. You will find out that pension companies, banks and social security had fixed the 00 problem many years before the scare, and that some countries spent very little but had no problems. 
My point is not to deny that there was some truth behind the scare stories, just that the predictions of total chaos and disaster (and there were many of them) were very wide of the mark. At the Bali conference Ban Ki-Moon said that "Humanity faces OBLIVION" unless we act now to prevent global warming. Nothing in even the most extreme projections of warming could possibly justify that comment.
Nelson 
23 December 2007 at 12:26
Normsmith, the paper you linked by Douglass et al. has been heavily criticised. It's main conclusion is basically unsupportable - it's a poor paper, and nicely dissected in the following link, which gives some insight into what peer review should have picked up: 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropic...#more-509
Nelson 
23 December 2007 at 12:36
Garryf, I'm not making personal attacks against Whitehouse. I'm genuinely interested in his trend analysis of the temperature data. It's possible to come up with any number of conclusions from the same data (warming, cooling, stasis), but is the analysis valid?
ArchiesBoy 
23 December 2007 at 13:53
I just had a look at Whitehouse's website. It is obvious that the man is in love with himself, and whatever he writes is written from that standpoint... Meantime, global warming proceeds apace.
keithw 
23 December 2007 at 14:32
Actually ArchiesBoy I think that's a stupid comment and a waste of space. I think Whitehouse's website is rather modest - compare it to the editor of the News Statesman's John Kampfner's website and you will see.
Patrick Hadley 
23 December 2007 at 14:56
Nelson: the Douglass paper was published after proper peer-review in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society. That is just about the most respected place to find a paper on this subject. 
You say that it has been criticised by Real Climate. Well, blow me down what a shock that is! To the AGW fanatics at Real Climate it would have been about as welcome as a pork chop at a meeting of the Jewish vegan society.
Robin Guenier 
23 December 2007 at 15:00
Patrick Hadley: I was CEO of the Government’s central computing agency (in the Cabinet Office) in 1996 when the Government first took the date change problem seriously. Yes, some large organisations were getting on with it then, but not many, including several in the financial sector. Hence my appointment as Executive Director of Taskforce 2000 (1996 – 2000) tasked with communicating the need for action. Had large organisations not taken notice, I assure you the outcome could have been chaotic: contrary to your assertion, those who said it had that potential were right. It was particularly true of the financial sector – the Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements in Basle took it very seriously. On Friday, you suggested that “countries and organisations that had not spent a penny” had no problems; yet I’m sure you cannot identify one large organisation or country in the developed world that did nothing. I also doubt if you can name one “expert” who predicted chaos – those who did either were alarmists or were ignorant. 
My point is simple: Y2K is an exceptionally bad example of the consensus of experts being wrong. Perhaps you should consider Avian Flu.
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
23 December 2007 at 16:09
To me, this article by David Whitehouse is a delightful Christmas gift. His statements are fully accurate and reasonable. In my opinion, the continued attacks against the "life spirit" (CO2) are wrongful, as well as shameful. We need more "life spirit" into the atmosphere in order to sustain continued increase in plant growth and increased food production for human consumption. 
As to the claim by climate fanatics, that temperatures are rising at alarming rates, it can be proven that they are not. Diagram showing world mean temperature, calculated for each one of last 120 months, can be found at my blogg site. This period obviously equals full 10 years. 
http://altice.blog.is/blog/altice/entry/398432/ (double click graph for full size). 
Through this data, we can lay a number of different trend lines, but here we will talk about a straigth line. Can we by sight, judge where the trend line should be placed, or what its slope should be, for it to be optimum (best) fitted ? I do not think anyone can. The trend line is basically level, which means that the mean world temperature has remained stable/level for the past 120 months (10 years). 
The best fitted regression line through the data, shows a slightly positive slope, which my computer gives as: a=+0,09% (+0,0009) C-degrees/month. This corresponds to 0,1 C-degrees in 100 years! 
Since we know next to nothing about the causes of the world temperature changes, our best approach is to extrapolate past measurements into the future. How this should be done, is hotly debated. Should we use long or short term series ? 
To me it seems most important to determine which way the trend is leading. We do this by analysing the most recent part of the line. It seems most likely that a straight line continues its straigth course. Similarly a curved line most likely continues curving to the same side as it is presently doing. 
Considering these points, it is easy to come to the conclusion that world temperature has reached a peek and will most likely continue level or turn down, as I find most likely. Anyway, we will problably only have to wait a few years for the temperature curve to take a definite shape.
Robin Guenier 
23 December 2007 at 16:25
Patrick Hadley: further to the my comment above, I suggest you look at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/news/1998/024.ht... for a summary of the problem (as seen in 1998) and at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1541557.stm for a description of a real problem that emerged in 2002. Fortunately this was exceptional – but it takes little effort to imagine the chaos that would have resulted had the NHS not fixed things elsewhere. 
I suggest we now end this exchange. It’s an unnecessary distraction from the real subject where I have a lot of sympathy for your position.
NORMSMITH 
23 December 2007 at 17:05
To: Nelson - Seasons Greetings and a merry Christmas to you. 
The problem with the realclimate site is that their Guru is Mike Mann. Mann is the clown who brought us (drumroll please...) the now thoroughly discredited Hockey Stick graph. The Hockey stick managed to erase both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period from history. see: http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick... for a thorough scientific de-bunking of Mann's hockey stick. The hockey stick should have looked like this: http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/Graphs/Copy%20of%201000%20year... 
The new IPCC report has totally dumped the hockey stick overboard and they should have made Mann walk the plank as well. 
Mann got busted(scientificly speaking) for his bogus hockey stick so it looks like he got in with realclimate to post cover stories and more BS. I can't blame someone for wanting to make some more Pub money, but Mann is the typical pig at the trough when it comes to raking in the Global Warming Research Money. Follow the Money bro'. 
Here is a partial list of scientists who don't agree with al Gore's doomsday hysteria. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics
Cybertiger 
23 December 2007 at 17:33
@Menckenwasright 
“The world has been whipped into a frenzy of intense dislike, or "hate" in some cases, for the USA …All of the historical data and valid scientific analysis that refutes AGW will go for naught as long as that hatred is cultivated and exploited.” 
Ha, ha, ha … for all their good works, the Americans are world-beaters at cultivating hatred … and then exploiting it … along with everything and everyone on the globe. Of course, AGW is buncombe … but the true science will just give Americans a greater licence to go on exploiting more than their fair share of the world’s finite fossilised energy … and why should the rest of the world put up with it? 
Revenge, humiliation and the cultivation of hatred was what the 'war on Iraq' was all about – and oil of course ... in the name of ‘Operation Iraqi Liberation’. Americans will always grab what they want: they want oil, they want to control it, and they will exploit worldwide hatred - and anything else they can - to get it.
jabailo 
23 December 2007 at 19:34
The current state of the Global Warmers is that of McCarthy-ites during the 1950s. A small group has hijacked the collective mind, despite evidence to the contrary of their beliefs. Like Joe McCarthy waving around his list of 500 "known Communists", Al Gore goes around waving his list of "1000 scientific papers". I've read several of those papers. They don't absolutely support any particular view. I am thinking of rewriting a version of Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" with Global Warming substituting for Witchcraft.
Cybertiger 
23 December 2007 at 21:47
@Menckenwasright 
And as a postscript to the above - H.L. Mencken said, 
“Democracy is a form of religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.” 
However, in my humble opinion, it is jackals and the worship of jackasses that underpins the faith in the greatest democracy that money can buy. Mencken was wrong.
socorrie 
24 December 2007 at 06:04
The May 2007 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change) publication Ch 6: Palaeoclimate is at 
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf 
Page 477 Figure 6.13 (d) shows highs in northern hemisphere temperature now and around years 1000 - 1200 AD. It also shows (b) solar forcing highs in the same time frames. (c) shows that there are CO2 and other forcings now but NOT in the past 1000 years. So, it was warm a 1000 years ago, but there was no CO2 around to cause it. Per this IPCC data, CO2 probably does not affect global warming, and the sun probably does.
jeffknowler 
24 December 2007 at 10:53
The argument is very simple : we can choose to do, or not do, something about a change that may, or may not, be happening. Best case scenario : we do something, it costs some money, but climate change was fallacy. Worst case scenario : we don't do anything, it doesn't coat anything, and climate change wipes out the human race. 
Money's gonna be no use to an extinct species.
bobclive 
24 December 2007 at 10:53
Robin, you say, 
Y2K is an exceptionally bad example of the consensus of experts being wrong. Perhaps you should consider Avian Flu. 
What about DDT.
stargazer 
24 December 2007 at 12:35
In reply to jeffknowler 
just say that 
if the warming IS indeed 'natural'... 
and also due to 'natural' causes the warming is over... and we have major (natural) cooling on the way. Given that many more would die from cold than from warm. We may be spending billions making the above scenario worse by removing Co2. in this case doing nothing is the right thing to do........(and NO i am not saying we should not clean up our act. )
Robin Guenier 
24 December 2007 at 13:04
bobclive: in response to my suggestion that (as Y2K was a poor example of experts being wrong) Patrick Hadley might consider Avian Flu, you suggested DDT. I dunno - but how about IBM's 1950s view that there was a total world market for about five computers?
Cybertiger 
24 December 2007 at 13:24
Jeffknowler said, 
“Worst case scenario : we don't do anything, it doesn't coat anything, and climate change wipes out the human race. Money's gonna be no use to an extinct species.” 
I feel sure that George Bush has a cunning plan to avoid personal extinction. As some Americans will have noticed, Dubya is putting a lot of public money into the manned mission to Mars. Perhaps G-d has told him about the costs of global warming to the rest of His creatures down on Earth. 
PS. Pity the Martians under occupation. 
PPS. Spare a thought at Christmas time ... for innocent Martians.
Arie Brand 
24 December 2007 at 14:34
This is the (slightly abbreviated) actual report put out just over ten days ago by the Hadley Centre: 
Another warm year as Bali conference ends 
13 December 2007 
The Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia have today released preliminary global temperature figures for 2007, which show that the top 11 warmest years all occur in the last 13 years. 
The provisional global figure, using data from January to November, currently places 2007 as the seventh warmest on record since 1850. 
... 
The last time annual mean global temperatures were below the 1961-1990 long-term average was in 1985. Since then, mean surface air temperatures have continued to demonstrate a warming trend around the world. 2007 has been no exception to this, even though there has been a La Niña event which usually reduces global temperatures. 
Professor Phil Jones, Director of UEA's Climatic Research Unit, said, "The year began with a weak El Niño – the warmer relation of La Niña – and global temperatures well above the long-term average. However, since the end of April the La Niña event has taken some of the heat out of what could have been an even warmer year." 
In January the Met Office, in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, predicted that 2007 could record global temperatures well above the long-term average. There was also a 60% probability that 2007 could be the warmest on record and the expected temperature for 2007 is within the range predicted. 
Professor Jones said, "2007 was warmer in the Northern Hemisphere, where the year ranks second warmest, than the Southern Hemisphere, where it ranks ninth warmest." 
Met Office Climate Scientist David Parker added, "This year has also seen sea-ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere below average in each month of 2007, with record minima sea-ice reported in July, August and September. In the Southern Hemisphere, sea-ice coverage has remained close to average." 
Meanwhile, across the UK, 2007 is on course to become one of the warmest years on record. Even if the mean temperature for December is 1 °C below the 1971-2000 long-term average, the year will still be the third warmest since UK-wide records began in 1914. In this 94-year series, the last six years (2002-2007) are set to become the six warmest years. 
... 
Global top 10 warmest years 
Year Difference from average (°C) 
1998 +0.52 
2005 +0.48 
2003 +0.46 
2002 +0.46 
2004 +0.43 
2006 +0.42 
2007 (Jan-Nov) +0.41 
2001 +0.40 
1997 +0.36 
1995 +0.28 
UK top 10 warmest years 
Year Difference from average (°C) 
2006 +1.15 
2007 (Jan-Nov) +1.10 
2003 + 0.92 
2004 + 0.89 
2002 + 0.89 
2005 + 0.87 
1990 + 0.83 
1997 + 0.82 
1949 + 0.80 
1999 + 0.78 
Difference from average with respect to 1961-90 
Difference from average with respect to 1971-2000 
The science of climate change – UN Climate Change Summit, Bali 
World Meteorological Organisation press releases 
Met Office Hadley Centre datasets 
Met Office weather records explained 
Notes 
The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon is a large-scale, natural fluctuation of the ocean-atmosphere system centred across the tropical to sub-tropical Indo-Pacific region. Through teleconnections to higher latitudes in both hemispheres, ENSO impacts can extend to near-global dimensions during strong phases of its El Niño or La Niña extremes.
abatek 
24 December 2007 at 14:54
Please read Jaworowski 2007 "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time". 
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-1...
Arie Brand 
24 December 2007 at 15:17
And after you have read that please read this debunking of him: 
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
Nelson 
24 December 2007 at 16:36
'You say that it has been criticised by Real Climate'. That doesn't stop those criticisms from being valid! They show some very obvious failings in the Douglass paper that pretty much hole it below the waterline. 
http://realclimate.org is probably the best climate blog on the internet, with some truly excellent contributors. All publish actively in climate research, and entertain some decent discussions. It's unpatronising, doesn't hesitate with (what sometimes seems like pretty brutal) maths, and opffers somre real insight into the whle field of climatology. 
It also tackles the Hockey Stick, and there are good discussions on the Little Ice Age and Mediaeval Warm Period with nuance that you don't find on any other climate site - for instance normsmith, the paleoclimate reconstruction you link is a) schematic and b) representative of one location in the UK (iirc). Still, it's interesting stuff :) 
Happy Christmas everyone. Eat lots, drink lots, be happy.
sceptic 
24 December 2007 at 16:39
I find the most frightening thing about the global warming debate is the ease with which nuclear energy is now being presented as a clean and acceptable successor to fossil fuels. I grew up in a climate of panic about "nuclear winter",but am now expected to get hot under the collar about global warming- sorry folks, but a think it's a huge plot by the nuclear lobby, which thinks we have forgotten about Chernobyl. I wonder how much the "Greens" who campaign against CO2 emissions realize the aid they give to the nuclear power barons who promote nuclear power as clean, relatively cheap and lower-risk(!) than fossil fuels.
Vaz the Environmental Spaz 
24 December 2007 at 20:17
The link i posted has a risk chart! 
http://www.msnusers.com/G-W/Documents/Politics%20of%20Change... 
What risk is more acceptible to risk?
Vaz the Environmental Spaz 
24 December 2007 at 20:18
Not arguing anything but risk management, and why we should do something about global warming. This table is just dealing with the extremes. Will make a lager one after I figure out what I want on the grid. Grid idea started by http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=related 
Change=we stop G.W 
Ignore=We don’t do anything 
No problem=G.W is not real 
Big problem=G.W is real Change Ignore 
No problem Global Depression 
Economic collapse 
Clean Air 
Clean water, 
Better living/environmental standers. Life goes on. 
We keep polluting. 
Environment does not get better. 
Politicians no longer listen to scientist. 
Big Problem Economic Collapse 
Global Depression. 
We survive G.W 
New economic growth, in green Industries. 
The environment gets treated better 
We listen to scientist. 
Good stuff! 
Were Beat 
Economic collapse 
Political collapse. 
Agricultural collapse. 
Destruction! 
Environmental destruction 
We barley survive! 
Climate Change.(bad) 
Which column has the biggest risk? Well let’s avoid that column then. Discuss!
Curmudgeon 
24 December 2007 at 23:00
Everyone seems to have their own favourite graph or link to prove their point, Here is mine which totally contradicts Whitehead's assertion. 
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.... 
All rather confusing
Avihu 
25 December 2007 at 07:17
Let us hope that we shall all find the wisdom to, and promote the idea the need to conserve energy and use renewable energy instead of resorting to nuclear energy!
Cybertiger 
25 December 2007 at 08:03
"Let us hope that we shall all find the wisdom to ..." 
"Men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all the other alternatives."
jamest 
25 December 2007 at 10:47
dear Curmudgeon, 
Actiually. If you read it carefully it supports Whitehouse's points. 
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07....
John West 
26 December 2007 at 07:32
I am not confused at all. The earth is responding to the activity of the Sun and it's oscillating climate producing systems such as ocean currents. It always has. We happen to be noticing it because we now have technology to measure it.. 
We will adapt as we have always done in the past or else we would not still be here. 
The global warming scare is a political agenda and we are being lied to . 
Al Gore is the king with no clothes.
Hok'tar 
26 December 2007 at 10:16
QUOTING: bitin 
21 December 2007 
I think that the global warming phenomenon is way less related to climate change than it is related to the mass psychology of "Western" mind: 
The logic evolves the following way 
a. we (Western civilization) are evil 
b. therefore we inflict evil changes on the world 
c. but we can do something about it 
d. let's reverse these changes 
Enjoy 
END QUOTE 
>>>>THIS is what the Great GW Flap is all about. Having worked in the sociological slipstream of several of the local UK GW/green luminaries for a couple of decades, I've always been struck by the psychological malaise of this miserable band. As I always said to my staff, 'Get the people thing right, and the planet will take care of itself - and us.' 
The GGW Flap is, in my considered opinion, a stark symptom of Western self-hatred coupled with profound guilt conflicted by overweening ego. If half these Flappers would devote their energies into taking care of their fellow humans, this GW 'problem' would melt away.
piytar 
26 December 2007 at 16:12
"Scientists believe those gases absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the Earth's surface, causing heat to be retained." 
Real scientists, esp. ones with any actual knowledge of physics, know this is 100% junk "science." Why? CO2 absorbs IR radiation in only a few narrow frequency bands, and the CO2 present in the atmosphere absorbs 100% of the most significant frequency band in the first dozen or so yards of atmosphere (and in a couple hundred yards for the less significant band). You would have to remove about 90% of the CO2 in the atmosphere to stop ANY of those frequencies from being absorbed completely by the atmosphere -- and then all the plants would be dead (and us along with them). 
"The working hypothesis of global warming remains a good one, says Mr. Whitehouse." 
He's too smart to believe this, but he's probably just just picking his fight here -- not taking on the accepted mythology of the AGW mechanism because attacking the end result is easier. As explained above, the "working hypothesis" is 100% bunk that flies in the face of the laws of phyics. 
Linky: http://nov55.com/ntyg.html 
Too bad people know so little about basic science and physics that they are buying into this whole mythology. And too bad they don't realize the mythology is being pushed for purely political and economic reasons, not scientific ones. Examples: Gore is positioned to make millions on his carbon offset trading scheme, and for some reason, every "solution" to AGW seems to involve more government spending (esp. to fund climate "scientists" who are pushing the mythology), more government power, and more taxation.
Nelson 
26 December 2007 at 19:03
'Flies in the laws of physics', '100% bunk'? The greehouse effect is solid, established physics. It's not often explained well, however. Try these, which debunk the saturation argument very nicely: 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-satu... 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-satu...
Nelson 
26 December 2007 at 19:12
That nov55 site you linked has some, erm, 'interesting' science on it. It's not one I'd recommend...
mapou 
27 December 2007 at 03:41
So if global temps decrease in the next 10 years or so, in spite of ever increasing greenhouse gases, will Al gore and the IPCC give back their Nobel prize money and will they be prosecuted for fraud? Don't hold your CO2-ladden breath.
amos083 
27 December 2007 at 07:22
So far, almost all AGW skeptic articles I have read can be divided into 3 categories: 
1. "This government / politician whom I hate says there is warming, therefore it must be a hoax". 
Well... 
2. "These eminent scientists say there is no warming" - which is strange, coming from those who wish to debunk eminent scientists who say there is. 
3. "There used to be global warming, but it had stopped in 1998" - The evidence to the contrary is posted right here by Arie Brand. 
4. "There were warmer periods in the past before people were around" - which of course does not mean that the current warming is *not* caused by human activity. 
5. "This or that scientist has been wrong about something, therefore all scientists are wrong all the time" - which sounds rather fundamentalist. 
Even those who know the facts, often misinterpret them. Mr. Whitehouse seems to think that global temperatures should rise in direct proportion to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Well, it is not. The main fear in this regard is that of a *runaway* greenhouse effect. 
The main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water, which occurs in much larger quantities than CO2; the trouble is, an unnatural addition of CO2 would cause just a bit of extra warming, but this might tip the balance of evaporation, which might cause more warming by the greenhouse effect of water vapor, which might cause more evaporation, etc. 
In any case, the undisputed fact is that there is a global natural parameter - the amount of free CO2 - which has increased by 36% due to human activities. Whatever are its effects, such a large change to the natural environment cannot be ignored, and should be dealt with.
M*G 
27 December 2007 at 10:38
Why? Why global warming stopped????? 
It is easy. The glacier discharge (Arctic, Antarctic) absorbs the big part of global warm energy just and now. Apocalypse is just beginning 
Martin Gres wrote from security zone Czech Republic
jackdromie 
27 December 2007 at 12:22
er amos83 - I think you are a bit confused. Dr Whitehouse is pointing out - quite correctly - that there has been a recent change and that requires an explanation. 
Er if CO2 is so bad why do commercial growers increase its level in their glasshouses beyond what is in the atmosphere?
Brute 
27 December 2007 at 14:22
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus" 
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. 
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. 
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK) 
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate. 
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated. 
“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. 
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK) 
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.” 
This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK) 
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. 
Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. 
The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”
Nelson 
27 December 2007 at 16:16
It's Inhofe's list of 400 sceptics again! Woohoo! If it's impossible to argue against consensus in the published literature, just generate a list of the usual sceptics, plus anyone who's ever appeared on a paper used to challenge AGW (whether they're sceptic or not), plus a scattering of random 'experts'. Who needs relevance, anyway?
Cybertiger 
27 December 2007 at 16:52
We all consume too much and Americans are by far the biggest consumers. The only way to reduce gasoline consumption is to tax it. I believe Americans should be taxed till their pips squeak. 
PS. There are just two ways to wake Americans from their democratic slumbers – tax ‘em to the hilt and abolish the death penalty at home. Achieve those two things and the idiot nation will rise up, solve the problem of world overpopulation … and collaterally save the Earth. 
PPS. 'Destroy in order to save' is the modern American motto. 
PPPS. In general, experts are liars and should be executed - generally the Americans ones. Indiscriminate destruction is the only way to save the planet
Brute 
27 December 2007 at 18:15
Americans can consume more because we can AFFORD to; it’s called PROSPERITY and FREEDOM. Yes, The Brits know all about taxes don't they. Face it, you live in a failed society that's lost its edge; can't compete. Oh well, were just waiting patiently over here for another crisis to arise threatening Merry Old England so we'll have to bail you out AGAIN. 
When will you tree hugging crusaders wake up from your drug induced stupor and see the forest for the trees, (pun intended). 
Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary 
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK) 
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) 
The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) 
UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.” 
The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK) 
A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK ) 
With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists.
Nelson 
27 December 2007 at 19:55
'Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired' - a case in point. It'd be unfair to point out that he has no formal qualifications in climatology - just a Bachelor of Architecture. 
Anyway, his argument should stand on its own merits, right? Well, it falls over. It's really rather embarrassing. One of McLean's claims is that '60% of [critical comments on one chapter] were rejected by IPCC editors'. Should he have pointed out that one Vincent Grey was responsible for... 572 critical comments, 97% of which were rejected? Hardly surprising given that some were 'Insert after "Bayesian" "(or super-guesswork)"'; 'Insert before "Calibrated" "Bogus"'. 
You can read and laugh about this clowning at http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/john_mclean_and_the_...
Brute 
27 December 2007 at 21:29
It’s really quite telling when people who are so “concerned” about the Earth’s climate are so visibly unhappy and dismissive when there is good news regarding the planet’s environment. Does this positive news interfere with your agenda? 
ONCE BELIEVERS, NOW SKEPITCS 
Claude Allegre: A top geophysicist and French Socialist converted from alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" 
Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young scientists recanted his belief in manmade emissions driving global warming and now blames the Sun. 
David Bellamy: Famed UK environmental campaigner David Bellamy recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the new science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." 
Meteorologist Reid Bryson, who was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears.
Cybertiger 
27 December 2007 at 21:39
"Americans can consume more because we can AFFORD to; it’s called PROSPERITY and FREEDOM. " 
PROSPERITY in the DEMOCRACY is firmly built on the FREEDOM to plunder the world’s finite resources by brute force.
Brute 
27 December 2007 at 21:43
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts 
"Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." 
BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile." 
The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions." 
"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (LINK) 
The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. 
"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists wrote. 
"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter added. Note: To read about the latest peer-reviewed research debunking man-made climate fears, see: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears - LINK - & New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds: "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - For a detailed analysis of how "consensus" has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called "Consensus" On Global Warming - LINK ] 
The scientists' letter continued: "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." 
"The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts," the letter added. [EPW Note: Only 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers in April 2007, according to the Associated Press. - LINK - An analysis by Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean in 2007 found the UN IPCC peer-review process to be "an illusion." LINK ] 
# # # 
Complete Letter with all signatories - As published in Canada's National Post on December 13, 2007:
Cybertiger 
27 December 2007 at 21:51
@thebrute 
"Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young scientists recanted his belief in manmade emissions driving global warming and now blames the Sun." 
Anyone who believes in G-d but not in man made emissions ... is a tosser.
Brute 
27 December 2007 at 22:03
60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears 
Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists. 
“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?... 
“It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,” the 60 scientists concluded. 
'Climate Change is Nothing New' 
In addition, an October 16, 2006 Washington Post article titled “Climate Change is Nothing New” echoed the sentiments of the 60 scientists as it detailed a new study of the earth’s climate history. The Washington Post article by reporter Christopher Lee noted that Indiana University geologist Simon Brassell found climate change occurred during the age of dinosaurs and quoted Brassell questioning the accuracy of computer climate model predictions. 
“If there are big, inherent fluctuations in the system, as paleoclimate studies are showing, it could make determining the Earth’s climatic future even harder than it is,” Brassell said. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10...
Brute 
28 December 2007 at 01:25
More “Tossers” ? 
His Excellency 
Ban Ki-Moon Secretary-General, 
United Nations New York, N.Y. 
Dear Mr. Secretary-General, 
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction 
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. 
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it. 
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ¬government ¬representatives. The great ¬majority of IPCC contributors and ¬reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts. 
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports: 
*Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. 
*The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. 
*Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling. 
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.p... ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated. 
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future. 
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems. 
Yours faithfully, 
The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali [Link to List of signatories]: 
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa 
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K. 
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand 
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma 
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J. 
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University 
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia 
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands 
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University 
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario 
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia 
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame 
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia 
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa 
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey 
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany 
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay 
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden 
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand 
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project 
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut 
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia 
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona 
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA 
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis 
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland 
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia 
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden 
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia 
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia 
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand 
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007 
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology 
Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands 
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands 
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands 
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands 
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K. 
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary 
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware 
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS 
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand 
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif. 
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors 
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia 
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia 
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany 
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand 
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K. 
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph 
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia 
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand 
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University 
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University 
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway 
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia 
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden 
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic 
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia 
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa 
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University 
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia 
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia 
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University 
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota 
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia 
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan 
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences 
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force 
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology 
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands 
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C. 
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway 
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA 
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service 
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario 
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville 
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden 
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute 
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands 
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC 
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand 
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia 
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia 
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany 
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland 
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia 
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia 
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
stargazer 
28 December 2007 at 10:58
Brute. I am English and I agree with you.... here are another nineteen thousand scientists who agree too http://www.oism.org/pproject/ 
I got to say though that what you said don't help to cause any 
"Oh well, were just waiting patiently over here for another crisis to arise threatening Merry Old England so we'll have to bail you out AGAIN".
Jacek 
28 December 2007 at 11:02
There has never been a global warming as portraied by the Gore group. it is simply another grab for money.
Nelson 
28 December 2007 at 11:18
Stargazer, the Oregon Petition you linked to has been thoroughly, thoroughly discredited. It's a joke. Read up about it. 
What is this obsession with lists, anyway? 
Brute, it's good to see Vincent Gray reappearing (with the usual suspects) in your most recent Wall of Text. He's the one who had 97% of his 572 proposed changes to one chapter of the IPCC report rejected. He labels himself an 'expert reviewer' - which means he asked to read the draft report. What a leading climatologist he is! 
I could find 200 PhDs or peers who believe in Intelligent Design. What a list that would make - but how does that legitimise their 'science'? Ah, it doesn't.
Hitch 
28 December 2007 at 16:44
Only one simple fact is needed to debunk the whole anthropogenic global warming scandal - Mars has also warmed - same degree, same period of time. 
'Nuff said! Unless of course, you wish to blame little green men for driving martian suv's. 
The whole of society ought to come down hard on this "consensus science". Historically, consensus science has always been wrong. 
We ought to doubt far more what the "scientific community" claims. 
It's all money, politics, personal agendas and power these days wherein one cannot get grants unless one follows the sheep. 
The same pattern of political agendas is more than evident in the whole intelligent design vs materialist Darwinism controversy. The consensus Darwinists fight tooth and nail to protect their materialist edifice from any questioning at all. 
Now the AGW "scientists" have learned the same tactics of crying "Heresy!" against any one questioning the "most scientists agree" dogma. 
Shame on Al Gore, and double shame on the Nobel committee!
bean3422 
28 December 2007 at 16:46
Never underestimate the ability of human beings to place themselves upon a pedestal, especially the pedestal of "science and technology". It comes along with our innate desire to be superior. 
If you honestly think that the science behind the "Global Warming hysteria" is one hundred percent accurate and infallible, then nothing I can write here will change your mind. 
If you are listening to your internal "common sense", and in the back of your mind you realize that despite many scientific and technological advances in the last 100 years, we still have only touched a drop in the bucket compared to what we do not know, then maybe you have a chance to be rational and perhaps question the science and look at both sides of the coin. I find it astonishing that anyone can even claim to accurately measure the earth's temperature with any type of infallibility. 
Along with the desire for superiority comes the desire for power, and with the desire for power comes the necessity to control people, and how better to control people than guilt. Even better if you can make millions at the same time. 
We are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Tyranny is a shape-shifter extraordinaire, which is able to re-appear in many forms throughout history. When boosted by scientific "fact", it may have finally found it's master shape. 
The real question is: Is the earth here for us, or are we here for the earth? The philosophical fine line presented there is of utmost importance. 
We love to make ourselves seem much more important than we are. It is an amazing dichotemy to me that those who place themselves upon the pedestal of "intellectuality" are most often the same who bow down to "mother earth" even when it interferes with human progress, comfort, etc. (Most often as long as it doesn't interfere with their comfort I should add.) 
If all this hysteria does is give everyone more awareness, and cause people to not waste our natural resources, great. I can jump on that bandwagon. I can't think of anyone I know who would not. 
But no one caught up on the global warming scare seems to be able to see the more sinister sides of all of this. (And there are many.) 
In the end, there may be nothing we can do. Freedom will only remain when it is valued, and people can recognize it. 
"Those who will not govern themselves, are begging to be governed."
Nelson 
28 December 2007 at 17:20
'Mars has also warmed - same degree, same period of time.' - Er, no. How do these myths perpetuate? Evidence for warming on Mars is pretty much restricted to some before-and-after photos of sublimated CO2. We know virtually nothing about the Martian climate - far less than the Earth's - and looking there for any insight is pretty pointless. It doesn't exonerate us in the slightest. 
Science is not dogmatic. If you dispute the consensus, then publish your scientific evidence that it is wrong. Anecdotal evidence of warming on Mars/intelligent design/pixies in your garden does not a compelling argument make.
Cybertiger 
28 December 2007 at 17:28
“Shame on Al Gore, and double shame on the Nobel committee!” 
The Nobel committee did not cover themselves in glory by awarding a peace prize to Henry Kissinger in 1973.
Cybertiger 
28 December 2007 at 17:33
“Along with the desire for superiority comes the desire for power, and with the desire for power comes the necessity to control people, and how better to control people than guilt.” 
I wonder who on earth would consider that Americans could be controlled by guilt – or an appeal to conscience - where neither exists. 
“If all this hysteria does is give everyone more awareness, and cause people to not waste our natural resources, great. I can jump on that bandwagon.” 
And would that wagon be an SUV, old bean?
Brute 
28 December 2007 at 18:36
Stargazer, 
And to all of the British reading this site, I apologize unreservedly. My country was attacked and I retaliated; I should have been more mature in my response(s). Great Britain has been a loyal ally and great friend to the United States. I tend to get frustrated with the constant criticism of my country and take it personally. It seems at times that every country in the world unjustifiably blames the United States for their woes and "perceived injustices" as opposed to being introspective. 
The environmentalists have misdirected their vitriol. The environmental zealots should be attacking Indian, Chinese and Russian environmental policies, (if they are truly concerned about the planet’s health); these countries pollute massively and make no bones about it. The aforementioned countries do not have an equivalent to The Environmental Protection Agency to my knowledge as does the United States and I would assume the United Kingdom. Western societies, in general, at least attempt to implement and enforce environmental policies/practices. 
The Global Warming hysteria is a fad…… akin to pet rocks, disco and hula hoops promoted by the likes of Al Gore who just brokered a deal with his cronies to cash in on the 6 TRILLION dollar “Green Energy” movement; a complete and absolute fraud. I have nothing against Al Gore making a buck; however, denigrating the United States and portraying his own countrymen as evil, greedy, uncaring, selfish and exploitive should not qualify him for a Nobel Peace prize, especially when the assertions that he makes are based on false and thoroughly discredited information. Initially, his assertions were taken seriously; but after close scrutiny, his arguments are falling apart one by one. Al Gore and his buddies just spent several days listening to each other pontificate about the evils of the industrialized world in Bali; each flying their own personal jet to a meeting halfway around the world dining on gourmet meals in air conditioned hotel rooms and surfing on the luxurious beaches in absolute splendor. The entire conference could have been conducted via video conferencing sans the $1000.00 per night hotel rooms….doesn’t sound like their “concern” for the planet’s welfare is genuine. 
The irony of this situation is that automakers and various other purveyors of “Green Technology” are making money hand over fist hawking their wares to people who fall for this line of brainwashing. Automobile hybrid technology has existed for decades and the industry, (capitalists), are selling these automobiles at rates 20% higher than conventional vehicles leveraging the guilt mindset of the masses; the same capitalists that many people posting on this site despise. They’ve turned the tables and are profiting from this mania; good for them. There’s one born every minute…….. 
I happen to be an Engineer by trade and familiar with energy efficiency and energy conservation. I don’t believe anyone would argue that human beings should be good stewards and responsible with energy, it simply makes sense both personally and commercially; good business practice…..but to tax and regulate in the way that many Environmentalist advocate is regressive and irresponsible. I will use the same amount of energy whether costs increase or not; commercially the costs will be passed along to the end user, (my customers). If someone figures out a way to produce energy efficiently and satisfy everyone's concerns; more power to them, (pun intended). I will not however live in a cave and burn candles for light or drive an unsafe vehicle...isn't going to happen. 
My opinion is that the Environmentalist have a quite different agenda than “saving the planet” which is redistribution of wealth, a.k.a. Marxism/Collectivism. As stated earlier; good news concerning the environment is met by them with derision and ridicule. Their ideology and “reasoning” is based on emotion and class envy as opposed to reality, logic and fact. 
Take the time to study BOTH sides of the argument and decide for yourselves.
Cybertiger 
28 December 2007 at 20:10
"My country was attacked and I retaliated; I should have been more mature in my response ..." 
The brute is clearly no Jesus freak like the majority of his countrymen - and the beloved leader. What would Jesus have done? Jesus would have turned the other cheek. The reality is that Americans don't follow Jesus, they follow the ways of the casual, vengeful brute.
tluxon 
28 December 2007 at 20:19
Nelson wrote: 
"I could find 200 PhDs or peers who believe in Intelligent Design. What a list that would make - but how does that legitimise their 'science'? Ah, it doesn't." 
Nor does it illegitimize it. The whole point is that science comes up with hypotheses on the basis of assumptions. If you haven't made assumptions, you're not doing "science", you're collecting data. 
Keep in mind that in science "proof" is not required to equate to "truth", much like selective evidence and a clever lawyer in a court of law do not always add up to justice. 
The debate may be "over" a court of law or a "consensus", but it is never "over" to a true and honest scientist.
Brute 
28 December 2007 at 20:29
Cyberkitty, 
Wrong again! As a matter of fact, I am what you would consider a "Jesus Freak". 
I don't understand what Intelligent Design, (posted by Comrade Nelson a few comments back), or my religious beliefs have to do with a discussion about Climatology. Please enlighten me; are we now discussing The Global War on Terrorism? 
"It should not surprise us that environmentalists demand sacrifices, for any religion demands sacrifices. And like other religions, environmentalism is a human-centered one. Yes, in its purest form, it is Earth worship; its reverence is directed at something decidedly non-human. However, the beliefs and tenets of the faith concern humans and their role in natural history. Inevitably, in the modern world, this role is an antagonistic one for the environmentalists. Humans are the problem, and the solution will demand some bane to human beings. It is this simple fact that has led Peter Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace and a man who has become disaffected with the environmental zealots, to call environmentalists "anti-human."
Flybert 
28 December 2007 at 20:31
@ David et 'al that have referenced the NASA charts 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/USHCN.2005vs1999.lr... 
learn how to read a chart and make projections please 
from 1998 draw an averaging line on either the global or US charts .. the trend since 1998 is slightly downward to 2005 where the chat ends, so if 2006 and 2007 about the same as 2001 through 2005, this would appear to be a plateau in the graph 
so the NASA charts are in agreement, it just seems some people's education and skills in science, mathematics and logic are lacking 
not to mention global warming has always been a generally good thing for man and the earth's biomass totals .. we emerged as Homo Sapiens / Modern man during the last warm interglacial period about 130,000 years ago, and really didn't get going until about 12,000-15,000 years ago when the glacial ice started to receed ... we are likely near the end of about 8000 years of this warm period actually, and what would very bad to man, would be a mini ice age (the most recent, really just a blip in the occilating pattern of the last 8000 years) ... what would be a disaster for much life on earth would be a genuine shift back towards an ice age .. where in 130,000 years from now, humans will be finding polar bears flash frozen with seal meat in their guts, and Albert Arnold Gore 5235th will be elected President of Europasia on a new Global Warming Crisis platform
guy the gorilla 
28 December 2007 at 22:25
Just about anybody with enough time on their hands can deconstruct anything. All you need is: 
1) A receptive audience 
2) A cursory (at best) understanding of the subject-matter 
3) A conspiracy theory 
The standard approach to deconstruction is to search the mass of data and commentary on your target subject for a few pieces of information that support the position that the audience wants to hear, while ignoring everything that contradicts that position. This only works if the target audience is at least slightly more ignorant than the author. Then of course one needs a conspiracy theory to explain why everyone who actually studies the subject for a living disagrees with the author. 
So we have Mr. Whitehouse (is that his real name?) with an audience of neo-cons, no scientific training, and a conspiracy theory linking Al Gore, so-called “carbon taxers,” and several thousand scientists around the world whose backgrounds literally cut across dozens of cultural, religious, and language barriers. We also have the Swift Boat Veterans with their audience of angry Republicans, made-up biography of John Kerry, and an imagined liberal media conspiracy. We have the Flat Earth Society with an audience of cranks, a fairly complete misunderstanding of astronomy, and a global scientific conspiracy to push the anti-biblical notion that the Earth is round (yes, the Bible says the Earth is flat). And don't forget the Holocaust deniers with a receptive audience of anti-semites, bogus historical information, and a conspiracy theory too sordid to mention. 
The list goes on and on -- The Moon Landing Hoaxers, OJ, and yes, Mr. Whitehouse. Whitehouse’s audience is obviously the same dittoheads as listen to Rush and Glenn Beck, and not an objective adherent to the Scientific Method are we to find in the whole wretched lot. Most silly of all is that his conspiracy theory requires coordinating the unethical behaviour of pretty much the entire scientific community, comprising thousands of individual in various disciplines, located all around the world. 
The problem is that, while deconstruction is easy, science is hard. Jobs and funding in science are extremely difficult to come by, and competition among scientists is fierce. No idea is even considered unless it is supported by copious evidence, and even then it is subjected to ruthless scrutiny in peer-reviewed forums. There is simply no way that a massive, worldwide conspiracy could succeed in such an environment. 
In short, OJ is guilty, Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, the Earth is round, the Holocaust happened, and global warming exacerbated by mankind’s activity is a fact. If you really want to learn about climatology on this planet, pick up a book by an actual scientist, and don't waste your time with articles like this
Brute 
28 December 2007 at 22:51
I agree. I suggest reading this author, (an actual scientist). 
Patrick J. Michaels 
Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies 
Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials such as the Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and Journal of Commerce. He was an author of the climate "paper of the year" awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004. He has appeared on ABC, NPR's "All Things Considered," PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC and Voice of America. According to Nature magazine, Pat Michaels may be the most popular lecturer in the nation on the subject of global warming. Michaels holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. 
Books and Book Chapters 
Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media 
The Satanic Gases 
Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming 
"Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories," Policy Analysis no. 576, August 23, 2006. 
"Review of the 2001 U.S. Climate Action Report," White Paper, June 3, 2002. 
"Long Hot Year: Latest Science Debunks Global Warming Hysteria," Policy Analysis no. 329, December 31, 1998. 
"The Consequences of Kyoto," Policy Analysis no. 307, May 7, 1998. 
Trends in Precipitation on the Wettest Days of the Year across the Contiguous United States. International Journal of Climatology 24, pp. 1873-1882, 2004. 
A Test of Corrections for Extraneous Signals in Gridded Surface Temperature Data. Climate Research 26, pp. 159-174, 2004. 
Decadal Changes in Summer Mortality in U.S. Cities. International Journal of Biometeorology 47, pp. 166-175, 2003. 
Opinion and Commentary 
"Not So Hot," American Spectator, December 27, 2007 
"Inventing the Whirlwind?," American Spectator, December 13, 2007 
"Unnatural History," American Spectator, November 28, 2007 
"The Fires This Time," American Spectator, October 29, 2007 
"Gore's Noble Challenge," American Spectator, October 12, 2007 
[View more Opinion and Commentary] 
Events 
"Global Warming: Some Convenient Facts," May 7, 2007 [Capitol Hill Briefing] 
"Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media," November 18, 2004 [Book Forum]
stargazer 
28 December 2007 at 23:01
Brute 
28 December 2007 
"Stargazer, And to all of the British reading this site, I apologize unreservedly. My country was attacked and I retaliated; I should have been more mature in my response(s). Great Britain has been a loyal ally and great friend to the United States. I tend to get frustrated with the constant criticism of my country and take it personally. It seems at times that every country in the world unjustifiably blames the United States for their woes and "perceived injustices" as opposed to being introspective. " 
Ok excepted...thanks... Shame cybertiger was not big enough too.... 
And 'Guy the gorilla'... I AM an Astronomer and no I don't subscribe to any of the 'conspiracy's on your very long rant list!!! You use name calling even to the point of wondering if Mr Whitehouse's name is real... shame.
not an idiot 
28 December 2007 at 23:03
Guy the gorrilla and Brute are obviously complete idiots. Perhaps Patrick Michaels (biologist) has something to say, I dunno. Dr Whitehouse (astrophysicist) certainly has. Dr Whitehouse (real name - check him out dummy) is absolutely correct. 
Question is, now what?
kenzrw 
29 December 2007 at 04:09
Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice area is the highest it's been in 30 years: 
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.... 
Why?
OilMonkey 
29 December 2007 at 04:15
All the AGW skeptics need not worry. 
We -- as a species generally and as Americans and Westerners specifically -- are clearly not interested in doing anything substantive about the problem (which doesn't exist). 
So "pack up your troubles in your old kit-bag and smile, smile, smile". 
Our sacred, "not-negotiable" way of life gives us the power to reach glorious new heights of profligacy, hubris and indifference in the New Year. 
I'm very proud and excited and I know you are too. 
Have a safe, healthy and happy New Year! 
Peace to you and yours.
Vail Beach 
29 December 2007 at 05:05
I was afraid this would happen. 
Global warming is dubious. The environmental damage done in the here and now by fossil fuel extraction, use and disposal should be sufficient motivation to pursue alternatives aggressively, but now the idea of alt-energy is inextricably tied to AGW. If AGW turns out to be mass hysteria, how does the environmental movement recover? 
Please, no more "the debate is over." It makes enviros look like fascists, when all we should be about is saving lives and protecting habitats.
dennisk 
29 December 2007 at 05:22
For a fascinating review of global warming, cooling, and climate change over more than 100 years, see the following: http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandi... 
See the bibliographies and the related articles about federal spending on this subject.
Brute 
29 December 2007 at 06:49
LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU 
CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST. 
HOUSE # 1: 
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. 
Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated 
by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the 
average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for 
electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural 
gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property 
consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. 
This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's 
in the South. 
HOUSE # 2: 
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, 
this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction 
can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and 
is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central 
closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water 
through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 
degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The 
system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 
25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling 
system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 
gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets 
goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The 
collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers 
and shrubs native to the are! a blend the property into the surrounding 
rural landscape. 
HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of 
Nashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist 
(and filmmaker) Al Gore. 
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, 
Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private 
residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
Nelson 
29 December 2007 at 11:50
Flybert, you've fallen into the very common trap of just drawing a straight line through the temperature data. And commited a cardinal statistical sin of cherry-picking 1998 so you get a downward trend. What if you had picked 1997? Or 1999? Your trend is gone... 
That's why you need rigorous trend analysis. The noise is too great and the signal too small for a simple linear trend - 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/ 
Heaven forbid that I accuse people of playing games with numbers to pretend that the world isn't warming, of course.
cgw 
29 December 2007 at 14:46
Will someone please tell me what is the correct temperature for the earth?
Brute 
29 December 2007 at 15:25
Gore's 'Carbon Offsets' Paid To Firm He Owns 
Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself. 
Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms," writes blogger Dan Riehl. 
Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere." 
But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming," reports blogger Bill Hobbs. 
Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice. 
Hobbs points out Gore stands to make a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, which is disputed by many mainstream scientists. 
"In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks." 
As WND reported, Gore, whose film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made "global warming" won two Oscars, has a mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service. 
The think tanks says since the release of Gore's film, the former presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.
cheading 
29 December 2007 at 16:04
cgw 
Unknown. Yet I do know that the sky at night is majestic, and far beyond anything we will ever even start to comprehend. Our arrogance is no better now than the blood letting by Royal appointed Scientists of the 15th Century. Scientists can't even build me a cat or a blade of grass, yet they know it all. Ignorant beyond belief. Oh and the Sun doesn't appear to me to be constant temperature, which might be a slight clue.
guy the gorilla 
29 December 2007 at 17:55
Brute 
One thing we appear to have in common is that "not an idiot" thinks we are both idiots. Another thing we probably have in common is that neither of us are losing any sleep over that. 
Thank you for the links to other writers. Whether they actually know what they are talking about I shall assess with all due speed. I also thank you for pointing out information on Whitehouse' s credentials - the truth is that before I launched my earlier rant I googled the name and only came up with information on an archaeologist and also on another individual who is the curator of a museum of glass. Thus my initial thought that this person might be just another shill for Big Oil using a cognomen. Since I am American I am not familiar with him - apparently he is a reporter of some import in the UK. Thanks to your prompting I dug a little deeper and observed that this individual really is a degreed astrophysicist. I stand corrected sir, and thank you for pointing me in the right direction. 
Having read your other postings I must disagree strongly with "not an idiot's" assessment of your intellectual prowess. While we appear to disagree somewhat, you sir, are no fool. 
But anyway, back to Whitehouse and his degree in astrophysics. Does this really qualify him as an expert in climatology? I'm thinking of Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, who certainly knew his chemistry, pontificating on the crackpot idea that Vitamin C cures the common cold, when he really had zero medical training to speak of. To take the analogy a little further - would you rely on your podiatrist to do your vasectomy? 
Thus, I'm more interested in what bona-fide experts in the field have to say about the topic, Mr. Whitehouse, Linus Pauling, and my podiatrist's credentials in other fields notwithstanding. 
So really - how do you account for the huge number of scientists who DO take this seriously? 
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm 
Is it your position that they are all lying? Why would they do that? Who would organize such a conspiracy? 
Do you really believe that pouring billions of metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere can be expected to have zero effect on anything? 
And have you ever noticed that only two out of potentially hundreds of scientific issues appear to have been politicized? Strange that you don't see arguments breaking out all over the place regarding the mechanics of continental drift. My car mechanic appears to have no opinion on the accretion processes at work during planetary formation, and my paper boy doesn't seem to care whether or not the universe will continue to expand forever. Why is it that people only seem to be arguing about evolution and global warming? 
In other words, who is behind the outcry over these two topics, and these two topics only? I would argue that someone, and someone with deep pockets, is responsible for raising the holy stink. And why is it, curiously enough, that if the positions that most scientists are arguing for - that evolution and global warming caused by mankind's activity is fact - become accepted views with the majority of the unwashed masses, that this will result in the loses of billions of dollars of revenue for some pretty powerful entities? Neither religious organizations nor Big Oil want to see their revenue impacted, do they? 
So aren't you in the least suspicious that it is only these topics that are being batted around so loudly? Doesn't that raise a red flag in your mind that maybe the confusion and discord being sowed is being created by folks whose primary interest is not finding the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me god?
Jonathan S. 
29 December 2007 at 19:27
cgw 
You nailed it. Only those impressed with their "knowledge" of the climate have a number for you. And, guess what? They are wrong. 
Has cybertiger gone to bed or just taken his meds?
Cybertiger 
29 December 2007 at 21:29
@brute 
"Cyberkitty, Wrong again! As a matter of fact, I am what you would consider a "Jesus Freak"." 
Ho, ho, ho, ... who can help but laugh out loud ... at the brutish "Jesus Freak" that can't turn that other cheek! Dontcha jus' love that cutish Bush baby, eye for an eye blind, to its own brutal irony deficiency.
Cybertiger 
29 December 2007 at 21:38
@Jonathan S. 
"Has cybertiger gone to bed or just taken his meds?" 
I just escaped from the big Zoo in San Francisco .... miaow x2 ... and now flying way over the cuckoo's nest! 
PS. Jonathan - fine Biblical name - are you a Yankee cuckoo too?
Maz 
29 December 2007 at 22:51
At the risk of pushing this discussion back on track or terminating it altogether: 
What David Whitehouse has said is that the global temperatures appear to have levelled off over the last seven years. You don’t have to Google the guy to see if you can find some tenuous connection with an oil company. I don’t care who he is. Just look at the graphs http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/Ha... and use your own head! He’s right. You don’t need any fancy stats or trend analysis Nelson. Whether it is just a blip to be followed by another rise or whether it signals the onset of a downward trend is something that no scientist (whatever his/her credentials) can tell you. We just don’t know. That’s the point of the article. 
One could argue that if CO2 is the main driver (as the AGW enthusiasts would have you believe) then it must quickly start to rise again. If it doesn’t then the theory is in trouble. There are signs that the sun might be entering a quiet phase with possibly a Dalton type minimum. Still very speculative, but it would be helpful. If the temps start to drop (as they seem to be doing in the Southern Hemisphere already) then I think most sensible people in the field will have to admit that the big yellow thing in the sky has far more control over global climate than CO2. 
Catastrophe cancelled. We need to find another scare story.
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
30 December 2007 at 00:44
Nelson refers to a really ignorant article called "Wiggles", which can be found here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/. 
I have previously shown a graph of mean monthly world temperatures, over 120 months. This graph can be seen here: http://altice.blog.is/blog/altice/entry/398432/ (click twice on the picture for clearest graphics). 
You can see that there is a lot of "noise" in the data as it is called in the "Wiggles" article mentioned before. This "noise" is actually a measure of the quality of the data. In the real world, there is very little difference between world mean temperature from one month to the next. Obviously this applies also for temperature from one day to the next. In reality, the change in atmospheric energy is a continuous process and the mean monthly values should reflect this better than daily values. Notice that the temperature is a proxy for heat energy in the atmosphere. 
I have calculated the numerical mean difference of monthly temperature over the 120 months period and find that this value is 0,170 C-degrees. Therefore, this figure can be understood as mean accuracy of the measurements. It is useful to compare this with the slope of the regression line, mentioned in my last comment, which was found to be 0,108 C-degrees in 120 months. When a regression line is determined, this "noise" is eliminated by the process, as far as allowed by the method used. 
The conclusion is, that during the last 120 months the mean world temperature has been constant ! What is important in this connection, is the fact that mean world temperature has reached a level top, which has lasted this long (about 3.600 days). No-body knows what will happen during next few years, but it should be obvious to all people that the upward trend has stopped. Will the temperature stay at this level for some time, or will it continue the bending trend and go down ? 
Most people who are interested in the climate debate know about the "Hockey Stick" graph. For the mean world temperature, such faulty graphs can easily be generated by taking averages over longer and longer periods. This is because during the Little Ice Age (say 1500-1700), the temperatures were obviously very low, compared to present situation. The 400 years period since middle of the Little Ice Age, can for example be divided into 10 years periods and we would have 40 points on a graph, which has a sharp upward bend towards the last 10 years and beyond. This is exactly what the climate fanatics are doing. 
Such manipulations say nothing about current trend, or what can be expected to happen during the immediate future.
8498693 
30 December 2007 at 03:19
Once you cut away all the fat, global warming is essentially an organised effort by nations to deal with a post Cold War United States. Nobody can beat them militarily or economically so countries feel they need to try and guilt them into some kind of order. It has almost nothing to do with any perceived warming that may or may not be taking place (for reasons we can speculate upon but have no concrete idea as to why). If there was a serious global warming problem then 
Chinese co-operation would be needed in an effort to find a solution. Until that happens, it's all just a cloud of left-wing smoke and babble that will serve as background noise for mature thinking people for many years to come.
Bill Wright 
30 December 2007 at 06:02
Goog god - I looked at the graphs. Dr Whitehouse is right - global warming stopped 7 years ago. Why isn't this front page news? Why is it not leading BBC TV news, CNN? How will Al Gore explain it? Give the good doctor a medal. 
Seriously - does news come any bigger than this in this day and age? Especially since it's been under our noses for years.
FiftiesKid 
30 December 2007 at 07:53
As some of the posters have alluded to, the real discussion should be how to reduce emissions just because it is the sensible, not to mention moral, thing to do, and not because the use of fossil fuels to produce the greatest prosperity and comfort level in the brief history of humanity is somehow perceived as evil. 
Chernobyl was an obsolete design (carbon pile) of nuclear plant; the newer designs work properly. The by-products can be safely contained. 
The fact that some rabid environmentalists (I used to be one back in the 60’s) reject even this option (can you imagine the idea of completely electric cars being charged by this non-fossil fuel, which is also not subject to any embargos, etc.) merely shows that their main motivation is not the saving of the environment, but is the reduction of a prosperous lifestyle that they find, for one reason or another, distasteful. 
With all due respect, Cybertiger (I won’t consider the Freudian implications of someone who calls their self “tiger”, especially given this individual’s apparent high level of hostility) reminds me of the early proponents of communism. In their personal lives, they could not make a go of it in their respective societies, so they chose instead to tear down those societies to a very base level, where their lives would then have meaning and they would then exhibit relative success (especially if they were now the leaders of these new societal movements. Sound all too familiar?). 
All of this west/successful, prosperous living-bashing is just another symptom of jealousy by individuals who, for whatever reasons, are similarly unable to adjust to and/or live successfully in the current culture. They are one tiny step removed from the Islamic radicals who wish to take this entire planet’s civilization back to the seventh century (when men were men and women were trash), or some other religious fundamentalists who wish to take us back to an earlier time when high priests decided who would burn at the stake for looking at the stars in the night sky a little longer than the rigidly prescribed maximum, instead of praying to some imaginary father figure in that sky, and coincidentally, where women were also trash (I’m a male, by the way). 
The current debate is clouded because of distrust of the messengers on both sides of it. Those who feel that prosperity is a good thing don’t trust those on the fringe of the environmental movement, because of their seeming desire to throw out the baby of prosperity with the bathwater of the real and imagined environmental problems facing this planet. As a poster pointed out, they don’t seem to be raising as much of a stink about China as they do about America. This speaks volumes to their personal agenda of west/success-bashing jealousy, as described above. 
Those on the environmental side don’t trust those who have seemed to fight any reductions in threats to the environment in the past. This includes those who fought emission reductions in manufacturing, energy production, and transportation. As for DDT, natural controls are always better, longer lasting, and safer. Those who fought against these safer and necessary changes to our habits regarding the environment are perceived to be the ones currently fighting against the AGW true believers. 
I personally think that the truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle, but just want the facts, whoever the messenger happens to be. And, as any English teacher will point out, a fact is something that has been proven to be true.
Cybertiger 
30 December 2007 at 08:46
George Bush emits a lot of hot, fetid air, is corrupt, brutal, and greedy - and believes in his own design intelligence. Al Gore suppresses a lot of hot emissions, is venal, brutal and corrupt while believing in G-d and the man made heat of the Earth. 
Q. What is the commonality between these two gentlefolk? 
A. They’re all-Amerikan jerky.
Cybertiger 
30 December 2007 at 08:54
"Nobody can beat them militarily or economically so countries feel they need to try and guilt them into some kind of order." 
With all due respect, 8498693, Amerikans don't do guilt any more than they do conscience ... this idea of order is preposterous.
Paulo 
30 December 2007 at 10:34
Including some references would help. Or else it is just a war of words, as one can see by this Wired Magazine article which states that 2007 "was also shaping up to be the hottest year on record in the Northern Hemisphere."
Paulo 
30 December 2007 at 10:36
Including some references would help. Or else it is just a war of words, as one can see by this Wired Magazine article which states that 2007 "was also shaping up to be the hottest year on record in the Northern Hemisphere." 
link: click here 
Paulo 
30 December 2007 at 10:37
oops, full link here: 
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/Y/YE_CLIMATE_RECORDS?S...
Maz 
30 December 2007 at 11:03
Hats off to whoever figured out earlier on that the term "Global Warming" was a little risky to use to scare people. "Climate Change" was a lot better. It covers everything. This way one could lump any weather, that's not quite a fine sunny day, under evidence thereof. So the same physical process can now be held responsible for very hot or very cold, very wet or very dry and any windy phenomenon. Heck in some circles even earthquakes & tsunamis! 
The point is how many "extreme" weather events you can find is determined by your definition and how hard you look. 
When we have the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, at the start of the year, declare that 2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record and then several weeks before the year ends declare again that it's heading to be the Nth warmest year you know something's not right. A truly independent scientific organisation would have made one announcement at the start of 2008 with the facts (even if it would be coloured somewhat by their interpretation of the data)! But that's not current climate science is it?
Cybertiger 
30 December 2007 at 12:42
@FiftiesKid 
“With all due respect, Cybertiger (I won’t consider the Freudian implications of someone who calls their self “tiger”, especially given this individual’s apparent high level of hostility) reminds me of the early proponents of communism.” 
Like communism, appeasement simply doesn’t work. FiftiesLad (sniggering aside to Freud) seeks to appease hypocrisy, double standards and the trashing of the planet. The communist Chinese recognised the problem and forced family size limitations on their people. The Chinese may have hoped that the West would limit fossil fuel consumption as a quid pro quo. However, the question of overpopulation and resource consuming are big American taboos. Of course, breaking the American taboo simply will never, ever be done. 
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/demographic.disentrapment/Chapter29De... 
It'll never work but I believe the US needs a very hard kick in the goolies. 
“Genu robustum ad inguen gentes superantium acerrime applicandum” 
But Americans have no balls - except the bare-faced cheek to throw daisy cutters and cluster bombs indiscriminately from 30,000’ - and then, of course, they’re very smart, courageous folk. Professor Maurice King, above, agrees with me.
Robin Guenier 
30 December 2007 at 13:02
I got involved with this thread when I challenged the view that the so-called Millennium Bug’s failure to bite (much) was a prime example of a consensus of experts getting things wrong. Not so – see above. But I have watched the thread’s “my expert is more expert than your expert” discussion with amusement. The Millennium Bug’s real lesson, incidentally, was not that those who warned of the need to fix it were wrong but that the “experts” who allowed computer software to use two digits to represent the year were extremely foolish. Conclusion: be cautious about any expert. Nonetheless, it seems reasonably settled that the globe is warming and that recent warming has largely coincided with human industrialisation. It also seems reasonably settled that continued warming would be harmful to mankind. The big question is: can we do anything about it? That, in turn, seems to depend on whether or not it is the result of human activity – especially carbon emissions. Judging by the debate here, the answers are far from clear and to claim that the matter is settled surely foolish. It seems to me, however, that that should not be a reason for inaction: it can hardly be wise, in any event, for mankind to continue its current consumption of fossil fuels. Therefore, action is needed. The challenge is to get global agreement. And that will not be achieved if large numbers of voters in the Western world see the whole issue as a scam, the developing Eastern economies are quite reasonably focused on continuing their development and the poor world is desperate for the growth necessary if it is to achieve freedom from poverty. 
It seems to me that the essential first step towards a practical solution is to get the initiative out of the hands of the growth-hating, America-hating green fanatics, particularly those with a visceral hatred of nuclear power.
Nelson 
30 December 2007 at 13:14
Lotfur, what is ignorant about that article? Its author is an expert in trend analysis. I'm not sure if you are (despite your appeal to authority with your M.Sc.). He generates a mock data set with a known warming trend and superimposes noise on it (i.e. mimicking GISS/HadCRU data), and shows that you can get an apparent cooling trend, even though we know that one does not exist. He created the data set, remember?
Patrick Hadley 
30 December 2007 at 13:43
Robin, while I think I agree with you on global warming, even after looking at your examples I still consider that the millennium bug was vastly over-hyped. I would agree that it would be wrong to pursue our discussion of it on this thread. 
Nelson, if you look closely at Tamino's final graph where he shows with a red line the five year moving average of the HadCRU data you will see that it is now pointing downwards, which is basically what Mr Whitehouse said in the article.
Grumpy 
30 December 2007 at 15:13
Skyhunter Your the liar!! 
Only using part of the facts to support you conclusion. 
We are at the bottom of a 11 year cycle which peaked mid 2000. A warm year 1998 was. 
Now temp have stabized solar activity at a min. 
Goto and see for yourself if you not to lazy. 
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast22jul99_1.htm Oh, the charts about a third of the down.
Maz 
30 December 2007 at 15:29
Robin, 
thank you for your learned comments about the Millenium Bug - interesting. 
Although I can agree that recent (100yrs) has coincided with industrialisation the relationship is very tenuous and causation cannot be assumed. In fact I believe even the IPCC agree that pre-50s warming was natural not CO2 related. 
But I cannot agree that it is reasonably settled that further warming is detrimental. There is simply no evidence for this. In fact the evidence from history is to the contrary. An example from modern data is the fact that although more people might die from heat stress far far more will not die from cold. So the net effect is beneficial in terms of deaths. Of course the likes of the BBC and other outlets are unlikely to give the public the full picture. A little like we've all heard of Arctic Sea Ice being at its lowest for 30yrs but not that Antarctic Sea Ice is at its highest for the same period. But there you are. That's the way it is at the moment. 
As you rightly point out we need to wrench this issue out of the hands of the new age socialists, eco-pseudoreligious fanatics and their blinded followers. The scary thing is that we are being diverted from seeking proper long term (>100yr) solutions. If we stunt our economies, place restrictions on developing economies and leave whole countries mired in poverty we are less likely to be able to deal with actual natural disasters in the future. Happy New Year to all.
Brute 
30 December 2007 at 16:04
Guy The Gorilla, 
Sorry, been out all day. Made a quick 600 mile round trip down to North Carolina in the Hummer to check out a custom made racing car I’m having built. Ironically, it’s a replica of a British race car with an American V-8 stuffed into it…… coming along. (I’m sure the last few sentences will prompt some responses). Made good time, good highway driving; traffic was a little tough through Richmond. Virginia has good highways for the most part. 
But seriously; 
It wasn’t me that corrected you about Whitehouse, if that’s what you meant; another guy. 
Examples of mass manipulation of populations: Fanatical Islamists, Germany 1930’s, Imperial Japan, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung. Granted, the goals of these examples were achieved through brutality and homicide/genocide, but hundreds of thousands followed “the party line” as warped and twisted as they are/were. Censorship of the media, confiscation of firearms, (the first thing the Nazi Party did), deportation/ murder of dissidents, indoctrination of the youth, were used to control the population in order to indoctrinate and condition the remainder…you know the story. It can and has been done. 
As for the rest of your questions….how the hell should I know? I’m an Engineer, but I do work in Washington D.C….see it first hand, and I can read and do research on my own. I’m not a Climatologist or a Scientist; but I do recognize a Confidence Scheme/Fraud when I see one. I know that even though Al Gore was a miserable failure as Vice President and Senator, he travels in influential circles and has very deep pockets; he also has access to tons of money through his involvement with the Democratic National Committee and access to the media. Al Gore has made loads of money from his involvement with Google, (he bought in very early), and he has substantial investments with Occidental Petroleum and owns a Zinc mine on his property in Tennessee that has polluted the immediate area for years….one of the wealthiest men in the country…look it up. The majority of the people that have posted here are probably genuinely concerned about the environment. Al Gore’s motives are anything but altruistic. 
Politicians are very adept at raising funds for causes from suckers and Hollywood types; New York elitists. They are also very good at generating publicity. What could be a better cause than “saving the world” from “evil”, “greedy” corporations. It’s an easy sell (advertisements with baby seals, those big round eyes…Bambi….) who could resist? 
Corporations are faceless entities…who are they anyway? They are all of us. The reality is that all of our lives are interdependent on these corporations, the food we eat, the jobs that we have, the clothes we wear, the computer that typed this comment, our medical needs, the homes that we live in…..Everything that we do is dependant on these “evil” corporations. 
As far as religion, humans having been arguing over that since the beginning of time…. hell, we go to war over it. The only thing that will illicit a more violent response is insulting someone’s mother. 
Many motives involved, primarily it’s the David vs. Goliath syndrome; the United States being the only “superpower” in the world right now after The Cold War. Class envy has been going on for time eternal and many of these environmentalists are exploiting it. 
Most of the “scientists” that Gore and the IPCC refer to are PAID to study the effects of “Global Warming”. If they find that there is no evidence of it, their Federally and UN Funded programs and grants would not be needed, so they publicize what he wants them to and refuses to debate or ridicules the rest. He’s a SALESMAN and CON ARTIST, and a good one. He’s also a fraud, as well as his “science”. 
Al Gore and his pals state that “the debate has been settled” and that “a consensus exists”…Hardly…. even judging from the comments generated on both sides of the Atlantic from Mr. Whitehouse’s paltry article above.
Brute 
30 December 2007 at 16:11
Gore Isn't Quite As Green As He's Led The World To Believe. 
Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin." 
Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed. 
For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.) 
Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself. 
Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents. 
But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths. 
Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee. 
Maybe our very existence isn't threatened. 
Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas. 
Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either. 
Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River. 
The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.
Nelson 
30 December 2007 at 16:59
Patrick, that tiny inflection in the HadCRU dataset? You think it's fine to claim global warming has stopped from that? It's clearly one conclusion too far :) (and also noticeably absent from the GISS data...)
p walsh 
30 December 2007 at 17:39
Nelson, It's not a blip - it;s glaringly obvious. Global temperatures have remained static since 2001 - as Whitehouse points out it's an observational fact. LOOK at the data - it's staring us in the face. The latest warming period has lasted 25 years of which 7-8 have been static. That's highly significant. 
Huh some "paultry" article!
Brute 
30 December 2007 at 17:50
Fifties Kid, 
WELL SAID. Reminds me a many college professors....Couldn't compete in the real world, so they chose to hang out with the children where their rhetoric goes unchallenged. 
“In their personal lives, they could not make a go of it in their respective societies, so they chose instead to tear down those societies to a very base level, where their lives would then have meaning and they would then exhibit relative success (especially if they were now the leaders of these new societal movements. Sound all too familiar?).” 
“All of this west/successful, prosperous living-bashing is just another symptom of jealousy by individuals who, for whatever reasons, are similarly unable to adjust to and/or live successfully in the current culture.”
Nelson 
30 December 2007 at 18:44
p walsh, your claim that it's 'highly significant'. Is that from your statistical analysis, or from eyeballing the graph? The link to tamino's Wiggles post shows rather beautifully that short-term blips are an intrinsic property of the data set. You have to be very cautious about claiming whether warming has stopped, is faster, has reversed. Especially careful, in fact, since this blip everyone is crowing about is only present in one of the two data sets...
Brute 
30 December 2007 at 20:42
Mr. Walsh, 
I beg your pardon, paltry was a poor choice of words; I agree this should be headline news worldwide. I suppose that I should have written that this revelation doesn’t fit the current myths or “party line” espoused by the media elites and will be suppressed and go unnoticed by the general population. How shameful. There is a tremendous amount of information debunking the global warming hysteria; however, it is usually buried deeply because it doesn’t fit the Left’s agenda. I stumbled upon this article quite accidentally. 
Very interesting and vigorous debate…healthy. The hallmark of a free society......
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
30 December 2007 at 22:31
Neslon, initially I phrased my opinion about "Wiggles" much more harshly. Perhaps "deceiving" is a more correct description of "Wiggle" than "ignorant", because the "unknown author" surely knows what he is doing and should not be excused by ignorance. 
The "unknown author" does not distinguish between long-term and short-term trends in his treatment. This is deplorable, because this is very much at the heart of current debate. Are we interested in the historical aspects of temperature changes or are we concerned about the near future ? I personally am interested in both, but the David Whitehouse article was clearly about short-term trend of world mean temperature. 
In my earlier remarks, I tried to explain that we have a "long" record of 120 months, which show no upward trend in temperature. The "unknown author" would probably like to take 100 years for observation. He is thus fixed on the theory of CO2 influence on temperature, which is unproven and in my opinion wrong. Any natural trend will eventually change direction. For how long must we observe such a directional change, before we accept it as real and not a "noise" ? For all his statistical knowledge, the "unknown author" does not give an answer to this important question. 
Actually, there exists somewhere a record of the 3600 days making up the period of 120 months, but unfortunately this does not seem to be published. It is always advisable to work with basic data, rather than averages over longer periods. There is much truth in the statement, that "averages always lie". The "unknown author" unveils his ignorance or deceiving intentions when he says: 
>>>"Another way to get a better picture of actual trends is by taking averages…….Now we see a much more steady progression. That's because taking longer-term averages actually reduces the effect of the noise without affecting the trend. But there's still noise. By taking averages over longer time spans we don't eliminate the noise, we just make it smaller."
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
30 December 2007 at 22:34
continued: 
We can see how absurd this approach is, by imagining that we reduce all data of a series into two average points (or even one point). With two average points, we would have a clear trend line, without interference of the "noise". With one average point we would be in even better position to intrepid the "climate change". If Al Gore sees this blog, he will be in a position to defend any trend line that he wishes to terrify us Earthlings with. 
The deplorable act of the "unknown author" is that he shows -correctly- how "short-term noise" can mask a basic long-term trend, but then he indicates that this must always be the case. He does not show how his knowledge of "noise" can be applied to the 120 months. He only insinuates and this approach is far from being scientific. He is clearly promoting the climate fanatic's view and thus departs strongly from science.
Zordana 
30 December 2007 at 22:35
Will Al Bore have to give back the Nobel prize and any other gongs he got...wasn't aware you could get one for lying? LOL
Nelson 
30 December 2007 at 22:46
Loftur, thanks for your post. Obviously it's difficult to extract any underlying trend from tempertaure data. I saw your gaph of 120 months of temperature plots - I'd argue, though, that this is still too short a period for meaningful analysis (although it's interesting that you still see a warming trend). What happens if you include the previous 10 years data? Or 20 years? 
If you feel the author is 'deplorable', you're welcome to criticise him at his blog. He is far better qualified than I to defend his work. I look forward to seeing you comment there.
Lelande 
30 December 2007 at 23:56
Why is it that most democrats, in this country, socialists, communists, greeners, and the like tout global warming: higher taxes and fear. 
Why is it most Republicans, except a few RINOs, Christians, Conservatives, and members of the right wing conspiracy do not believe. 
You know why? It's hogwash and just before Iowa caucases.
Ken Fabos 
31 December 2007 at 04:34
Just some points on why I think this misleading article has nothing useful to say, and why Dr Whitehouse, as someone well educated and well informed ought to know better. 
First, the claim that global warming has stopped being an observational fact is not beyond dispute - others have used GISS and CRU temp data to show there has been a clear trend of warming over the 10yr period mentioned, even starting with the year with the record highest global temperature. Saying it stopped 12 or more times doesn't make it 12 times more true. 
Second, Dr Whitehouse did not inform us how many of those years still showed no warming after including the effects of aerosols. (I realise it's not as simple as adding or subtracting, but...) All, none, some? So what if the effects of aerosols is not a perfect explanation - it's a real effect and it's not wrong to include it; quite the contrary, it's wrong to not include it. And Dr Whitehouse appears to have promptly gone back to that temperature series that doesn't take it into account. Put politely that's sloppy and misleading. 
Third, as for Second point, but for ocean circulation changes as well as aerosols. We can add all the other known influences on climate as important omissions as well. 
Fourth, although there was a mention of not knowing if "stopped warming" was temporary or permanent, this very important issue was not followed up, certainly not 12 or more times to emphasise how important it is. 
Fifth, If there is some cause for this stopped warming that Dr Whitehouse is aware of, why not mention it? It is very important that he do so (and I know that he does have an opinion on this, which, given that NASA is predicting Solar Cycle 24 should be a strong one, it's one that reasonbly means that the answer to the question arising in Fourth above is that the stopping of warming is short term temporary). To be fair the Cycle 24 thing is just in, but the failure to follow up the issue of the temporary nature of the phenomena he believes responsible, is irresponsible. 
Sixth, The reference to global cooling fears in the 70’s, without mention that there was next to nothing in the scientific literature to back it, or that it bears no relationship to the vast body of scientific work on climate of recent years is gratuitous and implies that global warming concern is a media construction without sound basis. 
Seventh, Dr Whitehouse makes no mention of the statistical problems arising from using such a short term period as he has used. 
Eighth, Dr Whitehouse makes no mention of the statistical problems arising from using a data series that begins with a record high temperature, (one that has sound explanation in el Nino/Southern Oscillation ocean circulation changes). 
Ninth, The claim that having effects precisely balancing, without indicating just how precise the various effects do " balance", implying that this is unlikely, without explaining how unlikely, and further, that the unlikeliness implication would equally apply to his own - unstated here - opinion of what is causing "warming to stop" is deceptive. 
Tenth, Dr Whitehouse provides numbers for CO2 concentration changes but by failing to provide numbers for the concentration of other Greenhouse Gases, or strength of all the other effects, that combined, are considered part of climate change, he misleads readers that climate science is all about CO2. 
i have no problem with the inadequacies of science are brought to light, but truly, this is an appallingly bad article by someone who has no excuse for not knowing better.
Cybertiger 
31 December 2007 at 10:19
@Brute 
“Very interesting and vigorous debate…healthy. The hallmark of a free society......” 
I fear for America’s wellness … and am sore afraid of that society’s vigour and freedoms …
Matilda1234 
31 December 2007 at 12:08
I'm intrigued, can anyone of those people who are concerned about doomsayers and the prediction of "global warming" ( a rather misleading and vague semantic term for what appears to be a very complex situation) explain WHAT mere mortals ( i.e. people not 100% certain of our ability to be right) should actually DO. If there is climate change ( and here in Adelaide South Australia where we have the lowest water levels recorded, another unprecedented year of drought, trees that are hundreds of years old dying of stress and increasingly hot summers - today was a mere 43C - many people are convinced that SOMETHING is happening) then surely we need to act as though there is indeed something going on. If there isn't will it actually do any harm to make some adjustments? For example, we could eke out the oil supply for another few hundreds years, or save it for some yet undiscovered purpose - I believe they are not actually making any more of it, but I will stand corrected. It seems that a lot of the response to this article is more a contest about being 'right' rather than behaving rationally. I will happily invite you to shout "I told you so" if you turn out to be right, but meanwhile as here at the margins of the planet we are poised to run out of water to grow irrigated crops ( and farmers are being offered money to leave their farms) if we have another year of drought I and many of my fellow inhabitants of the driest state on the driest continent are leaning towards the "just in case" response!
Cybertiger 
31 December 2007 at 13:22
“I'm intrigued, can anyone of those people who are concerned about doomsayers and the prediction of "global warming" ( a rather misleading and vague semantic term for what appears to be a very complex situation) explain WHAT mere mortals ( i.e. people not 100% certain of our ability to be right) should actually DO.” 
Personally, I believe there are too many Amerikans – and Australians called Matilda – and SOMETHING should be DONE about it. 
PS. How do THEY make oil?
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
31 December 2007 at 14:20
Matilda, I find you question interesting and valid. What should be done about your particular situation in Adelaide ? Should you ban oil production, or issue laws forbidding the climate in your part of the world to become hotter ? I am not joking, because many people seem to think only along such lines, in order to "solve" their personal environmental problems. 
In my opinion, you should solve the problems that you are facing, in the same manner as humanity has been doing for thousands of years, that is by adjusting. You can do this basically in two ways. You can move away from the environment that you find hostile, or you can work harder to cope with you difficulties locally. 
If you choose to move away, you can for example come to Iceland. In this country, we have no shortage of water and can take a few degrees of warmer climate. We have huge glaziers that I would be delighted to see melting down. In other words, our climate has a long way to go before becoming as mild as 1100 years ago when the country was settled. 
If you decide to stay, there surely must be many options that are open to you. I could not possibly tell you exactly how to cope, but a bad choice must be to trust that other people, such as politicians solve this for you. However, upsetting other nation's environment, or trying to affect the global climate, in the vain hope that this will help your situation, is though the worst option of all. 
You voice the same suggestions as many people do, when you say: 
>>> 
"If there is climate change…….then surely we need to act as though there is indeed something going on. If there isn't will it actually do any harm to make some adjustments? For example, we could eke out the oil supply for another few hundreds years, or save it for some yet undiscovered purpose….." 
>>> 
The truth is, that this is not an actual option. There exists no authority which can decide who should be allowed to use oil and who should be without. Only the open and free market can decide. If oil reserves are dwindling, prices will evidently go up and consumption will go down. Actually, if the world climate becomes warmer, vast oilfields will open up around the North Pole and even Iceland may become an oil producer. 
As a final remark, I must point out that the "life spirit" CO2 is not responsible for any of your local climate difficulties. Actually, we need more of this life giving gas into the atmosphere, so that farmers all over the world can produce more food for a hungry humanity. The over-population is the biggest problem that we face, but strangely only the Chinese seem to understand this. 
Keep in good spirit Matilda.
Nelson 
31 December 2007 at 15:12
'I must point out that the "life spirit" CO2 is not responsible for any of your local climate difficulties.' - ah, so you reveal your true colours. And to claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase the world's food production is dangerous and misleading. Is it even rate-limiting for crop growth? What about weeds? What about the polar shift of arable regions (even if there is land, what soil quality)? What about the effect of a warmer world on pests? 
And apapting. Sure, Iceland might beneft in a warmer world. Who cares about the brown people though, right?
Matilda1234 
31 December 2007 at 15:17
Well, that's interesting advice from Loftur. If I have understood the response the suggestion is that in the event of adverse effects due to climate change we should all 'just' move. I must tell that to the first lot of climate refugees, from the Catarets islands off the coast of Papua New Guinea. They don't seem to be that happy about moving, nor are their hosts all that pleased about receiving them. How easy it is to dispense advice when you stand to gain rather than suffer! I wonder how Iceland would actually react if 20 million Aussies actually did arrive, bringing with them a variety of different cultural values, demanding new infrastructure, etc. Not to mention all those Pacific Islanders, Africans, South Americans etc. In case you have forgotten the majority of the world does not inhabit Northern Europe. Intercountry economic migration is already a cause of considerable conflict, so to suggest that the solution is as simple as 'moving' seems rather naive. Ask the people of Dafur what they think about the reality of forced relocation. Or the one million Columbians forced off their land. Let me assure you that Australians are adapting rapidly to the changes we are already experiencing due to the combination of factors, much of which we are responsible for ( overpopuluation, diversion of natural water, increased CO2 production over 150 years, etc). The Chinese policy on population control is a difficult one, a fine example of the imposition of a cold 'scientific' logic to a human problem which actually illustrates the point I was making very well. If you just look at the numbers it has been very effective, but in reality it is much more complex, and perhaps Loftur should ask one of the millions of Chinese men now condemned to a lonely life without a partner or family what they think of the one child policy. Or perhaps they should also join the exodus to Iceland? Simplistic answers to complex issues seem more likely often to create more, or new, problems than they solve. 
As for Cybertiger, your response is typical of the nasty bullying that infects these kinds of comment sites. Let's not address the issue or the logic of the argument but rather make a veiled personal attack. Implicit in your response is a xenophobia which if it was directed at another nationality would be unacceptable. What do Americans have to do with what I posted? I didn't mention them, so why should you? Why even bring them into your reply other than to reveal your own prejudices? I apologise if you can't distinguish between literal comments and figures of speech but from the standard of argumentation in other postings I assumed that such simplistic rhetorical embellishments would be clearly understood.
Maz 
31 December 2007 at 16:42
Matilda, 
"Simplistic answers to complex issues seem more likely often to create more, or new, problems than they solve." 
That is precisely the point. It's easy for politicians, environmental lobbyists and plain neo-socialists to travel the world preaching the ONE SOLUTION - CO2 reduction. Climate change will happen regardless. It has happened in the past and will most certainly happen in the future. With or without us. 
The real but harder and more complex solution is adapting to it. Loftus might have been crude in his argument but the underlying principle is sensible. 
Nelson, just to pick one of your points. What is the definition of a pest? If a warmer world is beneficial for pests what makes you suggest that it cannot be equally beneficial for other living things. History would suggest that warmth is associated with economic expansion and increased prosperity whilst cold is associated with the opposite. Do you have a definition of the ideal temperature for the planet?
Brute 
31 December 2007 at 16:59
As the natural cycle of the climate changes, (and or public opinion shifts), and a cooler trend becomes more pronounced and publicized, the Environmental Lobby will claim that it was their efforts that "saved the planet”. They will claim that it was their "concern" and "efforts" that saved the day. 10-15 years from now they will claim that the next imminent catastrophe will be global cooling, (again), or some other contrived apocalyptic scenario that requires immediate, (and taxable), solutions. 
For their next trick, they will turn night into day or attempt to reverse the earth’s rotation by holding hands and singing Kumbaya. Stay tuned folks; they'll be here all week..........
Nelson 
31 December 2007 at 18:12
My point about pests in a warmer world was in response to the tired claim that we should increase atmospheric CO2 ('we call it life', (c) co2science.org - oh dear) to increase food production. This is simplistic - the net effect could quite easily be reduced crop yields. 
I don't think you can give a definition of an 'ideal' temperature for the planet - that would be arrogance on our part. However, our civilisation, society and agriculture have evolved and adapted to a climate that will soon be lost. There are costs to a warming world. Possibly catastrophic costs, so while we can adapt, we need to mitigate. And that means reducing GHG emissions. It's probably cheaper too...
nick wallace 
31 December 2007 at 18:42
Ken fabos, 
I think you are being very unreasonable about what can be achieved in a 1,000 word article, and I also don't think you are right as well. 
Dr Whitehouse clearly shows why aerosols wont work even if they were in the atmosphere - the IPCC actually saus that they have been declining for over a decade - so aerosols are just not an explanation for the temperature standstil. 
Also what are you talking about concerning statistics - a standstill of 7 years out of a warming spell of 30 is highly significant no matter what statistics you use. 
As for the rst of your comments I don't think that they make much sense. Your first point is stupid. There was plenty of evidence for the predicted global cooling, according to the scientific consensus in the 1970s. 
Among your other uninformed points Dr Whitehouse says that the temperature has been constant between 2001-2007. The el nino ffect you say he hasn't taken into account was in 1998!!!!! 
You dont know what you are talking about.
Cybertiger 
31 December 2007 at 19:40
@Waltzing Matilda 
"For example, we could eke out the oil supply for another few hundreds years, or save it for some yet undiscovered purpose ... 
Are there not enough contemporary purposes for oil without saving it for something as yet undiscovered? Wouldn't it be more useful to invest in discovering alternative ways of powering Amerikan F16 fighter bombers ... in 50 years time ... when the oil has run out ... than spending all that money bombing Iraq back to the stone age? 
"What do Americans have to do with what I posted? I didn't mention them, so why should you?" 
I think you may misunderestimate the importance - and superiority, every which way and loose - of the Amerikans. 
"I apologise if you can't distinguish between literal comments and figures of speech but from the standard of argumentation in other postings I assumed that such simplistic rhetorical embellishments would be clearly understood." 
What was that all about?
Maz 
31 December 2007 at 19:41
"However, our civilisation, society and agriculture have evolved and adapted to a climate that will soon be lost. There are costs to a warming world. Possibly catastrophic costs, so while we can adapt, we need to mitigate. And that means reducing GHG emissions. It's probably cheaper too..." 
Yes, you've put your finger on it. My view (and that of many many more people than is generally recognised) is that there is precious little, if any, evidence for what you've just stated.
Brute 
31 December 2007 at 20:53
Matilda, 
If you'd like to move to the United States; we'd love to have you. Welcome. 
I understand your predicament; you sound like a lovely person. I believe what previous commentators were trying to say, (and I don’t presume to speak for them), is that we all have choices and the ability to adapt to our environments. Trying to control the weather is akin to herding cats; an impossible task. We do however have the ability to build a house and control the temperature inside of our homes; maybe not the best example, but do you see my point? Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. 
The Little Ice Age was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer era known as the medieval climate optimum, (no SUVs or oil companies in the world at that time). Starting in the 13th century, pack ice began advancing southwards in the North Atlantic, as did glaciers in Greenland. The three years of torrential rains beginning in 1315 ushered in an era of unpredictable weather in Northern Europe which did not lift until the 19th century. Before the Little Ice Age crops grown in Northern Europe were less hardy and thrived in the warmer climate. As the climate changed, Northern Europeans adapted and began planting crops that required a shorter growing season, (Cereals, Grains) that could withstand harsher environments. Many people attribute American consumption of beer as opposed to wine, (roughly 90% - 10%) to this legacy of Northern European immigration into the United States, (they brought their beer recipes and practices with them). 
Southern California was an arid inhospitable desert. Engineers designed and built aqueducts diverting the Owens River into the area and created some of the most productive farmland in the world. 
Ancient Egyptians harnessed the Nile River and irrigated vast areas of desert earning Egypt the moniker of “The Breadbasket of The World” during the era of Alexander the Great. 
Before the establishment of Israel in 1948 the area produced virtually no agricultural products to speak of due to neglect, deforestation and soil erosion. Irrigation and farming practices implemented by the citizens of Israel have created a situation where Israel produces 70% of its own food. Since Israel attained its independence in 1948, the total area under cultivation has increased from 165,000 ha. to some 435,000 ha. and the number of agricultural communities has grown from 400 to 900 (including 136 Arab villages). During the same period, agricultural production has expanded 16-fold, more than three times the rate of the population growth. 
One of the most important factors that contributed to the American Dust Bowl was several periods of extreme drought. It is true that the Dust Bowl occurred during the 1930's, but the entire decade was not a period of drought. Other factors were poor land management and wind erosion. Windbreaks, better soil management techniques and deep water wells as well as central pivot irrigation and crop rotation helped alleviate the impact of droughts over the last 70 years. One of the situations that led to the Dust Bowl actually started almost 100 years earlier. People settled the Great Plains throughout the 19th Century. However, the people who settled there did not understand the climate. Many of them also settled during abnormally wet years, and they experienced success with their crops right away. The Homestead Act of 1862 gave 160 acres of land to anyone who was willing to farm it. As the settlers moved further west, the climate became drier. However, people were under the false assumption that there would always be plenty of rain for their crops. However, as it turned out, most of the areas they settled in actually averaged less than twenty inches of rain per year.
Nelson 
31 December 2007 at 21:34
'a standstill of 7 years out of a warming spell of 30 is highly significant no matter what statistics you use.' Even though it's entirely expected given the nature of the data (small signal, substantial noise)? Statistics does have its uses.
Nelson 
31 December 2007 at 21:37
'precious little, if any, evidence for what you've just stated.' Of course there is. Take the coastal location of major cities like New York - and sea level is just one variable with potentially devastating effects with climate change. Desertification. Precipitation. These are not minor things you can simply ignore.
Nelson 
31 December 2007 at 21:41
The statement that human emissions are 'dwarfed by natural ones' is also misleading. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions may only be a fraction of the natural carbon cycle, but they're sufficient to accumulate in the atmosphere (only about 50% is absorbed into sinks). One analogy is this: the heart pumps 7000 litres of blood a day. So you won't mind if I drain 5 litres from you? It's less than 0.1%...
Matilda1234 
01 January 2008 at 00:55
These text dialogues are quite frustrating. I don't need to be convinced either way about whether climate change is real or the product of a campaign waged by environmental fundamentalists, or more or less the result of human activity, or part of a longer meteorological pattern related to meteor showers on Planet Zorb in the outer reaches of Solar system 45YN which happen in a 300 million year cycle. My point is that for a very large number of people finding solutions to problems related to the climate is something that they have to live with on a daily basis. Practical solutions are to them more important than identifying the cause. Human adaptation is obviously the only solution, so why even debate it? Tell me how we are going to manage it. Rather than continue to convince me that you have the best argument for your position tell what the answers are and how quickly we can find them. If you think it is enforced migration from parts of the world where human habitation becomes impossible, like in the Catarets - where the cause of the problem is disputed ( is it climate change, the natural subsistence of the atoll, the result of dynamite use in fishing) then we need to have solutions that will minimise conflict and human suffering. We can absorb 1,000 Cateret islanders, and of course they will adapt, 11,000 Tuvaluans might be more difficult, but 100,000 Kiribati inhabitants will be a big issue. But given the current conditions in the Pacific and projections for the future it is a possibility for which New Zealand in particular is already preparing. By all means we need to continue the discussion of which David Whitehouse's article is just one small part. We desperately need to understand the complex interaction of human activity on a large scale with the even larger forces of nature, but in the midst of uncertainty we also need to prepare for the possibility that climate change will cause real people real harm. All the bluster about cause and effect means very little to people whose livlihood is jeopardised by climate fluctuations that fall outside of both historical understanding as passed on by generations AND scientific models based on data recorded over a couple of hundred years. This year, when the price of wheat based products around the world increases you are likely to be affected by this as the combined effect of the reduced world wheat harvest, the increased demand for wheat from China and the turn towards ethanol production has pushed the world price of grain up substantially, by some estimates doublilng. But, hey, that might help the 'obesity epidemic' in the affluent countries and if thousands of poor people starve as a result it will have a positive effect on overpopulation. Too bad for those people who are the ones eliminated from the gene pool. If I read most of the posts here at face value, we don't need to do anything, just accept this as part of the overall pattern of human evolution and go on with business as usual. Bt perhaps people might think differently about the situation when it is their bread and butter that is affected and the debate becomes more than theoretical.
Maz 
01 January 2008 at 02:04
"Of course there is ( "evidence" ). Take the coastal location of major cities like New York - and sea level is just one variable with potentially devastating effects with climate change. Desertification. Precipitation. These are not minor things you can simply ignore. 
Sorry Nelson. That's not evidence. That's speculation.
Cybertiger 
01 January 2008 at 13:46
Only the uncertainty is certain about global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise. However, there are simply too many people - particularly simple Americans - over dependent on dwindling supplies of fossilised energy ... and those are absolute certainties. 
As Benjamin Franklin (simply clever American) once said, 
"In this world nothing can be said to be certain but death and taxes." 
... and he was absolutely right ... death and taxes are the only certainties that might save this world. 
PS. I believe the UN should apply a carbon energy tax throughout the world (including America) and the funds used to develop alternatives to fossil energy ... for the benefit of all mankind.
Nelson 
01 January 2008 at 17:12
Maz, sea level will rise as the world warms. Coastal cities are vulnerable - it's not speculation.
Maz 
01 January 2008 at 17:33
Of course sea level will rise - as it has done since the last ice age. The rate has actually slowed down! 
The speculation, is that it will be catastrophic and that somehow cities like New York are going to allow themselves to be washed away. Of course poorer areas such as New Orleans might have a different fate! It depends how much money people wish to invest, where and on what. 
I happen to think that the chase to reduce CO2 is as pointless and misguided as it is expensive. You obviously do not. 
That is not to say that other environmental initiatives are similar. Far from it.
AuroraBorealis 
01 January 2008 at 18:38
Let's for a moment presume that increased emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is not causing AGW. The atmospheric CO2 concentrations is still going up, due to burning of fossile fuels and deforestation. Now, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is lower than emissions would predict, since about 1/3 of CO2 emitted so far has dissolved in the oceans. Now, when CO2 dissolved it is in part converted to carbonic acid, which is - an acid. Thus, the oceans are gradually becoming slightly more acidic. Since the oceans are large and their chemistry makes them resistant to acidification, this will not be the dramatic process seen in Canadian and northern European lakes due to burning of oil with high sulphur content (aka acid rain). But the problem is that the base of the food chains in the oceans is plankton and corals with calcium in their exoskeleton. And at a certain point of acidification, these organism will no longer be able to survive. At this tipping point, they will just cease to exist, be gone. Which then means that the base of fisheries will also be gone. For references see a NOAA publication http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf and University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science (2007, March 9). Ocean Acidification From Carbon Dioxide. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2007/03/070308084525.htm 
Now, this is just another example of the non-linearity of natural systems. Does anyone remember the cod fisheries on the Newfoundland banks? Stopped in 1992, still no sign of a comeback. Fact is, we still lack a lot of knowledge about how climate and other large scale systems react to stress. Which brings back the AGW issue: Consistent data points to this being a fact, accepted by the general scientific community (see eg 
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm) but neither the absolute rate nor the endpoints are know. So while we may experience a year with less warming or less glacier loss than the year before, this may be a variation and we don't know what will follow the year after. Finally, for years, the skeptics (or AGW deniers) kept saying that one warm year does not prove a trend. Now, a snow storm in USA seems to be proof that an ice age is at hand. As long as the skeptics can not come up with a plausible mechanistic explanation that can be scientifically proved or disproved of why global warming should suddenly have stopped, their talk is of zero value.
Robin Guenier 
01 January 2008 at 18:42
Maz: thanks for your helpful and interesting comments. If you Google me, you’ll see that I claim to know a lot about why computer projects fail – but that I make no such claims to understand global warming. So I’ve found all this correspondence illuminating – and (as I said before) the “my experts are more expert than your experts” amusing. Below is a summary of my current (imperfect) understanding of the issues and I’d welcome your (and others’) further comments. (You’ll note that I don’t fully agree with some of your observations.) 
1. Objective measurement has established that the global climate has become warmer over the past 150 years or so – by about 0.6 degrees centigrade. 
2. This process has coincided with industrialisation. An unambiguous causal connection has not been established although such a connection seems at least plausible although it should not be ignored that global temperatures have always varied. 
3. It is said that a possible factor in (even cause of) global warming is the increased emission of so-called “greenhouse” gases – carbon dioxide (CO2) in particular. 
4. A problem with this hypothesis is that increasing CO2 emissions have not neatly coincided with temperature change. For example: (a) in the period from about 1940 to 1970 – a time of rapid industrialisation and increased emissions – temperatures declined and (b) major temperature increases since then appear to have levelled off soon after 1998 despite a continued growth in emissions. Of course, both these periods may well be too short to be regarded as significant. 
5. Another uncertainty is whether or not global warming is harmful to mankind. Possible consequences (e.g. rising sea levels) appear to be largely speculative so far – which is quite surprising: is there no evidence of levels rising in line with temperature increases? Some warming would clearly be beneficial for some people. 
6. One related puzzle (for me at least) is that, although everyone seems to agree that the arctic icecap is declining, that seems not to be true of the Antarctic. If so (is it?), the whole “industrialisation / greenhouse gas emissions / global warming / dangerous consequences” hypothesis would seem to be seriously threatened. Why doesn’t this get more attention? Or have I misunderstood? 
7. Plainly, however, some claimed consequences of severe warming (more than 3 degrees C?) such as increased flooding, desertification and drought would be extremely harmful. 
8. There seem to be too many uncertainties to accept the reported IPCC view that the science is settled, the causal relationship with human activity established and that, if action is not taken, the effect on humankind will be calamitous. By definition science is never “settled”. 
9. Nonetheless, that does not mean that the IPCC conclusion is wrong: as noted above, a causal connection is certainly plausible. 
10. Therefore, as taking actions such as the reduction in CO2 emissions and a halt to the destruction of rainforests would seem to be beneficial anyway, it would be wise to pursue them. Arguably it would be even more valuable also to invest in initiatives to offset the deleterious effects of warming. 
11. But this should not be at the expense of economic growth – otherwise support from voters in the western economies, from governments of the developing eastern economies and from the world’s poor will be unattainable and exhortations to change will be rhetoric only. That will benefit no one except those who enjoy preaching to others. 
12. In particular, therefore, an essential and urgent step must be to wrest the initiative on this matter from the growth hating “greens” whose apocalyptic and quasi religious warnings are plainly getting nowhere – e.g. the Bali conference. 
PS to Patrick Hadley: if you really want to discuss the date change issue further, perhaps you would publish your email address.
Brute 
01 January 2008 at 19:05
Environmentalist Predictions & Quotes 
Do these sound like reasonable people? 
Paul Ehrlich 
Author of the The Population Bomb (1968) 
Stanford University Biologist and Advisor to Al Gore 
"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer" 
"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." 
"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." (1970) 
"We already have too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure." 
David R. Brower 
"All I know about thermal pollution is that if we continue our present rate of growth in electrical energy consumption it will simply take, by the year 2000, all our freshwater streams to cool the generators and reactors." 
John Davis 
editor of Earth First! Journal 
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." 
"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." 
Dave Forman 
Founder of Earth First! 
"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight." 
"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental." 
Aldo Leopold 
"We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect." 
David Graber 
biologist, National Park Service 
"I know scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line ... we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.... Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." 
Pentti Linkola 
"Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed." 
Dr. Reed F. Noss 
The Wildlands Project 
"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." 
Prince Phillip 
World Wildlife Fund 
"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." 
Lyall Watson 
The Financial Times, 15 July 1995 
Cannibalism is a "radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation. 
Lamont Cole 
"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem." 
Carl Amery 
"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." 
Peter Gwynne 
Newsweek 1976 
"This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." 
Kenneth E.F. Watt 
Earth Day (1970) 
"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." 
Lowell Ponte 
"The Cooling" (1976) 
"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. 
Judi Barri 
Earth First 
"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism." 
Richard Benedict 
an employee for the State Department working on assignment for the Conservation Foundation 
"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." 
David Brower 
Friends of the Earth 
"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." 
Keith Boulding 
originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept 
"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state."
Brute 
01 January 2008 at 19:21
What follows is a very brief summary of the science that the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way: 
• He promoted the now debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate 
•He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age 
•He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences confirm does not exist. 
•He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmer 
•He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice. 
•He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing 
•He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices 
•He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature. 
•He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing 
•He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits 
•He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving 
•He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004
bobclive 
01 January 2008 at 20:16
Matilda1234 
I believe the rainfall in Australia this year is above the long term average and as Australia is the driest continent on the planet you would expect the occasional dry spell. 
You mention the extra cost of wheat this year, that extra cost is not because of a world shortage of wheat, but because of a change of use from food to bio-fuel especially in the US. Fuel or food. 
By the way CO2 is a fertilizer not a pollutant, higher CO2 levels increase plant growth hence more food for the increasing millions if it is not turned into Bio-fuel. 
As for global temperature increases read this, http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859 
The majority of the temperature increase recently seen is man made not from CO2 but from ground based thermometers and the UHI effect. Armagh has the longest unbroken rural temperature series in the world and shows just a steady increase over time, just a recovery from the little ice age. 
Read the science not the hype and don`t forget the SUN. Don`t have blind faith in your leaders, see 
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
Maz 
01 January 2008 at 20:41
Thank you Robin. A very reasonable position statement and one with which I generally agree. 
I would like to see the argument move away from CO2 reduction which to my mind is basically just the convenient "bete noire" of the looney greens and their ilke to a debate about future sources of energy. We simply cannot rely on fossil fuels indefinitely. By the end of this century the planet's main source of energy is going to have to be something else. And it's not going to be wind farms or whatever people mean these days by renewables. They have a place, of course, but they cannot REplace what we use at the moment and certainly not what we are likely to require in the future. 
The debate needs to move away from a leftist neo-socialist agenda - ie how do we put the brakes on the greedy industrialised West to - how are we going to power our progress into the next century? 
The answers/solutions to this question are never going to be achieved by giving way to the restrictive policies advocated by pressure groups flocking to Conferences similar to the farce in Bali. 
You might be interested in a book by Bjorn Lomborg, an environmentalist with a mind for number crunching. The book is called COOL IT. He looks at the economics of dealing with future climate. He is actually a believer in AGW theory but not in its proposed solutions. I found it a far more robust review than the piffle produced by Stern. I think you'll find it illuminating. 
Regards & Happy New Year
Robin Guenier 
01 January 2008 at 22:32
Thanks, Maz. It seems to me that the priority now for anyone really wishing to "save the planet" (as opposed to posturing about it) must be to switch their focus from carbon reduction at any cost to greater use of clean energy in a way that does not impact economic growth. It seems to me that the only way to achieve this is to put far greater emphasis on nuclear power as the only practical route to an acceptable outcome. I wholly agree that, although renewables (and “clean burn” use of fossil fuels) may have some part to play, they cannot possibly meet the world's expanding energy needs. To refuse this solution would be to ignore the practicalities of the developed and developing economies and, worse, to dismiss the needs of the world's poorest people. 
All the best for 2008. Let’s hope it sees the marginalisation of the tearful tree huggers and some real progress in this vitally important field.
AuroraBorealis 
01 January 2008 at 23:02
Robin: Some comments to your post 
re 4: One explanation that has been proposed for the lack of temperature increase following 1940 is particles generated by burning and this in turn causing increased cloud formation 
As to post 1998 temperatures, there is to my knowledge no data showing such a leveling off. See eg this link, which shows both a number of model data and instrumental records: http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_6_1_large.jpg 
Also, the fourth assessment report from IPCC published in november show no such levelling off. 
AS to your #5, there are a number of scientist as well as scientific papers published during 2007 (after the deadline for entry of data into the IPCC report) that point sea level increases far above the predictions by IPCC. It should be noticed that they included a caveat that some of the processes effecting the Greenland ice sheets are so complex that there are not any good models yet, but it is likely that the error is on the "bad" side, i.e. higher sea level. 
As to the consequences, I live in Scandinavia, a region that might initially benefit from some global warming. But any such gains will vanish quickly if cost of adaption increases, eg due to forced migration within Europe. A recent study on societal consequences of global warming entitled "THE AGE OF CONSEQUENCES: THE FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE" describes this: http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view... 
It is just released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Center for a New American Security, tries to bring the social sciences, in particular history, geography, and political science, into the forecast of climate change in the coming century. 
AS to #6, this is mostly a question of physics and geography. Antarctica is a continent and most of the 3000 m of ice resides on land. The annual mean temperature is around -20°C, so it will be a long time before anything happens. In contrast, the Arctic ice cap is floating on water and as ocean temperature increases, this ice becomes even more vulnerable. Furthermore, due to the uneven distribution of land vs ocean, the northern hemisphere has warmed more than the southern part. 
As to #8, science is not settled ( I am a scientist by training but in biomedicine) but there are still areas which as knowledge increases becomes accepted as common ground. There was a time when the link between disease and bacteria was thought ridiculous and during those day women died in large number as doctors walked form autopsy to maternity wards without washing their hands. And as I state and refer to in my previous post, the deniers fail to come up with a better and/or more credible explanation to global warming than the accepted greenhouse gas emission model. 
We will need all our creativity and new technology to solve this problem, but we can not wait with getting started in the hope of finding tech based fixes for our predicament. And we will have to give up something to gain other things, but that does not necessarily means bad things. Most people drive in far to big and powerful cars for their real needs and on top of that you can change you behaviour. A smaller car and change of driving technique has made it possible for me to cut gas use by 40 % and I don't feel this as a neither personal of societal sacrifice. 
Lets hope that 2008 will be a happy year
Nelson 
01 January 2008 at 23:36
bobclive, 'By the way CO2 is a fertilizer not a pollutant, higher CO2 levels increase plant growth hence more food for the increasing millions '. This is dangerous assertion. Firstly, just because it's required by plants and respired by animals doesn't matter. You could argue the same for carbon monoxide: it's generated quite deliberately in your body for cellular signalling. That doesn't excuse it from being a pollutant. 
CO2 is required for plant growth - but it's a significant step to conclude that crop yields will increase as atmospheric CO2 rises. Firstly, is CO2 availability rate-limiting for crops outside of carefully controlled greenhouses (not in most of the world); secondly, pest species may thrive more; thirdly, CO2 does more than just provide a substrate for photosynthesis. It's a greenhouse gas and will have highly complex effects on climate. Such as the polar shift of crop zones - if you're in SE Australia you've run out of land for the crop zones to migrate to...
Nelson 
01 January 2008 at 23:38
Maz, I don't want to put brakes on technological development. I don't subscribe to a 'leftist neo-socialist agenda' (whatever that vacuous label means). But I do appreciate the science, and I do appreicate the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
grapedoctor 
02 January 2008 at 03:20
To dismiss global-warming is to givemulti-national corps approval to pollute without restriction. Politically the terms are entertwined.
Maz 
02 January 2008 at 12:20
AuroraBorealis, you touch on a number of complex issues so apologies for the relative brevity of some of my comments. 
The failure of temps to rise after 1940s is far more easily explained by looking at the Sun as the main climate driver. Aerosol (industrial particles) modelling is very poorly understood and I believe the IPCC actually admit there is a great degree of uncertainty. The models have been tweaked repeatedly to get the result desired. That’s hardly validation. To my mind the simplest solution (the Sun) stands unless proven otherwise and IMO this hasn’t happened. 
You link to a graph of 1400yr climate reconstructions, from a handful of paleoclimatologists, embellished by a superimposed instrumental record to illustrate what exactly? This article was always about the fact that, for whatever reason, the global temperatures over the last seven years have levelled off. Actually, the instrumental record (HadCRU) is technically out of place on a proxy reconstruction and shouldn’t be there but here is that same record (HadCRU) zoomed right in and up to date! http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/Ha... Try looking at it and you can see immediately, with all the caveats that we’ve already been through, what Dr Whitehouse is saying. 
Well over 80% of the planet’s ice is in Antarctica. When I said that the ice sheets in Antarctica have reached their greatest extent for 30yrs I made it clear I was talking about Sea Ice. The interior of the Southern continent has actually COOLED as well. The physics and geography you invoke does not explain this. AGW theory states quite unequivocally that both poles should warm faster than the rest of the planet. They haven’t. You rightly state that the Arctic Ice sheets’ dynamics are very complex. Ocean currents play a far greater role than is generally made known in the popular media. The low point of Arctic Sea Ice is not due exclusively to the fact that the planet has warmed - as I suspect you are well aware. There is also the question of whether the Arctic Ice situation was similar to this in the 30s. But we don’t have the data. 
“The science is not settled”. Yes, we can all quote selectively from history on this one. I might pick Galileo, Copernicus or even Einstein. When told that there were hundreds of scientists trying to prove him (Einstein) wrong he said “It only takes one!” Science is not a democracy. I do not believe our knowledge of the climate system is anywhere near good enough to predict what will happen in a decade’s time let alone fifty years or more. I am not encouraged by the obvious and sometimes blatant way in which politics and ideology have distorted the “science” either. I earlier referred to the UK Met Office’s speculative announcements on 2007 as an example. But more serious is the lack of robustness in a lot of the work, the fact that a handful of climatologists run a closed shop, peer reviewing each other’s work, lead authors of IPCC chapters giving extraordinary prominence to their own work and suppressing alternative viewpoints, errors in data left uncorrected, the appalling lack of adequate disclosure of methods, code and restricted access to data leaving others unable to verify the work done. I could go on. Check out Steve McIntyre’s website www.climateaudit.org. if you care to examine it further. Your area is biomedicine. Try comparing the standards of climate science to those in your field. You’re in for a shock. No wonder the paleoclimatology folks at Real Climate persistently refuse to recognise that the site even exists. 
I note your use of the term “deniers”. I do not “deny” the planet has warmed, AB. But the case for humans as the cause of the warming is completely circumstantial and would be thrown out in a court of law. As to the future I see no problem in first getting the diagnosis right before advocating the correct cure. I would not dream of lecturing you on medico-pharmacological disasters of the past. We do however, have the diagnosis of a number of other conditions and predicaments (eg. poverty, AIDS, lack of clean water) so I’d rather we use our limited resources on tackling them instead of going on what I see as a wild goose chase. Regards.
tom 
02 January 2008 at 15:06
Any scientist can manipulate data or rubbish the methodology of opponents to make "the science" suit their agenda. Rather than stall on petty arguments about the detail can we concentrate on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels? Oil and coal resources are finite are they not? And now we are irresistibly reduced to horrible violence to wrest control of what's left. Is this not as good a reason as any to seek alternatives and progress? AGW OR NOT, WHERE EXACTLY IS THE HARM IN TRYING TO SWITCH TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE?
Cybertiger 
02 January 2008 at 15:28
"WHERE EXACTLY IS THE HARM IN TRYING TO SWITCH TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE?" 
Nicely put, Tom. 
A sustainable future is 3 billion rather than 6 billion people. Sustainability will also be achieved by switching off one out of every breeding pair of Amerikans.
Maz 
02 January 2008 at 15:52
"AGW OR NOT, WHERE EXACTLY IS THE HARM IN TRYING TO SWITCH TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE?" 
Without getting into the semantics of exactly what is meant by that term, Tom, no harm at all. 
It would be on my global list of things to do but nowhere near the top. Where would you put it? Ah! Then the argument isn't petty anymore is it?
Brute 
02 January 2008 at 17:14
Tom, 
You mean this isn't about Global Warming? That was all a ruse? Has the real point all along been to find cheap, abundant sources of energy? 
So we really don't have to kill every other American as Cybertiger advocates or tax prosperous countries to redistribute wealth to countries that choose not to compete? 
Whew, thank God. I thought that the planet was doomed and sea levels were going to rise 20 feet. 
We'll, you and Al Gore really fooled us! Really funny joke.
Robin Guenier 
02 January 2008 at 17:51
Maz and AuroraBorealis (especially AB). Thanks to you both for commenting on my post. FYI, I got involved in this thread only because I wished to dispel the myth that Y2K (the Millennium Bug) is a prime example of a scam promulgated by self-serving “experts”. It isn’t – see above. That (and computer disasters generally) is a subject I know something about. Climate change isn’t and I saw this as an opportunity to learn something about what I had already appreciated was a most important issue. My posts above are a summary of my understanding to date – also noting a few of the matters I found unclear or unsatisfactory. My conclusions are: (1) That it hardly matters whether or not the AGW hypothesis is accurate: reducing the world’s dependence on fossil fuels is necessary anyway. (2) The way to do that is to stop focusing on carbon reduction at all costs (apart from anything else this, this is bound to be bogged down by fruitless arguments such as those in this thread) and to get the main focus onto developing alternative energy solutions. (3) But it is essential that any such solutions are acceptable (a) to voters in the western developed world (otherwise whatever politicians say, new solutions just won’t be adopted – not least because far too many people are totally bored by talk of global warming), (b) to the eastern developing economies (otherwise they’ll simply ignore them – after possibly giving them some lip service) and (c) to the world’s poorest people. (4) Therefore, such solutions must not undermine economic growth. (5) The only alternatives to fossil fuels available now (so far as I know) are renewable energy and nuclear power. (6) Although renewable energy has a part to play (also “clean burn” fossil fuels may offer part of a short-term solution), it cannot on its own provide an alternative vehicle for economic growth – at least not using current technology. (7) Therefore, the only solution available now (and waiting for new solutions is not an option) is much greater use of nuclear power. (8) The above means wresting the initiative away from the environmental fanatics, calming down the media frenzy and getting the initiative into the hands of practical people. (9) Also I am persuaded that it is important (per Bjorn Lomborg – I have now read his recent comments: thanks, Maz) to use the fruits of economic growth to give far greater priority to tackling the ghastly problems (AIDS, inadequate water supplies, malnutrition, etc.) facing so many of the world’s population. 
That’s where I’ve got to today – I could be persuaded that I am wrong. Comments?
Cybertiger 
02 January 2008 at 18:22
@Brute 
“So we really don't have to kill every other American as Cybertiger advocates or tax prosperous countries to redistribute wealth to countries that choose not to compete? “ 
It is America that is the thoughtless killing machine - who said anything about killing Americans? Actually, my thoughts were of involuntary castration as the Yanks are unlikely to compete with the ‘one child’ of the Chinese family.
Maz 
02 January 2008 at 18:53
Again Robin, I find little to disagree with there. Just a couple of points. 
Clean burn fossil fuel still needs fossil fuel. So it's not really a solution when we run out. 
Nuclear fuel is also not limitless but I agree that it is a viable option. Fusion? Still a good distance away. We might have enough of the first two to last till then. Don't have the info on that one though. Regards.
tom 
02 January 2008 at 19:39
Has anyone seen the TREC proposal and the studies in support by the German Areospace Center to provide solar power to the whole of Europe? Coupled with the recent third wave of solar technology, is this not worth our attention? I personally find this more palatable than the nuclear power option.
Brute 
02 January 2008 at 19:40
Hydrogen?
Patrick Hadley 
02 January 2008 at 20:37
Robin is not only wrong about the millennium bug. Whether or not AGW is real and dangerous is extremely important. If the threat is as real as the IPCC says then we must all alter our lives radically. On the other hand if the threat is vastly exaggerated, then it would be very foolish indeed to act as if it were real. 
For example the world has very plentiful known cheap supplies of coal. If CO2 is the major problem facing the planet then we should leave the coal in the ground and cover the countryside with wind farms and build lots of nuclear power stations. 
But if an increase in CO2 will not have serious harmful effects then it makes perfect sense to build many more "clean" coal power stations. These greatly help the people of the poorest countries in the world to share in some of the benefits of technology which we enjoy. 
Following the "precautionary principle" might mean some inconvenience to us in the rich world as we change our light bulbs and offset our carbon. For the poorest people it would mean that their chance to share in the benefits of technology are greatly reduced.
Cybertiger 
02 January 2008 at 21:07
"Hydrogen?" 
Hydrogen needs energy to produce. Where's that going to come from Brute? Outa Dubya's arse?
AuroraBorealis 
02 January 2008 at 21:14
Robin (and Maz) 
Being pressed on time today, I will not go into lengthy discussions, just point to some critical aspects and that is timing and positive feedback (cascading) mechanisms. We don't know at what point of temperature increase that forests will turn form carbon sinks to sources. We don't know at what point ocean CO2 uptake becomes saturated. We don't know when methane emissions from thawing tundra will start dominating the greenhouse effect. 
But this lack of knowledge is no more difficult to handle than not knowing if there will be a traffic situation on my way to work. I just stick to speed limits, stop at the red lights, drive a 5 star car and keep my seat belt on. In the case something occurs, I will be able to manage the situation. 
Therefore, we need to stick to the precautionary principle and not err on the bad side. Thus, starting with carbon reduction mechanism in time might be critical, as was pointed out in the last IPCC report. And although I would reluctantly accept nuclear energy as a intermediate solution, the problem is that it will take decades to get a significant number of plants up and running. 
There is however already technical solutions to most of our needs and they have been described in detail eg in "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problemfor the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies" a paper found in: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/305/5686/968.pdf 
The main thing is that it will be cheaper in the long run to take action now and this action will depend on bright people, smart companies and trustworthy leaders. And there are more examples than you might think of companies that are going radically green. 
To me, it would be great if we could stop spending time on lengthy discussion about if there is an AGW problem and start coming up with solutions! Sustainable entrepreneurship is something I have started introducing in our curricula at my university.
AuroraBorealis 
02 January 2008 at 21:23
Just an addition from this weeks issue of nature that corroborates my previous post: 
An analysis of variations in atmospheric CO2 and ecosystem CO2 fluxes in the Northern Hemisphere shows that warmer autumns have been associated with an earlier autumn-to-winter CO2 build-up in the atmosphere. This seems counter-intuitive: warm autumns surely imply long growing seasons and a beneficial effect on terrestrial carbon sinks as trees and plants make more biomass. An explanation is provided by satellite observations and numerical modelling. Enhanced respiration caused by higher temperatures causes carbon losses that offset photosynthetic gains, limiting the potential of these ecosystems to act as carbon sinks. And CO2 loss due to autumn warming may offset most of the increased CO2 uptake during spring. If future warming occurs more rapidly in autumn than in spring, the ability of northern ecosystems to sequester carbon may diminish more rapidly than previously predicted.
Robin Guenier 
02 January 2008 at 22:17
Patrick: re AGW I accept that, on the face of it, you to have a point. But you postulate a rational world where we can establish unambiguously whether the IPCC is right or not. Thus, if it is, we alter our lives radically, covering the land with wind farms and (if the greens allow it) building lots of nuclear power stations. And if it is not and CO2 emissions are not a problem, we build lots of “clean” coal power stations and thereby help the world’s poor and ourselves. All very simple. 
The problem is that, although highly desirable, your clear position would never be established – viz. the entrenched positions being adopted by contributors to this thread. I wish it were otherwise but that’s how people are: the “truth” will not be agreed and the debate (my expert v. your expert) will rage on and on, getting increasingly heated. And nothing will get done. 
So I propose another approach – imperfect perhaps but providing at least a possibility of reconciliation. First, we sideline the green fanatics (admittedly not easy but, in global terms, they are a tiny minority). Then we seek agreement that, although the truth cannot be finally settled, the world accepts that the IPCC might be right (your “precautionary principle”) and that, in any case, the continued use of fossil fuels is unwise. But we also ask world leaders to accept that the probable social/political damage caused by halting or reversing economic growth is unacceptable and dangerous. Then we move to the practicalities that would reconcile these positions. I suggest (I’m no expert): (1) a mix of practical renewables, “clean burn” fossil fuels (probably your coal) and nuclear power, (2) continued research into other energy sources, (3) continued development of lower energy transportation etc., and (4) a programme to ameliorate any climate induced problems (flooding etc.) that might still emerge. We should IMHO get on with all this now. But if, say, within the next ten years it became clear that the IPCC is wrong (perhaps temperature does level off or even fall), we have a radical rethink. Little harm would have been done. 
As to the dear old bug, I’m not wrong. If you wish to pursue this without wasting everyone else’s time, suggest how I might contact you.
bean3422 
02 January 2008 at 22:29
This has been fun reading...I should add to my commentary on the general arrogance of the human race that in some cases the arrogance level increases to make up for the low level of the IQ. Attempting to overcompensate for the inability to formulate a proper argument, and resorting to vile stereotypes of entire nations and people. 
Fortunately the statesman does not have any grammar or spelling checkers on this forum so the IQ of certain posters is painfully obvious. 
There have been many long and very good arguments here, many well written and logical. 
I do not have the time nor inclination to continue those long arguments, so I will try and succinctly make a final statement. 
I cannot say for certain whether "man-made global warming" or "climate change" or whatever is occurring in any form. 
The only thing I am certain of is that no one has enough data to be absolutely certain of anything. There are layers upon layers here. We have no precedence here. Technology has changed so rapidly that we have nothing with which to compare our findings. It is so easy to jump out of the realm of scientific and into the realm of hearsay or speculation. 
So to those who would regulate the world under some world-wide eco-government, I cry tyranny. 
Let's educate, let's research, let's continue down the path of learning. But we are a long way from a consensus (if we can ever reach it), and frankly, time will most likely tell the truth long before we all agree on the answer. 
And cybertiger, I will be getting into my little hatchback in a few minutes. Though I am in favor of the freedom to purchase what you want, the moral decadence of purchasing an SUV over a hatchback or wagon because of simple vanity disgusts me. But this is not an environmental issue, it is a moral one. 
Anything involving morality is intensely complicated. It is a floating target. And it is not something that I have the right to judge. Everyone answers to themselves for their own decisions. 
It is when people or governments start forcing their own morality and individual decisions down onto those who disagree that we start having big problems. I would wager that Hitler could argue that his tyranny was justifiable to fix some "moral" issues.
Brute 
03 January 2008 at 00:36
"Hydrogen needs energy to produce. Where's that going to come from Brute? Outa Dubya's arse?" 
No, that would be Methane. I suggest you return to grammar school chemistry class. Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. 
U.S. Department of Energy current project focuses on harnessing photoactive material from the sun to generate hydrogen. Hydrogen is one of the cleanest forms of energy, and studies have shown that it is 33 percent more efficient than liquid fuels. In Northern Nevada the average energy from the sun is around one kilowatt per square meter area. In Reno it is much higher than that. Because it is so bright and sunny here in Reno, we have in many ways the perfect location for photo-hydrogen generation." 
US Research teams have created a new hydrogen material that has more than a billion nanotubes, which gives it excellent potential to produce hydrogen from another abundant resource -- water. DOE’s small-scale hydrogen generation system, located in the Laxalt Mineral Research Building, produces the material through an electrochemical process from applied ultrasonic waves. 
"We are currently using simulated solar light in the lab," Misra said, "and we are finding our system to be a good and robust way to facilitate the movement of electrons by the incident light to produce hydrogen from water." By the end of the decade, Misra estimates that the system could grow to a more industrial size scale, which would allow power companies to produce hydrogen that could be used to power automobiles or power your home. The new power source is extremely cost-effective.
Brute 
03 January 2008 at 00:46
Stirling Engines are also showing promise, (solar powered). I have one providing partial energy to my home. 
The last leg of a two-decades-long effort by the U.S. Energy Deaprtment to unleash superefficient solar power by 2011 is homing in on the so-called Stirling engine, which is being used to drive solar generators. DOE test site measurements suggest the setup could bring the cost of solar power on a par with traditional fossil fuels and hydroelectric sources — assuming the project engineers can balance the separate power feeds from farms of thousands of simultaneously online 25-kilowatt Stirling solar dishes. 
The heart of the design, the engine itself, was invented by the Scottish minister Robert Stirling in 1816. 
"The Stirling engine makes solar power so much more efficiently than photovoltaic solar cells can," said Robert Liden, chief administrative officer at Stirling Energy Systems Inc. (Phoenix). "That's because the Stirling solar dish directly converts solar heat into mechanical energy, which turns an ac electrical generator." The bottom line, he said, "is that large farms of Stirling solar dishes — say, 20,000-dish farms — could deliver cheap solar electricity that rivals what we pay for electricity today."
jimbob37 
03 January 2008 at 09:21
There are some very interesting videos on this topic at http://www.theglobalwarmingdebate.net - especially good is the Prof Carter's lecture which is well worth watching.
neilrieck 
03 January 2008 at 11:38
Climate is a very complicated topic to discuss in a blog so let me mention just one of many possible explanations for the David Whitehouse’s observation: One calorie is the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 °C. Many people in this blog have forgotten that 79.7 calories are required to convert 1 gram of ice to 1 gram of water (a.k.a. “enthalpy change of fusion”). So while the Earth is currently holding onto more heat (which is covered 4/5 by oceans), hurricanes are stimulated to move excess ocean heat from the equator toward the poles which results in the melting of polar ice. Once all the ice is melted I expect ocean temperatures will jump since there will then be a one-to-one relationship between heat and temperature vs. the current 80:1 ratio.
A1 
03 January 2008 at 12:10
Try checking out orbital variations that take place of 1000's of years, variations in axial precession, & axial tilt. The Earth is tilting upwards by 2.4 degrees & we're around half-way there, where the northern hemisphere will get more sunshine & the southern hemisphere slightly less. This tilt effect will take another 10,000 years or so to complete before we start back down again over another 21,000 years or so. These cycles are known as Milankovitch Cycles & were first put forward in the 1920's & 30's. Take also into account variations in solar output, regularly reduced by the IPCC for its own ends so that Hocky Stick graphs work. The Medevil Warm Period & the Little Ice Age both occurred & scientifc studies clearly show these were world events & not as the IPCC claim, merely isolated local northern hemisphere events. They also correlate with known solar output variations! The science is clear to those who want to see instead of burying their heads in flawed science & green lobbying. 
The IPCC grudgingly acknowledge these cycles of obrital variation but bury them in an obscure short sentence in a small paragraph in the middle of the 4th Assessment Report 2007, perhaps hoping that nobody will actually read the report. 
The world should consider adaption, rather than flawed science & panic scaremongering!
Nelson 
03 January 2008 at 13:45
http://www.theglobalwarmingdebate.net - ah, so debate is a one-sided argument, I see. I'll pass on Bob Carter's presentation, thanks: it's rubbish.
Nelson 
03 January 2008 at 13:52
A1, of course climatologists are aware of natural climate cycles and solar variation. It's not 'hidden' in the IPCC report, it simply isn't that relevant to current warming. 
The mechanisms behind current and historical warmings are not necessarily the same. 
You run into a problem if you want to invoke them to explain current warming. There's no natural orbital variation that can account for it (they operate on timescales of millennia, and are orders of magnitude slower). So what about the sun? Well, there's no significant change in solar output. On the other hand, we're emitting gigatons of greenhouse gases each year. 
Kind of awkward to argue away, I think.
jimbob37 
03 January 2008 at 15:03
Why rubbish Nelson? Please elaborate and tell me what is wrong with the presentation - genuinely would like to hear a critique as no-one else seems to be offering one...
Maz 
03 January 2008 at 15:05
"Well, there's no significant change in solar output." 
Where did you get that idea from? The IPCC? 
Solar activity has been anything but constant. We have geomagnetic data (Aa index) going back to the 1800s. Have a look at the Aa index data here http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/3/1/4 and see if you can repeat that assertion with a straight face! 
I think you already know that correlation does not mean causation so I'll ignore your penultimate sentence.
Maz 
03 January 2008 at 15:24
http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html 
You might prefer this letter published in Nature for your source. It's a bit technical and I cannot claim to fully understanding the math. But the data picture is pretty clear. A doubling of the Sun's coronal magnetic field during the last 100yrs (June 1999) 
Before you rubbish the author. Lockwood is the same guy who rushed a paper out earlier this year to counter the program "The Great Global Warming Swindle" 's claim of a solar connection with global warming. Interestingly, if I remember corrrectly, he left out the Aa index from his latest contribution. I don't think he said why.
Nelson 
03 January 2008 at 16:29
The question is, how might the coronal magnetic field influence climate? You can find a lot of variables that correlate with global temperatures. But it doesn't mean causation: you'd need to propose a mechanism. Direct measurements of solar radiance and cosmic rays show no increasing/decreasing trends that could account for warming, so it'd have to be something strange indeed. That, and the vertical profile of temperature change (decreasing with altitude) supports a strengthening greenhouse effect rather than increasing insolation. 
I'm sure it does have an effect - just that it isn't strong enough to explain all the warming [and you still have to explain away GHG emissions. Why aren't they contributing to warming?]
Nelson 
03 January 2008 at 16:41
Correlations (or rather, attempts to find...) are handled nicely here. It's a very interesting read, but apoologies for the long URL - the apostrophe gets mangled by TinyURL. 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/les-ch...’ordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-ii-courtillots-geomagnetic-excursion/
Brute 
03 January 2008 at 16:44
Nelson, 
So, the Sun has been warming the Earth at varying degrees through time eternal but in this instance the Sun, (THE ENORMOUS NUCLEAR FURNACE AT THE MIDDLE OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM) has nothing, or very little as you say, to do with it? It's different this time? 
Could it be that the theory of green house gases causing warming is flawed?
AuroraBorealis 
03 January 2008 at 16:56
Brute, 
This is from the Royal Society's web site about climate myths: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233 
What does the science say about solar activity? 
Change in solar activity is one of the many factors that influence the climate but cannot, on its own, account for all the changes in global average temperature we have seen in the 20th Century. 
Changes in the Sun's activity influence the Earth's climate through small but significant variations in its intensity. When it is in a more active' phase as indicated by a greater number of sunspots on its surface it emits more light and heat. While there is evidence of a link between solar activity and some of the warming in the early 20th Century, measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years there is even evidence of a detectable decline and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures. 
The magnitude and pattern of changes to temperatures can only be understood by taking all of the relevant factors both natural and human into account. For example, major volcanic eruptions produce a cooling effect because they blast ash and other particles into the atmosphere where they persist for a few years and reduce the amount of the Sun's energy that reaches the Earth's surface. Also, burning fossil fuels produces particles called sulphate aerosols which tend to cool the climate in the same way. 
Over the first part of the 20th Century higher levels of solar activity combined with increases in human generated carbon dioxide to raise temperatures. Between 1940 and 1970 the carbon dioxide effect was probably offset by increasing amounts of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, and a slight downturn in solar activity, as well as enhanced volcanic activity. 
During this period global temperatures dropped. However, in the latter part of the 20th Century temperatures rose well above the levels of the 1940s. Strong measures taken to reduce sulphate pollution in some regions of the world meant that industrial aerosols began to provide less compensation for an increasing warming caused by carbon dioxide. The rising temperature during this period has been partly abated by occasional volcanic eruptions.
AuroraBorealis 
03 January 2008 at 17:02
One should also remember Occam's razor. This is (cited from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor ) a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". 
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. 
Thus, if there is a mechanistic understanding of global warming (greenhouse gases) that fits in with observations (increased CO2) other explanation (cosmic rays, unknown solar mechanisms) must be validated by both data and theory in order to replace the current understanding of the science. Possible does not equal plausible.
Patrick Hadley 
03 January 2008 at 17:03
Robin, I will stop bothering you about Y2K. I do go along with your last post on the correct approach to AGW. 
Incidentally the Met Office Hadley Centre has today published its prediction for 2008 global temperature. They expect it to be the coolest year since 2000, and if they are right (they were very wrong about 2007) this will confirm a cooling trend on both a five year and ten year moving average. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr200...
Nelson 
03 January 2008 at 17:06
jimbob37, if you want a healthy, scientifically balanced overview of global warming, you can do far better than Bob Carter. 
Firstly, he's marine geologist, and definitely not an actively publishing climatologist. But that matters not: his arguments should rest on their own merits. 
That's where we run into problems. 
He's claimed that CO2 contributes to about 3% of the greenhouse effect (he can't do maths, it's 9-26%), that global warming stopped in 1998 (he can't do maths)... 
You can google Carter to find out more of his lamentable and easily refutable claims. Here's some to whet your appetite: 
http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/ 
I didn't watch all of the presentation, but I skipped to one bit where he covered the surfacestations.org project. Ostensibly, this was started to survey US temperature stations and ensure that none were inappropriately sited. Unkind observers suggested that it was merely to seed doubt on the quality of the temperature record, i.e. to claim that we're not warming at all. Anyway, they claimed that the record was contaminated. The whole fuss seems to have died down though. Might it be because you still see warming (in fact, stronger warming) if you analyse data from the best-sited stations...? Surely not! 
Anyway, I digress :)
Nelson 
03 January 2008 at 17:07
Interesting, Patrick Hadley, that the Met Office link is entitled 'Global temperature 2008: Another top-ten year'.
Nelson 
03 January 2008 at 17:09
Oh, and 'Sharply renewed warming is likely once [2008s] La Niña declines'.
John Ward 
03 January 2008 at 17:35
This has just been posted on the Met Office website. game set and match to Dr Whitehouse I believe... 
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr200... 
Note bullet point 3; 
The forecast value for 2008 mean temperature is considered indistinguishable from any of the years 2001-7, given the uncertainties in the data. 
There you have it. Well done Dr Whitehouse.
AuroraBorealis 
03 January 2008 at 17:35
This is from the Swedish Met Office (SMHI), quick translation by me: 
Annual mean temperature 2007 was 1.5 to 2 °C above normal, making it close to record warm. // Winter started warm or extremely warm, in the north even warmer than the previously extrem warm December of 2006. 
Anyone remember the models predicting that polar regions will have larger warmer than rest of world?
Brute 
03 January 2008 at 17:48
AuroraBorealis, 
And there are dozens of reports that state that the Sun does influence temperature and can account for the warming. 
Mr. Hadley, 
With all due respect, (I think that you and I are on the same side in this, I've sort of lost track), but I don't trust that Meteorologists/Climatologists will get that prediction, (or any other), right either. If they are right, it will probably be due to dumb luck. 
I think the only "consensus" we can all agree to is that we should explore cheaper, abundant, clean energy sources for mankind. No, I do not like being held hostage by terrorist run, oil rich nations or eco-minded Socialists, but research and development takes time. We'll get there. It took thousands of years for mankind to utilize the internal combustion engine as opposed to horse drawn carriages and another hundred or so years to create the technology to travel to the moon. We'll figure it out; have a little faith.
Robin Guenier 
03 January 2008 at 17:50
But Nelson, Patrick's Met Office prediction is nonetheless very relevant to this thread. As I understand it, the point is not to challenge the fact that we are experiencing a warm period (plainly we are) but to point out that there appears to be some evidence (early days yet) that the recent trend of rising temperatures may be levelling out. Were that to be confirmed, it would be encouraging news - except for those who appear to be hoping for a human comeuppance.
Nelson 
03 January 2008 at 18:10
I just dispute the claim that it's levelling out. It doesn't matter what the data are, a small signal with substantial noise means they have to be handled carefully - it's easy to ascribe to the signal what is really noise. 
John Ward, it might be useful to quote that in context. 2008 is predicted to be one of the 10 warmest years on record - despite the strongest La Nina since 1999-2000. And 'sharply renewed warming is likely in 2009'. Oh, and the following quote which you've conveniently ignored: 'What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000'. That doesn't exactly support the claim that 'global warming has stopped', does it? 
I think Whitehouse just served into the net.
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
03 January 2008 at 18:24
I have found this discussion both educational and encouraging. The New Statesman has probably never had such a large crowd visiting. It would be interesting to know how many have read the article by David Whitehouse and our discussion. 
Previously, I submitted my graph of Global Monthly Mean Temperatures during last 120 months (10 years). That graph clearly shows that the temperature is staying on a stable level. The big question is, where is this trend leading ? 
Some help with forecasting temperature during the next few years, may be obtained by taking a bit longer period than I did use to show that we are located on a "temperature hill". In order to reveal current short-term trend, I have refreshed one of my graphs for 180 weeks (15 years). Also, for the benefit of those who have English as their mother tongue, I have placed some English explanations on the graph. 
This new graph can be found here: http://altice.blog.is/blog/altice/entry/398432/ 
In this case, a polynomial is best fitted to the data. It has the formula: 
Y = -0,0000170X2 + 0,00580X + 0,171 
The curve has also been extrapolated to cover the next 180 months. If the world mean temperature follows this curve, we will have the same temperature in about 15 years as we had 15 years ago. However, we better understand that the polynomial is fitted to the temperature trend -a physical reality- and not the other way around. There is no known reason why the temperature should follow any mathematical trend. 
The polynomial has its maximum at month 171, which corresponds to January 2007. Thus we are already one year into a cooling period ! Again this is mathematically speaking. Actually, I would not be surprised if coming years reveal that the maximum occurred as far back as three years ago. The drop in temperature will obviously tell, if it drops at all. 
I am hoping that this graph will explain better than words how precarious it is to draw a straight line through the data of most resent years. Besides measurement errors, the slope of the line will much depend on where on the curve we are situated. Because of this fact, I decided not to show any regression line on my previous graph.
Brute 
03 January 2008 at 18:28
"It doesn't matter what the data are" 
Well said. I would think that Environmentalists would be happy at any glimmer of good news; (unless there is an ulterior motive).
JZ Smith 
03 January 2008 at 18:28
AuroraBorealis: 
"To me, it would be great if we could stop spending time on lengthy discussion about if there is an AGW problem and start coming up with solutions!" 
How can we come up with solutions if we don't know the source of the "warming"? Read some of the early posts in this thread about replanting vast areas to support ethanol crops... just one of the potential problems with trying to "fix" something that may not be broken.
Robin Guenier 
03 January 2008 at 18:53
JZSmith: perhaps you didn’t see my proposal yesterday. 
Having I commented that there is unlikely to be a solution based on agreed “truth” and that the likelihood is that the debate (my expert v. your expert) will rage on and on, getting increasingly heated with nothing being done, I proposed another approach that might provide a possibility of reconciliation (a pity the NS doesn’t number these comments): “First, we sideline the green fanatics (admittedly not easy but, in global terms, they are a tiny minority). Then we seek agreement that, although the truth cannot be finally settled, the world accepts that the IPCC might be right and that, in any case, the continued use of fossil fuels is unwise. But we also ask world leaders to accept that the probable social/political damage caused by halting or reversing economic growth is unacceptable and dangerous. Then we move to the practicalities that would reconcile these positions. I suggest: (1) a mix of practical renewables, “clean burn” fossil fuels and nuclear power, (2) continued research into other energy sources, (3) continued development of lower energy transportation etc., and (4) a programme to ameliorate any climate induced problems (flooding etc.) that might still emerge. We should IMHO get on with all this now. But if, say, within the next ten years it became clear that the IPCC is wrong (perhaps temperature does level off or even fall), we have a radical rethink. Little harm would have been done.” 
Isn't that a solution that doesn't require that we know the source of "warming" or attempts to fix something that may not be broken?
Patrick Hadley 
03 January 2008 at 18:59
Nelson, surely as a New Statesman reader you should recognise "spin" when you see it. Global warming implies an increase in temperatures. That certainly did happen between 1975 and 1998. As a result of the that warming in the past the planet is still warm. But over the last nine years it has not got any warmer - for the time being at least warming has stopped. Will it start up again soon? I have not got the faintest idea, and frankly neither has anyone else - there are far too many unknown factors. Why do the Met Office "spin" the results - could it be that they make money out of the global warming scare? 
Loftur - the link to your chart appears to be broken. I wonder if you could check it please?
bobclive 
03 January 2008 at 19:08
2007 The year of global cooling 
South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency. 
Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In north-eastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered. 
Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate. 
In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina’s peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina’s apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver’s temperature records extend back to 1872. 
Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio. 
Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.
JZ Smith 
03 January 2008 at 19:19
Robin Guenier: Yes, I did miss your earlier post, but it is a good one with an excellent suggestion that I could support. No one wants to foolishly pollute the Earth, and I strongly support efforts at curbing emissions, recycling, sustainable resources, etc., etc., but I fear that the radical green eviros want to arrest further economic development and put in place Big Government solutions and taxes that will only serve the goals of those same radicals anti-capitalist objectives, the affect (net negative or positive) on the economy and environment notwithstanding. 
How do you propose to implement your proposal?
bobclive 
03 January 2008 at 19:31
Crusade against sloppy mathematics 
A London-based Canadian mathematician, Douglas Keenan, has made it his mission to lead the battle against the sloppy or malicious use of mathematics. You might think there isn't much scope for different opinions in mathematics, but when you're dealing with the interpretation of data, it's entirely possible for divergences of views to arise. The wrong interpretation can be made at times, and even consciously made. In particular, in the field of climate studies, opposing points of view are often backed up by scientific research that is based on the mathematical analysis of data. Because mathematics gives such pieces of work a stamp of credibility, politicians often rely on them. It is therefore all the more important for them to be carried out with care. 
After studying mathematics at the University of Waterloo, Keenan worked on Wall Street for a few years, but in 1995 devoted himself completely to the forensic study of mathematics. Since then he has been leading—completely independently—a real crusade against shady mathematical machinations. The targets for his often vigorously worded attacks are numerous, and range from the misuse of statistical methods in determining the origin of volcanic ashes to the questionable use of tree-rings in evaluating the date of a shipwreck. 
Three years ago, the scientific journal Nature published a study that used the ripening process of Pinot Noir grapes as an indicator for the warmth of the climate. The official start of the harvest in August is determined by the ripeness of the grapes, which in turn is determined by the temperature of the summer that has just ended. Since the dates for the beginning of the harvest in Burgundy have been recorded in city archives since 1370, they could conceivably be used as indicators for the way temperatures have developed over the past six centuries. A French research team came up with a model based on this data. The model showed that the summer of 2003 was the hottest in 600 years. The conclusion was clear: Burgundy is warming up. 
The work aroused Keenan's suspicion, and he wanted to test its mathematical foundations. In order to do this however, he needed the raw data—but the authors were not prepared to hand it out. It was only after two requests to Nature that they finally handed their documents over. Keenan immediately made a find. The authors had smoothed the data for their study, confused standard errors with standard deviations, used incorrect parameters, and confused daily temperatures with average temperatures. Once all these sources of error are taken into account, the year 2003 does indeed display high temperatures, but not unexpectedly high ones. It's no surprise that the Nature editors hadn't noticed anything, since the data was never put at their disposal, and they never asked for it either. Had they done so, they would easily have seen through the authors' game. The mere fact that the grape harvest model gave a temperature for 2003 that was 2.4 degrees Celsius above the temperature actually measured by Météo France should have made the editors suspicious. 
Keenan's most recent targets are two pieces of work that examine the influence of urbanization on climate change between 1954 and 1983. In order to be able to compare measurements made over different periods, it is absolutely crucial that the location of the station where the measurements are carried out not change throughout the observation period. For example, because a city generates warmth, a measuring station that is moved from the center of the city to its periphery would record lower measurements. On the other hand, the measurements would be more likely to rise if a measuring station was moved from a position upwind from the city to a position downwind. Even small changes of location, like for example from a field to the asphalt road next to it, lead to deviations. Keenan was above all doubtful about the measurements made in China. He didn't believe that during Mao's Cultural Revolution, when scientists were thought very little of, a scientific study would have been carried out with much care. 
When he asked which stations had been used to make the measurements, Keenan once again found himself running into a brick wall. “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”, asked one of the authors. But the professor had not reckoned with Keenan's obstinacy. Since the professor was working at a university in England, he was subject to the Freedom of Information Act, which obliges employees of public institutions to release data. He was thus forced to hand over the list of the Chinese measuring stations to Keenan. And lo and behold: out of 35 measuring stations, 25 had been subjected to a change of location, sometimes even several changes, which often covered dozens of kilometers. For a further 49 measuring stations, documentation did not even exist. 
Global temperature increase is man made, also see 
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&eurl=http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31660
bobclive 
03 January 2008 at 20:13
More on sloppy mathematics 
As stated Douglas J. Keenan, checked the documentation used by the IPCC's chief climatologist, Dr. P. D. Jones in the IPCC's latest report. This report states there is little or no difference in temperature between rural and urban sites, the statement is based on the Jones paper. 
Jones of the infamous University of East Anglia UK, in conjunction with several other scientists published a paper purporting to use long-term data from 84 weather stations in China. The authors claimed these stations were chosen on the basis that they had not been changed or relocated since 1954 so that their data stream would provide a reliable record of temperatures over a 30+-year period. 
The United States Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences issued a joint report, which stated that 49 of the 84 weather stations had no history as to location, or instrumentation changes available. The remaining 35 stations, Keenan discovered, had indeed had changes in instrumentation and movement, in one case, movement as much as 41 kms. 
The results of this paper enable the IPCC to show a 0.6 degree warming where the actual warming may be as low as 0.3 or even zero if the true urban heat island effect is taken into account.
Maz 
03 January 2008 at 20:35
Bobclive, 
So the professor you quote as saying "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" is the same Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia (Hadley) who has just qualified the METO forecast for 2008 with the words 
"The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away."? 
And would his co-author be another professor currently being investigated by his own university (at Albany, State University of New York) for suspected research misconduct related to claims later repeated in Jones et al 1990, a crucial paper quoted in IPCC 2007 on urban heat islands?
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
03 January 2008 at 22:00
Patrick Hadley. The link to my graph is now working. 
http://altice.blog.is/blog/altice/entry/398432/ 
Regards
bobclive 
03 January 2008 at 23:07
BBC News at Ten tonight.3.1.07 
2007 'second warmest year' in UK 
UK, according to figures released by the Met Office (and manipulated by the BBC) 
The average mean temperature across the UK was 9.6C - slightly cooler than in 2006, but continuing the 
RECENT TREND towards warmer temperatures. 
1998: 0.52C (above the 1961-1990 average) 
2005: 0.48C 
2003: 0.46C 
2002: 0.46C 
2004: 0.43C 
2006: 0.42C 
2007 (provisional): 0.41C 
2001: 0.40C 
1997: 0.36C 
1995: 0.28C 
What a load of propaganda the BBC continually spew out, they should have said, 
2007 was cooler than 2006 which was cooler than 2004 which was cooler than 2002 which was the same as 2003 which was cooler than 2005 which was cooler than 1998 and 2001was also cooler than 1998, there is no mention of 1999 or 2000, I assume they must have been cooler, 
I can only see a downward trend.
williams 
03 January 2008 at 23:08
That Met Office press release refereed to a few posts ago is a disgrace - it's full of spin and one sided. Read it carefully and with an open mind and it supports David Whitehouse's contention 100%. 
Whitehouse should be congratulated by pointing out something that we had taken for granted and for changing the nature of the debate. 
Why isn't this leading BBC News or Sky? 
Nelson you are talking rubbish.
bobclive 
03 January 2008 at 23:19
Sorry I got the years a bit mixed up but makes no difference. 
BBC Dec 2001. 
David Parker, of the Hadley Centre, said this year's CET was expected to be between 0.5 degrees C and 0.6 degrees C above the 1961-1990 average, but more than half a degree short of the warmest years, 1949, 1990 and 1999. 
There had been between 30 and 40 years warmer than 2001 in the 343-year history of the CET.
Nelson 
04 January 2008 at 01:41
Patrick Headley, 'for the time being at least warming has stopped.' 
We're having a battle of semantics :) To a climatologist, the data simply don't let you conclude this. The very nature of the data (small signal, large noise) means that an underlying warming trend will occasionally be obscured. While this means warming has stopped to you, I'd argue it's just being obscured with noise dominating the underlying warming trend. 
This is entirely expected - we shouldn't be surprised and leap on every cool year as a saviour: 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/ 
Remember also that noise operates in both directions. What happens if 2009 is another powerful El Nino year? (2008 will be cooler than expected due to a strong La Nina, so I fully anticipate having this same argument next January :)
Nelson 
04 January 2008 at 01:47
Lotfur, your fitting of the temperature data (15 years is till too short) with that polynomial... How do you justify that bizarre extrapolation?
Nelson 
04 January 2008 at 01:53
Brute, 'Could it be that the theory of green house gases causing warming is flawed?' 
Changes in solar insolation simply aren't great enough to account for recent warming - there's no arguing around it. There's also no arguing around the increase in greenhouse gas forcing due to anthropogenic emissions. You _must_ take it into consideration :) 
If you want to learn more, http://www.realclimate.org is invaluable. It's not easy to navigate, but persevere and you'll be rewarded.
Nelson 
04 January 2008 at 01:55
'"It doesn't matter what the data are" ' I'm a scientist, and it most definitely does matter what the data are!
Nelson 
04 January 2008 at 01:59
Bobclive, your downward trend in the temperature data. 
The UK is a tiny fraction of the globe - we're interested in global, not regional data.
jimbob37 
04 January 2008 at 02:12
Nelson - "I am a scientist" - yet you initially told me the Bob Carter presentation was rubbish and then by your own words stated that you hadn't actually watched it all. 
Not what I would call particularly scientific!
stargazer 
04 January 2008 at 11:22
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
Nelson 
04 January 2008 at 12:10
'Not what I would call particularly scientific!' Bah, you're right. I'm scared it'll be a litany of his usual cherry-picking and distortions, in which case refuting it is beyong this text window. Understanding global warming requires nuance - just look at the arguments we've had over the statistical treatment of global temperature data! 
So: rehash of tired, discredited arguments or a balanced, scientifically rigorous and cogent argument? I'll watch it all this weekend.
bobclive 
04 January 2008 at 12:10
Nelson 
WMO’s global temperature analyses are based on two different sources. One is the combined dataset maintained by both the Hadley Centre of the UK 
Meteorological Office, and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK, The other dataset is maintained by the US Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which indicated that 2007 is likely to be the fifth warmest on record, WE ALL KNOW WHAT STEVE MCINTYRE DID TO THE U.S DATA SET RECENTLY, THIS IS STILL ONGOING. 
The U.S data set was supposed to be the GOLD standard. 
2007 was one of the 10 warmest years ever, based on global recorded temperatures, according to the Met Office they say last year was certainly a top-10 year, Barry Gromett, a Met Office spokesman, said It was maybe the seventh-warmest year based on preliminary figures, since estimates began around 1850, SO THERE HAVE BEEN 6 WARMER YEARS, Gromett said. 1998 is currently the warmest year to date, when global temperatures were 0.52 degrees above the 14.0-degree-Celsius (57.2 Fahrenheit) average from 1961 through 1990, I wonder who did the global average temperature study, would it be the same P.D.Jones who did the dodgy heat island study. 
It appears these temperatures are GLOBAL, but can you TRUST THEM. A new 2007 study in China shows annual and seasonal urbanization-induced warming for the two periods at Beijing and Wuhan stations is significant, with the annual urban warming accounting for about 65~80% of the overall warming in 1961~2000 and about 40~61% of the overall warming in 1981~2000. This result along with the previous researches indicates a need to pay more attention to the urbanization-induced bias probably existing in the current surface air temperature records of the national basic stations. I think this may blow a hole in the Jones study the IPCC rely on. I wonder if Jones ever leaves his desk. The link to the new study. 
Ref.: Ren, G. Y., Z. Y. Chu, Z. H. Chen, and Y. Y. Ren (2007), Implications of temporal change in urban heat island intensity observed at Beijing and Wuhan stations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L05711, doi:10.1029/2006GL027927 here
Nelson 
04 January 2008 at 12:17
Stargazer, that link is to a press release by the Space and Science Research Center. I'd like to see some published science rather than something from an organisation that, erm, doesn't seem to exist. 
Looks like another hoax to sucker in credulous sceptics (so much for critical analysis :P)
Nelson 
04 January 2008 at 12:19
Bobclive, the Urban Heat Island effect has been discredited. It's carefully accounted for in temperature data. 
It doesn't explain ocean warming; atmospheric warming; polar warming either.
stargazer 
04 January 2008 at 12:35
Stargazer, that link is to a press release by the Space and Science Research Center. I'd like to see some published science rather than something from an organisation that, erm, doesn't seem to exist. 
Looks like another hoax to sucker in credulous sceptics (so much for critical analysis :P) 
YEP looks like a Hoax...That will teach me to do a internet search first (at least I accept being wrong when I am)
Matilda1234 
04 January 2008 at 13:56
What I have learned from following posts to this story: 
1. People do not read other posts properly, preferring to give unsought, patronising advice, or information which has already been posted 
2. Most people try to 'prove' their argument by quoting selectively from their expert of choice 
3. The majority of people use the term 'global warming' literally, and seem to expect that there will be a uniform effect from whatever climatic change occurs - making the selective use of information very easy. 
4. The concept of multiple causes for climate change seems to beyond the imagination of the majority of posters. 
5. When all else fails resort to argument ad hominem and/or insults based on ideological grounds 
Generally the commentary here is analagous to people watching a neighbour's house burning down while standing around pondering what the cause might be, rather than calling the fire brigade and acting to prevent it spreading to their own home. It also reminds me that for a long time people argued that slavery could not be abolished because the economic consequences were unacceptable. I believe passionately that we already have the knowledge and technology to adapt to many of the possible human causes of climate change and to adapt to ones that might be part of the dynamic of planetary meteorology, unfortunately we lack the vision and the goodwill to change. 
BobClive mischieveously posts 'information' about colder temperatures in Australia, but only presents part of the picture on this continent - while today the Australian Bureau of Meteorology announced that temperatures in South East Australia are again warmer than average ( although I admit I don't know whether the information about the effect of urban development on monitoring stations has been factored in). See: http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/200801... 
2007 a record warm year in southern Australia 
For many Australians, 2007 was the warmest year on record, although when averaged across the whole of the continent, it was only the sixth warmest year. 
Other features of the Bureau of Meteorology’s 2007 Climate Statement, issued by its National Climate Centre, include near average rainfall but with a dry winter and spring following rain in southern Australia earlier in the year. 
Statistically, the mean temperature for Australia was 0.67°C above average in 2007, making it the sixth warmest year since high quality Australia-wide records commenced in 1910. 
But in the southern half of the continent temperatures were well above normal, with the Murray Darling Basin, South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria all recording their warmest years on record. 
A grim feature of the year has been extremely low water availability across parts of Australia. Despite promising rains during the first half of the year, July to October was particularly dry. It was not until November that rain returned to much of the continent with the emergence of a La Niña event.
bobclive 
04 January 2008 at 15:55
matilda, 
The supposedly warmest year recorded in new Zealand is 1998 same as in UK and same as in US until the US data was changed in 2007 to read 1930 as the warmest. I think that is global. We in the UK supposedly had the worst rainfall and flooding for 50 years in 2007. The BBC as usual blamed the flooding on global warming, actually the flooding was caused by the poor maintenance of the old drains together with a vast amount of building on flood plains.The Brits were not surprised the flooding occured. Most churches and cathedrals were build in the UK in the medieval warm period when the climate was warmer and had more precipitation, All these buildings if near rivers were built on the highest ground and hence did not get flooded in 2007. 
Perhaps they knew something in the distant past. 
If you live in a wet climate you can expect heavy rainfall from time to time, If you live on the driest continent on the planet you can expect a drought from time to time. 
Don`t believe what your leaders tell you, go to an independent site try John Daly, he had no axe to grind. 
You state you are unsure of the accuracy of the ground stations, do some research. 
Marked differences in air temperature are some of the most important contrasts between urban and rural areas. For instance, Chandler (1965) found that, under clear skies and light winds, temperatures in central London during the spring reached a minimum of 11 °C, whereas in the suburbs they dropped to 5 °C. 
Indeed, the term urban heat island is used to describe the dome of warm air that frequently builds up over towns and cities. 
The Jones study used by the IPPC states there is little or no difference in temperature between urban and rural stations therefore the difference shown in London sited above is ignored. If the data is wrong how you you tell to 0.01 that the planet is warming.
gnuneo 
04 January 2008 at 16:22
1. we are affecting our 'natural' environment - does anyone doubt that? 
2. CO2 affects global temperatures (and is affected BY them) - and in conjunction with water vapour, and solar cycles (along with a myriad of other smaller effectants) regulates the planet's temperatures - does anyone doubt that? 
3. the developed economies will GROW with the measures needed to combat GW, there will have to be new investments in production and 'waste-recycling', along with sustainable energy production. 
all this will actually boost economic growth, *but* there also has to be awareness that some politicos and corporate types will use this for corrupt ends - such as the largely misleading "carbon neutralising" forests. This does NOT mean that ALL 'greenising' projects are corrupt however, just we should be aware that some will try to take advantage of them. 
5. there are FAR better methods of energy capture than nuclear, for instance: 
http://www2.theiet.org/oncomms/sector/power/magazine.cfm?iss... 
6. it is certainly possible that some are "scare-mongering", and that there is now a growing body of scientists who oppose this tactic - however any scientist who opposes actual progress on our societies switching to lower impact technology, and all the other measures proposed by the AGW crowd (well, perhaps not *all*! ;) is throwing out the baby with the bath-water. 
in summary, whether or not AGW is 'real', is somewhat irrelevant. What is MORE important is actually implementing the very policies anyway, as they are not only beneficial for our planet in absolutely essential ways, but will also be beneficial for our long-term economies - certainly far more so than the colossal sums being spent upon arms and warfare. 
i do wonder why those who eagerly grab onto any scepticism on AGW because they 'worry' it is just a scam to bilk us of tax-monies, do not seem to even lift a finger to keyboard when those same sums are spent upon mass destruction. 
i will love to see how they explain this strange value system to their grandchildren.
Nelson 
04 January 2008 at 16:36
'until the US data was changed in 2007 to read 1930 as the warmest. I think that is global.' No - that's for the continental US. 1998 is still the warmest year globally. 
The UHI effect is carefully controlled for, Bobclive - its contamination of the temperature record is a lot less than you might hope for (although I trust you're viewing this dispassionately :). It's a dead horse, and anyway cannot contaminate other evidence for global warming: ocean temperatures, arctic melt, glacier retreat, polar migration of species, atmospheric temperatures... 
The assault on the temperature record isn't new: 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man...
tom 
04 January 2008 at 17:14
gnuneo 
1. I already mentioned the TREC proposal and got no comment from the mic controllers. 
2. You cant mention anything that requires VISION or COMPASSION. You'll get shouted down. 
TREC want to completely power Europe via the sun by 2020 - now thats vision. (google it guys. I dont believe in the whole my web-link is better than your web-link thing) 
And Matilda, 
I'm sure i've seen the climate change in Australia after 30 years of residency, 15 spent pouring over BOM synoptic charts. Isnt it sad seeing even drought proof eucalypts give up waiting for rain and rainforests burn that have never burnt before because they are dry enough for the first time ever. Dont let someone on the other side of the world tell you like it is in our country. You hit the nail on the head - VISION is what we need now. Absolutely possible.
Bernie 
04 January 2008 at 17:34
For Brute & NORMSMITH, 
I was interested by that letter sent by scientists to the Bali Climate conference that you posted on Dec 28th. 400 scientists signed this and I thought I'd take a bit of (repeated) advice from NORMSMITH and "Follow the Money". 
A quick search of the 1st 50 names on the list of signatories that you so kindly provided revealed that 15 of these have worked for institutes and/or right wing think tanks directly funded by Exxon alone! That's 30%. To the amount of US $5,930,800! See www.exxonsecrets.org for references to accounts etc. 
Now I'm not suggesting that this necessarily means that these people are wrong or that receiving massive grants from big business is going to sway their impartiality. That NEVER happens, surely. But an interesting observation, and this is only one oil company. Would I be being presumptuous to think that all oil/gas/coal/car/plane/or other corporations with a vested interested in maintaining the carbon hungry world economy will be acting in much the same ways. 
Thanks for your advice Norm, remember FOLLOW THAT MONEY! 
Cheers xx
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
04 January 2008 at 17:34
Neslon, you are absolutely wrong. A record of 180 months is actually a "long record" and the curve fits the data rather nicely, considering the dubious measuring method used by CRU. Furthermore, there are other indications that I have, which support this form. 
Taking a longer record does not add any useful information to current problem, only shows the past, blurs the present and distorts the future. I have worked on scientific problems in several fields, with less data than what we have here. As I have repeatedly explained, we are concerned with a short-term trend. The research question is: which way is the temperature curve turning ? 
Extrapolation of a regression curve is exactly what it says. You extend the mathematical formula that fits the data best, into an outside area, which in this case is the nearest future. Perhaps, you are not aware that the IPCC mob is extending their curves till 2100 ? 
Guessing probabilities is not scientific, but in this special case I would bet that there is a 60% chance that the temperature curve for the next 15 years will follow the polynomial given.
Brute 
04 January 2008 at 18:06
Bernie, You are wrong! 50 BILLION spent by Eco-Socialist vs.19 Million spent by so called "skeptics" is a huge disparity. Al Gore and the rest of his disciples do have a dog in this fight and are making tons of money from this charade. The guilt ridden, hand wringing, Earthdog, 60's retreads are falling for it. Don't pull us down with you. Drive your go carts and live in mud huts; meanwhile, I'll be thinking of ways to capitalize from the hysteria. And I'm certain that any "website" titled "Exxonsecrets" will be truly objective. Follow the money! 
The Hot Air Cult 
You don't have to be religious to qualify as a fundamentalist. You can be Al Gore, the messiah figure for the global warming cult, whose followers truly believe their gospel of imminent extermination in a Noah-like flood, if we don't immediately change our carbon-polluting ways. 
One of the traits of a cult is its refusal to consider any evidence that might disprove the faith. So it is doubtful the global warming cultists will be moved by 400 scientists, many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis." In a report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, these scientists cast doubt on a "scientific consensus" that human-caused global warming endangers the planet. 
Like most cultists, the true believers struck back, not by debating science, but by charging that a small number of the scientists mentioned in the report have taken money from the oil industry. A spokeswoman for Al Gore said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobile Corp. Exxon Mobile spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the claim, saying, "The company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories." 
The pro-global warming cultists enjoy a huge money advantage. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, noted in an EPW report how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions: "In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," he wrote on June 18, 2007. The $19 million spent on research that debunks the global warming faith pales in comparison. 
Also included in the Republican report are comments by Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes: "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a 6-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit. I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home-heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached." 
Oklahoma Sen. James M. Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore's claim that the "debate is over." In fact, the debate hasn't even begun because the global warming cultists won't debate. Despite numerous challenges, Al Gore has refused to debate the issue with any credible scientist who is a skeptic. Shouldn't the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize be willing to debate such an important issue? What does he have to fear? If his theory cannot stand up to scientific inquiry and skepticism, it needs to be exposed as a false religion and himself as a false prophet before he and his followers force us to change the way we live and alter the prosperous society that generations of Americans have built. 
Mr. Gore and his disciples will still be living in their big houses, driving gas-guzzling cars and flying in private jets that leave carbon footprints as large as Bigfoot's, while most of us will be forced to drive tiny automobiles and live in huts resembling the Third World. But hypocrisy is just one of many traits displayed by secular fundamentalists like Mr. Gore. 
Before adopting any faith, the agendas of the people attempting to impose it, along with the beliefs held by them and their disciples should be considered. Al Gore and company are big government liberals who think government is the answer to all our problems, including those they create. As Ronald Reagan often said, in too many cases government is the problem. 
The secular fundamentalists who believe in Al Gore as a prophet and global warming as a religious doctrine are being challenged by scientists and others who disbelieve and who think we ought to spend more time developing new technology and energy sources for the future and not preaching gloom, doom and retreat. Let them debate the issue. If they won't, we can only conclude all they are spewing is hot air.
Brute 
04 January 2008 at 18:23
"There's little incentive for scientists to do anything but emphasize the negative and the destructive. Alarming news often leads to government funding, funding generates research, and research is the key to scientists' professional advancement. Good news threatens that arrangement." 
"This is the reality that all scientists confront: every issue, be it global warming, cancer or AIDS, competes with other issues for a limited amount of government research funding. And, here in Washington, no one ever received a major research grant by stating that his or her particular issue might not be such a problem after all."
Cybertiger 
04 January 2008 at 18:37
I don't think Brute is very bright - but I am sure he could do a neat waltz with Matilda down under.
tom 
04 January 2008 at 18:37
Brute 
Google or Youtube "How it all ends" and tell me if you think Greg Craven is in it for the money.
Nelson 
04 January 2008 at 19:01
'the curve fits the data rather nicely'. You can't just fit that arbitrary parabola to the data and conclude that we're at a peak. It's butchery of statistics. Why not choose a linear fit, or a double exponential - ah, they'd predict future warming! 
'Taking a longer record does not add any useful information to current problem' What is your expertise in trend analysis? You need a longer period to extract the underlying signal.
bobclive 
04 January 2008 at 19:23
Cybertiger, it`s about population control, you can place carbon credits on anything that exhales CO2 and that includes you. Its like the UK after the second world war and food vouches, once you had used your allowance no more food, here in the UK we have more surveillance cameras per person than anywhere in the world plus geo- stationary satellites watching over us, if you consider a sat-nav useful, you watch what your government will use the satellite for, the new ones can trace you down to less than 10ft. If this carbon tax is globally agreed you will never stop it increasing, it is a tax on life itself. If you fly B.A you get a form asking for a voluntary payment to offset your carbon footprint, how long do you think this will be voluntary. Carbon credits are already being traded on the stock market. 
You had better hope that the world temps do not increase further, but my view is that now most of the weather stations are urban you wont see any significant increase. The problem is if it cools they will blame that on CO2.
kelvin shawl 
04 January 2008 at 19:50
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” 
Hilarious! This has got to be a contender for the funniest sentence ever written.
Brute 
04 January 2008 at 20:13
Tom, 
Ok, not in it for the money for the sake of arguement. How about Tree Hugging Liberal or Befuddled Luditte? 
I heard a lot about "what we had to do". Why don't you do whatever the hell you want to do. If you want to live in the Stone Age, go ahead. Set an example.......
bobclive 
04 January 2008 at 20:13
Nelson, If you visit climate audit, you will observe that the good folks there are doing real research by visiting, photographing every weather station in the U.S and checking all data from these stations. This work is already showing major problems with many of these stations as you will see. I cannot see how the UHI effect is as you say carefully controlled for when the IPPC believe it does not exist. 
see: 
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL027927.shtml 
This study shows annual and seasonal urban warming for the two periods for Beijing and Wuhan stations is also positive and significant. The annual urban warming at the city stations can account for about 65~80% of the overall warming in 1961~2000, and about 40~61% of the overall warming in 1981~2000. 
DID YOU READ THAT, 65-80% THAT`S ALMOST ALL THE WARMING THAT HAS OCCURRED. 
London shows up to 8 deg C warming compared with nearby rural, how do you get rural near London, the difference could even be greater if it were truly rural. 
Go here below and read it all you may learn something 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859
Cybertiger 
04 January 2008 at 20:29
@cap'n bobclive 
"Cybertiger, it`s about population control ... " 
I agree, there are far too many Brutes in the world and they're all exhaling methane outa their rear ends. Summat should be done about their carbon farts ... tax 'em or do something to stem the sheer numbers ... of toxic farts!! I agree, it's about controlling populations.
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
04 January 2008 at 21:40
Et tu Brute? I did not know Nelson that you are on the IPCC payroll. Only an IPCC servant could make such a remark: 
"Why not choose a linear fit, or a double exponential - ah, they'd predict future warming!" 
Real science does not work this way. You can not decide yourself what form a natural variable follows. The polynomial simply traces the natural variance better than a straight line. Also, as mentioned before: "there are other indications that I have, which support this form." 
Nelson, you are still under the influence of Wiggles and unfortunately your mind seems to wiggle!
Matilda1234 
04 January 2008 at 22:09
Bobclive - you continually prove my point that people don't read other posts properly. I accepted your point about the problem with temperature variation in monitoring stations as a valid one. I'm not sure what research you are suggesting I should do, although I would venture to say that in Australia the monitoring stations are less influenced by urban heat overall than elsewhere because they are more widely dispersed. Also because of the size of the country and the low population density ambient heat is really only an issue in the 6-8 large cities we have. What is a concern is that you seem to think that the significant amount of heat generated from and by urban centres is not an environmental problem by itself ( regardless of the reality or otherwise of climate change) and also why the heat variation is not worthy of consideration in your interpretation of the data. If the temperature variation is as significant as you claim, surely that is a real consistent, variable that has to be accounted for because of the effect on the environment and its inhabitants, and how we manage the extra heat e.g, in Hong Kong and Singapore , and the growing cities of Asia, air conditioning is more a necessity than a luxury, surely this has significant environmental impact, even if, as you seem to be arguing, it has no bearing on global climate.
gnuneo 
04 January 2008 at 22:46
"If this carbon tax is globally agreed you will never stop it increasing, it is a tax on life itself. If you fly B.A you get a form asking for a voluntary payment to offset your carbon footprint, how long do you think this will be voluntary." 
then spend your energies on ensuring that our govts are democratically accountable. 
you worry about 'air-travel' carbon? Soon there will be a move towards low-impact airships for air travel, which will be made far more attractive by the jet engines being taxed *for the damage they cause*. 
do you really beleive that people shouldn't pay for the environmental damage they cause? That all environmental costs can continue to be "externalised", paid for by future generations and everyone else? 
well i'm sorry, but i for one no longer accept that rainforests can be chopped down, desertification increased, continental water shelves drained, rivers, seas and oceans poisoned, our whole biosphere harmed, just so the oil-lobby can squeeze out a few more $billions into their corporate tax-havens. 
as i posted earlier, there is already tried and tested means of fulfilling all our global energy needs through the use of directed sun-light, transmitted through the latest
gnuneo 
04 January 2008 at 22:50
[sorry] 
superconductors to where it is needed, for homes, agriculture, transport, business, and maintaining the internet. 
this would rapidly and highly efficiently take care of most of our pressing environmental problems, with the only losers being the oil lobby, the oil lobby, and those paid for by the oil lobby, and the oil lobby. 
gee, now i just have to wonder why so many of these "sceptics" are given bonuses by the... oil lobby? 
beats me.
Brute 
04 January 2008 at 23:58
Gnuneo, 
Did you use your bathroom today? How many times and for how long? 
How often do you travel? To where? 
How many children do you have? 
How far is your commute to work? 
Did you wash clothes today? Was the washer completely full? Hot or Cold Water? 
Did you take a hot shower today? How long did you let the water run? 
Do you wash dishes by hand or machine? 
How often do you cut your lawn? 
How often do you watch television? 
How many minutes/hours are you on-line? 
How often do you use your telephone? 
How often do you have sex? 
At what temperature do you keep your thermostat? 
If your answer to these questions is “none of your *@#$@#ing business” I applaud you. However; if the position you describe above is ever implemented you will be required to answer questions such as these by your government. Do you want your government to have that much control over your life? Reductio ad absurdum; IT ISN’T. Absurd? That's what the German people said in the 1930's and the Russians said about Stalin. 
It’s called incrementalism and it is has been practiced by governments since the beginning of time….heat the water slowly and they won’t feel a thing. 
Have you ever heard of a government abolishing a tax because it was no longer needed?
Matilda1234 
05 January 2008 at 00:27
Taxes abolished by governments either because they were not popular ( and governments were called to account) or no longer required - to name a few. 
Poll Tax (UK 1991) 
Bread tax (Corn Law)(1849) 
Window Tax ( UK 1851) 
Inheritance tax (Australia, Russia) 
Taxes on Bank Deposits (Australia) 
Agricultural Tax ( China - admittedly it took 2600 years, but I guess that shows how long change can take when humans are responsible for it.) 
Capital Gains Tax (Malaysia) 
Overseas Remittance Tax (Vietnam) 
telephone excise tax (USA)
Brute 
05 January 2008 at 00:59
Hmmmm. Maybe I should relocate. I stand corrected. My point is that, (at least here in the US), we spend the first 4 months of the year working to satisfy personal tax burdens. 
No Capital Gains Tax in Malaysia? No wonder politcians invest their money there. 
Table 1: Tax Freedom Day and Tax Burden, Selected Years 1900 - 2007 
Year Tax Freedom Day Taxes as a Percentage of Income 
1900 22-Jan 5.90% 
1910 19-Jan 5.02% 
1920 13-Feb 11.96% 
1930 12-Feb 11.61% 
1940 7-Mar 17.98% 
1950 01-Apr 24.87% 
1960 12-Apr 27.88% 
1970 20-Apr 29.90% 
1980 22-Apr 30.68% 
1990 23-Apr 30.80% 
2000 5-May 33.98% 
2001 1-May 33.01% 
2002 21-Apr 30.27% 
2003 18-Apr 29.51% 
2004 19-Apr 29.69% 
2005 26-Apr 31.53% 
2006 28-Apr 32.29% 
2007 30-Apr 32.69% 
Source: Office of Management and Budget; Internal Revenue Service; Congressional Research Service; National Bureau of Economic Research; Tax Foundation.
Matilda1234 
05 January 2008 at 02:11
I understand the point that people don't like paying tax, but they don't usually seem to mind using the services or benefiting from the systems they fund. Generally I would even prefer to be overtaxed than live in a country without functioning infrastructure or a reasonably efficient administration as flawed and imperfect as these things are ( reflecting the human factor again), To bring the argument back to Climate Change, the question Brute raises appears to be the one everyone keeps avoiding, what do we do about it. I am glad that there are good people here on the planet concerned enough to establish what is really happening, and to sort through the mass of data, but as it may take some time to establish a definitive answer I can't see the problem in taking a precautionary approach. Investment in scientfic research to better understand the global climate and how it really works, what factors influence it, the time scale of climatic patterns etc seems to me to be a great investment in humanities future. If human beings and various other species get wiped out for one reason or another the planet will adapt and go on ( hot, cold, steamy, barren, whatever), but I think that it would be a shame if we hasten that project. Investment in accurate scientific research seems like a less futile investment of capital than say military research ( I think we've got quite a range of high tech weaponry now) the Olympic Games, celebrity magazines, or well name your own preferred, subjectively determined waste of money. What if all that money was actually diverted to resolving this argument. We could do if it we wanted, but the law of the suppression of radical potential seems to be in operation here.
Brute 
05 January 2008 at 02:51
Speaking of obscene profits, what do Federal and State Governments do with the obscene taxes that we already pay? 0.62 cents tax per gallon vs. 0.10 cents profit for "Big Oil", (a business enterprise employing thousands of people who in turn pay taxes). Government officials love to demonize oil companies but wouldn’t think twice about extorting more money from citizens and business. 
After crude oil costs, gasoline taxes are the second largest contributor to the price paid at the pump. Together Federal and State excise taxes on fuel account for an average cost of approximately 62 cents per gallon. That's a combined tax of about 20% per gallon of gas. 
The federal tax per gallon is 18.4 cents per gallon, and the state tax per gallon varies by state. 
Average profit per gallon of gas for oil companies: 10 cents according to the EIA.
NORMSMITH 
05 January 2008 at 08:17
AL GORE IS HELPING TO DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT - HERE ARE THE FACTS THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WON'T TOUCH: 
Gore wants to make money for his company called Generation Investment Management(GIM) and is raking in millions and millions. 
Gore is Chairman of GIM: 
http://www.generationim.com/philosophy/ 
GIM invests in Corporations that cause massive toxic waste and deadly air pollution. Here is their mandatory SEC disclosure: 
http://www.secinfo.com/d13P5q.u1q.htm 
Note that Gore invests heavily in GE (a major player in the Military Industrial Complex) and Becton Dickinson (a champion of Toxic Waste) 
Learn more about Becton Dickinson's environmental scandals here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becton_Dickinson 
And here is a marvelous flying gattling gun that spreads depleted uranium (DU) all over the Middle East - thanks to GE: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger 
GE is also a leader in nuclear submarine systems which I would describe as weapons of mass destruction. 
It's pathetic that this guy got a Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe the interrogation staff at Guantanamo Bay will get the next one. 
So now you know where your "carbon offset" money goes. 
Best wishes to all - May ye all become truth seekers. 
This isn't about right or left - it's about the truth.
BritishAirman 
05 January 2008 at 11:39
A very interesting article by the author of this subject, David Whitehouse. I do agree that scientists must not remain complacent in believing that they have 'full knowledge and understanding' of the effects of climate change and global warming. However, before Bali, readers will recall the gathering of world scientists in France where, without reservation, the incidental impacts and damage created by those countries opposed to climate agreements was having a devastating impact on the environment. 
David Whitehouse in-effect mentions the non-linear trend of global temperatures over the last few years, indicating that it has remained fairly static. I think however, the assumptions used in calculating and measuring temperatures should be analysed to see if there has been any major departure from how it was once measured. Factors that may have been added or deleted from the original equation. 
Global warming and climate change are not just necessarily issues pertaining to the hard physical sciences, many areas within the social sciences such as people's personal habits, lifestyles and rational or irrational decisions they take is becoming an integral part of political discourse. The need to continue to frame legislation though cannot be achieved by small countries like Britain; the net-effect of Britain’s carbon outputs is minimal compared to the levels being emitted by the United States and China, for example. 
In supplementing this article please read Professor James Lovelock's hypothesis 'Gaia Theory' which suggests an opposing view to what David suggests here. 
http://markatscotland.blogspot.com
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
05 January 2008 at 14:41
Thanks NORMSMITH for showing us what kind of "human waste container" this Al Gore actually is. Brute also has supplied useful information about the scumbag, for example on 01.January and 30.December. 
I would like to add following points, which explain how Gore's swindle scheme works***: 
 First, Gore sets up a company that will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming alarmism 
 Second, Gore gets some Hollywood types to fund and produce a movie designed to scare the c-c-carbon out of the population 
 Third, Gore travels the world promoting this movie, while pushing the view that a cataclysm is imminent if the world doesn't immediately act 
 Fourth, an adoring media falls for the con hook, line, and sinker. Rather than debunking the flaws in the theories, the media promote every word of it while advancing the concept that Gore's views represent those of an overwhelming majority of scientists 
 Fifth, scared governments and citizens across the globe invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore's group has already invested in 
 Sixth, Gore and his cronies make billions as they laugh all the way to the bank at the stupidity of their fellow citizens 
***Information from Newsbusters: http://www.newsbusters.org/node/11149
tamino 
05 January 2008 at 14:56
A reader named "Nelson" referred me to comments made on this blog by a certain Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, regarding this post on my blog. Mr. Þorsteinsson has seen fit to refer to me and my writing in such colorful terms as "really ignorant," "deceiving," "deplorable," "ignorance or deceiving intentions," "far from being scientific," and "clearly promoting the climate fanatic's view." 
He has also presented his own analysis of temperature time series. He begins by stating: 
Diagram showing world mean temperature, calculated for each one of last 120 months, can be found at my blogg site. This period obviously equals full 10 years... 
The best fitted regression line through the data, shows a slightly positive slope, which my computer gives as: a=+0,09% (+0,0009) C-degrees/month. This corresponds to 0,1 C-degrees in 100 years! 
The first thing to note is that Mr. Þorsteinsson seems to be having a little trouble with his arithmetic. At a rate of 0.0009 deg.C/month, the warming over 100 years would be 1.08 deg.C, not 0.1. Perhaps he has forgotten that there are 12 months in a year. 
The second thing to note is that strictly speaking, Mr. Þorsteinsson hasn't shown a graph of "world mean temperature." He's used the CRUTEM3 data set from the Hadley Centre for Climate Change Research. There's nothing wrong with this data set that I'm aware of, but it doesn't represent the world; it's surface temperature for land areas only, and land covers only about 30% of the planet's surface. It so happens that because of the large thermal inertia of the oceans, land areas are warming faster than the planet as a whole; about 35% faster over the last three decades. If Mr. Þorsteinsson wishes to study temperature trends for the entire globe, he should use the HadCRUT3 data set from the Hadley Centre, or the GLB_Ts+SST data set from NASA GISS, or the Smith and Reynolds Blended Land and Ocean Dataset from the National Climate Data Center. 
Mr. Þorsteinsson does compute the correct linear regression trend rate for the data set he plots (probably using Microsoft ExCel), 0.0009 deg.C/month, or 0.0108 deg.C/yr. But he doesn't (here, or anywhere else) state the probable error or the error range (also known as the "confidence interval") for that figure. 
He goes on to say: 
You can see that there is a lot of "noise" in the data as it is called in the "Wiggles" article mentioned before. This "noise" is actually a measure of the quality of the data. In the real world, there is very little difference between world mean temperature from one month to the next. Obviously this applies also for temperature from one day to the next. In reality, the change in atmospheric energy is a continuous process and the mean monthly values should reflect this better than daily values. Notice that the temperature is a proxy for heat energy in the atmosphere. 
I have calculated the numerical mean difference of monthly temperature over the 120 months period and find that this value is 0,170 C-degrees. Therefore, this figure can be understood as mean accuracy of the measurements. It is useful to compare this with the slope of the regression line, mentioned in my last comment, which was found to be 0,108 C-degrees in 120 months. When a regression line is determined, this "noise" is eliminated by the process, as far as allowed by the method used. 
The conclusion is, that during the last 120 months the mean world temperature has been constant ! 
It seems that Mr. Þorsteinsson is not aware that the standard way to compute the "scatter," or "noise level" in data, is not to compute the average difference but rather the root-mean-square difference from the mean, also known as the standard deviation. In so doing, he underestimate the noise level; the standard deviation for this data is 0.2115. 
He also seems unaware that determining a regression line doesn't eliminate the noise. The noise causes our estimate of the trend rate to be uncertain. We can measure the size of the noise and its characteristics, and combining this with the number of data points and the time span of the data enables us to compute the probable error as well as the error range. 
More important is the fact that Mr. Þorsteinsson confuses the noise in the data with the accuracy of the measurements. The data noise is caused both by measurement inaccuracy and by random fluctuations in the actual surface temperature of the earth. There are numerous sources of random fluctuations in global surface temperature, including fluctuations of earth's albedo (reflectivity) due to constantly changing amount and location of snow, ice, and plant cover and land use by human society, changes in atmospheric concentration of reflective aerosols from volcanic eruptions and human industrial activity, changes in global biosphere activity, and the exchange of heat energy between the atmosphere and the oceans. Because these processes are essentially random they are referred to (and treated analytically) as "noise," but they are unrelated to accuracy of the measurements. Mr. Þorsteinsson's remark that "during the last 120 months the mean world temperature has been constant" is just nonsense. 
Mr. Þorsteinsson also seems to think that the noise level gives the limit of accuracy with which a trend can be determined. This is a common misconception which reveals naivete about the nature of statistical analysis. As the length of the time span grows and the number of data points increases, the precision with which we can determine a trend increases, and is not limited by the accuracy of the individual data points. Those interested in this particular issue may enjoy this post. 
If Mr. Þorsteinsson had used any of a number of standard statistical packages which compute the probable error range for the trend rate from linear regression, he might have mentioned that for his ten years of temperature data the 95%-confidence (a standard choice for scientific analysis) error range on trend rate for this time period is 0.011 +/- 0.013 deg.C/yr. This means that there's a 95% chance that the actual rate of change lies between -0.002 deg.C/yr (slight cooling) and + 0.024 deg.C/yr (extremely rapid warming). He would probably conclude that because it's possible from this analysis that the rate is zero, earth's temperature has been constant for this 10-year period. 
But that would represent a failure to notice two important things. First, the trend for this 10-year period could be as high as 0.024 deg.C/yr; that's 33% faster warming than the 0.018 deg.C/yr which has been observed since 1975, and is the most often quoted (in the scientific literature) figure for the current warming rate. So these data alone are consistent with much faster warming than is claimed by the global climate science community. Second, the width of the error range is so large (0.026 deg.C/yr from maximum to minimum probable value) that we can come to only one clear conclusion: the time span of 10 years is far too short to draw any reliable conclusions about the current trend in global temperature. 
And in fact this analysis would also be mistaken. Error ranges for linear regression estimated by standard statistical packages are based on the assumption that the noise in the data is white noise, i.e., noise that is uncorrelated. It's well known (and easy to establish by analyzing the autocorrelation structure of the data) that noise in temperature time series is red noise, which increases the uncertainty of estimated trend rates. The actual 95% confidence interval for the given 10 years of data is 0.011 +/- 0.022 deg.C/yr, so the actual rate, judging by this data alone, could be as low as -0.011 deg.C/yr (notable cooling) or as high as +0.033 deg.C/yr (alarmingly rapid warming). Properly to estimate which is more likely, it's essential to study a longer time series of data. 
Mr. Þorsteinsson's apparent ignorance of these issues may explain why he states: 
The "unknown author" does not distinguish between long-term and short-term trends in his treatment. This is deplorable, because this is very much at the heart of current debate. 
On the contrary, I do indeed distinguish between long-term and short-term trends. Far more critical, and something Mr. Þorsteinsson seems not to understand, is the need to distinguish between trends that are statistically significant and those which are not. Mr. Þorsteinsson's analysis not only ignores this crucial issue with respect to linear regression, his failure to apply it leads to a "rookie mistake" when attempting to project future temperature: 
In order to reveal current short-term trend, I have refreshed one of my graphs for 180 weeks (15 years). Also, for the benefit of those who have English as their mother tongue, I have placed some English explanations on the graph. 
This new graph can be found here: 
http://altice.blog.is/blog/altice/entry/398432/ 
In this case, a polynomial is best fitted to the data. It has the formula: 
Y = -0,0000170X2 + 0,00580X + 0,171 
If Mr. Þorsteinsson understood the need for computing probable errors, and were able to do so, he would find that the quadratic term in his polynomial regression is not statistically significant. This means that it's really more due to the noise -- a random process -- than any trend that exists in the signal. Hence none of his prognostications based on this formula are valid. 
Thus we are already one year into a cooling period ! 
One might as well say that because today is not as warm as yesterday, we are already one day into a cooling period ! 
I am hoping that this graph will explain better than words how precarious it is to draw a straight line through the data of most resent years. 
When the time span is very short and the noise level is high (as with global temperature data) it is indeed precarious to use linear regression to draw conclusions about actual trends in the climate system. It's a pity that Mr. Þorsteinsson doesn't understand how much more precarious it is to use a quadratic fit to draw conclusions, and how much more precarious still it is to predict the future based on a curve fit which is nowhere near statistically significant. 
"Why not choose a linear fit, or a double exponential - ah, they'd predict future warming!" 
Real science does not work this way. You can not decide yourself what form a natural variable follows. 
At last Mr. Þorsteinsson makes a correct statement. Unfortunately he still fails to understand that fitting a curve can only be used to draw conclusions when the fit passes statistical significance tests. Mr. Þorsteinsson's choice, a quadratic function, fails such tests. 
Many of Mr. Þorsteinsson's mistakes and misconceptions could be cured by careful attention during any undergraduate statistics course. As it stands, we can be quite sure that when it comes to the statistical analysis of time series Mr. Þorsteinsson is not just an amateur, he's an untalented amateur. 
Alas, almost all of the commentary and analysis by those (both amateur and professional) who dispute the reality and/or danger of global warming, are no more statistically savvy than Mr. Þorsteinsson's. That includes this article by Dr. Whitehouse for New Statesman.
Brute 
05 January 2008 at 15:00
Thank you Normsmith. 
I knew that Al Gore and his cronies were frauds, but I had only scratched the surface. Follow The Money............... 
Matilda, 
I apologize for shifting the topic; it seemed pointless to continue arguing with people who have been indoctrinated into the cult of Environmentalism. Didn’t seem to be going anywhere. These people seem to want to drastically change the world but will do nothing personally to reduce their “carbon footprint” aside from purchasing Indulgences to assuage their guilt for being successful. What a pity. 
World Top 10 - Foreign Aid Donors Countries 
Country In Billion Dollars 
United States 12.9 
Japan 9.2 
Germany 5.4 
France 5.2 
United Kingdom 4.8 
Netherlands 3.4 
Italy 2.3 
Canada 2.0 
Sweden 1.8 
Norway 1.8 
Seems to me that the Industrialized Nations of the world are already paying a "carbon tax" (blackmail).
Brute 
05 January 2008 at 15:09
Here are the top 16 recipients of U.S. foreign aid for 2005: 
1. Israel 2.58 Billion 
2. Egypt 1.84 Billion 
3. Afganistan 0.98 Billion 
4. Pakistan 0.70 Billion 
5. Colombia 0.57 Billion 
6. Sudan 0.50 Billion 
7. Jordan 0.48 Billion 
8. Uganda 0.25 Billion 
9. Kenya 0.24 Billion 
10. Ethiopia 0.19 Billion 
11. South Africa 0.19 Billion 
12. Peru 0.19 Billion 
13. Indonesia 0.18 Billion 
14. Bolivia 0.18 Billion 
15. Nigeria 0.18 Billion 
16. Zambia 0.18 Billion 
source: 
CRS Report for Congress: Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. 
Programs and Policy Updated January 19, 2005, page 14 
http://shelby.senate.gov/legislation/ForeignAid.pdf 
Here are the top 16 recipients of U.S. foreign aid for 2004: 
1. Iraq 18.44 Billion 
2. Israel 2.62 Billion 
3. Egypt 1.87 Billion 
4. Afghanistan 1.77 Billion 
5. Colombia 0.57 Billion 
6. Jordan 0.56 Billion 
7. Pakistan 0.39 Billion 
8. Liberia 0.21 Billion 
9. Peru 0.17 Billion 
10. Ethiopia 0.16 Billion 
11. Bolivia 0.15 Billion 
12. Turkey 0.15 Billion 
13. Uganda 0.14 Billion 
14. Sudan 0.14 Billion 
15. Indonesia 0.13 Billion 
16. Kenya 0.13 Billion 
source: 
CRS Report for Congres:: Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. 
Programs and Policy, April 15, 2004, page 13 
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/trade/files/98-916.pdf 
Here are the top 15 recipients of U.S. foreign aid for 2001: 
1. Israel 2.82 Billion 
2. Egypt 1.987 Billion 
3. Jordan 0.227 Billion 
4. Kosovo 0.184 Billion 
5. Ukraine 0.178 Billion 
6. Russia 0.174 Billion 
7. Indonesia 0.149 Billion 
8. Ethiopia 0.124 Billion 
9. India 0.122 Billion 
10. Georgia 0.107 Billion 
11. Bangladesh 0.101 Billion 
12. Serbia 0.10 Billion 
13. Peru 0.097 Billion 
14. Armenia 0.092 Billion 
15. Bosnia 0.089 Billion 
CRS Report for Congress: Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. 
Programs and Policy Updated April 6, 2001, page 12 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/98... 
(Note that these documents are in PDF format, so the Adobe Acrobat 
Reader is required. If you don't have that, visit: 
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html )
Brute 
05 January 2008 at 16:41
The Global Warming Tax Scam Kicks In 
Fresh studies, polls conclude climate change being used as revenue raising tactic 
Steve Watson 
Infowars.net 
Tuesday, September 4, 2007 
The British government is raising almost double the revenue in so called "green taxes" that it needs to offset the social cost of CO2 emissions according to a new report. An accompanying opinion poll also reveals that nearly two-thirds of people think politicians are using the green issue as an excuse to tax more. 
The conclusion of a report by the TaxPayer's Alliance watchdog, states that "In many cases, individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope." 
The study found that the social cost of Britain’s entire output of CO2 was £11.7 billion in 2005 but in the same year, the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9 billion. Meaning that even two years ago taxes were £10.2 billion in excess of the level agreed to meet the Britain’s CO2 emissions. The Alliance calculates this excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain. 
"We need more honesty about the costs of extra green taxes when British taxpayers already pay some of the highest pollution charges in the world," said Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers' Alliance. 
The report also reveals that the main “pollution taxes” of fuel duty; vehicle excise duty (road tax); the Climate Change Levy; Air Passenger Duty; the Landfill Tax and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, each have serious flaws which indicate that the government is less concerned about the environment and more concerned with raking in excessive revenues. 
In addition a second study by accountants UHY Hacker Young backs up this claim by revealing that the Government gives back in tax breaks just two per cent of the money it collects through environmental taxes. 
UHY Hacker Young tax partner Roy Maugham said: "It's surprising just how lopsided the Government's approach to green taxes has been over the last ten years. 
"At the moment it's all stick and very little carrot." 
If the government were really concerned about climate change then they would be offering incentives not punishments for reducing CO2 emissions in the form of tax breaks. But tax breaks aren't a giant cash bonanza for our exalted guardians of Mother Earth, the loving government, who are going to tax the living hell out of us for our own good and for the very survival of mankind, while lining their own pockets. 
The Treasury has said the claims in the studies are "ridiculous" and has dropped the green bomb on the TaxPayers Alliance, reminding it that climate change is a justification to do anything. 
A spokesman said: "In arguing against these taxes, the Taxpayers' Alliance are being doubly dangerous - it would mean cuts to public services, schools and hospitals, as well as higher carbon emissions leading to accelerated climate change." 
Meanwhile Corin Taylor, research director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, has reminded the government that over vamped green charges, far from being a solution, are a primary cause of cuts in public services. "Green taxes and charges impose substantial costs on, amongst others, the National Health Service." Taylor commented. 
Released alongside the TaxPayers' Alliance study, a new YouGov poll of more than 2,000 adults (double the usual sample) was commissioned into public attitudes towards green taxes. 
When asked what they thought the primary motivation was for new green taxes, 63 per cent agreed with the statement: “Politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes.” Only 20 per cent thought that “Politicians are serious about the environment and are bringing in new green taxes to change people’s behaviour to help reduce carbon emissions.” 
Remember that these studies encompass two year old figures and naturally do not even take into account newly proposed "carbon taxes" which would see a sky rocketing in costs sought by the Treasury. 
In recent months we have seen proposals in the UK and the US to impose steep new taxes that would raise the cost of burning oil, gas and coal even at a time when the cost of energy is already through the roof. 
Such calls for a carbon tax on energy have been echoed by globalist groups such as the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg group whose members are coincidentally made up of many big energy company heads and CEOs who stand to gain from long term hikes in prices to offset an initial drop in demand that a new tax would bring. 
We have previously pointed out that while many green activists aim their criticisms at the energy companies and big government, it is the elite structures within and surrounding those very areas that are pushing global warming fears, in addition to their tax proposals. 
Global warming also acts as a convenient veil for the real environmental crimes that will continue on behalf of the mega corporations and scientific establishment that are in bed with the very government imposing draconian measures on us in the name of the environment. GM contamination, toxic waste dumping, bizarre cloning mad science, and the destruction of the rain forests will continue apace while we are still being lectured about light bulbs and beer bottles. 
There is also actual discussion of imposing a carbon tax on humans for the air we breathe! 
Meanwhile less than half of all published scientists endorse the theory that human activity constitutes a significant contribution to climate change, hardly a "consensus" as the UN appointed panel on climate change calls it. 
The climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of man-made global warming. 
If the cause is not even agreed upon how is it that the solution is? 
Because governments throughout the world love convincing people that they are in danger and that they can only be saved by letting them take control. Globalists imagine and invent problems and then they offer us the solution, but the solution is always more government, more corporate monopoly, less sovereignty and less free market economy. 
The global warming tax scam has kicked in. There's no time left for a debate they tell us - we don't want to hear about the medieval warm period, we don't want to hear about how temperatures dropped as carbon emissions increased for four decades from the 40's to the 80's, we don't want to hear about how the troposphere shows no build up of greenhouse gases, we don't want to hear about sun activity and its direct correlation with climate change, we don't want to hear about arctic ice samples showing how CO2 lags behind temperature increase. There's money to be made and there's peasants to flog. 
Eco-fanatics and power-hungry elitists have taken total control of the global warming bandwagon. Before they choke the life out of modern industrialized civilization by eliminating the source of 80% of the planet's energy, and in the face of fierce silencing techniques, it is vital to further understand why scientific evidence is not on the side of the theory of human-caused warming. 
For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.
AuroraBorealis 
05 January 2008 at 23:42
The number of post is becoming overwhelming, but I really try to do what Matilda advocate, namely reading other peoples post. If I may point to some of what I myself have previously written, so far none of the "skeptics" (Brute among others) have commented on my post re Occam's Razor (use your find function to look back) 
Also, I have seen no reaction to my post that data Swedish for 2007 shows about 1.5-2 degrees above average, i.e. about twice the global average 
Temperature data from Sweden 1860-2005, corrected for change of station location: 
http://www.smhi.se/cmp/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=6413&l=sv 
And being rather sparsely populated, the UHI effect is probably not significant in our country 
Now let's look at another data set, what is called proxy data, namely ice in the Baltic, with mean date for start ice cover: 
http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/islaggning.pdf 
And compare this with present ice cover: 
(clic on the box "Karta (png)" below the text "Iskarta färgkodad (dagligen under issäsong)" 
I might add that I did research on ice living bacteria in early 1990 in Umeå located at 63.7°N and we had 1 m of solid ice in mid april. This kind of ice cover has not been present for at least the last 5 years. The mild ice winters are also commented on this page (http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/ifs/ifs2007/en_GB/iceseaso...), starting with a description of the 2006-07 winter: "The ice season 2006/2007 was very late, short and mild in terms of ice extent" 
But the lack of ice could of course be attributed to liberal minded scientist running around with motor boats purchased by their fat research grants, thus stirring up the water and preventing ice formation...... 
Another interesting data set: Historical Trends in Lake and River Ice Cover in the Northern Hemisphere: 
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/289/5485/1743.pdf 
Another neglected area by the UHI advocates, the effect of CO2 on ocean acidity. Any comments on that Brute? 
At to Brutes comments re his fear for "government" intrusion into privacy, we have in other areas where common safety is of concern accepted such things as mandatory laws for seat belts and air cushions in cars. And I do not think we need to have a timer on the TV or the shower, a simple rise of energy cost would create the incitament to save. I lived in Mass during the winter 90-91 and in the house I rented I could see how the energy costs soared in winter. And it easy to see the cause, the total lack of insulation and the ridiculously draughty windows. In Sweden we have for decades had rules for such things as isolation and window quality and of course we use far less energy in our houses. 
BTW, Brutes figure on foreign aids shows that the US gives about 1/5 or 1/7 of the aid given by Sweden and Norway respectively, calculated on a per capita basis.....
stargazer 
06 January 2008 at 10:45
and yet..... 
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warmin...#satellite-temps
AuroraBorealis 
06 January 2008 at 13:39
Stargazer, do your homework! 
What is the residence time in atmosphere of CO2 and water vapor respectively? 
Or just try using Wikipedia: 
Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% [10]. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields). 
Current state-of-the-art climate models include fully interactive clouds[11]. They show that an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.[12]
AuroraBorealis 
06 January 2008 at 13:44
Anyway, there are people who have understood the need to address the global warming problem now and not in some undisclosed future and who can not be discredited as being "leftist", "tax-loving" or "green fundamentalists". You will find them writing in eg Harvard Business Review under the headline "Climate business | Business climate" http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/hbsp/hbr/artic...
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
06 January 2008 at 15:21
Why is it, that AuroraBorealis does not mention the possibility that increased water vapour content of the atmosphere may increased cloud cover and thus act as a "negative feedback" ? Is it because "positive feedback" is more alarming ? He is close when he says: "Current state-of-the-art climate models include fully interactive clouds", but no he does not fully make it ! 
May I point out, that the commonly held belief that "residence time" of water vapour is short, is not really correct. As one water molecule falls another molecule is rising. As there is no shortage of water, the correct description of water "as a substance" is, that it has a very long "residence time" in the atmosphere. 
The same applies also for most of the "life spirit" CO2. It is naturally renewed through natural fires and other means. Why are some people worried about maintaining the normal state of nature ? 
I am pointing out, that "residence time" of individual molecules is probably not an important concept, in connection with climate change. The anthropogenic part of heat sensitive gases in the atmosphere is minute.
stargazer 
06 January 2008 at 16:15
AuroraBorealis I have been doing my homework. 
The Fact is that the worlds temp had gone up... and now its going down. AGW dose not account for this, nor the fact that antartic is at a record level of ice mass. 
and the loss of artic ice last summer is likly due to (unusual) currents. 
look at the last graph on this 
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warmin...#satellite-temps
taghioff.info 
06 January 2008 at 17:59
I'm not sure if this point has been raised, but lets compare the two possible types of error we could make here: 
1) No Global warming but strong response. This will cost money, and slow growth down by perhaps a few years in every half decade. Not the end of the world. 
2) No response but strong climate change. 6 degrees of warming is well within the range of what happens under business as usual in the latest coupled models of the IPCC. 6 degrees of warming wiped out 95% of life on earth last time it happened. 
So which risk would you rather be taking?
stargazer 
06 January 2008 at 18:33
taghioff.info 
And what if it goes the other way and we get major cooling. More will die from cold than warm... we can live with warm.But If we get cold I can see a time when we are TOLD to put Co2 into the atmosphere to counter it
AuroraBorealis 
06 January 2008 at 18:43
From the scientific literature: 
Nature Reports Climate Change 
Published online: 12 December 2007 | doi:10.1038/climate.2007.78 
Summertime snowmelt 
Alex Thompson 
Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L22507 (2007) 
NASA 
Summertime melting of the Greenland ice sheet has been increasing over the last 34 years and was most extreme in 2007, finds new research. 
Thomas Mote from the University of Georgia in the US monitored melting of the Greenland ice sheet from 1973 until 2007 by detecting changes in microwave radiation measured by satellites. Comparing the extent of melt to seasonal averages, he found that melting during June, July and August significantly increased over the past 34 years. This trend was related to increasing air temperatures observed at three coastal Greenland stations. But in 2007 there was 60% greater melting than in 1998, the previous highest-melt year — more than expected from the temperature trend alone. This may be the accumulated effect of increased melting over the prior four years, because, for instance, more heat is absorbed by the Earth's surface when it is snow-free. 
This latest study is an important step towards understanding how rapidly the Greenland ice sheet is vanishing, which has important implications for global sea-level rise. 
Does this indicate "end of global warming"?
AuroraBorealis 
06 January 2008 at 18:54
And this is snow data from Alps: (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003IJCli..23..733L) 
Title: 
Long-term snow climate trends of the Swiss Alps (1931-99) 
Authors: 
Laternser, Martin; Schneebeli, Martin 
Publication: 
International Journal of Climatology, vol. 23, Issue 7, pp.733-750 
Publication Date: 
06/2003 
Origin: 
WEB 
Keywords: 
climate change, snow cover, spatial variability, trend analysis, Switzerland 
Bibliographic Code: 
2003IJCli..23..733L 
Abstract 
The mean snow depth, the duration of continuous snow cover and the number of snowfall days in the Swiss Alps all show very similar trends during the observation period 1931-99: a gradual increase until the early 1980s (with insignificant interruptions during the late 1950s and early 1970s) followed by a statistically significant decrease towards the end of the century. Regional and altitudinal variations are large; high altitudes show only slight changes, and the trends become more pronounced at mid and low altitudes. At any particular time the southern part of the Alps often has different conditions than the north. Shorter snow duration is mainly caused by earlier snow melting in spring than by later first snowfalls in autumn.Trends for heavy snowfall events are somewhat different: at elevations above 1300 m a.s.l. a very weak increasing trend towards heavier snowfalls has persisted since the 1960s, and only low altitudes below 650 m a.s.l. show a marked drop since the early 1980s, indicating that heavy winter precipitation to an increasing degree falls in the form of rain instead of snow.A literature review confirms that, throughout the temperate and subpolar Northern Hemisphere, a similar general pattern of temporal snow variations occurred during the 20th century.
AuroraBorealis 
06 January 2008 at 18:55
stargazer, still worrying about freezing to death? Come live in northern Sweden, we have lived by the polar circle for at least the last 1000 yrs.....
bobclive 
06 January 2008 at 19:40
If you are a global warming sceptic you will not get your paper published in Nature, it appears in the magazine there is no debate.
AuroraBorealis 
06 January 2008 at 19:56
bobclive, how many scientific papers have you published / reviewed? What do you know about the peer review process? I am quite sure that any data based paper showing that AGW has stopped would make the front page of both Science and Nature. And no sane scientist would refrain from publishing such a result, considering the enormous impact it would have and certainly guarantee funding for a long time. The point is, no data not story.
bobclive 
06 January 2008 at 20:39
The Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. There, the undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influence of vegetation and human activity are ideal for monitoring the greenhouse gases that can cause climate change. 
You would have thought that this remote location would also have been ideal for ground temperature measurements from 1986, I cannot find any information or graph relating to temperature, this site is truly rural. 
Try this 
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Spinning%20temperature%20out%20... 
the World Meteorological Organization recently announced in its annual greenhouse-gas bulletin. Based on samples from 40 countries, the level of carbon dioxide in the air reached 381.2 parts per million, up fractionally from 2005 -- concentrations not seen in 650,000 years. 
If CO2 levels are based on recent samples from 40 counties, why are these CO2 levels not compared with past CO2 levels, namely the measurements sited in Ernst-Georg Beck's paper 180 Years accurate CO2 Gas analysis of Air by Chemical Methods. Are theses recent CO2 levels actually at record highs,
Brute 
06 January 2008 at 20:47
AuroraBorealis, 
BTW, Brutes figure on foreign aids shows that the US gives about 1/5 or 1/7 of the aid given by Sweden and Norway respectively, calculated on a per capita basis..... 
I wish this site contained more font options…………………. 
Typical Socialist mindset; Collectivism........You have more than I do so what you have should be confiscated to "make it all equal". No matter how hard you worked to get what you have or how much I wasted and squandered it all should be “redistributed equally”. Is it a contest to see who is more philanthropic? Whatever happened to gratitude and simply saying thank you no matter who is providing the handouts? No one owes me anything and I don’t expect anything from anyone, (including my government or your government for that matter). I simply do not understand this sense of entitlement; ("I exist; therefore the world owes me something"). Make your own way, don’t depend on others or your government…..For God’s sake; grow a pair. 
Private charitable donations per capita for a handful of countries. The amounts are in Euros-per-capita. I’ve always found that voluntary contributions is a more accurate indicator of a particular group’s largess/generosity as opposed to “compulsory charitable contributions” (i.e. foreign aid through taxation…..also known as Marxism.) 
COUNTRY................GIVING 
Spain..........................122 
Belgium.......................120 
U.K.............................117 
Netherlands.................110 
Ireland........................100 
France..........................74 
Finland..........................70 
Austria..........................50 
Germany.......................39 
Hungary........................32 
Slovakia........................25 
Czech Republic...............25 
Romania.........................5 
U.S..............................278 
The U.S. Record 
• Top importer of goods from developing countries in 2004 with $661 billion 
• World's largest single country donor of foreign aid. According to preliminary figures, annual official development assistance nearly tripled from $10 billion in 2000 to $27.5 billion in 2005 
• $2.7 billion in HIV/AIDS funding through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in 2005 
• $7.8 billion in bilateral humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance in 2005. This expenditure consisted of $3.6 billion for humanitarian relief and $4.2 billion for reconstruction 
1 All figures in the fact sheet represent the most current data available. 
Can't you understand that you and most every other individual in the world hold the key to their own happiness and their own prosperity? Instead, you expect someone else to provide it for you. 12.9 Billion isn't enough! 1/5th or 1/7th isn't enough! You sound like my ex-wife or a whining child that wants an advance on his allowance. 
Where is my compassion? I sent my last bit of compassion along with 1/3 of my family’s income to the taxman. 
I’ll go back and look at your reference to Occam's Razor...............
Mr Fnortner 
06 January 2008 at 20:47
It is incredible to me how many of those commenting here resort to attacks on their fellow man rather than on confronting the issues being debated. Credentials, popularity, authority, tradition, reputation and the like all have nothing whatever to do with the quality of an argument or the science involved. If I tell you that since two lines are parallel, a straight line intersecting them forms equal internal angles, you cannot refute that by noting that I beat my wife, pick my nose, cheat at cards, worship other than your god, or hate kittens. You might try finding out if my lines are on a plane, for starters. Same here: stick to science and logic like the adults you are.
Brute 
06 January 2008 at 21:03
AuroraBorealis, 
By the way; it seemed pointless to debate whether "Global Warming" exists or not and continuing to argue about the cause; mountains of evidence would not convince you. 
Assuming you are correct in your assertions how do you plan to resolve/combat the problem? If you would...possibly a 10 -12 point plan......but be somewhat specific; who would be involved, timelines, financing, goals, etc. Not a novel; you must have given this some thought....... 
I'm not trying to sound condescending; I'm genuinely interested on how you would propose to change the weather on a global scale to achieve whatever your goal is. What is the ideal temperature/weather condition on the planet anyway? 
Still looking at Occam's Razor.....
AuroraBorealis 
06 January 2008 at 21:41
Brute, now we are talking! I accept the challenge and will respond to you, but not tonight due to writing applications that much be finished before deadline.
Brute 
06 January 2008 at 21:54
AuroraBorealis, 
Sure; understood. Sounds good. Kind of cool talking to someone on the other side of the planet this way..... 
I'm sure glad that Al Gore invented this Internet thing. It’s like having the Library of Alexandria in my home without all of the cumbersome scrolls. 
I'll watch the site.
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
06 January 2008 at 23:04
Bobclive, you ask an important question that I have also had for some time: 
"The Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. There, the undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influence of vegetation and human activity are ideal for monitoring the greenhouse gases that can cause climate change…….You would have thought that this remote location would also have been ideal for ground temperature measurements from 1986, I cannot find any information or graph relating to temperature, this site is truly rural." 
We may also ask: why has the IPCC group not produced a correlation graph between CO2 and global temperature ? Is it because no correlation exists, or because other factors are disturbing the correlation ? Surely there must have been some short periods where tiny correlation can be shown ? 
I have somewhere seen a CO2 graph from Shetland Islands, showing even more regular annual curves and regular rise that those of Mauna Loa. It sure would be interesting to see also the temperature curve from there.
Robin Guenier 
06 January 2008 at 23:47
JZ Smith: on 3 January, you kindly described my proposal for action as excellent and asked how I proposed to implement it. Well, I apologise for not responding until now: I was waiting to see if anyone else might contribute. Now, especially in view of the recent Brute/AuroraBorealis exchange, I will attempt an answer. First, I will recap the background. 
On 22 December, I responded to comments by Maz and Patrick Hadley about the so-called “Millennium Bug”: no longer a relevant matter. But I stayed with the discussion and became increasingly dismayed by the “my expert is more expert than you expert and my graph more authoritative than yours” dialogue. So I tried, as a non-scientist and layman with no set view on AGW, to determine what might be done to move matters forward: see my posts of 30 December (and Maz’s comment), 1 January (and Maz’s and AuroraBorealis’s comments) and 2 January (and Maz’s and Patrick Hadley’s comments). On 3 January, I summarised my proposal on these lines: 
There is unlikely to be a solution based on an agreed “truth”: the debate (my expert v. your expert) seems likely to rage on and on, getting increasingly heated and more remote from agreement. The following, however, might reconcile most reasonable people: (1) we sideline the green fanatics (admittedly not easy but, in global terms, they are a tiny minority); (2) we seek agreement that, although the truth cannot now be settled, the IPCC might be right and that, in any case, continued reliance on fossil fuels is unwise; (3) we accept, however, that the probable social/political damage caused by halting or reversing economic growth is unacceptable (to voters in the developed economies and to governments of the developing economies) and damaging, especially to the world’s poorest people; and (4) we adopt solutions that reconcile these positions, viz. 4.1 a mix of practical renewables, nuclear power and the interim use “clean burn” fossil fuels, 4.2 continued research into other energy sources, 4.3 continued development of low energy heating, transportation etc., and 4.4 a programme to ameliorate any climate induced problems (flooding etc.) that might still emerge. I proposed that we get on with all this now but if, say, within ten years it became clear that the IPCC was wrong (perhaps temperature levels off or even falls), we would have a radical rethink. In the meantime, little harm would have been done and arguably substantial benefit achieved. 
JZ Smith: realistically only the political leaders of the “western” world can initiate implementation of this. And they have an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, the media and “informed” opinion has been captured by the Gore view that, unless drastic action is taken to reduce carbon emissions, the consequences for humanity will be dire – to question this is akin to Holocaust denial and any politician tempted to do so fears media excoriation. Yet, on the other, the majority of the voters are probably at best dubious about AGW and at worst believe it to be a hoax. And it’s voters that really matter. Therefore, the UK government for example pays lip service to the need for action but, in effect, does little but set ambitious targets – most of which are to be realised long after they have left office – and, in the meantime, expands airports, invests in road transport and plans for coal burning power stations. 
I believe my proposal resolves their dilemma and that’s how implementation can be initiated.
Peter Martin 
07 January 2008 at 01:38
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/tmp.xls 
Using the same sources as David Whitehouse, I've plotted out the data using a rolling five year average on a spreadsheet which can be downloaded from the above link. 
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who still thinks that the Global warming problems is over, after they've seen it!
Brute 
07 January 2008 at 03:14
AuroraBorealis, 
Are you certain that you want to use Occam's Razor to support your position?
BigSkeptic 
07 January 2008 at 04:47
As someone with a mathematical and science background (but not a practicing scientist nor a climatology expert) I have been arguing against AGW for some time with friends and associates, some of whom have unfortunately become charter members of The Cult Of The AlGorian Hystericals (I claim copyrights for this group description but feel free to use it without attestation!). 
Most of what I have learned about global warming has come from blogs such as this and numerous articles posted by skeptical scientists. Some basic questions remain for me and I would appreciate some clarification. Advanced thanks to any who take the time to respond: 
Let me just address one basic topic now: 
Mean Global Temperature(MGT) 
It appears that the IPCC models use surface temperature gauges located around the planet to measure MGT. But these are by no means evenly distributed nor do they cover a significant amount of the surface. By my own calcualtions, if there WERE, say 2000 of them eveny distributed, each one would cover an area roughly the size of Oregon - clearly current instruments must cover much much larger areas. If these thermometers report the average temperature for the day at that specific location, and then these figures are averaged after mysterious statistical corrections to account for heat island effect, etc., and then averaged again to calculate an annual MGT., of what use is the MGT thus calculated - it is an average of an average of questionable averages, in itself a very questionable math calculation at best? But both pro and anti AGW arguments center around MGT. 
Doesn't climate change result mostly from DIFFERENCES in a whole host of non-linear variables of very large and poorly understood systems such as oceans and the sun and the clouds, etc. , of which simple averages are not representative, and of which temperature, and its current proxy, MGT, is only one variable, and maybe not the most important? WIth one foot in a 164 degree oven and the other in an bucket of 32 degree ice water, on average I should feel quite normal! But this says nothing about the state of my blood circulation. 
Anti AGW arguers also seem to use various conjured up, statistically corrected, and otherwise massaged MGT numbers to bolster their arguments. 
The whole MGT argument seems to me a waste of time that distracts us from getting to the real facts of the matter. It is based on essentially meaningless numbers that have nothing to do with climate change - unless you describe climate change as changes in meaningless numbers!! . 
Where am I wrong? 
Do satellite data provide better coverage and more accurate measurements? Do they agree with surface based measurements? Who uses which data sets? 
By the way, I just happend upon this terrific blog and am happy I did. The responses here are enlightening and thoughtful.
bobclive 
07 January 2008 at 11:08
Bigskeptic, 
From what I have read, When satellite temps together with radiosond temps showed no global warming, the satellite data was altered to try to match it to the dodgy 
ground temps, I believe the radiosond data was considered unreliable by the AGW brigade. 
AuroraBorealis you say (I am quite sure that any data based paper showing that AGW has stopped would make the front page of both Science and Nature. 
Read this link to understand what happens to any studies by skeptics. 
http://csicop.org/doubtandabout/deja-vu/ 
Second Para of this article reads, 
(These "skeptics" find what they consider to be a weak point in the mainstream theory and critique it. Not by conducting ORIGINAL research; they simply review previous work. Then they find a little-known, not particularly influential journal where an editor sympathetic to their viewpoint hangs his hat.) 
IS THIS NOT THE WHOLE POINT OF THE EXERCISE, TO REVIEW PREVIOUS WORK AS DID M&M on MBH 98-99. 
I presume all data used to construct the flawed Hockey stick graph by Mann & co was their original work, the only original part of that study I believe was the rubbish maths and the iffy computer code which has still not been fully released into mainstream science. 
If these AGW advocates truly believed their studies are bullet proof they would archive all their data together with the computer code used in the study. 
This would enable other scientist to fully verify the results. As Einstein said it only takes one student to disprove a theory. We are all looking for the truth of this matter but you will not find this until there is full disclosure.
bobclive 
07 January 2008 at 11:24
One thought Coal Is bad say AGW brigade, Thatcher destroyed the miners union and closed the majority of the coal mines in the UK, we now have dwindling oil supplies and rely on Russia to provide our gas supplies, the greens don`t like Nucear, yet there is I believe a thousand years of coal stocks under the UK, should we use this coal.
Brute 
07 January 2008 at 13:05
When an analogous course of events unfolded in the world of climate science, the skepticism was notably absent. When the Soviet Union was falling apart from 1989 to 1992 people there didn’t much care about keeping temperature monitoring stations. Thousands were closed and it’s important to note that many of these were in cold regions. Others around the world closed at the same time. Could this have helped making the decade that followed the "hottest decade" ever?
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
07 January 2008 at 13:14
Peter Martin, you are on the correct track. This is what everyone interested in the climate change should do. Make your own graphs and think for yourself ! 
Next you should draw a graph with the mean monthly values and compare the results. You will now notice that you obtain different results. On the one hand you have obtained averages of averages (five years running means of mean annuals) and on the other hand less averaged mean monthly values. On one hand you have produced a perfect Hockey Stick graph and on the other somewhat less so. 
Below your comment, BigSkeptic is thinking about another aspect of the same problem. He says: 
"If these thermometers report the average temperature for the day at that specific location, and then these figures are averaged after mysterious statistical corrections to account for heat island effect, etc., and then averaged again to calculate an annual MGT., of what use is the MGT thus calculated - it is an average of an average of questionable averages, in itself a very questionable math calculation at best?" 
Peter Martin, are you more interested in the historical aspect of climate change ? Then you should make a lot of hockey stick graphs and study the long-term trend. These graphs will not be useful to predict temperatures in the near future, because all finer details will be lost. 
However, if you are interested in current state of affairs and the near future, you use the actual measurements and avoid averages. The best data is always the uncorrupted data, in our case daily mean values. Unfortunately, these daily measurements do not seem to be available to us. Why should that be ?
Brute 
07 January 2008 at 14:33
Mr. Genier, 
Seems like a reasonable approach as long as it is propagated by private industry and there is no government involvement. My opinion is that it’s best to let individuals risk their money as opposed to politicians using other people’s money to fund their programs/agendas. No clear thinking individual would risk their own fortune on a losing proposition; politicians will, (it isn’t their money). 
(1) We sideline the green fanatics (admittedly not easy but, in global terms, they are a tiny minority). 
(2) We seek agreement that, although the truth cannot now be settled, the IPCC might be right and that, in any case, continued reliance on fossil fuels is unwise. 
(3) We accept, however, that the probable social/political damage caused by halting or reversing economic growth is unacceptable (to voters in the developed economies and to governments of the developing economies) and damaging, especially to the world’s poorest people. 
(4) We adopt solutions that reconcile these positions. 
4.1 A mix of practical renewables, nuclear power and the interim use “clean burn” fossil fuels. 
4.2 Continued research into other energy sources. 
4.3 Continued development of low energy heating, transportation etc. 
4.4 A programme to ameliorate any climate induced problems (flooding etc.) that might still emerge.
Cybertiger 
07 January 2008 at 15:00
Who do you think will win the war on oil, the war to end all wars? My vote is on God's country ... the land of freedom and democracy ... and big oily geysers. 
PS. I hope to bag the 400 spot in AGW/carbon wars.
Robin Guenier 
07 January 2008 at 15:45
(Damn it, Cybertiger – I was aiming for the 400 spot.) 
Bruce: maybe you’re right but there’s just no way you can keep the politicians out of this. Like it or not they set the agenda, running, for example, the Kyoto and Bali conferences. I was responding to many posts noting that, while the debate about the reality of and reasons for global warming rage on (for example on this thread), nothing gets done. It seems to me that genuine action (as opposed to lip service) depends on reasonable people finding common ground. I suggested that this is possible based on three propositions: (1) that the green fanatics are sidelined; (2) that we accept that the IPCC may be right and that, even if they’re not, continued use of fossil energy is unwise; and (3) (most important in my view) that we accept that action must not halt or reverse economic growth: otherwise nothing western politicians say will be acceptable to their voters, the developing eastern economies will just ignore them and the poorest people in the world will be left even further behind. My proposals (4.1 – 4.4) were an attempt to address that. But first IMHO the terms of debate have to be changed. That can be done only by politicians – based (I would hope) on the above three propositions. 
And it’s wholly in their interest to do so: it resolves (as I indicated yesterday) the basic dilemma they face with regard to climate change.
Brute 
07 January 2008 at 17:04
Mr. Guenier, 
You're awfully optimistic. If politicians or governments are involved it either will not happen, will cost 200 times more than budgeted, or the revenue earmarked for the project(s) will be diverted to some other project/porkbarrel set-asides. (See my rather lengthy post on January 5th “The Global Warming Tax Scam Kicks In”). The majority of revenue from “Green Taxes” remitted to the government of the United Kingdom is used for purposes other than reducing “greenhouse gases”. A private industry operates, for the most part, much more efficiently/economically and is held accountable by their investors, (unless the industry is subsidized by a government). 
I’m certain Al Gore, George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Clinton and other drumbeaters could raise enough capital to fund research and development. 
Curiously, they won’t put up their money; however, are quite generous with our money.
Robin Guenier 
07 January 2008 at 17:58
Brute: 
Not optimistic, realistic. 
Of course, I agree with you about the inefficiency of governments. I know about the misuse of tax revenues. I’m aware of the (relative) efficiency of private industry. I was a CEO in the private sector for 25 years and, based on that experience, I worked for a short time as CEO of a government agency. So I understand the problems only too well. But, unless you’re proposing a world revolution whereby all western governments are deposed and societies run by boards reporting to investing shareholders (are you?) we have to work with the way things are. That means that society’s priorities are set by the people we elect – and how (or whether) we deal with climate change has to be one of those priorities. Therefore, it is the inevitable role of political leaders to determine the terms of debate. IMHO, if we are to get anywhere these have to be changed and I’m proposing three propositions as a basis for this. When that’s settled, much of the work will have to be done by private industry. But, until it’s settled, I fear we will get nowhere.
Brute 
07 January 2008 at 19:08
Mr. Guenier, 
World Revolution? Western Governments Deposed? Of course not. Well, maybe a few, (I’m joking), but I disagree that change must be implemented through legislation or government fiat. Innovations/technological advancement are generally put forth by private industry, (risk takers) motivated by profit. The airline industry, shipping, automobile industry, medical industry, information technology, just to name a few, all provide goods and services for profit and have made tremendous advancements in technology in a relatively short period of time. It would be wonderful if human beings made advancements because “it’s the right thing to do” or out of a sense of “helping their fellow man”. Of course, there are such rare examples but generally they are few and far between. In many cases they accomplish both, but the incentive in all cases is usually profit. 
I’m having a hard time grasping this child-like, almost infantile dependence/reliance on government to solve problems displayed by people posting on this site. Is this a European thing? Let the marketplace decide; don’t depend on an Oligarchy to resolve your problems. Let people vote with their purses whether they want to participate in this experiment. If the evidence to support the Global Warming Theory is so strong, people will invest/participate. If the evidence is weak, (as I believe it is), they won’t.
Robin Guenier 
07 January 2008 at 20:26
Brute: 
Let me be clear. I’m wholly in agreement with you about the accomplishments of those motivated by profit and am insulted by your associating me with “infantile dependence”. My essential point is not about the process of technological advance – always best left to private business. No, I’m concerned here with the overall international agenda that must precede implementation. 
Or course it would be a fine thing if international priorities were to follow the marketplace – e.g. fix AGW only if enough genuine investors see it as an opportunity. No place for political agonising. The trouble is that it’s not the marketplace that’s deciding. Like it or not, that’s what our political leaders are doing and it’s living in a dream world to pretend otherwise. If you want to dream on, fine – but I don’t. And I think they’re getting it wrong. So I’m proposing that they change their agenda to embrace my three propositions: (1) that the green fanatics are sidelined; (2) that we accept that the IPCC may be right and that, even if they’re not, continued use of fossil energy is unwise; and (3) (most important in my view) that we accept that action must not halt or reverse economic growth: otherwise nothing western politicians say will be acceptable to their voters, the developing eastern economies will just ignore them and the poorest people in the world will be left even further behind.
Mr Fnortner 
07 January 2008 at 20:37
Peter Martin, 
Terrific chart, but data is only evidence, not truth. 
Also, what is the next number in this series: 1, 2, 3, ... ? 
If I am using the algorithm y=x, then the next number is 4. 
If I am using the algorithm y=x - (x-1)(x-2)(x-3) then the next number is -2. 
What is to say that your graph does not form a great plunging curve at the extreme right and portend many years of colder weather? 
Extrapolation is much more dangerous than interpolation. Or as New York Yankees manager Casey Stengel once said, "Never make predictions, especially about the future.”
bobclive 
07 January 2008 at 20:52
Gnuneo 
You say - well i'm sorry, but i for one no longer accept that rainforests can be chopped down, desertification increased, continental water shelves drained, rivers, seas and oceans poisoned, our whole biosphere harmed, just so the oil-lobby can squeeze out a few more $billions into their corporate tax-havens. 
It`s nothing to do with the oil lobby, they have no problem as there is very little else other that nuclear that can compensate for oil, if oil becomes in short supply the oil companies will stand to make even more billions. As far as CO2 is concerned it is I believe not a Pollutant, it is a beneficial trace gas that just happens to be rising at the same time as temperatures, which I consider are not rising nearly as fast as the ground stations would suggest. 
If in 1,000,000 years a new race of say giant ants rules the planet and a computer with training slides for fire fighters on its hard drive was unearthed and these slides were viewed by the ant scientists, they would see a fire engine at a fire, other slides would show other larger fires with more fire engines, having no idea what fire engines were but observing that at every fire there was a fire engine could the consensus conclude that the fire engines caused the fires and the more fire engines the bigger the fires would become just because the fire engines happened to be in the same vicinity at the same time as the fire. 
Temperature rising CO2 rising.
bobclive 
07 January 2008 at 21:41
Aug 2007. 
D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt." 
The 1922 article goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared." 
"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all." 
Worth pondering 
Royal Astronomical Society fellow Benny Peiser, of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University in Great Britain, recalls the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
bobclive 
07 January 2008 at 23:28
I appear to have found a temperature graph from Mauna loa, this is rare, it appears to show a level temperature trend from 1996 to 2000 and then a decline from 2000 to 2007, this means the temps have not risen at this site for 11 years yet the Mauna Loa CO2 level has been rising during that time, it is hard to see any link between temps and CO2 see- 
http://www.sunandsky.org/Sun_and_Sky_Data.html
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
07 January 2008 at 23:31
Has anyone heard about the terrifying warming climate around the arctic ? Well, we have also heard about this in Iceland. What we find strange though is, that the local climate has been much warmer in the history of this nation. 
Written sources date the first settlement of the country to 874. At that time glaciers were certainly around but much smaller than what we find now. The largest glacier called Vatnajökull is 8.100 km2, which is about 8% of the country's surface area. 
Guess what, in the time of the first settlement Vatnajökull had a different name ! It was called Klofajökull, which means "a split/cleft glacier". It actually was split through the middle and the valley was wide and accessible enough to allow travel through. Around 1400 this valley became filled by ice and has been closed ever since. 
Unfortunately, we will not be able to build a highway through the Klofa valley, because all signs indicate a cooler climate in the future, not warmer. 
Some information about Vatnajökull can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatnaj%C3%B6kull 
Keep warm !
Brute 
07 January 2008 at 23:32
Mr. Guenier, 
Alright, fine. How will all of this be financed? How are we going to convince the Chinese Communist to abandon their, (literally), dirt cheap coal and purchase scrubbers. How are we going to convince the Russians to slow down production, reducing their use of fossil fuels, and switch to a fuel source and method of process that is more expensive? Russia is currently enjoying a bonanza of oil and gas discovery; China is currently opening a coal powered generating plant monthly, (or weekly I can’t remember). How are we going to convince the Indians, Chinese and Russians to alter their economy in an attempt to resolve a problem that they don’t think, (or care), exists? 
I think it will only work from the bottom up; not the top down.
Brute 
07 January 2008 at 23:35
Here's a case where the treatment is worse than the disease. 
Which is Greener: the Prius or the Hummer? 
The Recorder argues that when the environmental costs of building a Prius are factored in -- such as mining the nickel for its battery -- the race between the Hummer and the Prius for the Green Riband isn't even close. (hat tip: Samizdata) A quotation from the article demonstrates the power with which a change in perspective can alter the accounting of what seemed at first glance to be an easy decision. 
As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the “dead zone” around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles. 
The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare. 
The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside, said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper. 
All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce nickel foam. From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce? 
Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet. When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis. 
Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust”, the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid. 
One of the most subtle problems in public policy is to decide what exactly one is trying to optimize. By changing the definition of Green-ness to include total pollution rather than simply minimizing a "carbon footprint" it may well be the case that a Hummer is Greener than a Prius. But given that Canada is a friendly country an energy security case might be made for being more dependent on nickel from Ontario than oil from Saudi Arabia. By that measure a Prius might be better than a Hummer. The sage advice of all public policy professors is to redefine a problem until it is expressed in terms favorable to one's self. And, faced with the energy security argument, it might be countered that since a Prius is made by a "foreign" corporation, then that additional factor might make it "better" to buy a Hummer after all. And so on. 
The sad fact about most of these environmental questions is that it may require us to trade off one set of objectives against another. Maybe the "world" should decide which it values more. In the case of "Global Warming" for example, many of the policies designed to reduce "Greenhouse Gases" may exacerbate poverty in the Third World. How does one rank different goals -- such as for example reducing "greenhouse gases" and reducing hunger -- and combine them into a single policy? 
What is nearly certain is that the process of arriving at the tradeoffs will be hard. Nobel Prize Winner Kenneth Arrow formulated what would later come to be known as the Arrow Impossibility Theorem in 1950. "In voting systems, Arrow’s impossibility theorem, or Arrow’s paradox, demonstrates that no voting system based on ranked preferences can possibly meet a certain set of reasonable criteria when there are three or more options to choose from." 
The need to aggregate preferences occurs in many different disciplines: in welfare economics, where one attempts to find an economic outcome which would be acceptable and stable; in decision making, where a person has to make a rational choice based on several criteria; and most naturally in voting systems, which are mechanisms for extracting a decision from a multitude of voters' preferences. 
The framework for Arrow's theorem assumes that we need to extract a preference order on a given set of options (outcomes). Each individual in the society (or equivalently, each decision criterion) gives a particular order of preferences on the set of outcomes. We are searching for a preferential voting system, called a social welfare function, which transforms the set of preferences into a single global societal preference order. 
Arrow's theorem says that if the decision-making body has at least two members and at least three options to decide among, then it is impossible to design a social welfare function that satisfies all these conditions at once. 
So it turns out that it is hard to create a consensus of our acceptable tradeoffs even in principle. Which is why some wags have remarked that "the only voting method that isn't flawed is a dictatorship," which would suit the Greens just fine. So maybe we do need some nature "activists" like Frank Albrecht of the preceding post to simply tell us what Gaia thinks. And it seemed like buying a Green-friendly car was a simple task.
elcuervo 
08 January 2008 at 11:45
David Whitehosue says: "For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact." 
As a scientist mysel I invite everyone to think about why this science journalist did not include any reference to support this"fact"? 
Please note that it is not straightforward to measure the temperature of a whole planet, as you need to process data from many weather stations, remove noise following complex statistical procedures, etc., etc. Earth does not come with a thermometer! So this "fact" should come in the form of a scientific article. 
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is constituted by some of the 2500 world’s top climate change scientists. Who are you going to believe: thousands of top scientists or a journalist without any solid evidence? Unfortunately, those with commercial interests won't have a doubt...
ripley62 
08 January 2008 at 12:08
I do find it interesting that since accurate temperature measurements, thus directly comparable what the author is using, only exist since1850 or so. Plus any type of reasonably large area distribution of accurate temperature readings only exist for just over a 100 years. It is interesting that 7 years of data is too short to be relevant to indicate a trend change. I'm not sure I know of any type of distribution where a period equalling at worst 5% of period a reading is not significant to the trend. Seven years might not be significant over a long scale climate trend, hundreds or thousands of years that is, but it certainly does within the time frame of similarly acquired readings - otherwise its comparing data with a conversion factor. Then that brings into question what effect the conversion does to the weight given to differently acquired data points.
draco 
08 January 2008 at 13:18
elcuervo 
I don't think you have actually read Dr Whitehouse's article and do bear in mind that it is a magazine article not a scientific paper. Dr Whitehouse has impeccable evidence, in fact the UK govt agrees with him in the form of the met office that says the global temperature has been statistically indistinguishable every year since 2001. 
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr200... 
look at bullet point 3. 
I think you should be a little wiser before acusing a respected journalist of not having any sold evidence. As you can see, even if you don't like it, Dr Whitehouse's evidence is rock solid.
elcuervo 
08 January 2008 at 14:12
Draco, 
Thanks for the link. I am afraid it is you who is not reading well. In the governmental link you provide, Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia says: "The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000.". That is, the UK Government is stating very clearly in the press release that does NOT agree with Whitehouse's "rock solid evidence". 
What Prof. Jones means is evident for any competent scientist. Unfortunately, "Dr" Whitehouse takes a sentence out of context, reach a WRONG conclusion and writes an article about it. Quite frankly, If I was him I would write a rectification as soon as I could...
science spin doctor 
08 January 2008 at 14:49
No so elcuervo 
It's Prof Phil Jones who should be embarrased not Dr Whitehouse. The Met Office press release is contradictory and biased and I also don't think you have actually read Dr Whitehouse's article. 
the met office press release states quite clearly based on observations that the period 2001-2007 has shown no temperature change - that's what Dr Whitehouse has been saying. 
It's prof phil Jones who then muddys the waters by saying something contradictory to his own data. 
elcuevo - read Dr Whitehouse's article - he says that the past decade was warmer than previous decades, as the average temperatures show, but that the evidence is that since 2001 the word hasn't got any warmer - that is EXACTLY what the met office data says - exactly. Dr whitehouse has taken the DATA produced by the met office and not used the personal interpretation of Prof Jones - you seem to perfer personal comment and ignore data. 
I think you are seeing what you want to see and cherry picking. If you actually READ Dr Whitehouse's article and the Met office press release you will see that Dr Whitehouse is totally consistent with their data. 
Prof Jones is in effect saying that he knows that the past 7 years have seen no change but global warming is still here because it is in any case warmer than it was 30 years ago. Dr Whitehouse says it is warmer but since 2001 it has become no warmer. 
I think it's Dr Whitehouse who is being more honest with the data here and showing less 'spin' than prof Jones or yourself.
yasminB 
08 January 2008 at 15:01
Having read the MetOffice press release I must say I am with "science spin doctor" and Dr Whitehouse. It seems pretty clear to me that they support what Whitehouse says - that the word warmed starting 1980 but in post 2001 priod that warming has stalled and there have been no temperature change. It is a shame that prof jones tries to distract ourselves from this important fact. 
Not having commented much like this before I must say that I think many of those who post comments here have sither not actually read the original article by whitehouse or seem to be desperate to knock it down and put forward 'evidence' that turns out to be no evidence at all. Even whan it's obvious - such as the fact that the metoffice data supports Whitehouse - you get posters like elcuervo who don't make sense and don't know what they are posting about. 
Folks its abundantly obvious that the metoffce confirms what Dr Whitehouse said - if you actually READ what the metoffice and Whitehouse actually say.
scienceobserver 
08 January 2008 at 15:07
Dr Whitehouse is right, lets move on.
Brute 
08 January 2008 at 15:20
ScienceObserver, 
Does that mean we have a "consensus"? Global Warmng has Stopped? We can stop hearing about all of this nonsense?
elcuervo 
08 January 2008 at 15:23
science spin doctor, 
If you honestly believe what you are saying, I am afraid you are quite uncultured. Please do not take this as an insult, I am qualified to assess your scientific knowledge and the fact is that it is really poor. 
There is no contradiction in what Prof. Jones is saying. Your problem is that you simply don't understand it. 
There are several errors in your comment. The main one is probably: "...evidence is that since 2001 the world hasn't got any warmer - that is EXACTLY what the met office data says - exactly." Not really. Part of what they are saying is that uncertainties in the data do not make measured changes statistically significant, which is something very different. 
Please forget me if I don't spend more time in my explanation, but I believe that science should be left to scientists in order to avoid confusing public opinion (exactly what "Dr." Whitehouse has achieved).
peter bond 
08 January 2008 at 15:34
Dont be pompos and insulting elcuevo 
It is you who are confusing. I to am a scientist and agree with Science Spin Doctor. You show a great deal of ignorance and bias about science. you say 
"Part of what they are saying is that uncertainties in the data do not make measured changes statistically significant, which is something very different. " 
This betrays your bias and scientific ignorance. the uncertainties in the data measurement make the observed small changes seen year to years since 2001 statistically insignificant. What this means to me as a scientist is that there is no evidence of any change at all since 2001 - there is nothing confusing about that - I think your interpretation shows you do not understand the science of measurement - and Dr Whitehouse does. elcuevo - do not throw around insults ina pompos and condescending way and then show you basic ignorance of science. You should take science and statistics 101. 
the met office says that the temperature data since 2001 is statistically indistinguishable (their own words) - that is there is no case based on the MEASUREMENTS that supports and change between them or any trend. the temp neither goes up or down - it's the same, the same, ie flat. you are an idiot, and a rude pompos one at that. 
You say you are qualified to asses the data - if you were my student I would flunk you.
elcuervo 
08 January 2008 at 15:42
Peter Bond, 
I can tell from your comments that you are an extraordinary scientist... Could you please tell us all where do you work and which is your expertise?
maryl 
08 January 2008 at 15:43
elcuevo 
You can't honestly believe that!!! I teach statistics amd must tell you you are contradictory - if you analyse what you say it actually proves Whitehead's article is correct. 
If the temp data are stastically indistinguishable between 2001-2007 then the null hypothesis is that they are all the same, as you have no evidence to support any other view and have no justification to introduce another variable (as you would have if there was a trend in the data). 
Conclusion - the temp between 2001-2007 is, according to the measured data, unchanged. As far as I can see that's a very different situation to the warming that happened before that. That is a scientifically interesting situation.
maryl 
08 January 2008 at 15:44
elcuevo 
you are the one who seems scientifically strange - you tell us who you are first.
Robin Guenier 
08 January 2008 at 16:26
Brute: 
Maybe we’re getting somewhere. 
I completely agree that things get done from the bottom up, not the top down – it’s been my recipe for project success for 30 years. In this case, as I keep saying, like it or not the overall objective will be set by political leaders: let’s do our utmost to ensure it’s a practical objective and not a continuation of the Kyoto/Bali muddle we have today. Hence my proposal above. Then let’s get on with your bottom up approach. 
It’s not going to be remotely easy – it means tackling appallingly difficult political and economic problems. But it would be far more likely to produce a reasonable outcome than either today’s confusion and debate or relying on the market alone to sort things out. If the arguments just blast back and forth without any prospect of agreement (as I’m disappointed to see they continue to do in this thread), nothing will get done with chaos the most likely outcome. 
BTW what happened to AuroraBorealis’s acceptance of your challenge to produce a 10 – 12 point plan? And it would be interesting to know AB’s, Maz’s, Patrick Hadley’s and JZ Smith’s take on my proposal (see 3 and 6 January posts).
stargazer 
08 January 2008 at 16:37
As folk rightly say above eg. "Conclusion - the temp between 2001-2007 is, according to the measured data, unchanged". Is exactly right... though in fact 1998 is 'supposed' to be the warmest year on record... so I'd say the temp has gone down !
paulm 
08 January 2008 at 17:03
Congratulations to David Whitehouse. It is very refreshing to see at last a mainstream science journalist acknowledging the fact that global warming appears to be slowing down or stopping. Those with doubts need only look at the global data, for example at NASA GISS or the RSS satellite - anyone can find these on the web.
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
08 January 2008 at 17:07
The Crow (el cuervo) really crystallises the climate debate. The climate fanatics refuse to accept any arguments or facts, even if these arguments and facts are produced by themselves ! It is very difficult and frustrating to discuss matters with such people. 
The Crow maintains to be a scientist, but he probably is just one of the IPCC slaves. What characterises these people is fanaticism. It is interesting to note that George Santayana, a country-man of the Crow (el cuervo), describes fanaticism thus: 
"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim" 
Winston Churchill also thought about this kind of people and framed his opinion thus: 
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject".
Gary Lewis 
08 January 2008 at 17:39
I don't think we are getting anywhere with elcuervo who seems not to want to see what is obvious in the data and has a self-justifying view of statistics. 
I agree with paulm that david Whitehouse is to be congratulated on his ability to write so clearly and his courage. he has also marshalled what is in my view an unassailable scientific case to show that what many people (including scientists) this is the vase just ain't so. 
But I am curious. David Whitehouse is ex-BBC. the BBC have been the most partisan, biast proponants of 'the settled science of man made global warming.' David Whitehouse's views run counter to that and as he was such a senior person in its scientific hierarchy it leads me to wonder why he left the BBC. Did they supress his views? Whitehouse certainly seems to be a cut above those that are reporting science for the BBc at the moment and have many more awards. Is there something in this?
Brute 
08 January 2008 at 17:44
Mr. Guenier, 
I'd say we are making tremendous progress just by discussing this at this tiny forum. I say we get rid of all of the politicians and the writers on this site take over the debate! 
Maybe in some perverted way, Al Gore has it partially correct; getting individuals to concern themselves with their own little world, (their homes and personal habits), to lessen the impact on the power grid one grain of sand at a time. My family does this without prompting only to reduce our electrical/gas bills, not an effort to resolve a non-existent problem…..simply economics. We have installed high efficiency gas/electric appliances, high efficiency windows, beefed up the insulation and even have installed a solar powered Sterling Engine to supplement the power supply, pretty much an unreliable contraption that I built, but it works, sometimes. As I wrote a few days back; I don’t enjoy being held captive by Eco-Socialists or Terrorist Sponsored Sheikdoms. 
I simply resent being lectured to by the likes of Mr. Gore and other Limousine Liberals/Hollywood types as they jet around in their personal airplanes to black tie affairs, pontificating about how we all should “sacrifice”; or being forced by the government to pay for a religious belief involving Gaia worship. I don’t like being lied to………insults my intelligence. The sky is not falling and it probably took a lot of guts for Dr. Whitehouse to point that out. I’m certain that he is getting a lot of heat from the Global Warming frauds. 
I’m speculating that someone will come up with a personal/local power source, (probably solar powered, akin to a satellite dish), that will revolutionize power generation in the Third World. I read recently that someone has come up with a 40% photovoltaic solar power supply; I can’t find the link right now but I think that’s how this will happen; bottom up. The big stuff, nuclear power plants, hydrogen fuel cells, (solar powered) will come years/decades later implemented by western nations. National Security requires it; we can’t be dependant on backward, unstable nations/societies for our energy needs. 
If nothing else, sites like this help to get the truth out there; average people, (and scientists), sharing information. The "cat is out of the bag" as they say, and all of the Global Alarmists arguments are being disproved one at a time. Media outlets rarely print the straight truth about anything; they have an agenda whether we want to admit it or not. 
Don't know about Aurora.
Mr Fnortner 
08 January 2008 at 18:03
Spin doctor, maryl, peter bond, draco, et al. are closing in on real truth here. As an engineer (scientist in work clothes) I must jump in to fend off elcuervo and his ilk who substitute passion and believe systems for observation and logic. Attack not the messenger; bring better evidence. 
Second, please realize that on a geologic scale, seven years, or seven times seventy, mean nothing. Global warming could be something, or could be nothing, but we will come and go and the planet "will little note nor long remember." (Apologies to A. Lincoln.) We are not hurting this planet, though we may be fouling our nest a bit. 
And the shameless audacity and utter hubris of whoever (not in this forum) said that we are approaching the Archeozoic bacteria in the amount of change humans could cause the ecosystem is almost laughable if it weren't so pathetically, monstrously, stupid.
Robin Guenier 
08 January 2008 at 18:05
Brute: 
Well said.
JZ Smith 
08 January 2008 at 18:42
"BTW what happened to AuroraBorealis’s acceptance of your challenge to produce a 10 – 12 point plan? And it would be interesting to know AB’s, Maz’s, Patrick Hadley’s and JZ Smith’s take on my proposal (see 3 and 6 January posts)." 
Mr. Guenier, 
Sorry, I have been very busy, but managed recently to catch up on this long and interesting thread. 
I continue to support your proposal, and agree with you that only government action can initiate this agenda, but how, specifically, can your proposal be initiated? As I tried to write in my initial post on this thread (then written poorly), 'the AGW train has already left the station.' To many have too much invested in the concept of AGW to willingly accept that the IPCC could be wrong. Look at how those scientists (let along politicians) who dare speak out against the prevailing view? I don't see how AGW proponents—at least the most vociferous ones—could ever accept even your reasonable position that "the IPCC might be right". Even that statement is considered heresy by many in the AGW crowd. 
Unfortunately, I believe we (those of us who are skeptics) need to work with the many scientists who are also skeptics and can prove (or disprove, as the case may be) that there is indeed significant doubt about the finality of AGW. For instance, the site of Steve McIntyre (http://www.climateaudit.org/) has some great info supporting a skeptical view of AGW (including some of the "unthreaded" links by other authors), but it is written in very technical language and is difficult for those of us without scientific backgrounds to follow. Someone (who is respected by scientists) who can both write and understand the science therein needs to more widely publicize these views before the general public can give adequate 'cover' to politicians who also hold skeptical views. 
I have trouble believing that the world is quite ready to accept your proposals without a clearer message to the general public. Unfortunately, many drawn to government service are, by their nature also drawn political views more in line with the left side of the political spectrum, and therefore the institutions of government, in my view, already have a natural bias to accept that AGW is true. Convincing them even that it MIGHT NOT be true will be difficult, and without unassailable scientific evidence to support our position it will be difficult at best to convince them that they might be wrong. Even is we are successful, then they will naturally want to provide Big Government solutions and the Big Government Taxes to solve them. I, of course, support non-government solutions wherever possible, since the profit motive is the best way to achieve success in the most efficient and fastest way. 
Lastly, I saw this article (link below) today that is a perfect example of good government intentions gone horribly and scarily wrong: 
link. 
bobclive 
08 January 2008 at 18:58
Don`t have blind faith in your government, or in your governments scientific advisers such as in this case Jones, and definitely don`t have blind faith in anything that emanates from the IPCC/UN. 
What the AGW brigade like to do is to mix up data then manipulate it with some obscure computer code which they will not release. below is a paper by the late and very able John Daly. YOU CAN SEE EACH INDIVIDUAL WEATHER STATION AND IT`S TEMPERATURE DATA, THE ONE STATION THAT STANDS OUT FROM THE REST IS SURPRISE-SURPRISE CENTRAL ENGLAND, with it`s large heat island effect. 
In this paper are listed a set of historical temperature graphs from a large selection of mostly non-urban weather stations in both hemispheres. This data originated with the NASA Goddard Institute (GISS) in the USA and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England. (The graphs have been generated from that data using the Microsoft Works spreadsheet module). With a few exceptions, large cities have been excluded because of Urban Heat Island Effect distortions to long-term data. Stations with data up to 2000 or beyond are indicated in red (e.g. `Data to 2001'). 
Lets have some comments. 
http://wanews.org/focus/globalwarming/Default.aspx
Maz 
08 January 2008 at 19:07
David Whitehouse’s article is about this graph http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/Ha... which shows very clearly that the average global temperature has levelled off in the last seven years and has actually started to drop in the Southern Hemisphere. It is produced by the UK’s Standard Bearer for AGW, the Hadley Centre. Phil Jones (see earlier posts) is the director. So it’s hardly likely to be biased in favour of the point made in the article. A string of stats from the likes of Tamino and others frankly just muddles the issue. You can churn out statistics till your head hurts. The answer is going to depend heavily on your statistical method and crucially where you take your trend from. The observation made by Dr Whitehouse is quite simply unequivocal and is backed up by the Met Office. 
The interpretation, of course, is not. In fact no one knows whether this is just a blip in a continued rise or the start of a downward trend. It is interesting that the UK Met Office issued a forecast for 2008 that suggests the global temperature is likely to be cooler than recent years. So our projection for the immediate future is that temperatures are going to fall not rise in spite of the rather embarrassing efforts of Phil Jones and the BBC’s David Shuckman to spin this otherwise. 
Does this tell us that CO2 is not the main driver of climate? No it does not. But it does not auger well for the theory of human induced catastrophic climate change if while CO2 continues to rise inexorably the temperatures start to drop. Nevertheless the case for CO2 induced climate change remains viable, at least for the present. The next seven years should clarify the picture somewhat especially IF the Sun conveniently heads towards a period of reduced activity. 
CO2, from basic physics, can cause a rise of approx 1-1.2C per doubling of concentration (which even by IPCC projections we will not achieve till the end of the century). We also know that the law of diminishing returns applies to this effect so the rise will peak regardless of further increases in CO2. The claims of future catastrophic warming can only be made by invoking positive feedback from water vapour (the main greenhouse gas) to generate projections of 3-5C. So climatologists are basically assuming that positive feedbacks will over-ride negative ones to send the planet’s climate system out of control. Because the rise in CO2 over the past century does not match the temperature it is also assumed that aerosol effects are responsible for lack of any warming between 1940 -1980. No one knows how to calculate the cooling effect of aerosols from basic principles so assumed values were inserted in the climate models and then were tweaked and tweaked till the model output matched history. The relationship between the projected increase in water vapour and the effect this has on clouds is as far as I can tell not even modelled. But these are the models used to project future catastrophe. 
Now unless you’re still clinging to the infamous and debunked Hockey Stick version of past climate you will know that temperatures were at least as high as they are today about 1000yrs ago – The Medieval Climatic Optimum - following which we sank into a colder phase dubbed the Mini Ice Age. There is ample evidence from around the global this was NOT confined to Europe. If you go further into the past the temperature variations are even larger. So temperatures can swing up and down, perfectly naturally, without spiralling out of control. This would suggest that in the past negative feedbacks predominated. The IPCC position is that current climatic variation is somehow different and unlike past variation is dominated by positive feedbacks - an interesting concept but in my view entirely speculative. All this is being sold to us as the scientific consensus. I therefore find it amusing to say the least that AuroraBorealis considers the use of Occam’s razor to support the IPCC position rather than natural climatic variation. 
Dr Whitehouse in this article has simply pointed out an observational fact that has the potential to seriously question the current AGW theory. What a shame he is not the current BBC science correspondent!
Maz 
08 January 2008 at 19:08
Thank you Robin. I did read your proposal and I see a lot of sense in it. 
It is not a million miles from what the US, in their own clumsy way, proposed in June last year, is it not? They’ve attempted to side line the loony greens that infest the UN process by suggesting a “new global framework” led by G8 countries. They have apparently accepted the current position of the science (probably grudgingly and with a number of undeclared caveats – entirely justified in my opinion). They realise the future necessity of reducing dependence on fossil fuels but place their emphasis on the development of new technologies rather than on restrictive controls that strangle economies and divert resources from real world problems. 
I’m no fan of the USA but I believe they’ve got this one right. The irony is that because of the current wave of fashionable anti-Americanism they’ve done the cause of reason on this issue immense harm. 
Climate change is not about science anymore. It is a Trojan horse for an ideological, quasi religious social movement that has also become the natural home for post Berlin Wall Socialists. I fear it is no longer a case of simply showing the science to be, at best, deeply flawed. The bandwagon is rolling and is heavily laden with vested interest. The BBC is an utter disgrace on this matter but its leftist and anti-American bias is now widely acknowledged so their position is disappointing but hardly surprising. On the other hand the fact that more and more main-stream journalists are starting to question the enforced “consensus” is encouraging. Well done Dr Whitehouse.
bobclive 
08 January 2008 at 19:14
I wonder what the viewing figures will be when ITN evening news starts at TEN.
Brute 
08 January 2008 at 19:28
Good link on the last post Mr. Clive. 
Thank you.
bobclive 
08 January 2008 at 20:19
I will keep banging on about the UHI effect. A recent 2007 study see below found that warming has occured mainly in the urban areas, while the least developed regions have cooled. Increase of minimum temperatures rather than daily maximum's could be a result of CO2, but is more likely a signature of urban heat islands. In particular, look at map in the linked article. Notice the red dots for hotter areas and the cool dots for cooler areas. The red dots are all on... cities. The blue dots are all in the countryside. You make the call -- urban heat or greenyhouse effect. 
The 2007 china study mentioned earlier shows a 65-80% warming due to UHI. These are two most recent studies, if these studies are correct the actual warming in this century is minimal to zero. 
Jones&Co have flawed temperature data, these above two studies keep urban temps separate from rural temps unlike Jones&Co who put them all in one pot. 
link 1 
and linked article. 
link 2
bobclive 
08 January 2008 at 20:50
I had to post this, I found it here http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurem... 
Adjusting for Urban Heat Island effect 
When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect. They compare urban long term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail on the NASA website (Hansen 2001). 
They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). The point is they're aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records. 
(Urban weather stations in PARKS, how many 1-2 maybe.) 
It appears the mentioned China and US studies don`t agree that the UHI effect is near ZERO. 
Can you believe this, NASA-GISS rigorously adjust for UHI, if they believe it is zero how do they adjust it. 
All the adjustments are based I believe on the Jones study, this study is obviously viewed by the IPCC as the gold standard similar to MBH98/99 Hockey stick.
bobclive 
08 January 2008 at 21:00
try this site, 
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/
JZ Smith 
08 January 2008 at 21:03
Ha ha! Just saw this and had to post it here: 
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24333&s=rcme
Brute 
08 January 2008 at 23:43
http://www.inteliorg.com/archive/FireandIce.pdf
Peter Martin 
08 January 2008 at 23:45
I'd just like to add some comments about the graph that I posted up previously: 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/tmp.xls 
The data was, I believe, from exactly the same source as used by David Whitehouse in his article except that it goes back to 1850. David seemed to think that 2001 was as far back as he needed to go. 
If he'd just taken the trouble to go back to 1970 and plotted out the data for himself he would have seen that GW has mainly occurred since 1975, approximately 0.6deg C. This warming hasn't been linear, but has occurred in 3 noticable jumps with slight cooling periods between each one. 
There was quite a rapid jump in the late nineties of about 0.2 deg C , and had David plotted the graph himself he would hardly have been surprised that there has been a flattening off since then. It is perhaps significant that this is just a flattening rather than the cooling that was observed between previous jumps. 
David does seem to have been taken in by the closeness of the 2001 -2007 figures. You do get clusters of results quite often in data but it pays to be careful not to read too much into these oddities. There is also noise on the longer term graph which can give a misleading impression. For instance, 1998 probably wasn't year the warmest, even though raw data point indicates that it was. However, just apply a little sensible averaging and much of the noise and the statistical oddities all disappear. 
Not to put too fine a point on it, I'm claiming that David Whitehouse has got it all wrong and I'd like to challenge him to make the same case for the ending of Global Warming after taking a longer term view of the statistics.
bobclive 
08 January 2008 at 23:51
Surface temp measuring station. Sensor is attached to the building, just mere inches away from brickwork 
link 
bobclive 
09 January 2008 at 00:01
Nice one JZ . 
Brute, fire and ice solid past evidence climate change.
Gbevan 
09 January 2008 at 00:18
Here we go again, another person who looks at the data and finds unconvincing explanations for the obvious. Do we need to go over it again - it's clear from the UK met Office data that the period after 2001 is different whch i think was the point of the article. It doesn't seem to me to be a 'cluster' of close points due to chance. So is it hardly suprising that there has been a flatening in global temperatures when the carbon dioxide concentration continues to rise and rise - I should say so. the whole point was that taking a longer term view of the statistics just flattens out valuable information in the data set and, of course it would, dilutes the strangeness of the past 7 years.
bobclive 
09 January 2008 at 00:25
The last one, 
http://www.freedom.org/news/200708/01/gielow.phtml?p=1
Peter Martin 
09 January 2008 at 02:44
In reply to G bevan: 
The temperature behaviour of the last seven years hasn't been that strange. Following a rapid warming between 1984 to 1989 there was a slight cooling between 1989 to 1994. The current period of temperature stability is just part of the general pattern of temperature jump-flatteneing - jump - flattening etc 
The next jump is forecast to start in 2009: 
see http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr200...
sophie 
09 January 2008 at 03:42
Can I add a few comments about David Whitehouse. I'm glad his article has stirred up so much interest - many times that of the article by Richard Dawkins. 
I knew David when I worked for the BBC World Service and I too wish he was still the BBC's science correspondent. he was, in my view, the best one the BBC ever had because he stayed close to science and not sensationalism and was one of the few correspondents whom I though really knew what they were talking about. I know that his prodigious output and scientific view caused him a few problems - the other science correspondent at the time wasn't nearly as good and used to hype things outrageously causing David real difficulty in wanting to keep a realistic perspective. When he arrived the magagement appreciated his scientific expertese but when that cache of managers moved on the next lot seemed to forget that and wanted sensationalism about such things as CJD. David I don't think was popular at the time but time has proven him right. 
So David would not fit in to the climate porn the BBc produces these days - he would ask too many inconvienient questions - just like his nice article does here. 
British journalism, and in particular the BBC, needs journalists like David who analyse and ask inconvienient questions, rather than peddle a 'line'or press release like david Shukman and Roger Harrabin. I my view the BBC's coverage of 'climate change' has been terrible and a disaster for journalism and they could do with people like David to put them right. 
If global warming doesn't start again the likes of Shukman and Harrabin, and their management masters whose direction they slavishly follow, will look pretty stupid.
mac 
09 January 2008 at 03:56
Peter marttin 
I looked at 
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr200... 
and am mightily unimpressed. The met office predicting the global temperature for the next ten years. Well they didn't do so good predicting just one year ahead when they predicted 2007. 
Also I dont understand it when they say that in the future HALF of the years will be warmer than 2004 - doesn't that mean half will be cooler implying that (if half a above and half are below) that 2004 will be the average and therefore there will be no overall warming!!! 
Strikes me that this is a very confused and contradictory press release by the Met Office. 
On the BBC - yes - it is its coverage of climate cange that has above all made me loose faith in the corporation.
Peter Martin 
09 January 2008 at 06:51
Mac, 
I've you check again on the Met Office link, I think that what you'll find they actually said was that half the years will be warmer than the warmest on record not warmer than 2004. 
Of more significance was their statement that there will be a 0.3 degree warming by the year 2014. This is consistent with the previous warming patterns. A jump after a period of temperature stability or even a period of slight cooling. 
There has been a 0.55deg C warming since 1975. That's more worrying than the 0.8 dec C warming that has occurred over the past 100 years. Oxford University recently ran a joint experiment with the BBC, using the processing power of 250,000 PCs. This is their prediction: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/theresult/globalco...
bperk 
09 January 2008 at 06:57
Peter martin, 
2004 or whatever year is he warmest actually makes no difference - it's still contradictory.
Peter Martin 
09 January 2008 at 07:19
Well if you do the arithmetic, correctly, you'll find that it does make a difference and there is no contradiction. 
If the Met Office are correct about 0.3 deg C warming in the next 6 or 7 years it means that Global warming is accelerating rather than ceasing as David Whitehouse would have us all believe. 
I'm fully in agreement with Sohie when she says that there is too much sensationalism in science reporting. For instance there is little or no evidence that GW has caused increased storm activity in the atmosphere. It may happen in the future - we'll have to see but it is not correct to blame GW for Hurricane Katrina for instance.
elcuervo 
09 January 2008 at 07:43
Peter Martin, 
Sadly, whatever you say to these people, even if they were willing to understand, won't make a difference: "What sees a blind man, even if you put a lamp in his hand?"
gubir 
09 January 2008 at 07:45
Predictions, Peter Martin, predictions, predictions, we've all seen what they are worth, especially when coming from the Met Office. I perfer to wait and see who's right, Dr hitehouse or the predictions. 
As an epidemiologist I have an interest in numbers and am used to extracting what I can from them - the past few years does seem unusual. they have changed only a little from year to year and to me they have the feeling of a cycle peaking and slowly begining to come down again. We will have to wait and see as my experience tells me its one thing to look at data you already have and another entirely to 'guess' what data we might have, though if I had to put money on it I would not bet it on the Met office! I don't see any evidence of global warming accelerating - rather the contrary. 
on another matter I took part in the bbc/Oxford University PC experiment at first but left in disgust when they made a fundamental blooper and ha to tell everyone their result was as a result of the classic 'rubbish in, rubbish out' category. 
Predictions, predictions, don't believe them, especially if they come from a source that has a vested interest in their outcome.
gavin foley 
09 January 2008 at 07:57
Oh dear, elcuervo is back. Interesting article, for the most part interesting thread but now I fear the value of the thread is rapidly declining.
David Parker 
09 January 2008 at 10:55
As a maths lecturer I know about numbers and there is a really quite straightforward way to look at the temperature numbers as given by the Hadley Centre. 
If the 'standstil' pointed out by the Hadley Centre is just a 'trick of the numbers' or a cluster or just what data does from time to time then one can test that. 
Crudely if you have a rising trend of data and the gradient, the errors and the noise remains constant then one has a rule of thumb that there is a roughly greater than 50% probability then the following data point will be higher than the previous one -it's not exactly that but its ok for a rough calculation. 
That means that having two points that are dont rise is 0.5 x 0.5 so having 7 points that show no trend has a probability of occuring of roughly 0.008 or less than 1 per cent - that is highly unlikely. 
So such a period of 7 statistically indistinguishable data points occuring in a 30 year period is a highly unlikely less than 1 per cent chance. 
So clearly something is going on - something has changed. 
the temperature seems to have altered - it was rising and now its stopped rising and its NOT a cluster or trick of the numbers.
Nelson 
09 January 2008 at 13:20
David Parker, read up the thread for Tamino's post. He's a professional mathematician who specialises in time series analysis - exactly the sort of data we have here. He's analysed the data a lot more rigorously than your 'rule of thumb' and it's clear that Whitehouse's conclusion that warming has stopped is untenable. 
I'm sure everyone is equally grateful that he posted on this thread. As with all science, he shows that a little statistical knowledge is dangerous. Sometimes we should defer to the experts. Thanks again, Tamino. 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/
Katem 
09 January 2008 at 13:35
er nelson, so am I. Tamino assumes what he wants to prove. the ONLY thing we can do is to wait and see.
Brute 
09 January 2008 at 13:48
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message5977
stargazer 
09 January 2008 at 14:38
Nelson the discusion was 'only' about the down turn in temp since 1998.....Tamino's 2nd graph shows this to be so... no one is disagreeing that the general world temp. is up.The question is how long will the temp keep dropping ??
allew 
09 January 2008 at 14:49
The important point is folks is this - if the global temperature really had stopped rising and had stabilised what would the data look like...er I know the answer to that - it would look exactly like it does now!
Mr Fnortner 
09 January 2008 at 15:00
Truth of the matter is, we don't know what is going on, if anything. We don't know whether humans, cows, the sun, or the gods are causing anything, if anything. 
We see numbers, we get startled, we don't know, we're small, we get frightened. We look for answers, guidance, help, rescue. We fight among ourselves. We lose sight of the fact that this could be nothing. 
And because our life cycle is so short compared to the geologic phenomena we observe, and its effects so immediate, we think, as Chicken Little did, that the sky is falling. 
Because we are not prudent, we are truly running the risk of harming our fellow man in irreversible and tragic ways far beyond any disruptions that climate change could cause by launching misguided governmental interventions. 
Do not be too quick to dismiss the idea of ecological jackboots and fascist governments forcing the people to do the will of the global warming zealots. History has proven this outcome more likely than the planet's warming.
tamino 
09 January 2008 at 15:32
This discussion reveals both the level of naivete which pervades the global warming debate, and the ease with which sloppy or ignorant analysis leads one astray, especially when done with preconception and an ideological rather than scientific basis. It's deplorable that we're sidetracked from a critical scientific issue by talk of "ecological jackboots and fascist governments forcing the people to do the will of the global warming zealots" 
Mr. Þorsteinsson is still at it, giving us anecdotal evidence about a rift in an Icelandic glacier in order to imply that it's not really getting warmer there. It seems, however, that he hasn't bothered to do the detailed work of looking at temperature measurements in Iceland: 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2006/11/27/warming-up-to-iceland... 
When Nelson points out that I'm a professional mathematician specializing in the statistical analysis of time series, Katem assures us that "er nelson, so am I." Permit me to doubt; if you were, you wouldn't say "Tamino assumes what he wants to prove." I simply tested the hypothesis that global warming has ceased, and found that there's no statistically valid evidence to support that hypothesis. As for the claim that "the ONLY thing we can do is to wait and see," I'll point out that we have many choices, including the option to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and that waiting will make the problem worse. A lot worse. I'll also mention that it's the next few generations -- our children and their children -- who will pay a heavy price if we fail to act now. 
Regarding Dr. Whitehouse's article, I quite understand that as an astronomer he's out of his field when it comes to statistics, so a cursory look at the data leads him to an erroneous conclusion. He fails to realize that given the very low signal-to-noise ratio in global temperature, it's not only *likely* that we'll have periods of a decade or more with little or no demonstrable warming, it's *inevitable* 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/ 
I suggest that Dr. Whitehouse has simply made an understandable mistake; he's not a statistician. I also invite Dr. Whitehouse, the founder of this feast, to address exactly the statistical issue in commentary here. 
The real "null hypothesis" to test is whether or not there's been any recent change in the temperature trend. There's no evidence whatever that it has -- temperatures post-2000 are actually a little *warmer* than would be expected from the 1975-2000 trend (although the extra warmth is not statistically significant): 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/dead-heat/ 
The commentary on this online discussion is like the chattering of a bunch of medieval barbers discussing the health of a sick man, fervently arguing about the relative balance of the body's "humours," and debating whether or not "bleeding" the patient might be beneficial. All of which has the effect of forestalling the efforts of scientifically modern medical practioners (read: IPCC) to administer the penicillin which might actually save the patient's life.
Robin Guenier 
09 January 2008 at 15:47
This had been a most interesting and potentially valuable thread. However, I suspect Gavin Foley is right and that it is running out of steam: recent posts (bobclive, Peter Martin, Gbevan, mac, bperk, tamino, etc.) are going over well-trodden ground. These ding-dong arguments from entrenched positions are not going to be resolved and get us nowhere – although I appreciated sophie’s comment earlier today. But it would be unfortunate if the nearest we got to a conclusion was gubir’s and Katem’s suggestion that we should “wait and see”. That would do a disservice to Brute’s comment yesterday that “we are making tremendous progress just by discussing this in this tiny forum.” 
So where can we go from here and ensure Dr Whitehouse’s contribution to this important topic is not wasted? First, thank you JZ Smith and Maz for your support for my proposal (see my posts of 6 January and earlier). To get anywhere at all, I agree that there’s a need to answer JZ Smith’s question: “how, specifically, can your proposal be initiated?” And, to do so, it’s necessary to take account of his/her observation that “the AGW train has already left the station” and of Maz’s that “The bandwagon is rolling and is heavily laden with vested interest”. I fear that they’re both right. 
I have a few tentative ideas about how we might deal with that, making it respectable to consider an approach based on three principles: (1) that, although the science of AGW is not settled, the IPCC may be right and it’s prudent therefore to reduce dependence on fossil fuels (wise in any case), (2) that the probable social/political damage caused by halting or reversing economic growth would be unacceptable to voters in the developed economies and to governments of the developing economies and damaging, especially to the world’s poorest people and (3) that, therefore, it’s essential that we develop solutions that reconcile (1) and (2) – see my suggestions in earlier posts. It’s interesting incidentally that agreement on these principles means sidelining those at each end of the spectrum: radical greens who accept the IPCC analysis and believe that economic growth itself is the problem and the “deniers” who totally reject the IPCC analysis, believing it’s a hoax. 
But, before I offer any further thoughts, it might be helpful if others were to suggest their ideas about how we might halt Maz’s bandwagon.
Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc. 
09 January 2008 at 16:26
The "unknown author" of Wiggles has entered the building. He calls himself Tamino, but his real name is still unknown and his occupation likewise. He claims to know something about statistics, but hides very carefully what it is. Anyway, not everything he says is ignorant and not everything is deceiving. Some of his arguments are even amusing, in a childish way. 
Mr. Tamino is not hiding that he has some knowledge of arithmetic. He boasts of having detected a typing error in one of my comments. In stead of the correct statement "This corresponds to 0,1 C-degrees in 10 years", I typed in 100 years ! One extra zero is not to be taken lightly. 
If Mr. Tamino were the mathematician he would like to be, he would have detected that in a later comment, I avoided the typing mistake and said: "0,108 C-degrees in 120 months". Perhaps Mr. Tamino has forgotten that there are 120 months in 10 years. 
Of less importance is, that we both give wrong number of significant digits in the number "0,108". Correct representation is: 0,0009x12x10 = 0,1 C-degrees/10 years ! 
I would say, that this only shows that no-body is perfect, not even Mr.Tamino. 
Mr. Tamino points out that I used the CRUTEM3 data from Climatic Research Unit and not HadCRUT3, as he would have liked. He states correctly that CRUTEM3 is supposed to represent land surface temperature and HadCRUT3 land and ocean surface temperature. 
If Mr. Tamino had done his homework, he would know that there is a fixed linear correlation between these data sets. The correlation can be seen in a graph, that I have set up here: http://altice.blog.is/blog/altice/entry/398432/ 
Notice that the graph is made for yearly averages (monthly might be slightly different) and it shows the correlation: 
T(land) = 1,41T(land+ocean) + 0,0291 (T = temperature) 
Here are: T(land) = CRUTEM3 data and T(land+ocean) = HadCRU3 data 
Which data set is used is a matter of choice. The relative information drawn from either data sets is identical. The top of the temperature curve is still level, there is no warming during last 12o months. The polynomial curve for the last 180 months is also still valid. These are facts that Mr. Tamino will have to accept, if he is going to stay in business. 
Mr. Tamino confuses the "law of conservation of energy" with practical aspects of curve fitting. It is a physical reality that energy state of the atmosphere is practically constant from day to day and month to month. This is a basic fact, that all models of the climate must take this into account. The fitting of a mathematical expression to existing measurement data is quite another matter. Mr. Tamino should know better than confusing these two. 
The most simple way of showing if the temperature measurements are not consistent with the "law of conservation of energy" is by calculating the numerical mean difference between each pair of data. This has nothing to do with average value of the data, or curve fitting as was mentioned before. Remember that temperature is a proxy of energy. However, neither CRUTEM3 nor HadCRUT3 give direct correlation to atmospheric energy. This is best demonstrated by the fact, that the IPCC models can not account for where the higher temperatures occur. Mr. Tamino does not seem to be aware of the physical realities of his numbers. 
Anyway, Mr. Tamino is correct when he mentions that the most common method to fit a curve to data is by minimizing the total squared distances from the curve. However, this can also be done by other methods, such as minimizing the mean distance from the curve and perhaps weighing the distances differently than by squaring. The choice of regression method should preferably match the type of distribution one is dealing with. Mr. Tamino seems to be living in a world of simple statistics. 
The rest of Mr. Tamino's article is not worth much either. He should turn to simpler tasks than predicting about climate changes. He does not understand the difference between long-term historic records and short-term trends. Until he accepts the general consensus that Mr. Whitehouse is right, he should stay on the sideline.
Maz 
09 January 2008 at 16:56
Robin, these might halt the bandwagon but I’m not holding my breath. 
This gem from Tamino will give you an idea of the mentality you are up against. 
The commentary on this online discussion is like the chattering of a bunch of medieval barbers discussing the health of a sick man, fervently arguing about the relative balance of the body's "humours," and debating whether or not "bleeding" the patient might be beneficial. All of which has the effect of forestalling the efforts of scientifically modern medical practioners (read: IPCC) to administer the penicillin which might actually save the patient's life 
But anyway 
Education. Our children are being brainwashed with the sort of drivel that comes from failed politicians who discover a new way to make their mark and possibly get a “gong”. This has got to stop. Three cheers to the bloke who successfully used the legal system to at least throw a spanner in one of the wheels. Not much but a start. We need more like him. We need to encourage kids and adults alike to examine the issues for themselves and not believe all they hear. 
Media: We have to rely on journalists to start doing their homework rather than take cheap shots at scare headlines. David Shukman is beyond hope but I expected better from John Humphreys (whom I generally admire) on the Today programme with a WWF member telling us she’s worried about penguins in Antarctica not having enough sea ice! These people really need to read up. Easy journalism however, will always go for a scare story rather than the inconvenient truth. 
Reality: When people see the price of gas, electricity and petrol rise sharply with the knock on effects on all services (our plumber has apologetically just raised his prices because of the cost of diesel, over £70 to fill his van up). Someone needs to point out the EU carbon tax kicking in in 2008. When the reality of the “green” talk hits pockets hard it might sharpen the intellect of people. Unfortunately, the well off will just absorb this and budget for it, business will past the cost on to consumers and the less well off will have to do with less. The suggestion that this is the price they have to pay to stop the climate from changing or to reduce extreme weather events might begin to wear thin. 
In time politicians (whose main and sometimes only interest is to get voted into power) will begin to sense the lack of mileage in the Climate Change scare story and begin to offer the alternatives you suggest. Until that time we can only continue to present our case in a logical and rational manner, exposing the facts and the lies hoping to inform the many who would listen so that one day they might influence the few that matter.
dopeyguy 
09 January 2008 at 17:04
I have to tell you that I know Dr Whitehouse, who got his PHD from Jodrell bank and he is an expert at extracting data from weak noisy signals, as most radio astronomers are - I am sure he's not out of his depth with a handful of numbers. 
The point some are missing, probably delibarately is that the OBSERVATIONS show the temp is flat and until they start rising or falling they remain FLAT no matter what silly statistics some come up with to show that despite the measurements showing they are flat they really are not flat at all!!!! 
Stick to the observations - it's flat, period, no matter what some think or analyse it remains flat until it changes.
tamino 
09 January 2008 at 17:25
Mr. Þorsteinsson, I guess my comments really embarrassed you. You should be embarrassed. 
Even those who agree with your basic premise can't deny the folly of criticizing me for pointing out *your* mistakes. 
Anyone who has an iota of sense about the physics of climate will know that conservation of energy applies only to a closed system, which the lower atmosphere is not -- it's constantly exchanging heat with the upper atmosphere, the oceans, and cryosphere, and received energy from incoming sunlight while radiating energy out to space. Your contention that "It is a physical reality that energy state of the atmosphere is practically constant from day to day and month to month" is truly infantile. 
I have no interest in dialogue with you; I'll reserve that for someone who might actually learn something or might offer something to be learned. Feel free to have the last word. 
I'm interested in hearing from Dr. Whitehouse. Sir: if one takes temperature data from NASA GISS covering the time period 1975-present and computes residuals, defined as the difference between annual global average temperature and what it would have been if it exactly followed the linear trend estimated from 1975-2000 data, then *every year* since 2001 has a positive (i.e., warmer-than-trend) residual: 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/dead-heat/ 
In light of this, will you retract your statement that "Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming ..."? 
As for the statistical indistinguishability of temperatures since 2001, can you give us a reason that the signal-to-noise ratio in data from 2001 to the present is not what is indicated by the available data? Do you deny that given the signal-to-noise ratio, it is in fact *expected* that we'll have many consecutive years with statistically indistinguishable temperature, even if the underlying trend continues unabated?
bobclive 
09 January 2008 at 18:30
I consider that some of the posters here should go back to basics, forget about computer models and physics, if the basic data is flawed so are the conclusions derived from that data, recent and past peer reviewed studies show that UHI has a significant effect on the actual temperatures being measured, these studies suggest the UHI effect can account for possibly 50% or more of the IPCC`s estimate of 0.8degrees of warming over the last 100 years, When this figure is reduced to 0.4 degrees by subtracting the UHI number, the 0.4 degree increase can be accommodated by natural trends. There is NO CO2 induced warming just AGW warming caused by land use. HOW LONG WILL THIS JONES UHI STUDY HOLD WATER. Read the following 
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/work/2006/heat/meier_global_view... 
http://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/urban/urban_heat_island.html 
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/quality.htm 
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/index.htm
JZ Smith 
09 January 2008 at 18:50
Mr. Guinier, 
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. I agree that this thread, as interesting as it has become, seems to have run its course, at least as far as debating the science is concerned. I am not a scientist, and am therefore not qualified to comment on the detailed scientific discussions, nor, frankly, follow them too well. Therefore my suggestion on stopping 'the band wagon' (and therefore prepare the field for the Guenier Principles) is this: 
The scientific debate now raging over the viability of AGW as defined by the IPCC reports must be boiled down to layman's language. I am a big fan of Steve McIntyre's site Climate Audit, wherein he posts regular "audits" of the statistics used in many of the AGW proponent reports. He was, as many already know, instrumental in the discrediting of the so-called 'hockey stick' graph, which was referenced in early IPCC reports but later reports now don't mention. He has been instrumental in debunking of NASA's James Hansen's published reports on AGW as well. The only problem is that most of what is written on the site is far above the average Joe's (like me) level of understanding. There are some other sites I've seen, some referenced in this thread, that work to provide balance to the predominant view seen on most major media (pro-IPCC and Al Gore), but the AGW crowd has gone to great lengths to discredit these other sites, and in the mind of most of the mainstream media they have been successful in their efforts to discredit. 
So what I believe needs to happen is for some well-respected scientist—preferably a climate scientist—or group of scientists, to take up the task of presenting in a respectable and honest way the skeptical view of AGW. To make clear that those us us who are skeptics are not necessarily doubting AGW, but that more compelling evidence is necessary before we are ready for wholesale changes to our modern life. But this needs to be written in simple language that ordinary people can understand. No name-calling or shrillness, just an honest, objective look at the facts without an agenda except the pursuit of truth. 
To descend into a technical debate over scientific methods and statistical analyzes without the ability to communicate the basic principles of the debate to John Q. Public serves no one but scientists. It doesn't matter if you can prove the IPCC wrong statistically if you can't explain your position to the common people, and ultimately we will lose the debate, the facts be damned.
Nelson 
09 January 2008 at 20:03
'What I believe needs to happen is for some well-respected scientist to take up the task of presenting in a respectable and honest way the skeptical view of AGW.' 
I think you misunderstand how science works. Why would you want to expound only 'skeptical' research? You say you're interested in the pursuit of truth. So how does consciously ignoring the (let's face it) overwhelming majority of climate research achieve this? You don't pick and choose arguments: science is not a courtroom, scientists are not lawyers. 
In fact, the work has already been done for you. 
It's at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/
Brute 
09 January 2008 at 20:16
Out of all of this, I have found this comment to be the most valuable. Honest, Innocent, Sincere. Maybe some high school kid; maybe a fraud; we'll never know. Billions of dollars, degreed statisticians, mathematicians, climatologist. Satellites, High Speed Computers…….. and a group of High School students figures it out with a few dime store thermometers, time, persistence and communication. 
scott 
21 December 2007 
Our local high school participated in a government sponsored science program called "GLOBE". They faithfully recorded air temperatures (high/low/noon) for 12 years, even during vacations and summer breaks. No matter how the numbers crunched- no evidence for rising temperatures. Curious, we tapped into the data for all the other school's data participating- no evidence. We chalked it up to the fact that data since 1994 isn't a good enough time period ( but it feels like it when your doing the work).
Robin Guenier 
09 January 2008 at 20:21
Maz and JZ Smith (and other serious contributors): I’m not sure that I really believe what I’m about to say but here goes. 
Are your bandwagon/train really rolling at all? Certainly there’s a lot of noise from politicians, various pundits and the media about the imperative of “saving the planet” – but is anybody seriously complying with the IPCC’s recommendations? Most local initiatives in the USA and Europe are really quite modest compared to what the green fanatics are shouting for – indeed most of these initiatives are in keeping with my broad recommendations and arguably may even fall short of my proposals. Perhaps the fanatics, though continuing to be noisy, are already sidelined. Governments, despite their rhetoric, are unsurprisingly trying hard not to upset the voters: hence here in the UK we continue with airport expansion (people must have their cheap holidays) and road improvements (little choice as the public transport infrastructure is so poor), we’re going to build a new generation of nuclear power stations, coal powered plants are being seriously considered (we must avoid dependence on foreign energy supplies) and carbon reduction targets are being set for dates that will be reached after most current political leaders are out of office. OK, a lot is being made of carbon trading – but most people either don’t understand them or see them as the charade they conceivably are. Yes, there’s a move to “solutions” such as low energy lamps, Home Information Packs and more tax on high emission vehicles – but these are trivial gestures. Elsewhere in Europe it seems that even the modest Kyoto targets are being missed and, of course, the US is trying to opt out of any targets. Moreover, the other major and growing economies – especially China and India – are understandably showing little serious interest in the topic. It seems, JZ Smith, that so far there are no “wholesale changes to our modern life” – nor are any really threatened. 
So, if I’m serious about my contention that “although the science of AGW is not settled, the IPCC may be right and it’s prudent therefore to reduce dependence on fossil fuels (wise in any case)” perhaps I should be pressing for greater efforts to comply with the IPCC? Perhaps, in truth, our politicians are secretly hoping that the “experts” are wrong? 
Or is there something seriously amiss with the above analysis?
Mr Fnortner 
09 January 2008 at 21:16
Tamino, et al. While you argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, wring more precision out of inaccurate numbers, and try to fit unthinking curves to points whose fundamental drivers you cannot fathom, you reveal to the rest of us who look at this with a jaundiced eye that you haven't a clue. 
We are more afraid of the draconian measures your governments will impose on the unsuspecting and innocent peoples of the world in a deranged effort to fix the climate than we are in the climate itself. Truly, compared to the suffering brought about by governments on a crusade, what is a little more warmth and water (if that's really the likely outcome)?
JZ Smith 
09 January 2008 at 21:24
Mr. Guenier, 
I agree that the 'wholesale changes' are so far only spoken, and not yet reality. I hope most of them never do come about, but as I cited yesterday, here in California the state utilities board (or something like that) is contemplating installing radio controlled thermostats in all new buildings that would allow the utilities to lower (or more likely raise here in California) the temperatures of these buildings in an emergency. On the face of it, this seems like a reasonable proposal, at least to proponents of Big Government. To me, however, it smacks of Big Brother encroaching ever further into the lives of the people—all 'for their own good', of course. 
Furthermore, Geo Bush just signed a new energy bill into law that will outlaw incandescent light bulbs by 2012. Who do you suppose lobbied hard for this provision? The greens don't have the horsepower to get that put in; only those huge corporations who make lightbulbs do, and they stand to make HUGE profits from the changeover of billions of lightbulbs to the low energy lights that frankly, put out really dreary, cold blueish white light. Everywhere you go it will seem like a doctor's office. I hope between now and then they will engineer better versions, and as a capitalist, I will be buying GE and Sylvania stock, that's for sure! 
So my fear is that proponents of AGW will so completely control the debate from a scientific perspective that the common people, without any realistic contrarian point of view will accept as fact that which many of us, despite what our friend and fellow contributor "Nelson" says—scientists included—believe to be seriously in question.
Robin Guenier 
09 January 2008 at 21:29
Well said, Mr Fnortner. But (see my post above) do you really fear that governments will impose draconian measures?
elcuervo 
09 January 2008 at 21:29
Nelson, 
I couldn't agree more with you. Science is not a supermarket where you can buy studies that suit someone's agenda. Science is about truth, whether you like it or not. I strongly recommend those in this forum who honestly want learn a bit about climate science to read again Dr. Tamino's posts. 
On another matter. JZ Smith says: "Public serves no one but scientists.". Are you saying that people is actually trusting scientists when it comes to Science?? How irresponsible!! Perhaps we should take Brute's implicit advise and hire the innocent high school kids as a new IPCC panel... 
Seriously guys, I have already noticed that there are not many DPhils around, but try to at least make some sense.
bobclive 
09 January 2008 at 21:34
Climate Audit was elected "best blog Scientist of the Year 2007 
Robin you say (recent posts (bobclive, Peter Martin, Gbevan, mac, bperk, tamino, etc.) are going over well-trodden ground.) The basic data that forms the global warming debate is the AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, at the present time there are many 
studies questioning the validity of the data put out by the Metoffice and others, I would have thought more posters would have realised the importance of reliable accurate temperature measurements before debating any other point, how do you know how much it`s warming if your temps are not accurate, we are talking of 0.6-0.8 degrees C since 1900. 
Read this Dec 2007 peer reviewed study and learn, 
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf 
The IPCC suggest based on the Jones study that the UHI is only 0,006 ° C per decade. Imagine a summer barbecue in a garden of 1000 m2. It can be reasonably assumed that the impact of barbecue on the temperature of the garden is marginal (such as "0,006 ° C per decade). On the other hand, if you read a thermometer right next to the barbecue and that equates to read the temperature of the garden, THERE IS A BIG PROBLEM. 
This is interesting, 
link 1 
link 2
Robin Guenier 
09 January 2008 at 21:38
Yes, JZ Smith, but judging from comments on the blogs and "have your say" columns here (the UK), nearly all "common people" seem to think it's a scam. They don't believe Nelson and his pals - and they have the vote. Perhaps they'll be battered into submission. But it hasn't happened yet.
JZ Smith 
09 January 2008 at 21:52
Elcuervo: What I said was: "To descend into a technical debate over scientific methods and statistical analyzes without the ability to communicate the basic principles of the debate to John Q. Public serves no one but scientists." What I meant by that was that while the scientific debate down in the details of the science continues, so far only one side of the argument (pro AGW) makes it into the mainstream of public debate.
JZ Smith 
09 January 2008 at 21:57
Mr. Guenier, 
I wish I had your optimism. Yet I must admit that I do sense some shifting of momentum away from the dogma of AGW, but in order to put into motion your ideas (the Guenier Principles), we must keep the pressure on to further expose the truth behind the façade of "settled science".
elcuervo 
09 January 2008 at 22:15
JZSmith, 
Since the last IPCC report, it is crystal clear that there is scientific consensus on AGW. There is simply not such a thing as skeptical AGW among scientists. I challenge to give us a reference of an ISI journal (i.e. serious) paper which is against the current scientific consensus. 
The experts have given their recommendations and the politicians should find the way to implement them despite the pressures from the denial industry.
JZ Smith 
09 January 2008 at 22:56
Elcuervo, 
Have you read any of the many links in the long thread above? I urge you to do so.
JZ Smith 
09 January 2008 at 22:57
More 'the cure is worse than the disease' information: 
link here. 
Froele 
10 January 2008 at 00:05
Before I read this article I was, like all of my friends, convinced that the world was continuing to warm ever upward (I had been watching the BBC and believed it). However as a result of this article I took a look at the data myself and I feel deceived. Whatever the reason the world's temp has not increased for 7 years, why wasn't I told that by any of the science 'correspondents' who told me about global warming? 
Looking at this comment thread I see there are some people who can't stand that the temperature has been unchanged for the past 7 years - and they have to do 'statistics' to show that It's all right really the world really is warming as it should be it's just that the measurements don't reflect what is really going on! Seems to me Dr Whitehouse is right because he has stuck to the data and simply described the data. 
To them I say, I am taking the spirit of the article, the measurements say it's flat, so it's flat until it does otherwise and I don't think anyone knows if it will stay the same or go up and down. As it is my once unquestioning faith in the man made greenhouse gases causing global warming has been shaken. 
Perhaps that channel 4 programme on the global warming swindle had a germ of truth in it after all. I began to suspect that it might by the over the top reaction to it by some activists - I can't remember the name of the dope who organised a petition to offcom I think but he seems so manic that i wondered if he doth protest too much. 
Dr Whitehouse's article has shattered a big myth - I, and I suspect most people, believed that the world's tem was ever upward and each year was warmer than the past - now I see that this is not so. Dr Whitehouse says the flatlining of the temperature might be significant or it might not but 
1. He was right to dispel the common misconception 
and 
2. It might just be the most important science article written in decades if it turns out that the global temp does start going down again. 
All we can do is wait and see.
EdgarF 
10 January 2008 at 00:12
Whatever people say about the consensus we face the fascinating prospect of watching this consensus face the real world over the next few years when we watch what happens to the earth's temperature. 
If it stays stable or decreases then I am sure there will be some who will cling onto the old theory of CO2 etc but they will be shoved aside as a new pardigm shift will have taken place - and perhaps the newstatesman will have played a part in this. 
I concur - wait and see.
Nelson 
10 January 2008 at 00:28
'"To descend into a technical debate over scientific methods and statistical analyzes without the ability to communicate the basic principles of the debate to John Q. Public serves no one but scientists." ' 
So you're content to be spoon-fed the claim that 'global warming has stopped' when the post by Tamino shows that this is an unjustified assertion? If you read his Wiggles and Dead Heat posts you'll have learnt a little bit more about statistics that you didn't know before. There's subtlety and nuance and, hell, you may even have to think. But you'll leave a better person, armed with a bit more understanding of the world around us. 
That is a good thing.
Peter Martin 
10 January 2008 at 00:28
I think the argument will be settled in the next 5 or 6 years. The UK Met Office has forecast a further 0.3 deg rise by 2014. If that does happen then even the most diehard sceptics won't have a case. If it doesn't, there will have to be a complete rethink, and and probably an admission that there may not be such a big problem after all. 
But, why has the argument been so emotive and politicised? Why are so many arguments based on politics rather than science? 
Maybe because debates on climate change raise the question of limits. If the rest of the world emitted CO2 at the rate the US does today, global emissions would be almost five times greater. The same is true of energy use. This is why climate change is a such a geopolitically significant issue. If there are limits to emissions, there may also be limits to growth . Distributional conflicts must then re-emerge, if they haven't already, within and among countries. 
The response of many environmentalists and those with socialist leanings, is to welcome such conflicts. These are could bring about a more just global society. If you were being pessimistic, you'd say it was a step towards a world characterised by conflict and repression. Maybe a world more like it was in the Middle Ages. Does this explain the hostile response of libertarians and those of a right wing persuasion?
gbrewer 
10 January 2008 at 00:40
None of you, like Nelson and Tamino convince me - you are essentially saying "never mind what the data actually says - it's wrong - the world is not stable in temperature it is actually increasing despite what has been measured" 
This is complete nonsense and desperate. 
I repeat what has been said before - IF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE HAS BEEN MEASURED EACH YEAR FOR THE PAST 7 YEARS AS BEING IDENTICAL THEN IT IS IDENTICAL. 
It's the data that is more important than your theory or interpretation stupid. 
but then again that data is inconvienient isn't it - so it must be wrong. 
nelson - don't be condacending. 
If the measurements show it is static then that is just what it is - you just can't say we expected that and the world is warming really - it's static period - end of discussion - that's what mother nature says. 
If as Peter martin admits the whole shebang, consensus and all, is wrong - which is a possibility - then I am going to bake two cakes and send one to the spectator and the other to whitehouse.
lurker 
10 January 2008 at 00:46
You are right - both by what it said and the almost 500 comments left here (mostly complimentary) it is the most important science article written for a long time. A google search shows just how talked about this article is, prob the new statesman's most discussed article ever that wasn't about politics. 
Like it or loath it, this is great science journalism. 
I won't think about global warming the same way again.
Peter Martin 
10 January 2008 at 00:53
" IF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE HAS BEEN MEASURED EACH YEAR FOR THE PAST 7 YEARS AS BEING IDENTICAL THEN IT IS IDENTICAL. " 
This is taking a much too simple minded view. What about the error limits, about +/- 0.5 deg C for each measurement? What about natural climatic cycles due to El Nino/ La Nina? What about the effect of Volcanic eruptions? Solar Variations? 
Seven years is much too short a period from which to draw any meaningful conclusions.
hwm98264 
10 January 2008 at 01:01
The UN IPCC scientific consensus is a fraud. 
There is not such thing as a real consensus on CO2 caused Global Warming. Read the article research of the IPCC real facts at: 
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
JZ Smith 
10 January 2008 at 01:24
None of these can possibly speak truth, since they are not published in 'peer-reviewed' journals, but just for laughs they are worth reviewing: 
link 1 
link 2 
link 3 
link 4 
Brute 
10 January 2008 at 01:33
elcuervo 
You wrote: “Perhaps we should take Brute's implicit advise and hire the innocent high school kids as a new IPCC panel...” 
How arrogant; how elitist, how smug. I’d wager my last dollar they have as good a chance as you at “forecasting” the weather. 
You’re a fortune teller. You read tea leaves. "Predictions"….. “Forecasting”….. Hah! 
Why don't you gaze into your crystal ball and provide some useful information such as which horse will win the sixth race at Beaumont..... 
The high school students performed BASIC SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. They collected data, they analyzed the data and publicized their findings. Their conclusions don’t fit your political agenda, (or your handlers agenda), so you dismiss them. You seemed to have forgotten what it’s all about. 
Face it, your argument is coming apart like a cheap suit and all it took was a handful of prepubescent teenagers with a thermometer they dug from the bottom of a box of Cracker Jack to prove you wrong. Oh, I’m certain that you and your colleagues will attribute the “resent leveling of global mean temperature” to the “Ionosphere”, “Troposphere”, some “unforeseen statistical anomaly”, misalignment of the planets or some other contrived notion. They concluded what you failed to conclude….or do you want to conclude anything? Or do you want to continue “research”, applying for more government funding year after year after year, concluding nothing? Your argument is being torn down and exposed for the malfeasance that it is. The lunch counter is closed my friend, no more free rides at the expense of the citizenry. 
The students are under no pressure from lobbyists, special interest groups, politicians (also known as IPCC “scientists”). No agenda, no political leanings, no “philosophical indoctrination” and they don’t rely on handouts from governments, universities, or “think tanks” as your so called “scientists”. Their minds haven’t been polluted, (yet), by washed up career students, (college professors), who couldn’t make it in the real world……spending their time brow beating adolescents; filling their heads with nonsensical claptrap and platitudes, that’s why I’d trust their data long before I’d trust anything that you’ve published. Be assured that your “research” will come under severe scrutiny from now on….No more juggling the numbers or manipulating data to support your cockamamie doomsday scenarios. 
I “predict” that it will be hotter this summer than it has been all year, (but there’s only a 60% chance). Do you think that my prediction will be proven correct professor? 
I “forecast” that you’ll be selling pencils on a street corner within 5 years…... Hack. 
Consider yourself fortunate; I have just quit smoking and I’m not usually this subdued. Putz………….. 
In case there is any uncertainty; that was a personal attack.
Peter Martin 
10 January 2008 at 02:27
Having said previously that the political right tend to be hostile to the idea that Global Warming may be a problem I should point out that it isn't quite so clear cut. See for example: 
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/new_singleEd... 
Maragaret Thatcher was probably the politician most responsible for getting the world to take the problem seriously in the 80's. At the time the level of Global warming was fairly low . See graph: 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/temps-5yearmean.png 
So her foresight was truly quite remarkable.
tonyharcombe 
10 January 2008 at 03:21
Peter Martin said; 
"This is taking a much too simple minded view. What about the error limits, about +/- 0.5 deg C for each measurement? What about natural climatic cycles due to El Nino/ La Nina? What about the effect of Volcanic eruptions? Solar Variations? 
Seven years is much too short a period from which to draw any meaningful conclusions." 
No peter you are completely totally wrong and you are muddying the waters. Just look at the measurements and their errors. 
The solar cycle is irellevant. So are natural cycles or el nino etc - what we are talking about are the measurements and - remarkably they show 
the past 7 years measurements are WITHIN THE ERRORS identical, indistinguishable - that is a straight line. unchanging It is as simple minded as that. Stop loading assumptions into the temperature measurements. they are statistically and logically irrelevant. 
they are unchanging despite the influences you state - sun , natural cycles - that 7 year data set is remarkable. 
you are completely wrong about 7 years being too short - the recent warming spell is only 27 years long and we all think that is significant - all of the warming took place between 1980-1998 - 18 years and we all think that is a significant timescale 
and yet you say 7 years is too short - come on - you are talking twaddle.. 
You've been confusing the issue ever since you started posting here - are you delibarately missing the point?
cdwork 
10 January 2008 at 03:45
7 years is important - here's why. 
the current warming began in 1980 but if the temp had halted at 1990 levels we wouldn't have bothered too much about it and we wouldn't have any global warming debate now. 
temperatutres peaked in 1998 - so the really significant period was only 8 years from 1990 -98 
since then - 10 years - it hasn't gotten warmer and for the past 7 its been no change year on year. 
and peter martin says 7 years is insignificant! 
Not so.
elcuervo 
10 January 2008 at 06:43
JZ Smith, 
You provided a link on a comment of two papers that talk about biofuels?!? 
Since you haven't provided a single serious paper supporting your view, it is only fair that we regard your position and that of most of people here as not take seriously. 
As for everyone else here thinking that they can do the work of a scientist, I just want to remind you all that without us you will be writing these posts in the walls of your cavern instead of using a computer. The fact that you don't realise about the subtlety of climate science it doesn't mean is fabricated.
Peter Martin 
10 January 2008 at 07:01
Ok let's put it this way. 70 years is ten times more significant than 7 years. Surely no-one can disagree with that statement! 
So, lets take a look at the world's temperature changes since 1940. 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/40-06%20temp.png 
The data is from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2006.csv 
which I believe is the same as used by David Whitehouse. 
What I've done is take a rolling five year rolling average of each data point which tends to make the graph look less noisy. 1998 is often considered to be the warmest year but , due to the errors in the measurements, it probably wasn't as you can see from the time averaged result for 1998 on the graph. 
You can see that although the temperature has risen overall since 1940 there are several periods ( typically 5-7 years long) when a noticable cooling has occurred. I've marked these with arrows on the graph. These always follow a period ( also typically 5-7 years)when the temperature jumps quickly. 
What you'l notice is that as global warming has picked up the temperature cooling in these periods gets progressively less. We should be in a cooling period at the moment , but if there is any its not much as you can see for yourself on the graph. 
So, come on Tony Harcombe, if I'm talking Twaddle -prove it , scientifically! 
Incidentally, in case any doesn't know, the New Statesman is a leftish, or at least used to be, UK political weekly. If David Whitehouse had wanted to say something scientific, rather something political, he would have written in the UK's New Scientist. ( non political of course) Mind you, I would have been very interested to read the editors reply to him , had he submitted an article to the based on 7 data points!
SallyP 
10 January 2008 at 07:23
Peter Martin, 
If that is your argument then I don't think you have shown that what cdwork has said is incorrect. You don't become 'scientific' by computing an average. I think that if you are worried about 18 years of warming then you must be worried (if that's the right word) about 7 years of standstil. I think you either take both or none. I think you are missing the point. 
And what you say about Whitehouse being political is pure drivel. Reading it he stubbonly sticks to science. You obviously don't read New Scientist - when it comes to global warming its as establishment as it comes - and lots of its articles are hardly 'scientific' and certainly not peer reviewed. 
Twaddle indeed Mr Martin.
Peter Martin 
10 January 2008 at 07:56
Sally, 
Its a running average. the NASA GW group routinely use this method. If you aren't sure about the rationale just try plotting out for yourself the same data without any averaging, Its all quite easy using a spreadsheet. 
If I had a, admittedly minor, criticism of the UK Met Office it would be that they somewhat oversmooth their graphs and their smoothing methods aren't so straightforward to understand. 
Its not a question of being worried about GW. We just have to do right thing to understand it. Just put on your thinking cap, for a moment, and try to imagine how would might have replied to an author who'd written an article in 1966. The previous seven years would have produced a nice linear graph showing a temperature drop of 0.2deg C. He'd have written about the coming ice age! Do you think you might have had the insight to suggest to him that seven years might not have been long enough? 
I don't know David Whitehouse and neither do I know what his politics, are , if any. There is nothing wrong with being political though, if you are up front about it! But, my question, as you should understand if you re-read my last posting, was: why submit a scientific article to a political magazine?
spender 
10 January 2008 at 08:05
But peter Martin Dr Whitehouse wrote the article in 2007 not 1966 - things are different now - haven't you noticed? 
Twadle peter martin, 
You still haven't shown why cdwork is incorrect. 
And - you obviously haven't noticed either - the new statesman is about culture and the arts (and now science) as well as politics - it's great that Dr Whitehouse wanted to write for such a mag - let's have more from him - and more science. 
"It's all quite easy using a spreadsheet" - that'll be my motto for the dat!
Sven 
10 January 2008 at 08:20
As to the subject and being a computer scientist, not a climatologist - I do not hold any strong beliefs, have no vested interests. I did like Lomborg's pragmatic approach (in both of his books), but I never took anything at face value from him either. I was waiting to see a real scientific debate on his views but what I saw was a fervent religious panic attack and ad hominem insults. So, I now think the nature of debate about AGW is really a terrible disgrace to science. And this is a shame. Before really getting into the subject I never doubted AGW or consensus about the science. I was convinced that the deniers are conspiracy theorists or people like creationists, intelligent designers or astrologers. Some time ago even The Skeptical Inquierer carried a long article attacking the AGW denialists! But after this article I really did a lot of surfing on the subject and the picture that opened was really horrible. Environmentalists and eco-folk who think of themselves and present themselves as soft and loving people with soft values seem to be one of the most aggressive and intolerant bunch I've ever encountered. Their behavior very much reminds me of the passion of faith of a religious sect or new agers who actively push away any evidence that might contradict their views. There seems to be no other subject in science where there would be so much ad hominem attacks, confirmation bias, scientific censorship or faith involved. A true scientist should be happy not only when he/she himself/herself or even someone else could confirm his/her findings, but even if they would be falsified. It should be in very nature of science! The closed and biased debate, demonisation of "denialists" (Lomborg, who is not even a "denialist", was compared to Hitler by the chief of IPCC, not even to speak about he debacle that followed his first book!), confirmation bias, ad hominem attacks... And, standing in the middle, being interested in truth, it's bad, very bad. And watching the debate, the most shocking revelation I made was that the supporters of AGW are much much more in violation of those principles of honesty of science than the opposing camp, though they are pretty much entrenched as well. Just read the guy called Tamino, especially on his own site, it's full of arrogance, abuse, bullying and censorship towards anyone who even slightly disagrees with his position (he seems to be so much wiser than the people at the Met Office). Nelson, who does not seem to have any real understanding of the subject himself, but, like Tamino, seems to hold strong beliefs, has taken him as his guru without ever questioning anything. Why is that? Because he likes the outcome, not the science in the process. It confirms his belief! 
So, what I've come to realise by now is: 
a) any unbiased research on the internet shows that there really is no such thing a consensus on this matter, the debate is rather inceasing than deceasing and maybe the proponents of this consensus-assertion should be called "debate denialists"?! 
b) Met Office's data clearly gives enough basis for Dr. Whitehouse to ask the question (after all, he only raised a question, I remind you, for god's sake!). And what is most intriguing is that if this all would turn out to be true, there's going to be something that might be verifiable with facts on the ground really soon, in a few years. And IF the trend will continue, let's say for another 3 or 4 years, it's going to be interesting how the AGW camp would be able to stop the frenzie and get out of the trenches. How the politics can be reversed? 
and so therefore 
c) (partly to Mr. Guernier) As even IPCC itself is saying that the whole business with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a really slow moving thing, that even if we could cut the emissons to zero today the results would not be seen before a some decades, why not wait for a few years for dust to settle on this temperature leveling and the reasons behind it. As said - it might be clear in a few years! And please - I've done my homework and I do not buy the tipping point argument in this context. 
But most importantly - science should be honest and based on scientific method. It's the best we have!
Peter Martin 
10 January 2008 at 08:29
" You haven't shown why Cdwork is incorrect" . 
Sorry I thought I had. All the data points for world temperature anomalies are subjust to a margin of error. So, they can give misleading results at times. Cdwork is only partially correct when he says that 1998 was the warmest year on record. It probably wasnt. Its just the raw data point that indicates otherwise. 
Its a bit like political opinion polls. If you took them too literally, you'd end up being very surprised that Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary. Having said that, they are usually right. Such as in the recent Aussie elections when they were pretty much spot on. You just have to understand that they are useful but not 100% accurate. 
Incidentally I do read the New Statesman and the New Scientist. I know that the NS never has exclusively been about politics. Their literary review has always been very good, for instance. But I don't remeber ever reading an article in the NS that was purely scientific in the same way as you'd expect to read in the New Scientist. 
I wish that we could decouple the science from the politics in the GW debate, But, its a bit like debating evolution with creationists. No matter how much evidence you present to the contrary, its impossible to convince them that the science is correct!
Maz 
10 January 2008 at 10:30
Peter Martin, 
I believe you yourself have admitted that the Climate Change debate (for the sake of this argument let us assume there is one) is not just about science and is fact very much about politics. If you agree with this statement then your surprise that Dr Whitehouse has published a scientific article with potentially serious political implications in the New Statesman is disingenuous is it not? 
As to your vehement refusal to accept an observational fact (ie the temperature has not changed over the last seven years) by passionately trying to make us understand your statistical analysis of the situation – you need to stand back a little. You are looking at trend lines from a number of starting points. You have now even mentioned 1940 as a possible starting point. Well if you went right back to the year 1000 you are more than likely to have straight line. Unfortunately we do not have instrumental data going that far and this is not the place to discuss the paleo-climatological controversies. But surely you can see my point. 
I could understand it if you were arguing about the interpretation of 7 years of flat temperatures but I do not understand your stubborn refusal to see what is patently clear to most, including the Met Office. (except of course Tamino and his sidekick). 
A psychologist would find the debate here quite interesting! Surely there is a PhD in this for someone :-)
Nelson 
10 January 2008 at 10:45
'Like it or loath it, this is great science journalism.' No, it's weak science journalism. The statistical analysis on which it is based looks fatally flawed. I don't suppose we'll ever see it, of course. 
tonyharcombe, have you deliberately ignored Tamino's refutation of Whitehouse's/Þorsteinsson's analyses? You've gone right back to the claim that 7 years is enough data, that you just need to draw a line through it, that warming stopped in 1998. Ugh. Please, leave stats to qualified experts. 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/dead-heat/ 
Tamino shows that you expect to see decades where 'global warming has stopped' (a misleading description I ever heard of: the warming is still there, it's just hidden by noise). It's a fundamental property of the data that you can't argue around.
Nelson 
10 January 2008 at 10:58
Sven: 'Arrogance, abuse, censorship'? I see it differently: intolerance to those who profess expertise but who don't understand the subject. I'm a scientist, but not a statistician. There is no shame in deferring to more qualified experts, unless of course you'd prefer my mangled interpretation of the data to those of Tamino, a professional statistician specialising in trend analysis.
Robin Guenier 
10 January 2008 at 12:01
Well done, Maz, for trying to wrest the discussion away from the dreary, pettifogging, tit-for-tat argument is was becoming again – although Mr Fnortner tried and failed yesterday. Of course this is a political issue. It’s the politicians, not the scientists, who will determine how all this affects billions of people. Therefore, it’s absolutely right that an authoritative political periodical like the New Statesman should have provided this opportunity for sensible debate – and, thanks to Dr Whitehouse, that’s what we’re (largely) getting. Of course that debate cannot ignore either the science or the politics – but it provides an excellent and (usually) accessible forum for exploring the interaction between the two. 
I have a question specifically for David Parker, tamino, Katem, stargazer, Loftur, dopeyguy, bobclive, Nelson, Peter Martin, gbrewer, hwm98264, tonyharcombe, cdwork and others who insist that their interpretation of the data is correct. Do you nonetheless agree with what JZ Smith has kindly described as the “Guenier principles”? Yes or no. They are: 
(1) Although the science of AGW may not be settled, the IPCC could be right and it’s prudent therefore to reduce dependence on fossil fuels (it’s wise in any case) and sensible, for example, to stop further destruction of the rainforests. 
(2) But action that halts or reduces economic growth is impracticable as it would (a) be unacceptable to voters in the developed “western” economies and to governments of the developing “eastern” economies and (b) damage the world’s poorest people. 
(3) Therefore, it’s essential that we develop solutions that reconcile (1) and (2) – see, for example, my suggestions in earlier posts (2, 3 and 6 January) about how we might make greater use of clean energy in a way that does not impact economic growth. 
If your answer is “no”, please say why. 
If the answer is “yes”, let’s get away from the petty arguments and start discussion about how best (1) and (2) can be reconciled.
Sven 
10 January 2008 at 12:16
Nelson 
"I make my living as a mathematician, my specialty is the statistical analysis of time series. I can tell from your comments that when it comes to time series analysis, you have only enough knowledge to be dangerous. Your obstinate refusal to accdept the reality of your own ignorance about these matters shows that not only are you shooting in the dark, you’re too arrogant to be in the right frame of mind actually to *learn* something from someone who know a helluva lot more about the subject than you do. Goodbye" (meaning, it seems, banned from the site?-Sven) 
... 
"...discussion is like the chattering of a bunch of medieval barbers discussing the health of a sick man..." 
Surely you see it differently - because his findings correspond to your expectations, wishes and beliefs that you hold. What do you know of his credentials apart from what he has announced himself? Why do you assume Met Office does not have experienced professional statisticians specializing in trend analyses? 
As I said, I do not hold any strong beliefs and am trying to dig into it myself. Trying to collect different view points and understand myself as much as I can. What is above my head, I would like to bet on the most credible and authoritative opinions (and people who do not jump into personal abuse and vulgar scare stories). And Met Office vs. a "guy on the internet" is a pretty strong bet. As I also said - "any UNBIASED research on the internet shows that there really is no such thing a consensus on this matter". The scientists holding different views are a lot (and growing, interestingly), many of them really mainstream and not freaks or stupid as Tamino seems to suppose.
Nelson 
10 January 2008 at 12:36
'Why do you assume Met Office does not have experienced professional statisticians specializing in trend analyses?' 
Ten points if you can find a Met Office statistician that claims global warming has stopped. It might be tough: take their recent press release (3 Jan 2008): 
'"The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000." 
'Sharply renewed warming is likely once [2008's] La Niña declines" 
Implicit, then, is that global warming hasn't stopped. So much for Whitehouse's insightful analysis! 
As for Tamino's anonymity, it doesn't matter. His credentials are the data and analysis he has posted on his website for everyone to read. Whitehouse offers... assertion. If you feel you're sufficiently qualified, then criticise Tamino's his methodology. But if you're out of your depth and reject it anyway - well, that _is_ arrogance.
Peter Martin 
10 January 2008 at 13:00
Maz, 
If you'd based your position on the last 7 years of data for the last 25 years or so, you would have alternated between a conviction that humanity was heading for the next ice age and a equal and opposite conviction that the GW problem was twice as severe as it actually is! 
I think the relative flatness of the last seven years of data must be the first worry free time. 
Also I'm not sure that I have to 'admit ' that there is a political dimension to the argument. Its just an observation that there is. I wish there weren't but there's not much I can do about it. It some ways it feels more like a religious opposition to the application of reason. I've not seen it on this thread, but I have heard the arguent that God wouldn't have provided coal and oil, if it hadn't been safe for us to burn it!
Kevin 
10 January 2008 at 13:10
Kevin 
9.1.08. 
Ice ages last millions of years in some cases & thaw in the comparatively short time of 100000 years. By extrapolation, as the last ice age ceased approx. 12,000 years ago, we must have some 88,000 years of warming, with intermittent cold spells (not necessarily ice ages) to contend with. 
Water levels, due to the seas, oceans, rivers being locked up with the ensuing lack of evaporation & precipitation, fell by 120 metres during the ice age. 
Eventually, volcanoes that have been capped by approx 3/4 KM's of ice over M's of years, erupt on an unimaginary scale. This results in copius ammounts of CO2 with the resultant global warming. It is easy to assume, that with the resultant ice melt, sea levels would realise their original levels. I think we can disregard the scientists assessment of 6/7 metres rise in sea levels. 
Are fossil & carboniferous fuels really the Devil's fuels? Without it, the only material available to humans would be timber, for transport, building, fuel etc. We are warned that the decimation of the rainforests could result in the depletion of O2 levels. How much worse would this have been if we didn't have the alternative fules. 
Also, we are grateful to organisms such as Cyana Bacteria for raising the level of O2 from 2% to the present 22%. Obviously this is the optimum level for humans to thrive. If the forests were allowed to proliferate unimpeded, would the level of O2 reach a point where humans couldn't survive? 
300M years ago, with the proliferation of vegetation the world over, the earth suffered one of four 'Snow Ball Earths' when even the tropics were covered in 10's of metres of ice, compared with 3/4 KM's in the Northern hemisphere. 
CO2 provides a natural blanket which allows the ambient temperature we enjoy. Nature (let's not call it Mother Nature & embue it with reasoning, rationale, logic & emotions). If it did possess these virtues, perhaps we could count on it to protect us. 
Of course, as the most advanced species to occupy the earth, we have been blessed (or cursed) with the ability to create & then resolve problems. The fossilised & carboniferous fuels could only have been discovered, harvested & utilised by Homo Sapiens Sapiens (so good they named us twice). It is now our life blood. Alternative fuels will be invented in due course, but till then we will have to put up with being overtaxed on these fuels on the somewhat dubious pretence of 'Saving the Planet'. 
We are powerless to stop those processes that have ocurred since the inception of earth. The greatest catastrophes that have beset the earth have been followed by the greatest advancement in the evolution of all species. It is the way of things & it is not going to change now that we are here. 
The average life-span of the 35B species that have inhabited earth is 4M years. 99% of all those species are now extinct. What are the odds on us achieving a similar life span???
bobclive 
10 January 2008 at 13:17
JZSmith, you say 
I challenge to give us a reference of a serious paper which is against the current scientific consensus. 
Try this one, Dec 2007, Present warming CUT BY HALF, what, not 0.8C increase since 1900 but only 0.4C which has been flat since 2001 and not risen since 1998. 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGR07-background.pdf 
Full paper below, 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGRDec07.pdf 
Lets have some comments on this paper, remember it was Ross together with Steve at climateaudit who broke Mann`s Hockey stick. 
I have posted a number of recent peer reviewed papers that put doubt on the main plank of AGW but no one appears to comment. 
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax, 
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
Kevin 
10 January 2008 at 13:18
Kevin 
10.1.08. 
Ice ages last millions of years in some cases & thaw in the comparatively short time of 100000 years. By extrapolation, as the last ice age ceased approx. 12,000 years ago, we must have some 88,000 years of warming, with intermittent cold spells (not necessarily ice ages) to contend with. 
Water levels, due to the seas, oceans, rivers being locked up with the ensuing lack of evaporation & precipitation, fell by 120 metres during the ice age. 
Eventually, volcanoes that have been capped by approx 3/4 KM's of ice over M's of years, erupt on an unimaginary scale. This results in copius ammounts of CO2 with the resultant global warming. It is easy to assume, that with the resultant ice melt, sea levels would realise their original levels. I think we can disregard the scientists assessment of 6/7 metres rise in sea levels. 
Are fossil & carboniferous fuels really the Devil's fuels? Without it, the only material available to humans would be timber, for transport, building, fuel etc. We are warned that the decimation of the rainforests could result in the depletion of O2 levels. How much worse would this have been if we didn't have the alternative fules. 
Also, we are grateful to organisms such as Cyana Bacteria for raising the level of O2 from 2% to the present 22%. Obviously this is the optimum level for humans to thrive. If the forests were allowed to proliferate unimpeded, would the level of O2 reach a point where humans couldn't survive? 
300M years ago, with the proliferation of vegetation the world over, the earth suffered one of four 'Snow Ball Earths' when even the tropics were covered in 10's of metres of ice, compared with 3/4 KM's in the Northern hemisphere. 
CO2 provides a natural blanket which allows the ambient temperature we enjoy. Nature (let's not call it Mother Nature & embue it with reasoning, rationale, logic & emotions). If it did possess these virtues, perhaps we could count on it to protect us. 
Of course, as the most advanced species to occupy the earth, we have been blessed (or cursed) with the ability to create & then resolve problems. The fossilised & carboniferous fuels could only have been discovered, harvested & utilised by Homo Sapiens Sapiens (so good they named us twice). It is now our life blood. Alternative fuels will be invented in due course, but till then we will have to put up with being overtaxed on these fuels on the somewhat dubious pretence of 'Saving the Planet'. 
We are powerless to stop those processes that have ocurred since the inception of earth. The greatest catastrophes that have beset the earth have been followed by the greatest advancement in the evolution of all species. It is the way of things & it is not going to change now that we are here. 
The average life-span of the 35B species that have inhabited earth is 4M years. 99% of all those species are now extinct. What are the odds on us achieving a similar life span???
Nelson 
10 January 2008 at 13:39
Bobclive, here's some commentary on the McKitrick and Michaels 2007 paper you linked to: 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/are-te...
bobclive 
10 January 2008 at 13:39
Question, 
How much land is required to grow Bio-fuel. 
Answer 
Currently, we can get 50 gallons (soybean) to 200 gallons (mustard multicrop) per acre per year. 
response, 
That's not much fuel,
Mr Fnortner 
10 January 2008 at 13:46
Robin Guenier, I see as I clear my head this AM, has taken my back twice overnight, for which I thank him. And Sven, you are most eloquent. I aspire to your facility, and would write as you do if I weren't so angry at the moronic positions taken by those educated beyond their intelligence. 
You do know that statistics is not science, people! To plot curves and predict points based on the behavior of unthinking numbers, as I have tried but failed to point out above more than once, is a mindless exercise used as a surrogate for actual understanding. 
Yes, analysis of statistical phenomena may yield insight, and lead to truth, no doubt. But it is not truth, itself. Do not be confused. As the great semanticist Alfred Korzybski said, "The map is not the territory." 
And yes, I am more afraid of governments and those who would incite them against their citizens than I am of climate change. Here is a bit of 2,000 year old wisdom from Confucian Hsun Tzu we would do well to heed, "When stars fall or a sacred tree groans the people of the whole state are afraid. We ask, why is it? I answer: there is no special reason. For there is no age which has not experienced eclipses of the sun and moon, unseasonable rain or wind, or strange stars seen in groups. If the prince is illustrious and the government tranquil, although these events should all come together in one age it would do no harm. But when human ominous signs come, then we should really be afraid." 
And I close with this, "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." My thanks to Oliver Wendell Holmes for his appreciation of durability of truth in the face of assault. So the truth about the fate of the earth will out, political agendas notwithstanding. Carry on.
bobclive 
10 January 2008 at 13:48
Nelson, That Mann`s Blog, they still believe there is no little ice age or Medieval warm period, suggest a site that is neutral, only AGW`s go there.
Brute 
10 January 2008 at 14:11
Mr. Clive, 
More good links! Thank you. 
Try this one..... 
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html?... 
I have yet to see anything posted on this site by global warming alarmists proposing solutions to this perceived problem; please, provide just a few, (somewhat specific), bullet points. Not a word about solutions from David Parker, tamino, Katem, stargazer, Loftur, dopeyguy, bobclive, Nelson, Peter Martin, gbrewer, hwm98264, tonyharcombe, cdwork as Mr. Guenier has offered at least 3 times. 
I'd also like to see statistical analysis of just how often these climate prognosticators are correct; percentage of accuracy. I’d certainly like to hold a job where I’d be paid for being wrong 50% of the time……. or less.
Nelson 
10 January 2008 at 14:32
'You do know that statistics is not science, people! ' 
This is bluster. You absolutely need statistics to interpret science. 
Also, I think some posters are confused about the argument we're engaged in: it's not over policy implication, or data predictions and projections, but rather the data we do have. Until we understand that correctly, what hope is there for meaningful policy decisions? 
And this is why Whitehouse's article is inadequate. It falls at the first step: his claim that global warming has stopped is simply untenable. That is not good science.
Nelson 
10 January 2008 at 14:34
Bobclive, you're misrepresenting Realclimate. It's the best climate blog out there. 
What about the criticisms of the 2007 M&M paper? Will you just disregard them?
Sven 
10 January 2008 at 14:49
Nelson 
Dr. Whitehouse's claim (actually, as I pointed out - his question, based on Met Life information, not any claim) is not untenable. The Met Office chart is quite clear. Again, here it is: 
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/Ha... 
As well as the table on BBC based on this: 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7142694.stm 
And yes, this is in the category that I DO understand myself and do not have to rely on authority. And so would you, if you only would not like to wish something else. The statement of Mr. Jones from Met Office is something completely different and as mentioned many times here already, seems to be total nonsense. When something has moved up (that is not denied by anybody) and stays high, it's obvious that the values, even though they are not changing, are all high! 
But I'm not very much an internet commenting type, so I'm off air. I'm not debating what is right or wrong, I was just pooring out my frustration on the perversion of the thing I adore a lot - science!
Sven 
10 January 2008 at 14:51
sorry, that being Met Office, not Met Life, of course!
bobclive 
10 January 2008 at 14:58
Nelson, realclimate, Mann in particular, even now cannot accept that the hockey stick study was flawed and discredited. This means they are entrenched in their views of AGW and no study or persons outside of their grouping will convince them otherwise, the site is biased. 
This gives an indication of how this grouping try to discount the worth of other valid opinions. 
link
Mr Fnortner 
10 January 2008 at 15:26
To Nelson who apparently will not (cannot?) read, my subsequent paragraph clearly, unambiguously says: "analysis of statistical phenomena may yield insight, and lead to truth, no doubt." This is exactly the same as your statement: "You absolutely need statistics to interpret science." 
Now, such blind flailings as your wasted retort must mean the arrows of criticism are striking close to home. I'm not sadist enough to continue. But come to your senses and realize that science will not follow your desires, no matter your determination or righteousness.
stargazer 
10 January 2008 at 15:49
Robin Guenier 
You asked others and myself a yes/no question 
I cant speak for the others that you mention, because though we 'deniers' are all likely to be of the same opinion in that 'there is much more to this than AGW'... there are, as with everything, different 'shades' so I speak for myself only. 
SO let me tell you what I think... And accept that I cannot possibly fit all of my years of reasons and reasoning onto this post. 
I don't believe in UFO's, creationism, God(s), the grassy knoll, that 'we' did not land on the moon, the lochness monster, bigfoot, ghosts, and I DONT think the holocaust did not happen!!! . In other words I am very 'scientific' in my world view, and don't hold with ANY conspiracy theories. 
Over the years, I have given many public lectures On Astronomy and 'space science', and so am well used to very long timeframes, and big numbers. So I do not subscribe to viewing the Earths climate ONLY over 150 years.... That said 'the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step', and so I believe that the 'flattening out of temp, in recent years may be very significant.but only time will tell. 
I have spent some 20 years looking into this global warming/climate change stuff. NOT to satisfy anyone else, (only myself) as to the 'truth'. I started off 'on the fence' about it. And now I think that there is more going on than just AGW/Co2. My conclusion... and NO I cant prove it, (if I could I'd be world famous) is that the Sun will turn out to be the main driver eg. natural climate change. 
YES I KNOW the worlds temperature has gone up. I don't disagree with that...and I think that for our own comfort we should clean up our act. This means Clean energy (nuclear), electric cars, all down the line to homes producing less waste.... 
I don't think anyone here disagrees (Denies) that the climate is changing (as it always has). But the CAUSE of it is indeed of utmost importance...how can we adapt to something if we don't know what (for sure) the cause is. (Yes...I know the AGW already have the answer.) But as you must well know, the MWP and LIA, and not to mention that the ice mass of the globe is increasing overall, and so do not sit well with co2 theory on its own. We may ruin the worlds economy and other things by 'blaming' the wrong thing, and so then by doing the wrong thing. 
I think that far from warming...we may well get cold...soon.... I could place plenty of links on this here but no-one would read them, so I wont. Looking at the past (as we MUST), we see that each of the last four interglacial's reached higher temps. than our current one. The temp. has also been higher than now at least 11 times during the past 10,000 years. 
Over the past 1000 years the medieval period being up to 2 deg C warmer than now and at the end of this period we had the 'little ice age' with very cold times between 1400 and tail ended as recently as 1850...when the temp. started to rise again. ~1850 is the date beloved by the AGW's they show this graph to 'prove' the temp.had gone up since... well whoopee-do. 
We can live with warm we should be glad it is. Millions will suffer greatly when we get cold again. I think that the Sunspot-cosmic ray-cloud connection will turn out to be the 'smoking gun'. Even William Herschel (astronomer, and discoverer of Planet Uranus) noted in 1801 that "when there are few spots on the Sun the price of wheat went up". 
At this time the sun is 'quiet' sunspot cycle 23 has ended (and cycle 24 is just beginning) and there are virtually no spots on the Sun... and the world is cooler.. is this coincidence? 
That said the next solar cycle (24) may be 'low' and the following one (25) lower still. This is from new research on a solar sub-surface 'conveyor' that has slowed in recent times. 
There is a pattern here (as there always is)... and I fear the immanent onset of a 'maunder' type sunspot minimum. We can live with warm...but millions may suffer (and worse) if we indeed get years/decades of extended cold...power/gas outages, crop failures, food/water shortages,all forms of transport snowed to a halt etc. And after this global warming stuff...who will believe any scientist who says 'well guys we got it wrong... forget what we said about warming ! global cooling is on its way so we must make it law to put Co2 into the atmosphere to counter it'...Think it cant happen !!! Yeah right. 
IF the Sun were indeed to be the main factor in Global warming (and cooling)...and IF we were heading for another cold period then removing Co2 (at great cost) could therefore make things worse. We can live with warm. ...but millions may indeed suffer and die if we indeed get years/decades of extended cold...all forms of transport snowed to a halt, power/gas outages, crop failures, food/water shortages, disease, and maybe war ...not good!! 
There has been no global warming for almost 10 years.1998 being the most recent warmest year. All this will turn out to be caused by the Sun...the Sun drives the climate as it always has, and the temp. goes up and down. 
All that said I would agree with your points 12&3. But this idealism is NOT the way it is panning out in the real world....you and me have become milch cows for the politicians over this....And No this is NOT why I am anti AGW... read above.
Robin Guenier 
10 January 2008 at 18:00
Apart from stargazer – thank you for your remarkably interesting and thoughtful post (as was your 23 December post) – David Parker, tamino, Katem, Loftur, dopeyguy, bobclive, Nelson, Peter Martin, gbrewer, hwm98264, tonyharcombe, cdwork, Sven, Kevin, etc. have continued their (admittedly entertaining) debate but have not yet accepted my earlier challenge. So here’s my question again (rephrased to accommodate differing views about AGW): 
Do you agree with the following principles? 
(1) Although there may be disagreement about whether the science of AGW is settled, it is prudent anyway to reduce the world’s dependence on fossil fuels and sensible to take other measures arising from the IPCC report such as curtailing the further destruction of rainforests. 
(2) But action that halts or reduces economic growth is impracticable as it would (a) be unacceptable to most voters (and consequently to political leaders) in the developed “western” economies, (b) be ignored by most governments of the developing “eastern” economies and (c) be damaging to the world’s poorest people. 
(3) Therefore, we must develop solutions that reconcile (1) and (2). 
If your answer is “no”, please say why. 
If your answer is “yes”, it would interesting be to hear your views about how best (1) and (2) might be reconciled. 
Please take the trouble to reply – I suggest it’s important. But, however you reply, I now realise it’s pointless to ask you to curtail your debate.
Brute 
10 January 2008 at 18:05
http://weather.slimyhorror.com/ 
How good are the weather forecasts? 
The BBC weather service offers countless weather forecasts on their web site. One of the most useful features being their localised weather reports. This gives a five day prediction of the weather for any location in Britain. For example, here's what the weather in Cambridge is prophesised to be. 
Problem is, just how good are these predictions? After once using the BBC's weather page to book myself a nice sun-drenched Friday off work, only to find it pissing down with rain on the day, I was inspired (well... ok I got bored sometime later on) to write a small computer program to check up on the BBC. Are their five day weather predictions useful, or are they no good at all? Is the super computer in the MET office accurately modelling the world's climate, or is it resting its brain and picking out sun and rain symbols at random? We will find the answer! 
So how do we tell if they're right? 
Well, rather than scurry around the whole of the UK in order to check their weather divinations, I've chosen to take the easy route and use the BBC's own web pages. The five day weather predictions also include today's weather. I'm making the assumption that predicting today's weather is dead simple, so the BBC couldn't possibly get this wrong. So every day, a script reads the latest five day forecast, and compares today's weather with what the BBC said it would be in their previous forecasts. 
Over time, as this program collects more and more of the weather predictions, we'll be able to see how often the weather forecasts were right. 
What are the results? 
The tables below show the accuracy of the BBC's weather forecasts, listed by time. E.g. as I write this, the table below shows that the weather forecast for Cambridge one day ahead was 53% accurate. In other words, the BBC's guess about tomorrow's weather in Cambridge was right roughly half of the time. 
See: Tables/Data
JZ Smith 
10 January 2008 at 18:43
Elcuervo wrote: "You provided a link on a comment of two papers that talk about biofuels?!?" 
I thought it worthwhile to note that one of the "solutions" to AGW are the increased production and use of biofuels. However, there are potentially serious negative side effects from the production of biofuels (http://www.energyportal.eu/news/biomass/un-warn-for-negative...), which is a good illustration of my concerns about 'the cure being worse than the disease'.
JZ Smith 
10 January 2008 at 18:46
Bobclive: Sorry; you must have me confused with another poster. I am, for now at least, a skeptic of the "consensus view" of AGW. 
"JZSmith, you say 
I challenge to give us a reference of a serious paper which is against the current scientific consensus."
JZ Smith 
10 January 2008 at 19:05
Mr. Guenier: 
"Of course this is a political issue. It’s the politicians, not the scientists, who will determine how all this affects billions of people." 
I couldn't agree more. This is without a doubt a political issue, possibly the most important issue modern society has ever faced. The scientific debate can, should, and must continue, but ultimately the science will simply be a tool for policy makers worldwide. 
My view, based on all I have been able to learn here and elsewhere, is that no conclusive evidence yet exists to support mandating large, radical changes to our society. Therefore I support the Guenier Principles.
Mr Fnortner 
10 January 2008 at 22:02
If all the dust Robin Guenier has caused us to stir up on this forum was for the purpose of gaining agreement that we should throttle back our use of fossil fuels, it was a fairly inefficient use of electrons, I must say. Lucky for us, we have plenty. Of electrons, that is. 
But point (3) of his so-called principles looks very much like solutions in search of a problem to me. 
It's a mark of a shabby argument to get an opponent to agree to something off the mark in the hopes of leveraging him into agreeing to the original premise, Guenier--somewhere between the fallacy of composition and the extended analogy fallacy: "Doing something about global warming is just like conserving fossil fuels, only better, because global warming is just like diminishing fossil fuels, only more important and noble."
Peter Martin 
10 January 2008 at 22:27
Mr JZ Smith, 
The New Statesman is a good magazine politically, but if you really want to learn the science, then I'm sure that even their excellent staff would direct you to the New Scientist. 
Of course, creationists and climate change sceptics hate the New Scientist with a passion beacuse they stick to their brief and do their best to keep politics and religion out of any argument. 
They have itemised 26 common climate myths and debunked them all in this article: 
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
Brute 
10 January 2008 at 23:57
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate. 
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). 
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded. 
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase. 
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare. 
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. 
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth. 
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result. 
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas. 
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect". 
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact. 
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming. 
FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover. 
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming. 
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are: 
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.” 
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes” 
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming. 
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant. 
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. 
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes. 
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. 
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming. 
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature. 
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising. 
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica. 
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
Peter Martin 
11 January 2008 at 00:10
Do you think its just a co-incidence that this AGW scare has erupted after the collapse of communism in the late eighties? There are still plenty of reds around though! 
Now that they can't destabilise freedom and democracy with their traditional methods , maybe they've turned their attention to doing it via environmentalism?
Brute 
11 January 2008 at 00:42
More on the polar bear overload 
When the Bush administration hinted at naming the polar bear as a threatened species, the Wall Street Journal did some checking. The newspaper found in January that there are 20,000-25,000 polar bears out there — 4 to 5 times as many as the 5,000 polar bears in the 1960s. 
Still lefties cling to the myth of the polar bear shortage. 
The Inuits are up to their igloos in polar bears now. Fred Langan and Tom Leonard of the London Telegraph explained the situation today: 
In small Inuit communities, hunters kill bears that wander too close to human settlements and, in this particular region, they are licensed to kill six polar bears a year. 
Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists. 
The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared — boosting the bears’ food supply. 
At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears. 
But wait, global warming people said polar bears were starving because the icecaps were melting, keeping them away from those delicious Harp seal pups. 
Now we come to learn that polar bears are feasting and going out and making more polar bears. There are so many polar bears that Man is in danger up north, not polar bears. 
How are the polar bears getting to the baby seals? Jet skis? 
Remember, the Arctic Circle is now just an ice cube. Or so they say. 
Never mind all those nettlesome facts: All this proves global warming, the global warming believers say. 
“I don’t think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming,” said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. “People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears.” 
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board is made up entirely of polar bear hunters? Who knew? 
But I am puzzled by why global warming people brought up the whole disappearing polar bear thing, when polar bears actually are thriving, thanks to all those melt-in-your-mouth Harp seal pups. 
Derocher’s “proof” that polar bears are in danger is that bear numbers on the west coast of Hudson’s Bay are down by 22% over the past decade. 
“They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson’s Bay,” he said. 
But wait, polar bear numbers are growing overall. His reply: “To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant.” 
Once again, global warming believers cherry-pick data and pretend it is science. 
Remember the big deal the NOAA made about our warm January? Here is its entire report on February: 
The average temperature in February 2007 was 32.9 F. This was -1.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 34th coolest February in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. 
1.56 inches of precipitation fell in February. This was -0.46 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 16th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.00 inches per decade. 
I have no idea if the Earth is getting warmer or colder. 
Neither do people who count polar bears on the west coast of Hudson Bay — or the people at the NOAA. 
But here’s a suggestion for the global warming people: Use that actual data to embroider another scenario, that global warming is causing an overpopulation of polar bears. 
Somehow melting the ice makes them overpopulate and they will be walking down Broadway any day now to eat us alive … that would scare people into believing.
bobclive 
11 January 2008 at 00:56
Brute, good one. 
Common sense will prevail. 
UK Land stations used by cru, it would be interesting if these were photographed similar to the US study. 
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/
Brute 
11 January 2008 at 01:01
Hurricane season 2007 is near the record low of 1977 
Florida State University’s COAPS (Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies) says that hurricane season 2007, which ends November 30th, is looking well below normal, in fact they are calling it “historic inactivity”. 
According to COAPS: “Unless a dramatic and perhaps historical flurry of activity occurs in the next 11 weeks (ACE is based on calendar year, not traditional June-November hurricane season) , 2007 will rank as a historically inactive Tropical Cyclone year for the entire Northern Hemisphere. During the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, and 1983 have had less activity to date (Jan-December). For the period of June 1 - October 19, 2007, only 1977 experienced LESS tropical cyclone activity.”
bobclive 
11 January 2008 at 01:17
Peter Martin 
New Scientist like realclimate is an AGW site. 
They say, Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can – and has – been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. 
WHAT A JOKE.
Brute 
11 January 2008 at 01:35
Not The Way Science Is Done 
The IPCC claims its report is peer-reviewed, which simply isn't true. Under true peer-review a panel of reviewers must accept a study before it can be published in a scientific journal. If the reviewers have objections, the author must answer them or change the article to take reviewers' objections into account. 
Under the IPCC review process, by contrast, the authors are at liberty to ignore criticisms. After having his review comments ignored by the IPCC in 1990 and 1995, one scientist asked to have his name removed from the list of reviewers. The group refused. 
The IPCC has resorted to using scenario-building in its policymakers' summary to paint a frightening picture not supported by the science. Ignoring the science allows the IPCC to build a scenario, for example, that assumes man will burn 300 years' worth of coal in 100 years. They plug that into the most sensitive climate model available and arrive at a truly frightening global warming scenario. 
"People wouldn't normally take that very seriously, but I think the IPCC understands the media will report the top number. I don't think, any longer, that this is unintentional." 
The IPCC also exploits what scientists do agree on to support its agenda. For example, scientists can more-or-less live with the idea conveyed in the IPCC report that everything is connected to everything else, and everything is uncertain. 
Politicians and environmentalists take this minimal area of agreement, and then claim that anything can cause anything and we must act to stop it. 
Scientists agree, for example, that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased over the last 100 years. They also generally agree the climate has warmed slightly. Uncertainties remain, however, regarding even those basic propositions. 
Contrary to the impression given by the IPCC, there is no widespread agreement on what these two "facts" mean for mankind. Yet they are deemed by the IPCC sufficient to justify precipitous action.
Peter Martin 
11 January 2008 at 02:27
Its a bit sad that people have to use words and phrases like "twaddle" "crap"and "what a joke" etc to express their disgreement. Usually its the sceptics who are doing this to express their opposition to mainstream scientific opinion. 
Also its not very scientific to assert that something is a "Fact". You can say that there is the following evidence to suggest, support, in favour of the following argument etc etc That's OK 
So come on guys, lift your game, put your brains into gear and start debating with evidence and intelligence! 
Incidentally, I'm curious to know if a typical GW sceptic is sceptical about all established science or just the AGW evidence? Does the sceptiscm extend to the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, CFC's and the ozone layer, tectonic plate theory, evolution? 
Contray to what they may believe, scientists do welcome a scrutiny of their results but its difficult to respond t
Mr Fnortner 
11 January 2008 at 02:55
As I read Brute's essays above and reflected back on Robin Guenier's question's, I realize I owe the gentleman an apology. I do stand by my assertion regarding the quality of the argument, but I should not have directed a slam at you, Mr. Guenier. I mistook you for another in this forum, and for that insult I am sorry, and more profoundly so in light of the courtesies you have shown to me before.
Mr Fnortner 
11 January 2008 at 03:00
Brute, fabulous essays. Thank you.
Peter Martin 
11 January 2008 at 04:31
Robin Guernier has previously asked: 
(1) Although the science of AGW may not be settled, the IPCC could be right and it’s prudent therefore to reduce dependence on fossil fuels (it’s wise in any case) and sensible, for example, to stop further destruction of the rainforests. 
(2) But action that halts or reduces economic growth is impracticable as it would (a) be unacceptable to voters in the developed “western” economies and to governments of the developing “eastern” economies and (b) damage the world’s poorest people. 
(3) Therefore, it’s essential that we develop solutions that reconcile (1) and (2) – see, for example, my suggestions in earlier posts (2, 3 and 6 January) about how we might make greater use of clean energy in a way that does not impact economic growth. 
Yes, absolutely, to all three questions. The whole point of acting now on climate cahnge is to allow the development of clean technologies. We'll have to throttle back on the use of oil anyway because we probably are very close to peak production and its just going to get increasingly expensive. 
The sooner we make the switch to a low carbon economy the less disruption there'll be to the world economy.
stargazer 
11 January 2008 at 08:53
Peter Martin said "!sceptiscm extend to the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, CFC's and the ozone layer, tectonic plate theory, evolution?" 
NO.....No.... no..... mud slinging.... It because we accept the above... and more. (see my post of the 10th and read it) that we see dont accept AWG.
Nelson 
11 January 2008 at 09:12
'New Scientist like realclimate is an AGW site.' 
It reflects the consensus, so tough!
Nelson 
11 January 2008 at 09:16
'Brute, fabulous essays.' fabulous essays, copy pasted from the Heartland Institute? Oh dear.
Robin Guenier 
11 January 2008 at 10:57
Gulp … I thought your post yesterday, Mr Fnortner, was a bit harsh. So thanks for the gracious apology today. The motivation for my post was that I shared with you a frustration with those who continue to argue about “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”; I was hoping (perhaps vainly) to move the discussion on to what are we going to do about it all. 
But you’re right: my post may have been poorly phrased. Although I didn’t say “Assuming (1) and (2), do you agree with (3)?”, I should perhaps have made it clearer that I was inviting people to consider each of the principles, probably dropping out if their answer to (1) or (2) was “no” – i.e. “Do you agree with (1)? If you do, do you agree with (2)? If you do, how do you think these seeming contradictions might be reconciled (3)?” 
I had no wish to “leverage” anyone into anything. I could imagine someone saying “no” to (1) because, for example, he believed it impossible to determine what (if any) action was needed until the AGW issue was clearly settled or to (2) because he believed AGW means that mankind must accept an economic downturn and it was politicians’ job to lead us through it. 
For those who hadn’t dropped out at (1) or (2), the spectrum of views on (3) might range, for example, from “There’s no need for draconic action now – adopt straightforward emission saving measures and let a growing world economy develop, for example, better geothermal solutions and synthesised fuels” through “Much the same as that but, following Bjorn Lomborg, the absolute priority of economic growth must be the amelioration of such scourges as AIDS and diminishing water supplies” and “No, the only solution is to put a massive effort into nuclear energy” to “Nuclear power is unacceptable – we have to give renewables overriding priority now”. Obviously there are many other possibilities. 
I suspect you would agree that such a discussion might be an efficient use of electrons.
Brute 
11 January 2008 at 14:00
Mont Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink? 
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says in their recent 2007 Summary for Policymakers “Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise.” Someone in Europe missed the memo on this subject as a recent article has appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research entitled “Very high-elevation Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th century climate change.” To say the least, we at World Climate Report were interested in what the authors had to say. 
The research was conducted by six scientists from leading agencies and departments in France and Switzerland that deal with hydrology and glaciology. Before you see the title of the article and immediately suspect some conspiracy funded by European coal companies, be aware that the research was funded by Observatoire des Sciences de l’Univers de Grenoble (OSUG), the European Programs ALPCLIM and CARBOSOL, and by the city of Chamonix Mont-Blanc. Given the title of the article, we wonder if the six scientists will ever be funded again by any European agencies. 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/06/26/mont-...
bobclive 
11 January 2008 at 14:46
Peter Martin, 
A sceptic is I believe someone who questions the status quo. 
Take health, the latest flawed science is that high cholesterol is a killer and statins should be taken by everyone. This is rubbish and dangerous, google this, 
http://www.patrickholford.com/content.asp?id_Content=1207 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/health... 
I took statins after a heart attack some 10 years ago, for the past 9 years I could not walk further than 200 yards without getting acute angina, since coming off this drug 12 months ago I can now walk for miles with absolutely no pain. Statins destroy muscle tissue. 
The Silicon breast implant scare which bankrupted on of the largest companies in the US, the study was later proven as junk science, so was the DDT scare by Rachel Carson which indirectly killed millions. 
How Many Died at Chernobyl? 
The initial reports in 1986 claimed 2,000 dead, and an unknown number of future deaths and deformities occurring in a wide swath extending from Sweden to the Black Sea. As the years passed, the size of the disaster increased; by 2000, the BBC and New York Times estimated 15,000-30,000 dead, and so on ... 
Now, to report that 15,000-30,000 people have died, when the actual number is 56, represents a big error. Let's try to get some idea of how big. Suppose we line up all the victims in a row. If 56 people are each represented by one foot of space, then 56 feet is roughly the distance from me to the fourth row of the auditorium. Fifteen thousand people is three miles away. It seems difficult to make a mistake of that scale. 
But, of course, you think, we're talking about radiation: what about long-term consequences? Unfortunately here the media reports are even less accurate. 
The chart shows estimates as high as 3.5 million, or 500,000 deaths, when the actual number of delayed deaths is less than 4,000. That's the number of Americans who die of adverse drug reactions every six weeks. Again, a huge error. 
But most troubling of all, according to the UN report in 2005, is that "the largest public health problem created by the accident" is the "damaging psychological impact [due] to a lack of accurate information ... [manifesting] as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state. 
Thats why I am a sceptic.
Nelson 
11 January 2008 at 15:02
“Very high-elevation Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th century climate change.” 
The clue is in the title, Brute. Very High Elevation: you'd need pretty damn significant warming to melt these; also, changes in precipitation patterns will influence glacier length. 
The IPCC statement that 'mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres' is quite correct.
Nelson 
11 January 2008 at 15:04
And that dire patrick Holford site you link to bobclive also sells dietary supplements. Now, do you suppose there's a conflict of interest? 
Look beyond anecdotes for the effectiveness of drugs.
Brute 
11 January 2008 at 16:18
Greenland, like most of the rest of the world, is subject to a likely solar-induced millennial-scale oscillation of climate that produced a Medieval Warm Period there about a thousand years ago that was approximately 1°C warmer than what it is today; and in contrast to climate-alarmist claims, it has not experienced unprecedented warming over the past few decades. Rather, it has experienced cooling in most places. As a result, Greenland is anything but a shining example of what anthropogenic CO2 emissions might do to earth's climate. In fact, it's a good example of what they likely will not do, i.e., prevent cooling when some other more powerful factor nudges earth's climate in the opposite direction. 
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-15/tre...
Mr Fnortner 
11 January 2008 at 16:28
Mr. Guenier, I'm glad we are back on speaking terms. Being an engineer, I hold to rationality above all. I know full well that love for a design will not keep a bridge from collapsing, nor will disdain for a rival keep his own design from working. So the debate among the scientists on this topic has been both astonishing and distressing to me in their cavalier disregard for a solid factual foundation. The global warming contingent would have us erect a building on sand. In the dim mists of the previous century, when I went to engineering school, I was taught by some fine scientists whose voices still echo in my mind, and whose voices easily overmatch those I hear on this forum. I am angry in their behalf. 
Fossil fuels may be growing short in supply; conserving them may be in our best interest. But keeping our air clean enough to breathe may be more important. So I agree with your principle (1) if reduced usage actually serves to keep the air clean. If. And, of course, there are other ways to keep the air clean. 
I believe the destruction of the rain forests is criminal. But the nations that possess the rain forests are sovereign, and choices about rain forest management belong to the people of those nations. I consider any attempt to influence the behavior of governments toward the people they serve that comes from outside a nation to be imperialistic, and verging on a human rights violation on an international scale, i.e., one government forcing another government to force its citizens to do a thing against their will is an abomination. 
I can't support anything other than education or something similar within the nations where this destruction is so rampant. Maybe the richest countries of the world would like to purchase the rain forests and put them in perpetual trusts instead of spending their trillions on armaments and wars. 
Principle (2) is very much the human way. We don't usually make allowances for those who aren't very much in the thick of things. If you're not among the winners, we don't have much use for you: "I've got mine, now get lost." (I cleaned up the language considerably.) So I don't expect the technologically advanced economies to scale themselves down and suffer a bit of sacrifice while supporting the emerging economies. That's carrying altruism just a bit too far. 
I don't have a ready answer for (3), but all the while I was writing this response I was wondering who the "we" was you used in your question. Certainly it wasn't the royal "we" (we are not amused) or the medical "we" (how are we feeling today?), so you must mean someone who could possibly act and carry out the solution. Who is that, exactly? 
Thanks for listening, and good luck everyone.
Mr Fnortner 
11 January 2008 at 16:38
From Pat Sajak, an American television personality and profound thinker, I have learned the solution to man-made global warming. 
It can be found here: http://www.patsajak.com/news.php?view=says 
These things archive frequently, so if it is gone, look here: http://www.patsajak.com/news_archive.php?view=says
JZ Smith 
11 January 2008 at 17:33
Brute, Nelson, etc. Not sure what this means to the debate, but saw this report today: 
http://www.kpbs.org/news/local;id=10639
bobclive 
11 January 2008 at 18:32
Nelson. 
You say 
It reflects the consensus, so tough! 
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. 
– Albert Einstein 
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. 
– Albert Einstein 
In the period that Einstein was active as a professor, one of his students came to him and said: "The questions of this year's exam are the same as last years!" "True," Einstein said, "but this year all answers are different."
Brute 
11 January 2008 at 19:11
Mr. Smith/Nelson, 
Look, I have no idea if the reports published by the IPCC or any other group or individual is valid. For ANYONE to say that they have conclusive evidence that “Global Warming” is or is not happening and affecting/effecting, (I can never get that correct), the planet is wrong. I think it has been stated, by Nelson and others who support the theory that, “we just don’t know”. To completely rearrange the global economy immediately will impact millions of people possibly negatively. Sure, I’ve heard the arguments referring to Risk Management, etc, but the facts don’t indicate an impending global catastrophe as we have been led to believe. Just today we have two articles, I’m sure that both authors/scientists believe they are correct, both I’m sure are highly qualified, studying the same topic, and come to completely opposite conclusions. 
There are enormous political and monetary implications to what the United Nations and Al Gore are proposing………. ENORMOUS. I’m picking on Gore because he is currently carrying his banner the highest. 
I joke, I’m sarcastic, I’m flippant and it probably has no place here; but the implications here are staggering. I know; if we do nothing then the results could be much worse, I’ve heard that argument also. 
I think, and I’m not kidding, that there is an agenda here. Call it Socialism, Communism, Collectivism; whatever you want to call it, but the goal is to redistribute wealth. 
Forget that. The goal is to ADVOCATE redistributing wealth to achieve power and political dominance. 
If you really take a good look at the political leadership that is promoting this, they are all wasteful, wealthy Capitalists and do not subscribe to their own rhetoric; that speaks volumes to me. 
I like Polar Bears, Baby Seals, Whales, etc. Anyone who doesn’t has something wrong with them. But to sacrifice a human life favoring the Spotted Wood Rat or the Warbling Tree Snail is ludicrous. 
I’m an Engineer. We should all be good stewards with the resources that are at our disposal….responsible. It goes against my nature and training to be wasteful; but I’m not an idiot, (you may think otherwise), and I simply refuse to buy into nonsense promoted by people who do not practice what they preach. 
I also believe in Freedom. If people want to drive Hybrid cars or use compact fluorescent light, (both I believe will cause serious environmental problems in the future), than please do; just don’t force me to. I promise I won’t castigate anyone for polluting the environment with Mercury or Lithium. 
What I really resent is the one sided coverage of all of this in the press, broadcast and print, and the distortions, (yes, on both sides, but primarily on the Environmentalists side). I always thought that Scientists are supposed to be impartial and simply present the facts; without spin or politically/philosophically inspired embellishment. How naïve I was. 
This has been a wonderful exercise/project for me; eye opening and informative. If I have offended or insulted either of you over the course of the last couple of weeks, I apologize. That was not my intention.
Robin Guenier 
11 January 2008 at 20:24
Mr Fnortner: by profession I’m a lawyer (in practice, a businessman – if your really interested see my initial posts on 22 and 23 December), so I’m chastened that you have twice caught me using sloppy phrasing. I’ve no idea who “we” is: I shouldn’t have used it. There is no “we” with the authority to impose any perceived “solution” on the world. So Brute need not fear that anyone will “completely rearrange the global economy immediately”. I doubt if he does. 
Perhaps my principle (3) should be amended to read “Therefore, anyone who is concerned about this issue should support the development of solutions that reconcile (1) and (2).” How such solutions could be implemented is another matter.
Brute 
11 January 2008 at 23:42
Not that it has to do with anything; I thought this was amusing considering our debate. 
Snow Falls In Baghdad 
Published: January 11, 2008 - 9:17 AM 
After weathering nearly five years of war, Baghdad residents thought they'd pretty much seen it all. But Friday morning, as muezzins were calling the faithful to prayer, the people here awoke to something certifiably new. 
For the first time in memory, snow fell across Baghdad. 
Although the white flakes quickly dissolved into gray puddles, they brought an emotion rarely expressed in this desert capital snarled by army checkpoints, divided by concrete walls and ravaged by sectarian killings -- delight. 
"For the first time in my life I saw a snow-rain like this falling in Baghdad," said Mohammed Abdul-Hussein, a 63-year-old retiree from the New Baghdad area. 
"When I was young, I heard from my father that such rain had fallen in the early '40s on the outskirts of northern Baghdad," Abdul-Hussein said, referring to snow as a type of rain. "But snow falling in Baghdad in such a magnificent scene was beyond my imagination." 
I wonder if anyone will try to blame George Bush for it. Or global warming?
Nelson 
11 January 2008 at 23:48
'Look, I have no idea if the reports published by the IPCC or any other group or individual is valid.' 
This is a very important point, and I agree absolutely with you Brute. Like the vast majority of human beings, you and I have a truly feeble understanding of climatology (loathe though we may be to admit it!). 
We could become experts ourselves, of course, but that takes decades of study and original research. My life is only so long, so I do the next best thing: defer to scientists who are already experts. Unless you have a deep and absolute mistrust of science this means the IPCC. 
The scientific consensus is not perfect, it's not immutable, and it's not pleasant. But we have to work with it.
JZ Smith 
11 January 2008 at 23:53
Regarding my post above on the recent study suggesting that polar ice has grown in past warming cycles, contrary to what climatologists had until now believed, it would also seem logical that polar ice could melt during a cooling cycle. 
If so, then perhaps the recent melt of the Arctic ice cap, might be consistent with what some have suggested in this forum, that we may be entering a global cooling period.
bobclive 
12 January 2008 at 00:39
This site has some clear up to date graphs, Go to section HADLEY SET, it reads 
Whether the CET with its focus on the industrial heartland of England has been adequately adjusted for Urban Heat Island as claimed is a question frequently asked of us. The short answer is, of course, we don't know. This is something of a black box and the only one who can tell us, PHIL JONES, has been rather RELUCTANT to share raw data and methodology. 
I say, 
Failure to release data and method can only lead to one conclusion, that either the data or methodology are flawed. They obviously don`t feel confident enough to allow free access. 
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
Brute 
12 January 2008 at 00:52
Nelson, 
I agree regarding mankind’s understanding of the Earth's climate. Our understanding of the World's climate is comparable to an Amoeba’s understanding of higher math. 
I disagree regarding that the best that we can do is the IPCC. I have a severe distrust of anything that is associated with the United Nations….. Rampant corruption; past history has proven that to be the case…… no speculation regarding that. 
A very wise man once said “Trust But Verify”. 
Good luck in finding whatever it is you are seeking.
bobclive 
12 January 2008 at 01:03
Nelson 
Would it be that the consensus within the IPCC fits in with your rigid views. Remember the consensus on DDT, silicon breast implants, Albert Einstein`s theory of relativity, all consensus means is a general agreement among the members of a given group, it does not mean they are correct. The consensus is for the use of bio-fuels, because of this the rain forests are disappearing at their highest rate ever.
Peter Martin 
12 January 2008 at 01:22
The IPCC is pretty much of a creation of the Reagan administration who wanted to forestall pronouncements by self-appointed committees of scientists, fearing they would be “alarmist.” Conservatives promoted the IPCC’s clumsy structure, which consisted of representatives appointed by every government in the world and required to consult all the thousands of experts in repeated rounds of report-drafting in order to reach a consensus. Despite these impediments the IPCC has issued unequivocal statements on the urgent need to act. So it may well have turned out to be something of a Frankenstein monster as far as the political right are concerned. 
The comparison between amoeba and higher maths may be a good one for some of the contributors to this forum but, although our understanding of the world's climate is far from perfect, it is now pretty good and improving all the time. The two leading groups in the world are the US NASA Goddard Space Centre and the UK Hadley Met Office. If you are going to disagree with these guys then at least make an effort to understand the work they are doing and you will, at least, appreciate their level of capability.
Brute 
12 January 2008 at 02:05
Mr. Martin, 
Isn't the IPCC the group that came up with the hockey stick graph?
Mr Fnortner 
12 January 2008 at 02:24
To all the scientists with a stake in the the continued warming of the earth, I stipulate that you are well educated, hard working, doubtless god fearing, driven by the purest of motives, and friend of man and beast. That said, the earth will warm, or cool, regardless, and on its own terms. 
All that we the skeptics are asking is that you find out what the earth is really doing. To us you look, to put it impolitely, like a bunch of eleven year old boys bragging about conquests with girls. Clueless is the word that most easily springs to mind, though there are probably others more eloquent. 
You need to stop wrangling with each other and with us. You need to get back to the office--you have much more work to do.
Mr Fnortner 
12 January 2008 at 02:35
Brute, you've been a welcome breath of fresh air here of late. A little snowy, but fresh nonetheless.
Mr Fnortner 
12 January 2008 at 03:33
Robin Guenier, I referred back to your earliest posts as you suggested, and while hoping not to open up the Y2K (Millennium Bug) discussion, I think the topic is instructive. I don't know enough about the names given to classes of problems, so maybe there's an expert reading this post who can help, but I will call this a self-quenching problem. 
In Y2K, a serious crisis was identified, the alarm was raised, the problem was diagnosed, solutions were implemented, the problem was solved, and the feared crisis was averted. To the bystander, no resultant crisis equaled no original crisis. If you were uninformed, malevolent, or just not very interested, you could ask whether there had ever really been a problem. 
In a way, this is indistinguishable from a hoax, except that there really was a problem, and fixing the problem extinguished the problem. Would the skeptics have preferred to have had the world's computer systems (or at least one major system) fail? Perhaps. 
(Still wishing not to open this up too far) proving the efficacy of the Y2K fix is not the same thing as being asked to prove a negative. Tens of thousands of people, yourself included, can attest to the effort expended to prevent this worldwide calamity. 
Now, there is the story of the man who used to snap his fingers constantly. Drove his friends to distraction with this bad habit. One day his closest friend asked him why he did it. The answer was, it keeps the elephants away. There are no elephants here, his friend replied. See, it works, the man said proudly.
jimbob37 
12 January 2008 at 03:44
I think the point is this - whilst most on this forum do not have years of study in the field of climatology, neither do we all have years of study of medicine or other disciplines. 
However, no one is doubting the correlation between lung cancer and smoking (to quote an earlier post), and this is because there is a demonstratable evidence of smokers with lung cancer. 
No one either presumably doubts that gravity exists - simply sit under the apple tree and wait for the demonstration to happen. 
With regard to global warming, the evidence is simply not strong enough for a lot of people to buy into the theory as there is no demonstratable proof. 
So, if global warming really is happening, then please scientists, get your story and evidence strong enough so that people do believe it. Let's face it, if it is true then we should be worried, but please prove beyond doubt that the problem is real. 
If there is no evidence to prove this, then the theory needs radical change and the media needs to take note and stop attempting to scare the population to death.
Peter Martin 
12 January 2008 at 06:44
" the earth will warm, or cool, regardless, and on its own terms. " 
Why would anyone think that? Why would anyone think that the behaviour of 6 billion. or more, inhabitants would have absoutely no influence on its climate? 
From what I know of the scientists, I'd say they , mostly, aren't god -fearing ! Which is good. Lets's not 
look to the supernatural to solve our problems, rather we should apply our own reason and intelligence. There's no need to be "scared to death" about the CO2 problem. Its all fixable.
stargazer 
12 January 2008 at 09:47
" the earth will warm, or cool, regardless, and on its own terms. " 
Why would anyone think that? 
Why !!!...Because the Earth has warmed and cooled by much more than the 1 Fahrenheit (just over half deg.Celsius) that we moan it has gone up over the last 150 years. SOMETHING caused it to warm and cool in the past and for brevity I am only talking the past 10,000 years so (milankovitch cycles don't come into it) With my astronomy background I consider 10,000 years recent....and during this period the worlds temp has been much higher (and much lower) than now at least 11 times, AND WE DON'T KNOW THE CAUSE. it could do it again.. and I maintain that it WILL... and will swamp the miserable 'rise' we humans may have contributed. Believe me the fact that you said "Why would anyone think that?" tells me all I need to know about the AWG brigade !!!!
Robin Guenier 
12 January 2008 at 10:25
There’s an interesting story in the Guardian this morning: 
link
Seems there’s a falling out amongst the AGWers. I think their concern may be that, despite the Gore/IPCC/politician/media “consensus”, much of the UK public refuses to buy it (note jimbob37’s post earlier today). Worse – with JZ Smith – I detect that the media may be moving away from AGW dogma. Must be worrying for them. 
(Mr Fnortner: oh no, not Y2K again. We were quietly pleased with what we achieved back then – but got a little tired of the “keeping the elephants away” gibe.)
Brute 
12 January 2008 at 13:05
Mr. Martin, 
You wrote: There's no need to be "scared to death" about the CO2 problem. Its all fixable. 
How? Please enlighten us. 
Also, because I'm one of the "obtuse" posters, as you describe, (I sure hope my employer doesn't find out), would you please answer a question or two? 
Does the IPCC consist of scientists only? 
How is the IPCC funded? 
Were these statements deleted/omitted from IPCC Report(s)? 
There is evidence that "changing CO2 levels are the result of global temperature variations rather than the cause of them" ([5], p.72). 
There is a striking correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature observed from AD1600-2000 (see, e.g. [5], fig.9.1, p.55). This remarkable figure is neither given nor mentioned by the IPCC. The correlation suggests that global temperature variations have not been significantly affected by any human activity. 
One group of scientists believes that the present levels of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other gases are already absorbing all of Earth's infra-red radiation and hence that an increase in carbon dioxide concentration will have no further effect on global temperatures because there is no more available radiation to be absorbed. Another group of scientists disputes this. ([5], p.73) 
Did all contributing scientists sign the final report(s)? 
Are there any dissenters and if so, who are they? 
Do these scientist have financial interests outside of the IPCC?
Brute 
12 January 2008 at 13:16
Mr. Guenier, 
Regarding the article; it looks as if they've overplayed their hand. As Mr. Clive wrote; common sense seems to be prevailing.................Now, how are we going to clean up all of the pollution created by the Hybrid car batteries and all the Mercury in the light bulbs?
Mr Fnortner 
12 January 2008 at 13:44
Solid rebuttal, stargazer. To Peter Martin, regarding your point two, in a word, irony. It may be have been lost on you I'm saddened to say. 
And, for my two cents worth, there's nothing about nuclear energy per se that makes it automatically wrong for consideration as a source of energy. I think the politics is not right for it, so we have lost a generation or two of really useful and practical research on how to manage the beast, but in a portfolio of energy sources it probably has an important place, truth be known.
stargazer 
12 January 2008 at 13:46
Read this... 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/IPCC_VERIF.jpg">link 
and look at the red line RSS = satelite data (which is the most un-ambiguous way to measure Earths Temp). and see that worlds temp HAS gone down....and is well outside the IPCC computer modeling while AWG'er Hansen is closest to IPCC (wellwhatasurpriseingthing)
Nelson 
12 January 2008 at 14:27
'Solid rebuttal, stargazer. ' Hardly. Yes, the climate has cooled and warmed naturally in the past, but the mechanisms that operated then don't explain current warming. 
Also, I hardly see how the existence of natural climate change exonerates us. Would you argue that we shouldn't prosecute for murder since people can die from natural causes, too?
Nelson 
12 January 2008 at 14:29
It's good that you raised Pielke's post too, Stargazer. Worth reading is this commentary: 
link 
jimbob37 
12 January 2008 at 16:03
Murder should definitely be prosecuted, but only after a court of law has proved the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 
Alas in this case, there still exists a good deal of reasonable doubt and the jury demands more evidence before handing out sentence.
stargazer 
12 January 2008 at 17:12
"Solid rebuttal, stargazer. ' Hardly. Yes, the climate has cooled and warmed naturally in the past, 
but the mechanisms that operated then don't explain current warming." 
How do you know !!! ???... When we don't know why we had the past warning/cooling changes I mentioned... 
It was NOT caused by Co2 because the warming came FIRST and then the CO2 went up... and neither was is caused by Humans in SUV's. Look I'll try to put it another way and...THINK about this... 
WHAT if our civilization (exactly as it is now) had occurred during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. when the climate WAS warmer than today (no-one disputes this) would you complain that we had warmed the climate by an extra one degree f. And what if you could know that in some 'alternative universe's future civilization' the temp was STILL lower than yours. 
I don't know if you will 'get' what I have just said but give it a go... you might start to wonder... just like I do.
Brute 
12 January 2008 at 18:18
Stargazer, 
I think I understand. Heat is transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body. Doesn't that have something to do with the Laws of Thermodynamics? 
There's my sarcasm again.......I think the only way to combat this is to research the topic ourselves and inform our friends, relatives, colleagues and elected officials…..bypass the normal media sources. 
Trying to convince people who are ideologically opposed to humankind is pointless. Any information that is provided contrary to their beliefs will be met with ridicule and/or arrogance; no matter how convincing.
bobclive 
12 January 2008 at 18:31
Nelson+superglue+realclimate=not very much.
Psuliin 
12 January 2008 at 18:52
Folks, I wouldn't want to say that this article is simply lying, since I don't know whether the author(s) actually know that the data presented here is wrong. But it IS wrong, regardless. 
Exhibit A: A graph from the US National Climate Data Center charting global temperatures since the 1800s. 
link 1 
Note that since about 1910 there have been several brief periods in which the temperature rise slowed or even reversed very slightly. However the overall trend has been steadily and unmistakably upward. 
Thus even if the claims in this article are true, it does NOT mean that global warming has "stopped." It just means that temperatures are following the same pattern they've followed for 100 years, and that the people who wrote this piece were less than thorough in their research 
JHowever the article's claims are not true. From the US National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration: 
"Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997. The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6°C and 0.7°C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend." 
Source: link 2 
In summary, this article is no more than the usual half-truths and slipshod research that we've come to expect from climate skeptics. The data are clear that the planet is continuing to heat up.
Psuliin 
12 January 2008 at 18:53
Folks, I wouldn't want to say that this article is simply lying, since I don't know whether the author actually knows that the data presented here are wrong. But it IS wrong, regardless. 
Exhibit A: A graph from the US National Climate Data Center charting global temperatures since the 1800s. 
link 1 
Note that since about 1910 there have been several brief periods in which the temperature rise slowed or even reversed very slightly. However the overall trend has been steadily and unmistakably upward. 
Thus even if the claims in this article are true, it does NOT mean that global warming has "stopped." It just means that temperatures are following the same pattern they've followed for 100 years, and that the people who wrote this piece were less than thorough in their research 
JHowever the article's claims are not true. From the US National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration: 
"Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997. The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6°C and 0.7°C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend." 
Source: link 2 
In summary, this article is no more than the usual half-truths and slipshod research that we've come to expect from climate skeptics. The data are clear that the planet is continuing to heat up.
stargazer 
12 January 2008 at 19:00
Brute said 
"I think I understand. Heat is transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body. Doesn't that have something to do with the Laws of Thermodynamics? 
There's my sarcasm again......." 
Well I am puzzled... I am 'on your side' of this discussion... Did you miss something,or have I. 
I have said before that I too think 'its the sun.'
stargazer 
12 January 2008 at 19:24
In reply to Psuliin 
Ok.. the warmest 11 years on record had all been within the last 13 years. The warmest was 1998. (and) Last year was the seventh warmest." 
The above is playing with numbers... I think to keep warming 'alarm' in peoples minds...Another way of saying the exact same thing goes like this... 
2007 was the coolest year of the 21st century (so far)... and ALL of the intervening years since 1998 also being cooler than 1998... 
And, according to the UK met office, 2008 is expected to be even cooler than 2007. Anyone else notice a downward trend?? 
another analogy.... 
You put an electric heater in a cold (say zero deg.C) room. (forget about any 'nuances'... just lets say the room starts to warm evenly)... you take the temp. of the room a (by remote sensor) every 15 mins. 
After several hours the heater stops working... and a short while later the sensor is switched off (so no more readings are possible)... 
The first scientist looks at the data and says to the other "look the room has warmed". 
The second scientist says "yes but it has cooled down from the highest temp". 
The first scientist looks at the second and says "are you nuts, the room is much warmer than zero where it aught to be". 
The second scientist says "I see what you say, but IN ADDITION to what you said, the room has cooled" 
"No I don't see that at all" says the first scientist. "we need to prove the room has warmed and we have. I'll draw a graph". 
So he does, and it shows the temp. increasing over time, and the last few points on the graph falling. 
"Look" says the second scientist. "I told you the temp went up and then went down a bit"... 
"NO" says the first scientist "the overall trend is UP what are you a denier" 
Am I missing something
Psuliin 
12 January 2008 at 19:41
Yes, you are missing something. As I pointed out in my first post, historical data over 125 years shows that there have been several periods in which global warming has slowed briefly, but it has ALWAYS picked up again. Therefore no brief period or reduced warming can be taken as evidence that the overall trend has stopped or reversed. You say that 2007 has been the coolest of the last 7 years, but even if it were true it would not alter the trend of the last 100+ years or indicate any sort of reversal in the trend. 
You're like a man who pulls 6 white balls from a bag, then pulls out a black ball and concludes that the rest of the balls in the bag must be black. 
I also pointed out that the claims made in the original article - the basis for this whole discussion - are simply contrary to fact.
Brute 
12 January 2008 at 19:45
Stargazer, 
No, you didn't miss anything; I agree with you wholeheartedly. 
I didn't convey my message well. I believe it's quite obvious that even miniscule changes in the Sun's output/intensity will effect conditions on the planet. I admire the wisdom and common sense woven into your comments. 
I don't think that the average person really has an appreciation of how large the Sun is, how much energy is produced and the distances involved. Truly remarkable. Increases or decreases of even very small percentages are massive. 
I am on "your side" and have appreciated your contributions throughout this debate. I was just attempting to state the obvious. 
I still would like to reassert my statement that people such as yourself should get the word out and let everyone know what a scam and how dangerous this Global Warming hysteria really is. 
My English skills are poor. English is my "second language"; I'm an American, (more sarcasm).
Mr Fnortner 
12 January 2008 at 19:51
It has finally come to mind what is going on in this thread. The 19th Century American poet, John Godfrey Saxe, wrote "The Blind Men and the Elephant," which most excellently and aptly describes this debate. I commend it to everyone here. link 
I will quote the moral for those in haste: 
So, oft in theologic wars 
The disputants, I ween, 
Rail on in utter ignorance 
Of what each other mean; 
And prate about an Elephant 
Not one of them has seen! 
But do read the poem in its entirety. It is instructive for those who will learn.
Brute 
12 January 2008 at 19:53
Psuliin, 
What is the source of the heat? Does it fluctuate?
stargazer 
12 January 2008 at 20:18
Psuliin said 
" but it has ALWAYS picked up again" 
NO no it has not ...ALWAYS gone up. 
The best you can say is it MIGHT go up again.... 
But then it MIGHT continue down ...and I am viewing this over 10,000 year perspective. not a mere 150 years or so, PLEASE read my posts again.
Nelson 
12 January 2008 at 21:06
Stargazer, 
'It was NOT caused by Co2 because the warming came FIRST and then the CO2 went up... Look I'll try to put it another way and...THINK about this... ' 
The problem is you misunderstand temperature CO2-lag. There's positive feedback between the two: if you increase temperature, you trigger mechanisms that increase atmospheric CO2. This then potentiates warming. It is, after all, a greenhosue gas (unless you want to rewrite fundamental molecular physics, too). 
So all most historical waring events tell us is that the initial trigger event was not an increase in CO2; however, CO2 did contribute to the later phase of the warming. 
And what's happening today? We've gone straight to the CO2 emission part.
Nelson 
12 January 2008 at 21:09
Brute, 
' I believe it's quite obvious that even miniscule changes in the Sun's output/intensity will effect conditions on the planet. ' 
Which makes it all the more terrifying. Look at Ice Ages that occur with Milankovitch cycling - it's a tiny, tiny change in insolation but it's sustained over hundreds or thousands of years. The climate is very sensitive, which should worry us all. How long will atmospheric [CO2] remain elevated?
Nelson 
12 January 2008 at 21:13
Brute, 
'The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet.' 
'Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer." ' 
Ouch. You need to read about the inverse square law: the energy reaching planets further out in the solar system drops precipitously. If insolation increased enough to measureably warm Pluto, we'd all be dead... 
Plus there's the small matter of using distant planets and apparent warming (even this is heavily disputed) as a proxy for solar output. We have satellites that measure it directly. Oh look, no significant increase.
Peter Martin 
12 January 2008 at 21:28
Brute asks " How? Please enlighten us." when I said "There's no need to be "scared to death" about the CO2 problem. Its all fixable." 
There isn't much room to describe everything possible here but : 
Renewable sources of energy need to be utilised to the full. Solar, Geothermal, Wind. However I can't see that they are going to be enough so we should aim to replace oil and coal fired stations by nuclear energy for electricity generation. There is enough Uranium 235 to keep us going for at least the next 100 years. More if fast breeder reactors are used. After that we can expect nuclear fusion to take over. There is enough Deuterium and Tritium in the sea to keep us going for ever if we can work out how to build fusion reactors. 
People are scared of nuclear energy. But many countries have operated it safely for many years. No source of energy is risk free. We just have to make it as safe as it can be. Which is pretty good even when you include the Chernoble disaster. That shouldn't happen again with newer and better designed reactors. 
The worlds forests and oceons need to be managed scientifically to keep them and their ecosystems in good health. Forests can still be used as a source of timber, its when the timber is burned that CO2 is emmitted. So, we should look at using timber as a replacement for concrete and other building materials. 
Oil is not so readily replaced for transportation. If we can develop good enough batteries, electric cars are a solution. If not, liquid hydrogen will work for cars and trucks. Other solutions are being promoted these days, e.g. compressed gaseous hydrogen, but I don't see anything but liquid hydrogen that will both avoid the emission of CO2 and give the range of petrol/gasoline/diesel powered engines. I'm not sure if batteries will make it for cars in the foresable future. 
Hydrogen seems rather bulky for aeroplanes, although some experts think that the advantage of having less weight for given energy will outweigh the disadvantage of having more bulk per unit energy. Most likely, we can continue to use oil, probably synthetic, for the indefinite future. If aeroplanes become the only major source of putting CO2 in the atmosphere, then the earth can cope with that. 
Its all going to require some money. I would suggest by diverting some of the trillions of dollars spent on military technologies towards the development of these newer technologies. No jobs need be lost - the guys we need to develop nuclear fusion etc are, by and large, currently working on 'defence' based work. They need to do something a bit more useful.
stargazer 
12 January 2008 at 21:59
Nelson said ". There's positive feedback between the two: if you increase temperature, you trigger mechanisms that increase atmospheric CO2." 
YES EXACTLY...NOW you tell me what caused the temp.to go up (or down) through the 10,000 year period I am discussing.
stargazer 
12 January 2008 at 22:09
Nelson said "an increase in CO2; however, CO2 did contribute to the later phase of the warming.." 
yes but cooling also happend .... 
You are saying (rightly) that in the past the temp went up.so Co2 went up, which made the temp go up etc. 
what I am asking is how did the temp ever manage to come down as it,did lots of times.
Brute 
12 January 2008 at 22:21
Peter Martin writes: 
They need to do something a bit more useful. 
OK, I now understand your motivation.
Brute 
12 January 2008 at 22:54
Stargazer, 
In the interest of time; we've been through this with Nelson before. He concedes that the temperature of the Earth has risen and fallen many times over the centuries; however, this recent warming period is caused by Halliburton, the Military Industrial Complex, Dick Cheney, The Rothchilds, The Bilderberg Group and greedy fat gluttonous Americans.
Brute 
12 January 2008 at 22:59
I left out Exxon-Mobil, (BIG OIL).
Maz 
12 January 2008 at 23:07
Mr Martin, 
A sensible and constructive post. Thank you.
Maz 
12 January 2008 at 23:08
Psuliin, 
There are over 600 comments on this site so it is unfair to expect that you have read them all but you are going over old ground. You almost implied that the author of this piece was lying and you state 
“I don't know whether the author actually knows that the data presented here are wrong. But it IS wrong, regardless..” 
Dr Whitehouse has not presented any data himself; he is simply pointing out an observational fact (unless all the rest of us are severely astigmatic) on the temperature data published by the Hadley Climate Research Unit and the data you yourself link to. The temperature over the last seven years has not gone up or down. Therefore the globe has not warmed. There is no discussion about this. It is a fact. I can understand if you wish to put forward your interpretation but you cannot challenge the fact. 
You make much of the following as does Phil Jones, director of said Unit 
“seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997”. 
If you climb a hill dropping markers every fifty yards till you reach the top you will probably walk on the level for a short while before you start to descend. It is utterly pointless to declare that seven of the highest eight markers have been amongst the last ten or so. It simply confirms you have reached the top and you are about to descend. 
Looking at the graph you provided a link for, you will spot a number of instances where this flattening occurs. Take 1940 for example. The temperature had been going up for over 30yrs. The flattening heralded a downturn and the temperature dropped for 10yrs before flattening out again. There are other instances where the opposite occurs. We simply do not know what the future 7yrs holds. The temperature might start to rise again, stay flat, or it might start to drop. Neither you nor I (or anyone else for that matter) can tell. All Dr Whitehouse is saying is that this observational fact COULD mean trouble for the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 are causing catastrophic heating of the planet. With plenty of caveats I am inclined to agree. You might not and you are more than welcome to explain why. But don’t question the fact because that is completely illogical.
Maz 
12 January 2008 at 23:08
Nelson 
There is probably very little that anyone on here can teach you but I shall humbly give it a go. You are correct in not reading too much into claims that Mars, Jupiter & Pluto have warmed. We are very far from fully understanding the climate on this planet so I would suppose that our understanding of other planets’ climate is even poorer. 
The Sun is not just a large furnace 90M miles away. It is much more than that and its influence stretches far beyond the orbit of Pluto. Solar activity cannot be measured solely by the total irradiance. That is just one factor out of many indices of solar activity. So dismissing solar influence on that basis alone is clearly wrong. 
The longest running record we have of solar activity is that of the Geomagnetic Index. http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/3/1/4 It stretches back just beyond the start of the instrumental record and is particularly useful for comparative purposes. I’ve already pointed this out to you but you again insist on stating that solar activity has remained unchanged. It clearly has not. And the fact that the Aa index, in spite of dropping recently, remains well above the value for the start of the 20th century is obvious from this record and in my view, highly significant. Perhaps you would like to pose a carefully worded question to Tamino or the Hockey Team at Real Climate (sites you evidently trust) as to why the IPCC think it is not significant. Don’t forget to make it clear which side of the “debate” you are on, if you don’t want to be ignored or censured. Then come back and tell us. Good Luck!
Peter Martin 
12 January 2008 at 23:38
Just to continue on a little from my last post , what I was suggesting is going to have to happen anyway regardless of the GW warming problem. Oil is at or close to peak production and I think that President Bush himself has indicated the desirability of the USA becoming less dependent on oil, particularly from the Middle East. 
There are some alternatives to Middle Eastern oil , such as oil from tar shale, which need to be avoided. The energy needed to extract the oil from the shale is very high. Nuclear energy isn't ideal but its a much better long term choice. 
The science of climatology is now much better advanced than it was in 1940 and it doesn't make any sense at all to ignore the scientific advice, inconvenient and unwelcome as it might be for many, that the temperature isn't going to go down on its own, as it did then. Its a bit like being told by your doctors that you are sick and need an operation to keep you alive. Only a fool would get out the medical books and try to argue that they are all wrong. 
As I've said, there is no need for anyone to be scared. Its just a matter of doing the right thing, starting it as soon as possible. We aren't all going to have to go back to a primitive lifestyle. Rather if its done properly we'll all have a much better lifestyle, and the world's ecosytems will be much richer and healthier too.
Nelson 
13 January 2008 at 01:29
Stargazer, 
'what I am asking is how did the temp ever manage to come down as it,did lots of times.' 
An interesting question. Obviously the initial stimulus (e.g. Milankovitch cycling) terminated for one thing; also, the secondar rise in atmospheric CO2 was from finite sources (ocean outgassing, release from permafrost). 
But it's moot: the point is that you and others have argued that because in a number of previous histroical warming events (not all...) the CO2 rise occurred after at least some of the initial warming, and that therefore CO2 cannot be the cause of current warming. This argument fails spectacularly.
Nelson 
13 January 2008 at 01:37
Maz, I don't dispute the important role of the sun in regulating our climate either. After all, it is the principal source of energy into the climate. 
Regarding the search for some other contribution of the sun to climate change: you can find any number of variables that roughly track global temperatures. There's a famous one at venganza.org that claims global warming is due to a decline in pirates. 
You also need to give a mechanism. Oh, and of course you mustn't forget that greenhouse gas emissions are increasing. They _will_ cause warming. Would you pretend that they don't? Why look for some mysterious variable x and unknown mechanism y when there's one that accounts for warming right in front of us?
jimbob37 
13 January 2008 at 02:14
Crocodiles roaming the Arctic - this sounds very fanciable, even to an old sceptic like me... 
link
jimbob37 
13 January 2008 at 02:34
Absolutely nothing to do with Miss Teen USA on the TV, the last post should have read 'fanciful' rather than 'fanciable' 
Even the best of us get a little distracted at times...
Peter Martin 
13 January 2008 at 02:36
Science has looked at the possibility that solar activity has caused the recent warming. However , there is no evidence for this theory. 
See 
link here
Brute 
13 January 2008 at 05:07
Mr. Martin, 
You Wrote: It’s a bit like being told by your doctors that you are sick and need an operation to keep you alive. Only a fool would get out the medical books and try to argue that they are all wrong. 
I wouldn't argue, but I definitely would seek a second, (or third), opinion if the treatment was particularly invasive and debilitating. 
I would like nothing more than to have available cheap, abundant, efficient, clean energy that would release us from foreign oil/energy dependence; National Security depends upon it. Without much fanfare or media coverage, President Bush is pursuing Hydrogen fuel sources, (as well as others). I think that’s going to take time to perfect, but it shows promise. In the meantime, we should be drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore. We should be utilizing coal; clean coal technology has come a long way. 
I agree that many of technologies and practices are already being utilized by the private sector which should be encouraged. As stated a few hundred comments back, private industry should pursue these alternate energy sources, not government. I disagree that any of this should be funded through taxes. My experience is that when government or any bureaucracy is involved it gets screwed up, (I’m sure that I could have come up with a more eloquent description, but it fits). In addition, politicians are liars; they legislate new taxes for energy exploration/conservation and spend the revenue for something other than what is was intended for. We have too much government involvement in our lives already. Generally, these scare tactics are promoted by government/politicians as a ruse to increase tax burdens on business and individuals. 
Your proposals seem a more reasoned approach than most that have been put forth by “your side”.
Zeanalyst 
13 January 2008 at 05:10
My first posting at the New Statesman... 
I'm unaware if this is a "Faith-Free" zone or if it's a "Faith" free-zone however if it's the latter may I point-out that Christ specifically predicted some geological disturbances that fit the consequences of global warming perfectly! I've always been led by my heart to look for a sound rational that supports my faith rather than some magic-goose that will make it all happen miraculously! As a result me using honest logic & simple common-sense have been an unavoidable part of keeping it-all together.... That's a lot of words just to state I'm a lateral-thinking realist isn't-it? Anyway.... 
1/ Christ predicted people would more-than likely be relatively stupid! 
2/ He predicted one day the stars would appear to change course in the sky..... 
That one used to really stump-me until I-finally gave-up the 'MAGIC-GOD THEORY' of unnatural relativity! (Simple religious bullshit!) I-firmly believe that this predicted wobble of the planet could possibly happen after an uneven-melt of each side of the Arctic-Ice causes it to shift through the centrifugal force of the planet's rotation thus making the planet wobble & after that the very same centrifugal force could actually move it all of the way down toward the equator? It's certainly possible! I-don't believe in a fairy-magic 'God' though anyway & neither did Christ either! Merely one of true faith combined with a moral spiritual knowledge motivated by a true love & also with rational scientific brilliance keeping everything real.... 
2/ Christ predicted that one day the tideswaves on the sea would-be that big as to cause people to have fatal heart-attacks through fear.... 
It's-easy to see a wobble of the planet causing that when combined with some unfortunate phases of the moon & may finally explain those massively expensive gates placed across the mouth of the Thames in the latter part of the 1970's..... By the way the world-financiers have known about this inevitability all along & indeed their people were the ones who first pointed it-out to me back in the 1960's! They've done a great-job (NOT) of preparing by shifting all of the chemical plants back from the coast so-that we don't end-up literally killing all life in the sea after the earthquakes break-them open & the mega-tides sweep it-all out into the ocean & end-up by killing all of the plankton & then eventually all higher life-forms above-that & merely leave a crimson algal-bloom on the surface of the waters feeding on the nutrients of the creatures we murdered through our lousy criminal negligence! 
(If we-all do nothing the sea shall become as red & lifeless as the blood of a dead man) 
3/ Christ also predicted both massive earthquakes & what could-only probably be a volcanic winter which will likely come from the action of the tectonic plates creating many new volcanoes as the wobble begins to cause them to move & grind against each other more than would otherwise be the case..... We-have a very small window of opportunity right here & now to act upon what we know we already know & instead of continuing with the insane plans of the people who financed both sides of WW2 which is to carry-on creating war after war after war to finally bring the NWO into being! 
We can actually change-it! Listen to me if you've read thus far! We've-all just wasted twenty years playing some sort of save the planet game when all of that time we could have been rightly claiming or rights as world citizens to force government to rationally ACT UPON WHAT WE ALREADY KNEW & mane them use this knowledge as both a tool for creating greater world-unity & even create more employment preparing for-it! We could do this without further war & also as propaganda to force government to begin the proper preparation of the ten-plus years of food & water-filters & shelters medical-supplies fuel & transport that we'll-all desperately need to have properly prepared & safely stored.... Or.... 
We-just blindly go-on with all of the lying idiotic media games behind the WW2-Financier plan & just nuke everybody instead? 
So-anyway! 
Sorry if I-was too preachy for you.... 
(No I'm not actually! I'm not sorry at all....)
jockmoron 
13 January 2008 at 06:26
You are a long-established sci-fi writer, you have become a popular one, and over many years your income has gradually risen, from an average of about $50,000 pa to $80,000 pa, though some years have been a bit less, other years have more than made up for it. In 1998 you wrote the best-selling "Toast the Earth" where and alien invasion reduces our planet to a frizzle, and you made pots of money, about $120,000. Since then, you have never done quite as well, but almost every year you have at least earned more than you did earlier, excluding 1998, about $90,000. You sourly complain to your friends that your income is static or falling because you've never earned as much as you did in 1998, and you wonder why they laugh at you. Well, Mr Whitehouse I'm laughing at you, you are no better than that sour-faced author, your logic is just as preposterous and I am frankly amazed that you would be so willing to reveal your cluelessness to such a large audience or that a "quality paper" should publish such rubbish.
Robin Guenier 
13 January 2008 at 09:47
Peter Martin (good to deal with someone with a real name!): I found your posts yesterday on how the world might tackle the perceived AGW problem refreshing, perceptive and, as Maz said, constructive. Although the quality of posts on this thread has improved in the last few days (excluding Zeanalyst and jockmoron that is), IMHO there’s still too much tit-for-tat about data interpretation and too little about doing something. I don’t understand however how your proposals would be implemented. As Mr Fnortner has reminded me, there is (thank goodness) no “we” with the authority to make this happen; sovereign governments will do what they think best. For example, as Brute has reminded you, no government will abandon its defence industry in this unstable world. 
Nonetheless, because the IPCC may be right (let’s hope it isn’t) and in any case continued dependence on fossil fuels is unwise, action is needed. What’s your view?
Robin Guenier 
13 January 2008 at 10:05
I should have added a PS to my last post thanking Mr Fnortner for reminding us yesterday of John Godfrey Saxe’s poem "The Blind Men and the Elephant". Spot on, Sir!
stargazer 
13 January 2008 at 11:01
Nelson said "Science has looked at the possibility that solar activity has caused the recent warming. However , there is no evidence for this theory." 
Well the thing is that the 'sunspots cycles' fit the observed temperature changes better than Co2 . Any astronomer can see this. Even if the mechanism for the correlation has not been found . It is evident that there must be one. 
The Solar cycle/cosmic rays/cloud cover is the best bet so far. But as I say even if this does not pan out THERE has to be a connection waiting to be found. 
listen. there are almost no sunspots on the sun between 1650 and 1700 (and very few for hundred years either side). This was the 'maunder' minimum. during this time the temperature of the world plummeted. From about 1600 to 1840 sunspot cycles 5 and 6 were very 'low' this was the 'Dalton' minimum and again the world temp dropped. Then cycle 20 in the early 1970's was low this corresponds to the 70's 'ice age scare' the last few cycles are referred to by astronomers as 'the modern Maximum..as I say this is by astronomers... not climatologists. And the temp has indeed gone up in the latter 20th century. Sunspot cycle 23 had only just ended and was a weird one... it lasted for over 13 years this is unprecedented and the Worlds temp has INDEED dropped slightly..the next nearest similar cycle was 200 years ago. this indicates that something 'odd' is happening to the sun... especially as some solar astronomers say that the next two cycles may be 'low'. With cycle 25 very low 
So here is my prediction should this turn out to be so. As cycle 24 develops I expect the temp to go up again But IF the peak of 24 IS indeed low the worlds temp will fall again to low levels not seen during cycle 23. and will fall very low indeed during cycle 25, (which ends about 2030) I am talking Maunder type lows here. I cant prove this Only time will. 
I am not going to Post here again. I will say that the New Statesman has 'stirred the pond' with this, and If they are reading these posts on the quiet... I would wish that they put some money up and try to instigate an impartial investigation into all this warming stuff for their readers because with some 700 posts and goodness knows how many have viewed without posting... the interest is proven... they might make some money for themselves and do some good. Who knows. 
Stargazer signing off.
Brute 
13 January 2008 at 16:01
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4643575.stm
bobclive 
13 January 2008 at 18:10
Psuliin 
Take a look at the original 1990 IPCC temperature graph before M.MANN produced his computer generated load of bunk. 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=232 
Here is a list of the sites that giving opposing views. 
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/cc.html
Brute 
13 January 2008 at 18:15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wEdtXBNy5E
Robin Guenier 
13 January 2008 at 19:39
With reference to my earlier posts about the need for continued economic growth, there’s a relevant piece (“Blame the greens when the lights go off” by Nick Cohen) in today’s Observer. See: 
link 
Here’s an extract from the final paragraph: 
“At its best, green politics [is] … altruism in action. It urges us to make sacrifices now so that future generations will not have to endure the consequences of global warming. Although they may not realise it, the greens need economic growth because the lesson of history is that when growth goes, altruism goes with it.” 
PS to stargazer: I’m sorry you’re signing off (but understand, I think). Thank you for your illuminating contribution – you’ve given me a new perspective on this fascinating subject.
Brute 
13 January 2008 at 23:05
Mr. Guenier / Mr. Clive, 
Interesting paper submitted to Science magazine concerning Naomi Oreskes. 
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
bobclive 
13 January 2008 at 23:39
See below. 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=434
Brute 
14 January 2008 at 00:26
UN Meeting attempts to Climate-Proof Economic Growth 
The UN has invited over 1000 delegates from more than 150 countries to Vienna, Austria this week to attend a series of meetings on global warming. According to the Toronto Star article, the main focus of the discussions is on advising politicians, corporations, bankers and institutions on how to make the most of their energy investments. Yvo de Boer, the UN's top climate official, says that the talks will give indications as to whether countries are willing to move forward towards launching real negotiating on taking forward the Kyoto Protocol after it expires in 2012. 
A new report by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change says that about 210 billion dollars (U.S. currency) would be needed, mostly for developing countries, to maintain greenhouse gas emissions at current levels until 2030. The resulting emission reductions achieved by these developing countries in 2030 would amount to 68% of global emission reductions. The report states that current funding levels will not be sufficient. 
According to de Boer, "War against climate change is a war against emissions." 
link 
Brute 
14 January 2008 at 02:05
I’m sorry; I can’t resist. Global warming concert poor attendance because it was too cold. Priceless…….. 
UB40 - LIVE EARTH JOHANNESBURG OFFICIALS BLAME CLIMATE CHANGE FOR POOR TURN-OUT 
Officials at Live Earth Johannesburg have blamed the effects of climate change for poor audience attendance at Saturday's (07Jul07) South African event. Organiser John Langford believes extremely cold weather in the region - it snowed last week (ends06Jul07) for the first time in a quarter of a century - kept people away from the concert, which starred Joss Stone, UB40, Angelique Kidjo and Baaba Maal. Speaking before the event, Langford said, "We're expecting 10,000 here tonight. It's a bit chilly, and we've had a strange winter... is it climate change? We had snow in Jo'burg last week for the first time in 25 years." But critics have blamed poor publicity for the weak turn-out. 
08/07/2006 
link. 
Global Warming Expedition to North Pole Cancelled Due to Cold and Frostbite 
http://newsbusters.org/node/11369 
Folks, you can’t make this stuff up. However, I sincerely beg all readers to properly stow potables, combustibles, and sharp objects before proceeding further. 
An expedition to the North Pole to bring attention to global warming was cancelled due to the extraordinarily cold weather. I kid you not. As reported by the Associated Press Monday (emphasis mine throughout): 
The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment. 
"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition. 
I’m verklempt, and having difficulty typing through the tears of laughter. But, unlike our intrepid explorers, I must go on for the benefit of mankind: 
Then there was the cold - quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said. 
"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said. 
How cold was it? : 
She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze. 
Ouch. That’s cold! Marvelously, it was much colder then Bancroft’s trip 21 years ago: 
The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted. 
: 
Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures. 
"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability." 
Yep. It was soooooo cold up there because of global warming. 
Talk amongst yourselves, for I’m having trouble breathing and might need medical attention!
Peter Martin 
14 January 2008 at 07:40
Robin Guernier, 
Yes I think the point that you make is valid. There will be a temptation for certain countries to break ranks, cheat, and effectively gain an advantage for themselves. That's something that will have to be dealt with at a later time. 
I think the main problem at the moment is a psychological one in that people are finding it difficult to take in what is happening. Human beings tend to learn by experience and they is a natural tendency to think that because something has not already happened then it can't or is unlikely to happen. For instance, there may have been one or two scientists who were suggesting that a Tsunami, as happened in Dec 2004, was a potential problem and that an early warning system needed to be built but they would have had a hard time being taken seriously in advance of it actually occurring. 
The problem with Global Warming is that we do leave the problem unattended until everyone can clearly feel the effects it could well end up being too late. 
Brute, 
You are not the first person, on this thread, to make the suggestion that cold weather can be the result of GW and vice versa. I think that someone managed to come up with a theory to explain shrinking ice in the arctic in terms of a global cooling. 
It could be possible if , say, an oceon current was changed but I'd put my money every time on a general warming actually melting some ice and and a general cooling causing more ice to form. 
Also it doesn't make any sense to blame GW for every hot, or cold, spell. The actual amount of AGW is currently about 0.6 degrees. If it doesn't get any worse, then it may not be worth getting too concerned about. It 's the amount that is in the pipeline and and is forecast to happen that is the real problem.
Nelson 
14 January 2008 at 09:57
Brute, 
'Interesting paper submitted to Science magazine concerning Naomi Oreskes. ' 
More interesting is if you follow up the story. There's a reason why Science didn't publish it: 
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/14/1511/4868
Mr Fnortner 
14 January 2008 at 12:19
Robin Guenier, thank you for the kind words. Brute, you are doing yeoman's duty taking on the entire global warming behemoth nearly single-handed, and I think you have them outmanned! 
And to Peter Martin, you statements are revealing: "That's something that will have to be dealt with..." "Cold weather can be the result of global warming..." In the first, your authoritarian, fascist leanings come through so clear that it chills my soul. I hope the others on this forum see this clearly for what it is. Are all or most GW scientist of this persuasion? And second, like a charlatan, you would have us believe that global warming now both warms and cools? We should be at equilibrium now, shouldn't we? What a load of bull. Your explanations are fancy but your ideas reek like a dead skunk in the middle of the road. 
The more I listen to GW scientists the more I expect to hear someone say phlogiston or caloric. (Where is Dr. Lavoisier when you need him?)
bobclive 
14 January 2008 at 12:32
Brute, how do you dig these up, I almost fell off my chair laughing, one guy said - Ha Ha Noel, Maybe they went to the WRONG POLE! Perhaps "Global Warming" is at the SOUTH POLE!? As for Nelson, I think it is the blind leading the blind in his case. I don`t think this little Gem made it to the BBC.
Brute 
14 January 2008 at 13:52
Sincerely; I pray that these two “Artic Environmental Crusaders” are alright and no real harm was done except for possibly bruised egos…….. Swimming half naked with polar bears at the North Pole…..the visual image is too much…The definition of irony……. 
I’m certain that the “Greens” will say that the stories were planted by British Petroleum and have been “thoroughly refuted” by some unbiased organization such as Greenpeace or The Sierra Club.
bobclive 
14 January 2008 at 16:07
Nelson 
Naomi Oreskes letter was NOT PEER REVIEWED. 
AGW hits a brick wall. 
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=175177 
Alarmism suffers from a manifest lack of scientific scrutiny. Instead of carefully weighing up and critically assessing the quality and reliability of the data, alarmists consistently select only the data and interpretations that seem to confirm their conviction that disaster is around the corner. 
By and large, alarmists only discern and look for information that confirms their views while they ignore or underrate the relevance of any information that contradicts their gloomy predictions. 
The fundamental flaw of alarmism is that it approaches any potential problem with the zeal of campaigners, and not with the dispassionate detachment and even-handed evaluation of scientists. 
B.P. 
http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=1140... 
Consensus WHAT consensus? 
CO2 has risen over the past 250 years to the extent that now it constitutes almost 0.01 per cent more than in the pre-industrial era, (terrifying statistic).
Brute 
14 January 2008 at 18:03
I don't think Mother Nature subscribes to the Global Warming theory................ 
Saudi Arabia covered with snow in coldest winter for 20 years 
13:25 | 11/ 01/ 2008 
ABU DHABI, January 11 (RIA Novosti) - Northern parts of Saudi Arabia are covered with snow with schools, mosques and administrative bodies paralyzed, local media reported Friday. 
The oil-rich kingdom is being hit with subzero temperatures and snow storms with freezing winds of up to 50 km/h (30mp/h). Some regions have been experiencing problems with water supplies as pipes have frozen, and livestock has died from the cold. 
The Saudi Gazette reported late in December that the winter was expected to last 89 days, with temperatures reaching below zero. National media said the winter is the coldest in the country for 20 years. 
Morning and afternoon prayers are being combined in many mosques because of the morning cold and some schools will reopen later than scheduled. 
The bad weather is fun for children and teenagers, however, who have been making snowballs and building snowmen with enthusiasm. 
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080111/96210251.html
bobclive 
14 January 2008 at 18:11
Nelson 
When you have read Lord Monktons paper, (consensus what consensus) please comment on Hansons/UN 1998 temperature graph, still in use today. As Monkton states, according to this mentioned graph all the additional CO2 that has entered the atmosphere up to the present time as had no effect on the global temperature what-so-ever.
Brute 
14 January 2008 at 18:42
Here's a Russian scientist............ 
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
JZ Smith 
14 January 2008 at 21:47
A bit off-topic, but the discussions above regarding the use of fossil fuels, and the often-used statement that 'the USA is the largest consumer of energy' got wondering about global energy usage. My argument against the USA being the "largest user" of energy has always been that we use the most because we produce the most, but have never really looked at the numbers before. 
So some quick internet research comes up with some interesting bits: [But first a caveat: I am neither a scientist nor statistician; I'm only as smart as what I can read!] 
I don't mean to pick on the EU, but it is a good comparison to the USA. More in-depth research may well produce better and more accurate answers, but here goes: 
EU population: 495m 
USA pop: 303m 
EU GDP: $14.6t 
USA GDP: $13.1t 
EU per capita GDP: $28.213 
USA per cap GDP: $44,198 
EU "primary" energy consumption: 78 quadrillion BTU 
USA consumption: 122 quad BTU 
Doing the math: 
EU per cap GDP/ Quad BTUs = $362 
USA per cap GDP/Quad BTUs= $361 
So by comparison, the USA produces nearly double the per capita GDP as the EU, at roughly the same cost in quadrillion BTU's of energy usage. In other words, the USA's productivity is nearly double that of the EU, but use nearly an identical amount of energy to produce it. 
[OK, so I'm not a mathematician, either. If I've done my math wrong, please be gentle in correcting me.] 
To conclude, then, to argue that the USA is a wasteful user of energy, compared, at least, to the EU, is not true. 
By extension then, could not significant gains in energy efficiency be made, thus lowering carbon emissions to the atmosphere, but focusing attention on the EU and probably even more importantly on 2nd and 3rd world economies? Worded differently, more gains can be had by cleaning up the developing economies than working to clean up an already efficient developed economies. 
Sources: 
link 1 
link 2 
link 3 
JZ Smith 
14 January 2008 at 21:50
Further clarification on my last post. 
I wrote: "So by comparison, the USA produces nearly double the per capita GDP as the EU, at roughly the same cost in quadrillion BTU's of energy usage. In other words, the USA's productivity is nearly double that of the EU, but use nearly an identical amount of energy to produce it." 
I should have written, "...nearly an identical amount of energy to produce it (per quad BTU's).
Robin Guenier 
14 January 2008 at 22:27
Peter Martin: I suspect you’re naïve rather than fascistic as suggested by Mr Fnortner. Your concept that nations might “break ranks” is absurd: there are no ranks to break. National governments in democracies give priority to whatever’s in the best interest of their parties and voters and, so long as voters continue either not believing in AGW or giving it low priority, your approach will not be implemented. The governments of non-democratic nations will be even less helpful. So, as there’s no one else to deal with it “at a later time”, what you see as the main problem is unlikely to remain resolved and actions will continue much as now – plainly inadequate from your perspective. 
Your best hope, therefore, must be that David Whitehouse is right and global warming has stopped. I certainly hope so – if only to trigger a radical rethink. This thread has emphasised his point that we need a far better understanding of why climate changes. 
This is my last contribution to this thread. My thanks to the New Statesman for making it possible, to Dr Whitehouse for his stimulating article and to all contributors for making the last few weeks so interesting.
Robin Guenier 
14 January 2008 at 22:29
A small typo - my post should have read: 
Peter Martin: I suspect you’re naïve rather than fascistic as suggested by Mr Fnortner. Your concept that nations might “break ranks” is absurd: there are no ranks to break. National governments in democracies give priority to whatever’s in the best interest of their parties and voters and, so long as voters continue either not believing in AGW or giving it low priority, your approach will not be implemented. The governments of non-democratic nations will be even less helpful. So, as there’s no one else to deal with it “at a later time”, what you see as the main problem is likely to remain unresolved and actions will continue much as now – plainly inadequate from your perspective. 
Your best hope, therefore, must be that David Whitehouse is right and global warming has stopped. I certainly hope so – if only to trigger a radical rethink. This thread has emphasised his point that we need a far better understanding of why climate changes. 
This is my last contribution to this thread. My thanks to the New Statesman for making it possible, to Dr Whitehouse for his stimulating article and to all contributors for making the last few weeks so interesting.
JZ Smith 
14 January 2008 at 22:38
Mr. Guenier, 
Thanks for your viewpoints herein. I hope you will continue to post so long as it it useful to you. I also hope you will work toward implementation of the Guenier Principles. I will support you 
Thanks also to the New Statesman.
JZ Smith 
14 January 2008 at 22:52
Of note to many who have been following this discussion: 
http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011
Peter Martin 
14 January 2008 at 22:56
Mr Fnortner, 
I'm not sure if you've ever considered enrolling in a charm school , but if you did I'm sure that they'd advise against someone a fascist for no apparent reason. 
Also you do seem to have missed the point I was trying to make: in the main warming produces an increase of temperatures. If you take a look at this graphic which is for projected GW by the year 2020 you can see an increase in temperatures for most of the globe. However there are a few very small areas, such as an area of oceon beneath Alaska, that are predicted to be cooler. 
link 
Brute, 
It doesn't make any more sense for you to suggest that, because some parts of Saudi Arabia are having a coldest winter, global warming can't be a problem, any more than it would for me to suggest that it must be getting much worse, because Perth, Australia, have just had one of their hottest spells on record. 
You might want to take an interest in what the guys at Nasa are doing. Thousands of data points are taken, all over the world, all averaged and analysed to try to get the overall picture.
Peter Martin 
14 January 2008 at 23:15
Robin Guenier, 
"Your best hope, therefore, must be that David Whitehouse is right and global warming has stopped. I certainly hope so" 
Of course we all can hope but is that any real substitute for an understanding of the problem? I think that the scientific argument will be settled one way or another in the next 5 or 6 years. If the models are correct, 2008 will be a relatively cool year but GW will kick in with a vengeance in 2009. 
So what then? Are you saying that humanity, even though we already have most of the technology that we need, is totally incapable of fixing the problem? That's way too pessimistic. 
It seems to me that most of the opposition to the idea that AGW is a big problem is ideologically rather than scientifically motivated. Maybe because AGW presents us with a collective problem? I'm not sure, but I am quite sure that it is not the insuperable problem that many people imagine.
Brute 
15 January 2008 at 00:12
Guy's (and Gals) it's been fun. I almost feel like I know some of you personally. I can't help but imagine if we all were sitting in a bar, (or pub if you will), having this discussion over a cold beer, (or room temperature beer as you do there?), even you Nelson! This will sort itself out one way or another, like most things in life, hopefully for the best. 
Mr. Martin, 
I realize that freakish things like snow in Saudi Arabia don't support either argument. I simply thought the story added some levity to the discussion when things seemed to get tense. 
JZ Smith, 
Interesting last post; it must have been quite a bit of work....a man after my own heart. I wonder what the numbers are for China, Russia, India. 
For humanity’s sake I hope that the Prophets of Doom are wrong and I am correct. Maybe I’m far too cynical, but I don’t believe that the human race could band together in a concerted effort to resolve a problem as immense as some have predicted this is or will be. 
God Bless.
Peter Martin 
15 January 2008 at 01:12
BobClive, 
You ask ' How Many Died at Chernobyl?" Yes its a good question. Other good questions would be "How many people have been killed mining coal?" " How many have suffered respiratory illnesses breathing smoke from coal and oil furnaces? Or have died as a result? 
I'm not trying to minimise the tradegy of Chernobyl but rather to point out that no energy source is risk free. The Chernobyl reactor design was flawed and a similar accident could not occur with newer designs. There are still problems associated with reprocessing spent fuel rods and nuclear waste but they are not insoluable, There will probably have to be a renewed debate on the pros and cons of nuclear energy. 
It should be realised that the problem is not so immense as Brute is suggesting. Replacing all coal fired power stations by nuclear which could be phased in over the next 30 years, would probably be enough on its own to fix the problem. 
We're going to have to address the problem of a shortage of oil supplies anyway and shift away from petroleum based energy for transport would fit in well with the introduction of nuclear generated electricity, which can be used either for the generation of hydrogen or to recharge electrical batteries. 
There needs to be a bit of work done to develop hydrogen based car and truck engines and also better batteries. I'm not sure exactly what they would cost to develop but I would suggest that we'd get some pretty good results for less than the cost of a new stealth bomber.
Mr Fnortner 
15 January 2008 at 01:45
Robin Guenier, I tip my hat to you. I hope to see you on other comment threads. Bon chance. 
To Peter Martin: I've tried charm. It has its place. There's plenty of reason throughout your dialog to peg you as a fascist--just go back an reread--whether I call you one or not. Quoting the first line of the Wikipedia definition is illuminating, "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party." 
An examination of conscience may be in order.
Peter Martin 
15 January 2008 at 02:10
Mr Fnortner, 
There has to be a balance between individual and social interests. There cannot be unlimited individual freedom at the expense of the wider community. 
Maybe you don't agree. Perhaps you have a more saintly disposition. Perhaps you're happier than me when your next door neighbour's teenage kids organise a noisy party, or tune their motorcycle engines first thing on a Sunday morning, or go off to work leaving their dog barking all day long, or start mowing their lawn too early in the day, or burn off their garden rubbish when we've got washing on the line etc etc etc 
I get a bit annoyed when that sort of thing happens. Most people do - didn't think it made us all fascists though.
Nelson 
15 January 2008 at 11:23
It'd have to be a room-temperature beer Brute :)
bobclive 
15 January 2008 at 17:28
From The Times 
January 14, 2008 
Antarctic is losing ice ‘nearly twice as fast as TEN years ago, yet only 5 months earlier Saturday, August 4, 2007 Antarctic ice grows to record levels since 1979, it appears the new study is again CHERRY PICKING. 
link 1 
ITN attempts to link man-made CO2 emissions with the claim that the Antarctic's ice is 'disappearing' news at ten. 
link 2 
(USHCN) station from 1930-2005 
Hot Springs' mean annual temperature has cooled by 1.26 degrees. 
link 3 
Carbon emisions don`t cause global warming. 
link 4 
Climate Change Science a full explanation of the true facts with links. 
link 5 
Brute 
15 January 2008 at 17:34
Bob, 
Why don't you move over to the site titled: "Has Global Warming Really Stopped" and submit this latest post.....could use your help and it will mix in well. I would do it but don't want to steal your work.
Mr Fnortner 
15 January 2008 at 17:49
Peter Martin, if you'd like to be a curmudgeon, I will welcome you into the fold. :-) 
I will stubbornly fend off attempts to use the authority of the state (to harass, steal, kidnap, and kill) to bend or break the will of the people to the desires of their leaders/rulers/betters. No matter that is for anyone's own good. My only weapon here is my keyboard. The enemy I perceive today is the global warming movement. You stand out like a red-coated lieutenant of this movement, I'm sorry to say.
bobclive 
15 January 2008 at 21:03
Is AGW caused by CO2. 
link 
bobclive 
15 January 2008 at 22:45
If you want to know what AGW is all about read this, its all about carbon credits and ENRON. 
The Kyoto Protocol – What every NZer should know
bobclive 
15 January 2008 at 22:58
If you want to know what AGW is all about read this, its all about carbon credits and ENRON. 
http://www.predictweather.com/articles.asp?ID=36
bobclive 
15 January 2008 at 23:47
When Physics Trumps Hysteria in Global Warming, 
link. 
Might it be the sun after all.
kellymoon158 
16 January 2008 at 01:25
Our global problems are too many people and rapidly diminishing fossilised carbon energy. More and more people are talked about this even on some dating site like www.singleparentdate.com, the people on it always talk about the air pollution, environment pollution and so on. I wish more and more people can protect our earth too
Mr Fnortner 
16 January 2008 at 03:21
kellymoon, It sounds like you are doing things to help make this earth a cleaner, nicer place to live. Even those of us who don't believe that the planet is getting warmer any more want a safe, clean, home for our families and our children's families. Each and every one of us can do important things, kellymoon. 
Tell your friends, your parents, your children, and the people you go to school and work with what you are doing, and help them understand what they can do. Like you, they can make a difference. It won't matter what they believe about the climate. The earth we live in will get better because of what we all do to make our little piece of it cleaner. Good luck.
Peter Martin 
16 January 2008 at 10:07
I think this might be my last posting on this. 
Lets admit that none of us know for sure that AGW is going to be as bad a problem as the scientists are telling us that it might be. So we have to decide to act or decide to do nothing. There are 4 possible outcomes. Admittedly with a few in between shades. Let's wind the clock forward by 100 years and look at a few scenarios. 
1) We decided to do nothing differently, and carried on with a business as usual mentality. The scientists were all wrong and global temperatures have come down to their usual levels . We've still got a big problem with the lack of oil though. Oil production is falling, it peaked in 2015 and no matter how hard we try it just keeps falling by 4-5% every year. The price has just passed $1500 per barrel. 
2) We decided to do nothing. Well not quite, but we left left it much too late. The scientists were right after all. Global temperatures have risen by 6 degrees since 1970 . The northern ice cap and most of the Greenland ice sheet has melted. Sea levels have risen by 2 metres. Antartica is in slightly better shape and we've probaly got another 50 years before the same thing happens there. Major cities such as London and NY have been evacuated. Central Africa became a desert 25 years ago. There are over 2 billion displaced climate refugees worldwide, Bangla Desh, Holland, Most of the Pacific Islands, most of Florida, don't exist any more. The world map looks quite different. The Dutch fought the hardest against the rising sea but even they had to give up in the end. 
3) We decided to go all out to eliminate greenhouse gases. But the scientists were wrong after all. It wasn't really necessary. On the other hand the world is no longer reliant on fossil fuels. We've learned to live without them. People use electric cars becuase they are cheaper to run than petrol and diesel cars. Oil is still on a downward production path so that is mainly conserved to make plastics and other end-products rather than burnt for fuel. 
4) We decided to eliminate greenhouse gases. It was good that we did too because the scientists were spot on in their predictions. Global temperatures are a couple of degrees warmer than they were at the end of the 20th century but they are now on the downturn. The cities are cleaner than they have been for 300 years. Children grow up not knowing the meaning of the word 'smoke'. There has been a lot of work done on fission nuclear reactors and although we've had the odd scare there has been no repeat of Chernobyl. The oldest of the fission power stations are being phased out and replaced by a newer type of fusion reactor which are considered to be polution free. 
The risk of not doing anything which leads to the possibility of outcome (2) clearly is not worth taking.
Mr Fnortner 
16 January 2008 at 17:43
I love 2x2 grids. Thanks for yours, Peter Martin. Of course great novels could be written describing each of the quadrants. George Orwell or Charles Dickens, if we had them, is just the author we need here. I think quadrant 3 and 4 is the Type 1 error being made, as you know. 
But my real fear, greater than warming (which I am prepared to concede to you if need be) is the totalitarian who cannot resist a golden opportunity to oppress his fellow man. There is more than enough evidence throughout history to show us the he needs little in the way of invitation. He almost arrives as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Mr Fnortner 
16 January 2008 at 21:07
Corrected for grammar and typos: 
I love 2x2 grids. Thanks for yours, Peter Martin. 
Of course great novels could be written describing each of the quadrants. George Orwell, or Charles Dickens, if we had them, is just the author we need here. I think quadrant 3 and 4 are the Type 1 error being made, as you know. 
But my real fear, greater than warming (which I am prepared to concede to you if need be) is the totalitarian who cannot resist a golden opportunity to oppress his fellow man. There is more than enough evidence throughout history to show us the he needs little in the way of invitation. He almost always arrives as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Peter Martin 
16 January 2008 at 21:24
Oprression??? 
The first priority is to switch over from coal to nuclear. There is less radiation emitted from a nuclear station than a coal one. As long as the lights came on with a flick of a switch, who would care? A few maybe but not many. 
People would still drive their cars. Petrol in the main at first, but as oil becomes more expensive and hydrogen and battery cars become cheaper then people will naturally choose to switch over. 
There is absolutely no question of 'oppression'. That's just nonsense,
WFalicoff 
16 January 2008 at 23:00
To Normsmith, 
You correctly point out that the earth through its long history has natural variations in global temperature. This is common knowledge to climate scientists. You appear to completely dismiss the impact on the planet of the activities of 6.5 billion people. As far as we know there has never been a massive "human presence" on this planet in the past several million years. So it is not sufficient to only consider natural cycles when one considers global warming trends. We also have the clear evidence from the measurements of CO2 and other gases from the 1950s that greenhouse gases are rising very quickly (the famous Keeling curve) during the industrial revolution. It is clear that CO2 level for example are now at there highest values in 650,000 years. There is no natural cause to explain this sudden rise in CO2 and other gases. It is clear that anthropogenic forces are main culprit. Finally, it has been firmly established from the late 1940s that CO2 has not reached its saturation point with regard to blocking of long wave radiation. The argument in the 1940s that CO2 levels are fully saturated was debunked many years ago, as the arguments were based on studies of CO2 levels at one atmosphere. Later studies and measurements based the CO2 forcing equations at high altitude at low pressure. 
Frankly, I find your comments and links interesting but unconvincing. 
W. Falicoff (author of the book Solar/Wind Handbook)
revel 
17 January 2008 at 09:05
Peter Martin ignores the massive cost of eliminating greenhouse gasses. The dislocation to the world economies is likely to be enormous and the effect far more devastating for mankind even than his worst case scenario if we do nothing. 
The probability of this worst case scenario is very low. Whereas the probability of massive economic damage is virtually 100%. 
Adaptation (in the unlikely event of the evironmentalists being correct) rather than mitigation (based on the greatest hoax in the history of the planet) is the correct approach.
Mr Fnortner 
17 January 2008 at 16:26
Peter Martin, please go ahead now and switch over. You have my blessing and full support. If there is anything I can do to help you, anything at all, let me know. 
Having trouble switching over yet?
Mr Fnortner 
17 January 2008 at 16:28
Peter Martin, is there someone you'd like to oppress so that you can switch over more easily?
Peter Martin 
18 January 2008 at 01:12
Revel, 
The complete elimination of Greenhouse gases isn't possible. There will always be some and the better shape the rainforests and oceons are kept, the more CO2 they will be able to absorb. 
There will have to be both mitigation and adaptation. But adaptation isn't necessarily a cheaper option. Sea defences to hold back an extra 2 metres of sea water would be horrendously expensive. You just have to look at what it would cost New Orleans to protect itself properly from existing sea levels to appreciate that. Whole swathes of coastline, including 75% of the world's coastal cities, would have to be abandoned. 
I'm afraid its not a hoax or joke. Maybe you'd like to read this from the UK's Royal Society (Effectively the UKs National Acedemy of Science) 
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229 
They aren't particularly well known for their sense of humour or making hoaxes etc, but do have some pretty smart guys as members. I think their first president was Sir Isaac Newton
revel 
18 January 2008 at 12:04
Dear Mr Martin 
You always make excellent points all based on the fundamental assumptions of the climate change theories. 
Please address my specific point that the economic cost of mitigation could be horrendous. If you are wrong about anthropogenic climate change, we will have shackled and dislocated our economies beyond recognition. 
Already food prices are rocketing as a result of scarce fertile soil being used for the production of bioenergy. 
Once we are impoverished, starved and shackled in our economic persuits, the damage from social chaos could be irreparable. 
Far better to wait to see if you are correct and then adapt if necessary.
revel 
18 January 2008 at 12:09
PS to Mr Martin re Sea Levels 
As for the bunk about sea levels rising (in your example), surely you would agree this has long since been discredited. Al Gore gives horrific scenarios if the Arctic ice cap melts. He says 40% has already melted. Why is there no significant sea level rise yet? Perhaps it's only the second 40% that causes this phenomenon. 
Of course the Arctic is a floating mass of ice and if 100% melted there would be no effect on sea levels. 
Other so called experts say global warming will cause the water in the oceans to expand. Nonsense. The coefficient of expansion of water is 1. It doesn't expand. It only evaporates a bit more if warmed, possibly causing a bit of a seal level drop. 
The planet has been considerably warmer (eg the Mediaeval Warm Period - 3-4 degrees warmer) when Greenland had no ice cover and crops were grown. There were none of the horror scenarios Gore and others use to frighten us.
Nelson 
18 January 2008 at 13:31
'Other so called experts say global warming will cause the water in the oceans to expand. Nonsense' 
Who needs damned 'so-called experts' when you have Revel to re-write basic physical laws! 
And when pointing to the MWP, it's probably useful to point out that it almost certainly wasn't a global phenomemon. MWP != global warming. And it's warmer now, anyway. 
As you were!
A Sceptic 
18 January 2008 at 15:06
What I find most alarming is the way science is accepted as politicised and yet no one seems to be concerned at the implications. 
There are questions regards the scientists in the consensus - can anyone please identify them? 
There are questions regards the data, even though Steve McIntyre has repreated ly shown the data used by the iconic 'hockey-stick' graph is wrong the IPCC is still refering to this graph only in disguise. 
There are questions regards the motives of those organisation that promote AGW. 
I do think that the problem is being engineered to fit a commercial solution rather than understandiing the global warming problem, and this is politics and not science.
climatecheck 
18 January 2008 at 18:20
More attention needs to be give to solar activity which is now starting to slow down. I look forward to the results of the studies at CERN on cosmic particles helping to form clouds which will help understand one of the effects of the sun. See the links on 
www.climatecheck.org
Robin Guenier 
18 January 2008 at 18:30
Nelson: you say that MWP “almost certainly wasn’t a global phenomenon”. The following seems to suggest otherwise: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/mwp... 
BTW it might be worthwhile if contributors to this thread switched to their discussion to the thread following the NS’s more recent Mark Lynas article.
AEB 
18 January 2008 at 21:45
I do not accept that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes increased temperatures. Please refer to my posts as below. 
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=19006&st=45
Nelson 
18 January 2008 at 22:47
I don't trust co2science.org further than I can throw it. Look at their 'temperature record of the week' section. It's cherry picking at its most brazen. 
In papers cited to support of a global MWP it's often worth looking to see _when_ the warming occurs. Is it simultaneous at all the different sites? People have been playing hard and loose with the definition of 'mediaeval' for a while :)
Fritz K. V. 
18 January 2008 at 23:01
No comment. The club of Rome was called the club of foam. Lets find a fitting name for the IPCC
Peter Martin 
19 January 2008 at 08:19
Revel, 
You ask "Please address my specific point that the economic cost of mitigation could be horrendous." I think I've already explained how it wouldn't be in two postings on 12 January. 
It is better to try to keep the politics out of the argument if possible and treat AGW as a scientific problem with a technical solution. The political left don't seem to have a problem but they probably won't agree with going along the nuclear route. I'm not saying that we shouldn't develop renewable energy sources but I'm just not convinced that on their own they will be enough. 
There is something for the political right also , in all countries, who are far from happy that their economies are dependent on imported oil. By changing from fossil fuels to a mixture of renewables and nuclear they can both help fix the CO2 problem and achieve greater national security.
Dallas Beaufort 
21 January 2008 at 10:09
Global Warming has will not stop as it never started. Global Warming is the enterprise to satisfy the disenchanted!
hildegunn 
21 January 2008 at 16:34
what utter rubbish has been spouted on here. 
firstly the vostok records indicate that as part of our normal geological cycles, we should be cooling (in conjunction with the Milankovitch cycles). secondly, one year cannot be used in isolation for statistics on climatic changes. no models can explain the warming SINCE 1950s without human forcings. the combination of GHG levels, temps, landscapes, milankovitch cycles, solar strentgh etc has left us in a an era with out analogue, and that is why it is so dangerous...the antrhopocene as it has been coined. the only conpsiracy is why the media and bloggers are so poor at relating the real facts of this, and not spin on either side
hildegunn 
21 January 2008 at 16:35
what utter rubbish has been spouted on here. 
firstly the vostok records indicate that as part of our normal geological cycles, we should be cooling (in conjunction with the Milankovitch cycles). secondly, one year cannot be used in isolation for statistics on climatic changes. no models can explain the warming SINCE 1950s without human forcings. the combination of GHG levels, temps, landscapes, milankovitch cycles, solar strength etc has left us in a an era with out analogue, and that is why it is so dangerous...the anthropocene as it has been coined. the only conspiracy is why the media and bloggers are so poor at relating the real facts of this, and not spin on either side
Europhobe 
21 January 2008 at 20:46
i have to add a comment, for no other reason that to keep this number excessively high. looks like climate change is quite the "hot" issue, eh....
Brute 
21 January 2008 at 20:56
The Soros Threat To Democracy 
Written by Investors Busines Daily 
Monday, 24 September 2007 
Democracy: George Soros is known for funding groups such as MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire's backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency. 
How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"? 
That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program. 
That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda. 
Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different. 
That's not the only case. Didn't the mainstream media report that 2006's vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer? 
Turns out that wasn't what happened, either. Soros' OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases. 
So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI's glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI's 2006 annual report. 
Meanwhile, OSI cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too. 
Do people know last year's Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project? OSI gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld — for the terrorists. 
OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured the Transportation Security Administration to scrap a program called "Secure Flight," which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names. It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists. 
They trumpeted this as a victory for civil liberties. Feel safer? 
It's all part of the $74 million OSI spent on "U.S. Programs" in 2006 to "shape policy." Who knows what revelations 2007's report will bring around events now in the news? 
OSI isn't the only secretive organization that Soros funds. OSI partners with the Tides Foundation, which funnels cash from wealthy donors who may not want it known that their cash goes to fringe groups engaged in "direct action" — also known as eco-terrorism. 
On the political front, Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called "Democracy Alliance" whose idea of democracy seems to be government controlled solely of Democrats. 
"As with everything about the Democracy Alliance, the strangest aspect of this entire process was the incessant secrecy. Among the alliance's stated values was a commitment to political transparency — as long as it didn't apply to the alliance," wrote Matt Bai, describing how the alliance was formed in 2005, in his book "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics." 
Soros' "shaping public policies," as OSI calls it, is not illegal. But it's a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets the public know about it after it's old news. 
That means the public makes decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups behind them. 
Without more transparency, it amounts to political manipulation. This leads to cynicism. As word of these short-term covert ops gets out, the public grows to distrust what it hears and tunes out. 
The irony here is that Soros claims to be an advocate of an "open society." His OSI does just the legal minimum to disclose its activities. The public shouldn't have to wait until an annual report is out before the light is flipped on about the Open Society's political action. 
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836
mathon 
21 January 2008 at 21:33
Science is about prediction. Newton predicted the motion of balls and based on that revolutionized and created modern science. 
In 1990 the IPCC predicted temperatures would rise. Their specific predictions were quite far off the mark but they gained credibility because they predicted and it turned out roughly they were right. Many may dispute that but it catches everyones attention when you can predict and be right. 
The other side of this sword is that their predictions were off by quite a bit. So, in 2001 they fixed that. They came up with new explanations for why their models were so bad and fixed them. Now the models were close to past data and seemed to account for volcanos and lots of different effects. They predicted that we would have a 0.2 / decade increase in temperature. In 2001 this seemed eminently plausible as temperatures had risen 0.37 degree in the 1990 decade. 
Since 1998 temperatures have not gone up at all. They have remained HIGH but not gone higher. This means the average has not climbed and therefore the temperature data is not conforming to the theory. That is a SERIOUS problem. Make no mistake. The fact that their theory can explain all previous data up till 2000 quite nicely is no proof that the theory is correct. It simply says the theory isn't wrong based on that data but to make a prediction like they did and to have that prediction immediately fail so miserably is quite damning. 
The argument could be made that the model doesn't understand short term fluctuations but it's been almost 10 years now. Also 2008 looks to be a cold year because of an El Nina nobody believes that 2008 will be warm so that is 11 years where their model failed. I think it is beyond doubt at this point the models are wrong. Either they are missing something or CO2 is a lot less of an effect than expected.
WFalicoff 
22 January 2008 at 00:12
To Maz, 
With regard to the position of scientists at realclimate.org on the issue of the effect on global temperatures of variability of the solar output, I suggest you read the book written by one of the contributers to realclimate.org Dr. Rasmus Benestad "Benestad, R.E. (2002, 2005) Solar Activity and Earth's Climate, Praxis-Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, 287pp, ISBN: 3-540-43302-3" The bottom line is that the variability of the output of sun does not account for the increase in temperature we have witnessed in the last 50 years. This is "the prevailing" scientific view. 
With regard to your claim that the latest IPCC report drops reference to the "hockey stick" see the article at realclimate.org http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/wsj-ed... 
Saying something is discredited does not make it so even if you say it loudly. 
I am still waiting for the explanation from the expert skeptics on this site to explain why the CO2 levels of this planet are now at their highest levels in 650,000 years. If not from human activity then what? Let's start with this. 
W. Falicoff
Brute 
22 January 2008 at 02:36
W. Falicoff 
Please link to the site below statng that CO2 Levels have been much higher in the past than today. 
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_clim...
Brute 
22 January 2008 at 02:50
And this one............ 
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/03/real-history-of-ca...
Brute 
22 January 2008 at 03:13
Abstract: 
More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. 
Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical methods were discredited as unreliable choosing only few which fit the assumption of a climate CO2 connection. 
Document Type: Research article 
DOI: 10.1260/095830507780682147
Peter Martin 
23 January 2008 at 07:39
Mathon, 
You've said that "the models have failed" but also you do seem to give an explanation of why temperatures haven't shot up like they did in the late 90's when you say " 2008 looks to be a cold year because of an El Nina" 
So, the models haven't failed. They do take into account oscillations in oceon currents and do predict temperature flattenings, and at one time we even had periods of cooling which were predicted too. 2007 was cool because of a La Nina. So were 1999 and 2000. Yet, according to NASA 2007 was around 0.15 degs warmer than 2000. According to the UK Met office it was 0.1 deg C warmer. The underlying trend for global warming being approximately 0.2 deg C per decade.
Nelson 
23 January 2008 at 17:02
Historical CO2 measurements were a mess. 
It's easy to show just how ridiculous Beck's claims are: why don't you see similar wild CO2 peaks and troughs in ice cores? Because they're junk, a measurement artefact. 
The paper's junk, probably why he could only get it in Energy and Environment. A journal that's not carried in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports and which is found in a grand total of 26 libraries worldwide. August stuff. 
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/amateur-night.html 
Seriously, these denialist posts you keep linking to are trivially easy to refute Brute. Do it yourself next time, eh?
Brute 
23 January 2008 at 17:48
Nelson, 
Somehow, I get the feeling that no matter what paper is presented to you, it will not convince you to deviate from your religious convictions/indoctrination. 
This is the next global catastrophe that will replace global warming......the next doomsday condition caused by mankind. We are now running out of dirt. Farmers are now using more than their allotted amount of dirt. 
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/348200_dirt22.html
WFalicoff 
23 January 2008 at 22:09
Brute, 
Thank you for the references. 
I reviewed the papers you referred me to but don't find the recent historical CO2 measurements can be verified as reliable sources (your second reference). Further, I don't think the CO2 levels from a few million years ago are germaine to the discussion or the question I posed. My statement was that the CO2 levels are at their highest levels in 650,000 years. This is the period where we have the most accurate data on (albeit some of it from measurement of ice cores.) 
Further, the "measurement" methods of various the researchers in the second paper by Professor Beck vary greatly. Therefore it is difficult to ascertain whether their absolute measurements are accurate and are comparable to each other or the "modern" methods developed by Keeling and others since the 1950s. It is easier to validate trends when the same measurement protocols are carried out year after year. This is the case with the measurements used to generate the Keeling curve. One can see the annual variability of CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the Keeling curve. I do not see the smooth annual "sinusoidal" ossilations in the data shown in the Professor Beck's paper at http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/03/real-history-of-ca... 
As we know ossilations in CO2 must occur annually due to changes in vegetation in the North and South hemisphere and other factors. The fact that this is not seen in the curve presented in Professor Beck's paper puts these measurements in doubt. Frankly the changes in the absolute measurements in his paper from the various sources not only look wrong, we can say with good certainty they are wrong. Why because the CO2 levels don't vary to the extent shown in his paper from year to year. In the Beck paper the CO2 level rises 100ppm in a period of perhaps 2 years in the early 1930s. There is no way this happened. This is an incredible jump in CO2 into the atmosphere (considering that the ocean buffers CO2 levels in the atmosphere). There is no historical events that could explain such an occurance. Perhaps you can persuade me that I should trust the data present in Professor Beck's paper. I await your arguments. 
W. Falicoff
Brute 
23 January 2008 at 23:58
Mr. Falicoff 
No argument. 
You seem like an intelligent fellow. Why is it that the record high temperatures (United States) have been set/achieved evenly throughout the 20th century? 
Why is there a higher percentage, (much higher percentage) of low record temperatures logged after 1950? Conversely, wouldn’t there be a higher percentage of “record highs” in the latter part of the 20th century according to the theory? 
Seriously, I’m not being flippant; I honestly want a reasonable answer. Wouldn’t record low temperatures be more prevalent before industrialization if the CO2 Global Warming theory is correct? Just the opposite has occurred. 
I can’t think of a reason. Here we have daily temperature readings being logged from 51 States, (including the District of Columbia), over a period of 100 years and the record shows that record lows occurred primarily after industrialization, (or in any event, as industrialization is increasing), and record highs are evenly distributed throughout the century, (almost exactly even). Why would that be?
Nelson 
24 January 2008 at 00:38
Brute, 
I hope you appreciate the importance of simply checking facts. You seem dangerously content to accept uncritically a lot of easily-disproved contrarian nonsense. It's a depressing truism that a lot of people out there aren't actually interested in scientific rigour, and while critical appraisal isn't an easy skill to learn, it is worth it. 
Come, let's see you become a skeptic in the true meaning of the word. :)
Nelson 
24 January 2008 at 00:40
Regarding the US temperature data, remember that the US is a tiny fraction of the world. Why assume it's representative?
Pat T 
24 January 2008 at 01:29
The talking points right now are denial, but they're worried, very worried. This whole "big hurry" they're in - the business about "the debate is over" and "we have to act now, before it's too late" - what they mean is, another year or two without a resumption of warming and people are going to jump off their bandwagon as quickly as they jumped on it. 
While denying the stall they've been preparing excuses for it - the first trial balloon was "warming causes cooling" - you've probably heard variations of it such as "global warming causes cooling in some regions" or "global warming could mean cooling, drier conditions, wetter conditions," or "it's really called climate change and it means 'fluctuations'" - which of course is what the weather does anyway. 
Those really didn't sell. 
So they're working on "global dimming" - the theory that dark particulates in - of course - human-generated pollution reflect solar energy back to the atmosphere and offset the effects of global warming - - setting up kind of a bizarre "alien versus predator" theory where both alien and predator are man-made and even more dangerous than previously represented. 
How convenient - this explains every eventuality as well as all the wrong predictions (perhaps this is why Dr. Hansen is leading the global dimming charge). No matter what happens, we caused it - if warming resumes, that's global warming, and if warming doesn't resume, that's global dimming, and if nothing changes, that's BOTH. 
How nice for them. 
But let's be clear on what this is, and I hope that you are clear and that my forewarning you about this shift in their position when the evidence forces it exposes this shift for what it is - a backtracking, a clever excuse for being wrong the first time - a mere fall-back position, a plausible denial. 
Now for my prediction - I predict that you'll start seeing this shift from "global warming hasn't stalled" to "global dimming is masking global warming" within calendar year 2008. 
And when you hear it, since you've heard it here first, you'll know that it has about as much credibility as a former tv motorcycle cop selling Arkansas real estate.
trickyturner 
24 January 2008 at 03:13
Whether we are miraculously spared from the ravages of global warming or not, the loss of biodiversity the planet is experiencing is a plain kick up humanity's backside to take a new view on our collective behaviour. I live in Shanghai and am happy to tell you that 'progress' is most definitely coming at a price. Science aside humanity will be a poor lowly species without the daily aesthetic bounty nature has given us. If humanity's core spirit (past that of survival) is one of excellence, then our challenge is to feed ourselves, explore, learn, and caretake the planet as the "top rung" species that we have turned out to be. All this must be pursued with a mind to efficiency and improvement. Nature shows us the simplest paths to these goals.
Pat T 
24 January 2008 at 12:39
It's not a miracle, Turner, it's just the weather, and it's an agenda. 
Please people - can there be any doubt that if we'd all signed and ratified Kyoto and passed and lived up to the restrictions that Al Gore and the IPCC asked for, back in the 1990s, that they now would not only concede the stall in global warming but would also be taking credit for it? 
If humanity's core spirit is one of excellence and improved condition of living then what we need to pursue is the state of individual liberty which has always, consistently, fostered that excellence and improved condition of living.
Pat T 
24 January 2008 at 12:45
And please, those who still deny the warming, no, this isn't akin to measuring weight loss over a matter of hours - we're talking about a nine year mini-trend out of a 35 year trend (remember, it warmed, then it cooled, then it warmed again, so it really isn't a century-long trend of warming, is it). How can you argue that nine years means nothing but 35 years means everything? And more importantly will you keep arguing it when nine becomes ten becomes twelve? I think the talking points will start to change soon - I think they're going to switch to "global dimming offsetting global warming" to give themselves plausible deniability within 2008. 
And when they do, just remember, you heard it here first and you know what it is - and what it is isn't "new data clarifying the picture on the true threat posed by mankind" - but rather, a change in the story to account for facts that refuted their former story. 
Otherwise, you wouldn't have heard it here first.
Robert Powell 
24 January 2008 at 13:30
I've read the other 699 comments and really none of you are wrong, when you think about it.
Brute 
24 January 2008 at 13:50
Nelson, 
It’s too small of an area? That’s it? 
Sincerely, there are 100 years of temperature readings in a relatively large area. Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that there are 5 thermometers per state. 5 times 51 is 255. 255 temperature readings per day, (255 X 365) is 93,075 temperature readings per year. 93,075 temperature readings per year over 100 years is 9,307,500 total readings. No “nuances”, no “noise”, no politicians “interpreting” the numbers. Wouldn’t you think that there would be a 1 degree rise in one of these states over a 50 year period of time in the record temperature if the global warming theory was correct? Or at least a higher percentage in the last half of the 20th century? 
At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km²) and with over 300 million people, the United States is the third or fourth largest country by total area, and third largest by land area. The area ranges from the central Caribbean to the Artic circle. 
You mean out of all of the scientists, statisticians, mathematicians, climatologist, meteorologists and gynecologists reading this post I’m the only idiot who’s asked this question? The boys over at Real Climate haven’t come up with an answer for this one yet?
Nelson 
24 January 2008 at 14:23
What is it exactly that you're looking for, Brute? 
You can do more useful and complex data analysis than digging out temperature minima/maxima. They don't necessarily tell you much. What we're interested in are trends: and as I understand it, if you only consider data from the contiguous continental US states [this is what you usually find - not the whole US] there's still warming. And while the US is large, but this dataset represents, what, 2% of world surface area? You're going to see regional phenomena in your data: the US temperature record is not equivalent to the global record. Take the Dustbowl era, for example: 1934 was as warm as 1998 in the US data set, but not when you look at the whole world.
Brute 
24 January 2008 at 14:35
Nelson, 
I'm just looking for a logical, reasonable answer. I don't want complex data; why not use simple data? And the numbers that I'm using include Alaska and Hawaii. 
Aren't a higher percentage of record high temperatures between 1900 - 1950 and a lower percentage between 1950 - 2000 trends? I'm using US temperatures because they are probably the most reliable and span time consistantly as well as cover a rather large area (as opposed to UK numbers). Why do these numbers mean nothing to you and the numbers that Hansen uses you embrace?
Pat T 
24 January 2008 at 14:59
The logical, reasonable answer is that globally 1998 remains the warmest year on record and temperatures have been flat for 6-7 years, with the last 9 months of 2007 showing a cooling trend. 
We keep talking about a "150 year trend" but it's clearly not a 150 year trend, it's a series of three distinct 30-35 year trends followed by this plateau since 1998, when John Elway was still quarterbacking the Denver Broncos. 
Meanwhile CO2 levels have just continued to increase at a faster rate. 
A bit like the ozone hole actually getting WORSE in winter 2006 than it ever has been despite CFCs being banned in 1987, when Steve Grogan was still quarterbacking the New England Patriots. 
But instead of conceding that maybe, just maybe, that means the anti-capitalists didn't have it all figured out, they go back and come up with some adjustment to their theory by which production and consumption still cause all evil, just in a different way. 
It's like my ex-wife. Something bad would happen - it was my fault because of X. I'd calmly explain, no, X didn't happen, and she'd run back upstairs in a huff with some comment like "oh, it's never you is it?" Then she'd come back 2 hours later with some new theory that it was all my fault because of Y. I'd calmly explain no, Y didn't happen either, and she'd run off in a huff, again with a comment like "oh it can't possibly be your fault, you never take the blame for anything." Then 2 hours later she'd come down with a new theory Z....... She basically spent her hours dreaming up theories as to how random negative events were all my doing - and these lefties are the same way with basic production and consumption. Sometimes the allegation is more or less accurate, as with acid rain - but a stopped clock is right twice a day and more often than not it's complete BS, like the urban legend about Monsanto corn pollen harming butterflies. 
We can't forget that the process is they're up there concocting things to blame on industry, NOT that they're just regular workaday people looking at the facts where they lie and following them to a logical conclusion that industry causes everything. 
Now, industry will get away with what it can get away with, I know that - but laws were passed more than a generation ago that dealt with those things. There are few real problems anymore, at least in 1st world countries. Honestly, today's environmentalists are to the environmentalists of the last generation what Al Sharpton is to Martin Luther King.
Nelson 
24 January 2008 at 16:29
Brute, 
You're still looking at a subset of a subset of data: temperature minima and maxima (have we learned nothing of the importance of appropriate trend analysis?) over 
Nelson 
24 January 2008 at 16:33
Bah, my comment was purged by my sausage fingers. 
What I meant to say is that you seem to be content to consider only a subset of the data (
Nelson 
24 January 2008 at 16:34
Third try: 
What I meant to say is that you seem to be content to consider only a subset of the data (5% of the globe), and, moreover, use inappropriate statistical treatment. Remember, we're trying to tease a small signal from a noisy data set - we have to do as much as we can to eliminate regional artefacts, and we can do a lot better than look for minima or maxima. 
What would you say if I said we should only consider Australian data, which shows pronounced warming and drought (no matter that it isn't representative of the globe)? You'd rightly accuse me of cherry-picking. And so it is if you only want to consider US data.
Brute 
24 January 2008 at 17:14
Nelson, 
Alright, I went global and checked the record highs and lows wordwide. Record highs per continent are evenly split between the first half of the 20th century and second half. 
Record lows globally are evenly split also accross the century.
Pat T 
24 January 2008 at 18:33
Nelson, globally the warmest year (in at most 150 years) was 1998 and the temps have plateaued since 2000. 
There is no "local vs global" mix-up here. 
The temps have plateaued, despite continued CO2 emissions at ever-increasing levels. 
Now, the front-line defense by the warmers is "no, the warming hasn't stalled" and this takes various forms, such as "it's just a few years" and "look at the 5, I mean 8, I mean 10 year signal" and "that's noise, we're looking at signal" but the bottom line is that when a certain amount of time passes with 1998 still being the warmest year of (at most) the last 150 - you can debate exactly how much time that is but it is finite - this position becomes untenable, and as they time passes it becomes less tenable. 
And that is why they've concocted fall-back arguments. First there was "warming causes cooling" which is sometimes phrased as "well it's really called climate change and it means 'fluctuations' not that it will universally be warmer." But that didn't fly. 
So they've cooked up "global dimming" - also, of course, caused by us, that supposedly "masks the full effect of CO2." 
That way no matter what happens, we caused it. 
Plausible deniability. 
And a complete load of BS. 
But you'll know that because skeptics are calling them on this change in position before they even make it.
Pat T 
24 January 2008 at 20:46
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2...
WFalicoff 
24 January 2008 at 21:25
Brute, 
One must look at global temperatures on both the sea and land for the period of time since time of the industrial revolution. Looking at just local or regional temperature highs and lows do not provide the "global" trends. Based on our best measurements the decade of the 1990s was "globally" warmer than say the decade of the 1950s. Is it is reasonable to have record lows during a period of global record highs? Yes. In fact one can predict this from climate models. 
This planet has macro-type energy transfer mechanisms. Hurricanes for example transfer energy from the tropic to the mid-latitudes. Increasing temperatures in one location can create forces which pull air from a colder region. The jet streams change direction as a consequence of a number of factors some of which can appear to be counter-intuitive. Look at the temperature in Green Bay for the NFL recent game between Green Bay and the New York Giants. It was -4F. Yet in parts of Alaska it at the same time it was unusually warm 31F. Some phenomenon are counter-intuitive I agree. For example, it the climate models predict that with the melting of the northern parts of the Antartic there will be an increase in the snow pack in the central region of this continent. Why because there is more water vapor in the atmosphere. The perimeter of Antartica could be melting and the central region could have a bigger snow pack. This could also occur in the arctic with the melting of the icecap. The increase in snow could come to some regions as a consequence of the increase humidity from the melting ice. 
We must also consider that there was an increase in the particulate matter that was put out in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. This was before the US clean air act and Western Europes efforts to stop sulfur rain destroying the forests. The aerosals put out by industrial pollution and other man-made and natural sources effect the local and regional turbidity constant. The turbidity constant is used to calculate the amount of solar radiation which is transmitted to the earth. The horizontal insolation (solar radiation) striking at a location is a function of the altitude of the site (the higher the altitude the higher the insolation), the cloud cover, the turbidity constant, etc. The turbidity constant is a measure of the blockage from aerosols such as sulfur and other particles of solar radiation. The higher the constant the more blockage of the radiation. This was all well known when I worked in this field in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, we could calculate the drop in insolation as a consequence of the aerosals in urban areas. Typically urban areas receive 20% less solar radiation than the surrounding rural areas. The aerosals from industrial output are the main reason for solar dimming, a phenomon we have also seen in the industrial age. Also the earth has seen this before as consequence of major volcanic eruptions. So we let me make this clear from some of the posters such as Pat T. Some gases block the radiation going back to space from ground. Gases such as CO2, methane block the long wavelengths coming from the ground but are essentially transparent to the shorter wavelengths from the sun's radiation. Particles such as sulfur can block the suns radiation but have little effect on the long wave radiation from the ground. This is not a "theory" as as Pat T contends, but science fact. All the major climate models have these effects built-in. I can provide the general equations to anyone who would like to see them. Of course the work I know about is from the 1980s and I am sure this field has progressed since then. People such as Rush Limbaugh cannot understand why cleaning up the atmosphere of aerosols from pollution could increase global warming. He just never took science classes which explained the forces that effect the earth's heat balance. Apparently he does not know the difference between solar radiation (UV, visible and near IR) and ground radiation (Far IR). 
It is not hard to see why there are record cold temperatures from the 1950s onward. The climate models used to predict global warming predict it should happen. Obviously, I cannot in such a short discussion provide all the details. I will try again if my short explanation above is insufficient and unclear. 
W. Falicoff
Nelson 
24 January 2008 at 21:26
'this position becomes untenable'. Then show us the stats. Until then, all you're probably describing is noise in the data. Not very useful, when it might simply be obscuring underlying warming. You can show this yourself in Excel by creating a small signal and superimposing noise on it. Voila! Dips and plateaus. You too can show 'warming stopped in 1998' (and pretend that the underlying global warming trend isn't there).
WFalicoff 
24 January 2008 at 22:09
This is from the NOAA report for 2007: 
"For 2007, the global land and ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record. Separately, the global land surface temperature was warmest on record while the global ocean temperature was 9th warmest since records began in 1880. Seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, part of a rise in temperatures of more than 1°F (0.6°C) since 1900. Within the past three decades, the rate of warming in global temperatures has been approximately three times greater than the century scale trend." 
Note that 2007 had the highest global land temperatures since 1880. Also according to NOAA, seven of the eight warmest years have occurred since 2001. I don't see any evidence from this data that global warming is reversing itself at the start of the 21st century. However, we may get lucky and China and India pump out so much pollution into the atmosphere that the global dimming forces (particles) will balance out the ones associated with global warming (Co2, etc.). Of course this is not the right way to handle the problem! 
W. Falicoff
Brute 
25 January 2008 at 00:28
Mr. Falicoff, 
With all due respect; I'm reading many "probably’s" and "likely to occur" in your most recent post. While your personal assessment of atmospheric interactions may be spot on, the predictions that were published some time ago regarding the topic have failed to materialize. 
How do you account for the climate models being incorrect in predicting future weather scenarios? How did the National Weather Service misdiagnose the forecast in my town so thoroughly just today? 
Mine is a very simple account. 50 States, Daily Temperature Readings for 100 years; that’s over 9 million temperature readings over an area of 4 million square miles. Record High Temperature Readings occurred evenly throughout the period. Majority of record lows occurred in the latter half of the century. We were initially sold a bill of goods that man-made emissions would cause temperatures to rise; that didn’t happen. All it would take is one degree Fahrenheit to log a new record. Logically, following the original tenants of global warming theory, the entire planet would get warmer with higher temperatures occurring in the last portion of the 20th century. I was assured that there was a cause and there would be an effect. The cause remained the same, (or increased) the effects never happened. Now, we are being told that the cause is still there, but the effects have changed. Forgive me for raising my skepticism but wisdom requires it.
Brute 
25 January 2008 at 00:30
Nelson, 
I have fat fingers also; Damn laptops.
Nelson 
25 January 2008 at 12:08
'How did the National Weather Service misdiagnose the forecast in my town so thoroughly just today?' 
To be fair predicting climate and weather are very different, and not just in how you apply models. 
Climate is, basically, averaged weather. Consider the analogy of rolling a dice: while you can't predict your next throw (let's call this weather), you can mathematically prove that the average of your throws (climate) is exactly 3.5. 
Looking for tempertaure minima and maxima isn't the best gauge for global warming, either. You have to look beyond individual values at trends. 
It's quite possible for a strong warming trend but with a few anomalously cold years (more extreme weather). Does this mean there's no global warming?
Brute 
25 January 2008 at 15:39
Nelson, 
Understood. But wouldn't you agree that "climate modeling" is based on the "average" of past weather events? Anything prediction about future weather events is an educated guess? 
Tiger Woods may be the best golfer on the course and the odds of him winning the US Open are high; but that doesn't mean that he will win. The probability is high, but it isn't a lock. How much are you willing to gamble? If I predict due to past performance that he will win and he loses the odds are lowered. If he continues to lose there will be some other golfer with higher winning odds. That’s what’s happening. The environmentalists have placed their bets on a loser and to a politician this has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with raising revenue. 
Again, I think that we've come full circle. I'm about as Conservative as Conservative can be. I have no problem with individuals or private corporations developing alternate forms of energy.....However, let them gamble with their own money, not mine. 
As many have noted on this thread, this seems to be more of an excuse to raise taxes and forward an anti-human, anti-capitalism agenda than anything else; to fund things that have no association with "climate change". You guys are overlooking the obvious because you detest humanity and "the evil corporations". They are beating you at your own game and profiting from the hysteria that you've induced. If you flip back to the other thread I posted some information related to the economic realities of the subject yesterday. The European Union has pledged to lower emission levels by a set figure incentivised by raising energy costs through increased taxes. The cost of energy has risen 50% and the emissions have risen up to 3%; it isn’t working and the average citizen is being penalized. So, we have the little guy, (you and me) paying more for energy to reduce emissions and the levels rise? 
Why isn't pressure being applied to the Chinese government to lower their emissions; they were exempt from lowering emissions within Kyoto. As I wrote a while ago, China has no agency responsible for policing industry on behalf of the environment as does the UK or US. I don't have figures, but I'd best my last dollar that any factory in the US or UK is infinitely more efficient/less polluting than the same factory in China.
Nelson 
25 January 2008 at 16:22
'But wouldn't you agree that "climate modeling" is based on the "average" of past weather events? 
I know virtually nothing about climate models. I'm not qualified to attack or defend them. 
As for how we tackle climate change, I also don't want to suggest a return to some imaginary mediaeval idyll where you can leave your door unlocked and evryone has rosy cheeks. You can have a furious economy and still be green, but our current system clearly has to change. We're addicted to cheap energy and cheap fuel, and are only just beginning to realise their true external costs. How do we change the world's ways? Carrot or stick? A bit of both usually works :)
Pat T 
25 January 2008 at 18:13
I see Falicoff is already taking up the fallback position.
Pat T 
25 January 2008 at 18:14
The talking points right now are denial, but they're worried, very worried. This whole "big hurry" they're in - the business about "the debate is over" and "we have to act now, before it's too late" - what they mean is, another year or two without a resumption of warming and people are going to jump off their bandwagon as quickly as they jumped on it. 
While denying the stall they've been preparing excuses for it - the first trial balloon was "warming causes cooling" - you've probably heard variations of it such as "global warming causes cooling in some regions" or "global warming could mean cooling, drier conditions, wetter conditions," or "it's really called climate change and it means 'fluctuations'" - which of course is what the weather does anyway. 
Those really didn't sell. 
So they're working on "global dimming" - the theory that dark particulates in - of course - human-generated pollution reflect solar energy back to the atmosphere and offset the effects of global warming - - setting up kind of a bizarre "alien versus predator" theory where both alien and predator are man-made and even more dangerous than previously represented. 
How convenient. 
See, this explains every eventuality as well as all the wrong predictions (perhaps this is why Dr. Hansen is leading the global dimming charge). No matter what happens, we caused it - if warming resumes, that's global warming, and if warming doesn't resume, that's global dimming, and if nothing changes, that's BOTH. 
How nice for them. 
But let's be clear on what this is, and I hope that you are clear and that my forewarning you about this shift in their position when the evidence forces it exposes this shift for what it is - a backtracking, a clever excuse for being wrong the first time - a mere fall-back position, a plausible denial. 
Now for my prediction - I predict that you'll start seeing this shift from "global warming hasn't stalled" to "global dimming is masking global warming" within calendar year 2008. 
And when you hear it, since you've heard it here first, you'll know that it has about as much credibility as a former tv motorcycle cop selling Arkansas real estate.
Pat T 
25 January 2008 at 19:17
I'd like to comment also on Norm Smith's post of 12/23/07 (that's 23/12/07 for you Brits). 
Specifically he mentions Mann. 
Mann's Hockey Stick, which we now know was the climate science equivalent of Piltdown Man, was designed to "get rid of" the Medieval Warm Period - a past period where there were warmer temperatures. 
How do we know there were warmer temps? 
Because of the tangible evidence of what grew when and where, what land and sea based travel routes were iced over for what parts of the year, etc.... relative to today. 
For example tree lines were higher in both the Sierra Nevadas and the Alps; the pueblo indians had to abandon their homes because of a severe drought, the kind that is predicted to occur again with another 100-150 years of warming; buffalo and the nomadic plains indians who hunted them migrated hundreds of miles north; the Vikings established and maintained an agricultural colony on Greenland, and had a diet of 80%/20% land/sea based for 300 years until the climate cooled again and their diet became 20%/80% land/sea based and they ultimately had to leave; parts of England were wine country. 
There is similar evidence from around the world - because the climate and its history have never been political issues until now, we learned in school only about some of the examples that were relevant historically. 
And until the climate became a political issue, this was the universally accepted climate history. 
Mann re-wrote the climate history based upon cherry picked proxy data (for many entire centuries, a handful of bristlecone pine tree rings, which we have since discovered don't have a 1 to 1 width-to-warmth correlation but rather the rings actually get smaller once the temperature gets beyond a certain point - in other words they're useless as proxies) plugged into a model that itself had problems and that spit out a hockey stick shaped graph even when random data was plugged in. Other models using more varied data do show the MWP, and the LIA for that matter, as pronounced warm and cool periods. 
But more importantly for me is that the hockey stick crowd, with only a single exception, never attempted to explain away the direct physical evidence, just declared "we used to think it was warmer but now we conclude that it wasn't." 
This is a bit like declaring that based on models, Washington and his men couldn't have crossed the Delaware River - without ever explaining how it is then that they managed to appear on the other side. 
Even more alarming is the exception - Mann's single attempt to explain away one of the items of direct tangible evidence of warmer Medieval climes, British vineyards. 
His response - no joke - was that today, Britain again grows wine grapes in even greater volumes than was the case in the 1100s. 
Right, the population has expanded by 10-fold, agricultural production by even more, and we've enjoyed 900 years of advances to growing techniques and, more importantly, breeding new varieties of grapes specifically for cold-hardiness, such that now they can grow those cold-hardy varieties in colder regions like England - and for that matter Maine and New Hampshire. 
But they're not the same varieties that grow in warmer, drier regions, which were the only varieties in existence 900 years ago. 
Honestly, a middle school honor biology student could have seen through that, yet that's his answer! It's akin to arguing that because they now grow apples where in medieval times they grew oranges, it's as warm now as then. 
Seriously - go to realclimate.org, it's right there - how can that not concern you that that's the kind of "scientist" that's leading the AGW charge? 
Or better yet go to a more authoritative website, www.climateaudit.org.
WFalicoff 
25 January 2008 at 20:14
Pat T and Brute, 
Please comment about the NOAA measurements I provided above which in my view clearly shows that Global Warming has not stopped. 
With regard to Brute's question about why there are so many cold record temperature in a period of overall warming I will try to find some "better" answers than the ones I put forward. 
With regard to Pat T.'s comment that I am "backtracking" by pointing out that particulates in the air can reduce the solar radiation striking the earth, I really can't say that his argument holds much weight. A complete global climate model must include all forcings. The 1970s climate modeling was primitive compared to what we have now. However, the original analyses (which some thought pointed to global cooling) were not without merit given the nature of man-made pollution put out in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Pat t. believes that the phenomenon associated with global dimming is somehow a "theory" "made up" by scientists, sort of scientific figment of their imagination. 
Look I did not work in the global modeling field but I did work on the prediction of solar radiation. It is scientific fact. There is a equation from one of my books that can be used to estimate the average clear sky direct normal radiation on a surface on the ground in Watts/M^2 which includes the turbidity constant. Unfortunately I am unable to paste the equation into this comment box. Here are a list of the variables used to calculate Ib which is the clear sky direct or beam normal irradiance in W/m2 
1353 is the average solar constant (at the time circa 1980) 
n = the day of the year from 1 to 365 
m = the air mass --approximately equal to 1/sin (altitude of the sun) – there are more accurate formulas but this should suffice 
τ = the turbidity coefficient for the location for the time of year 
A= .03238-.00126686W 
B= -.23369-.000474137W 
where T = average maximum temperature for the day in °C 
Hf = the minimum relative humidity fraction for the day 
h = the altitude of the site in meters 
Turbidity coefficients were available for virtually all cities and regions of the US by 1980. The turbidity constant varied as function of the location and time of year from 0.03 (hot dry southwest winter time) to 0.23 (central east coast summer time). 
May I ask what is the scientific background of Pat T.? Are you saying that the science related to turbidity is phoney and dogma? If so please provide me some scientific proof that the research work in this field is flawed and "made up". I hope you are not falling for the ridiculous arguments of people like Rush Limbaugh that the tens of thousands of scientists who support the science of global warming are all deluded "left wind wackos" or worse yet, part of a voodoo science religious cult. Stick with the science. Frankly, talk show hosts such as Limbaugh do not have the science qualification to qualify for a freshman course in physics, much less be the arbitrators of a high level scientific debate. Somehow the few scientists (such as Professor Lindzen of MIT) who agree with the conservative talk show hosts are correct but the tens of thousands who disagree them must be wrong. Not only wrong but they are part of a conspiracy. This is not a political debate but a scientific one. Stick to the science. I look forward to further discussions on this subject. Hopefully they can be carried with respect for each others views. 
W. Falicoff
Pat T 
25 January 2008 at 21:13
Not political? It's the freaking UN, how much more political can that be????? 
Ah, the "you're not a scientist and you sound like Rush Limbaugh" argument - nice try. 
And it's not "a handful versus tens of thousands" as you represent. 
http://downloads.heartland.org/20732.pdf 
I am sticking to the science - the science supposedly was (when hurricanes were worse) that global warming made hurricanes worse, and now it supposedly is (now that hurricanes have for two years been milder and less frequent) that global warming makes hurricanes milder and less severe. 
The contradictions in the AGW theory(ies) are many and the tangible proof is non-existent. 
And "global dimming" - or at least the AGW advocates' adoption of it as an excuse to explain away the fact that the earth hasn't continued to warm in line with their predictions, IS a fall-back position. They didn't want anything to do with "global dimming" when they didn't need it to explain away a flaw in their own theory. 
Right now you're sticking with "it hasn't stopped" even though the warmest year on record was nine years ago and the warming before that lasted only about a quarter century. 
OK that's your position. 
And it's still the position of the IPCC. 
What I suggest is that if the years progress and 1998 remains the "warmest year," despite increasing emissions of CO2, more people will start to question the theory and the UN IPCC will feel the need to come up with plausible deniability - a fall-back position that some other intervening man-made evil is offsetting the warming. That will likely be "global dimming" based. And there won't be any new data on "global dimming" - the only new development will be that it now is convenient to adopt that theory, because it explains away problems with the original theory. 
Whether I'm right about that, or whether you're right that the warming is to continue, only time will tell. 
As for respect for other people's views, I respect views honestly held. When the weather is X and groups who have long opposed specific industries insist that this or that industry causes X, and then the weather is Y, the opposite of X, and the same groups turn a 180 and now say that this o that industry causes Y, I don't honestly think that that is their true view, thus I don't respect the position. 
I also have zero respect, and I don't think any person with a high school education and any critical thinking skills has any respect, for Dr. Mann's attempt to argue that because after 900 years of breeding new cold-hardy varieties of grapes they now can again have commercial vineyards in lower England, that means that the fact that they had commercial vineyards in lower England in the 1100s when those cold-hardy varieties didn't exist doesn't prove that it was warmer then than it is today.
Pat T 
25 January 2008 at 21:34
And that reversal is PRECISELY what they've done: 
In 2003 and 2004, when hurricane damage was up because of an increase in coastal development, and in 2005 when hurricanes were more frequent and more powerful, and in 2006 when they thought the trend in 2005 would continue, they said global warming causes more frequent and more powerful hurricanes: 
link 
link 2 
link 3 
But then a funny thing happened. The trend reversed – hurricanes, as anyone not living in a cave has noticed, have since become less frequent and weaker. In reality hurricanes follow 25-30-year cycles, always have, and they thought there were a few more years left on the bad side so they “predicted” more bad hurricane seasons and said that that’s what global warming caused. A few mild seasons means the cycle has shifted and most of the next 20 will also be mild. 
They don’t want to hear “hey Al, where’d the hurricanes go” for the next 20 years. 
So, as if on cue, they’ve changed their story to, you guess it, hurricanes are made weaker and less frequent by…. (drum roll please)….. global warming! 
link4 
link 5 
link 6 
This is just another example, along with polar bear populations declining / growing, seas getting saltier / less salty, snowfall declining / increasing, and even warming versus cooling itself, the only consistency in anything the warmers have to say is this equation: 
X happens, they say global warming causes X. 
Y, the opposite of X, happens, they say global warming causes Y.
WFalicoff 
25 January 2008 at 22:08
Pat T. 
I assume that you agree with the data from NOAA that I referenced. They state that the years after 1998 were warmest on average (over the years 200 to 2007) since 1880. Also did you not note that global land temperature for 2007 was the highest on record, higher than 1998. Why do you expect to see a constant rise in temperature when it is well known that the earth does not behave in such a "linear fashion". We can only look at trends over a reasonable period of time. 
The trends in the last decade are predicted by the climate models. The forcing associated with aerosals have been in these models for many years. Also, the climate models have considered variability of solar output and numerous other natural forcing. I don't deny that natural forces play a major effect on the temperature of this planet. I do not dispute this at all. The issue is what effect do men's activities on this temperature and can we change the way we do things to effect a change on the climate of this planet. Some argue that because the earth has seen temperature swings before that when we see a swing it must from a natural occurance and not be man-induced. The climate models show the activity of man can and does have an effect on the heat balance of this planet. I am one who believes that the activities of 6.5 billion people has a significant effect on the planet. Apparently you do not. 
You cannot deny that the solar radiation is reduced in urban areas such as Los Angeles. It was much more of an effect when we had rampant smog in the LA region. Are you claiming this is not the case? I doubt you are. So what is your problem with having a climate model that includes forces that increase terrestrial temperatures and those which decrease them? You may argue that the equations are wrong but not that there are forces that are present that tip the balance one way or the other. 
So let's make this a simple debate. 
1) Do you believe that an increase in greenhouse, Co2, methane, etc. gases emitting into the atmosphere will increase the temperature of this planet? 
2) Do you believe that particulate matter in the atmosphere can reduce the amount of solar radiation striking the earth thereby decreasing the temperature of this planet? 
W. Falicoff
Brute 
26 January 2008 at 00:25
Mr. Falicoff, 
Was it NASA or NOAA that provided the hockey stick graph? 
I’m still reviewing the NOAA information; although there does seem to be some talk that errors have already been discovered. I believe a press release was submitted regarding the errors a day or two after the original report was publicized after all of the reporters were gone and the TV cameras were off, but I haven’t had time to look for it…..going on vacation. Ironically snow skiing…….
Pat T 
26 January 2008 at 00:43
1) I understand that CO2 traps heat but also that there are diminishing returns - for example 250 million years ago CO2 levels were 12-15 times what they are today and the temps were about 30% warmer. Additionally Venus' CO2 concentration is about 10,000 times ours and its temperatures are about 16 times ours - and it is half the distance to the sun. I also know that it has been warmer despite lower CO levels and that we don't fully understand why - and that the most recent two periods in which it was warmer despite lower CO2 levels have been downplayed or attempted to be rewritten out of the climate history by the primary organization advocating the GHG theory, which does not exactly add to its credibility. 
2) I don't know what the effect would be or whether there would be a material effect, but I do know that there is no record of satellite data picking up this reflected energy. Dark particulate matter could just as easily absorb solar energy (since it's dark). 
I also know that neither thermodynamics nor aerodynamics scale well in 3D - - - for example military jet manufacturers designing a 3D nozzle for an aircraft cannot extrapolate from 30% models to full-scale to figure out where hot streaks will hit sidewalls. or even how hot they'll be. And we're talking about extrapolating from a computer model to the entire planet. If that could be done, it would have been done successfully - it has not. 
The bottom line is that while there are heat trapping properties to CO2 and while particulate matter could absorb or reflect energy, that does not translate into these properties being the proximate cause of global climate - the only basis for that assumption is the very rough coincidence between the Industrial Revolution and the on-again, off-again, on-again warming that we have seen, this being the most recent of countless other warming periods none of which are fully explained or occurred when mankind was emitting 1/10th the current level of CO2. That and our inability to ascribe the blame to another single known cause - which is often misrepresented to be, but is NOT, the same thing as our being able to say affirmatively that it is not the result of another cause - - what a world we'd live in if a prosecutor could argue "I can't prove anybody else did it, and this defendant cannot prove he didn't do it, so we should convict him." 
Thus despite the properties of the two emittants, all we can say is that they probably contribute on some level - but we do not know what level that is. It is often represented to be the equivalent of a drop of iodine in a glass of water but it could just as easily be the equivalent of a drop of iodine in an olympic sized pool or even a pond. 
With respect to Los Angeles, you cannot deny that it snowed there yesterday. 
While one snowfall does not disprove global warming, how many times do we hear the global warming drumbeat, the "well do you believe it now?" argument, when it is hot..... in the middle of August? 
And as for land-based, sea-based, etc...., look, you're the ones who went with the global average temps for the year and in 1999 when 1998 was the "warmest year on record" you're the ones who led with that. 
Now that that isn't a convenient fact for your side anymore you can't just say the measuring rod needs to be changed. 
Time will tell whether another year is warmer than 1998. To date, it doesn't appear that 2008 will be that year. That will make it a 10 year plateau following a 25-year increase, despite continued increase in GHG and as Whitehouse pointed out decreasing aerosol emission (thus even if there were something to global dimming, that theory would have to be adjusted to account for the decline in aerosols - not that theory-adjustment to incorporate contrary facts would be anything new from the warmers - e.g., hurricanes, polar bears....). 
We're just going to have to wait and see what happens. 
I'm pretty confident that I'm going to prove right - that the stall will have to be conceded and that they'll blame it on some intervening force also allegedly caused by man, such as "global dimming." 
But can I ask you a question - how many mulligans does the global warming side of the aisle get? How many mulligans does the whole green movement get? 
Ultimately no matter what your political leanings or suspicions, if you're a rational person you have to admit that belief in the man-made global warming theory requires SOME degree of a benefit of the doubt. 
Don't you think that needs to be earned? 
Do you think rewriting the centuries-old-universally-accepted-before-climate-became-a-political-issue climate history based on a single and fundamentally model based on tree ring proxies the relationship of which to temperature being misunderstood at the time helps earn that confidence? Or do they help lose it? 
Do you think ignoring the tangible evidence of past warmer climates and the hopeless attempt to explain away one example (Mann / British vineyards) help to earn confidence or lose it? 
Do you think the flip flips on the sub-issues every time the predictions don't come true, such that, curiously, no matter what happens, THAT'S caused by global warming, help earn that confidence? Or do they help lose it? 
If Nixon were still alive and the Washington Post wrote a column claiming that there was a whole other enemies list, and he publicly denied it, would you believe him? Why not? Because he'd lied so many times about the same subject before, right? 
Why after just as many exaggerations and lies do these people deserve any more credibility than he would - because their hearts are supposedly in the right place?
Pat T 
26 January 2008 at 00:47
Brute - Hockey Stick was Dr. Michael Mann of the U. of Virginia and the UN picked it up and ran with it with little or no real review, then when it was basically torn to shreds by a couple of stats guys they tried to circle their wagons, but they've backtracked on quite a bit of it. 
What they now have looks more like what they conceded in 1995 but they've haircutted the MWP "hump" in the graph by about 1/3 degree C so that it's lower than the late 20th century temps. 
Doesn't it bother anyone that supposedly "unprecedented" glacial retreat is revealing archaeological finds?
Pat T 
26 January 2008 at 00:50
How can you cite Orwell when the government tells you that people who actually do have a history of blowing up buildings and have announced their intention to blow up more buildings will in fact try to do so, but then not scream "Animal Farm" and "1984" from the rooftops when they get "global warming makes hurricanes worse" - then hurricanes get milder and less severe - then "global warming makes hurricanes milder and less severe?"
WFalicoff 
26 January 2008 at 02:50
Pat. T. 
I agree that the net radiative forcing effect of carbon black particles is not obvious. I believe that the IPCC claims that black carbon particles in fact have a positive radiative forcing of approximately 0.2 W/m^2. So I agree that the black carbon is not responsible for global cooling but certainly an increase in these particle will decrease the amount of direct solar radiation striking the earth. There is less data on aerosols with higher reflectivity such as sulfates. These would have been more of an issue in the 1960s and 1970s. I don't pretend to have worked on the full optical/radiative models but others have. I do believe that NASA has done extensive measurements of the earth's albedo at various locations and times of the year. I can probably dig up references for this. 
Just a correction it snowed in the mountains of LA not in the city or surrounding suburbs less than about 3000ft elevation. Not a rare occurance, as it happens every year. 
You keep harping back to the hockey stick but from what I have read it has not been universally discredited as you claim. Can you provide me with several peer reviewed journal papers where this is discredited. 
I would agree that in the distant past that increasing CO2 levels lagged the rise in global temperatures. (It is interesting that you trust the scientists who came up with this extrapolated theoretical data but not the ones dealing with more "modern" data) However, it was pointed out that this is only for the initial period of rise in temperature. After that time period the CO2 levels and the temperature rose at the same time and with good correlation. It is not inconceivable that some other global event started the temperature change such as changes in vegetation, volcanic activity, fires, etc. Further, the research done since the 1950s all shows that there is a net radiative gain from an increase in atmospheric CO2. That is CO2 levels are not fully saturated. (A theory from the 1940s that has been discredited.) Take a look at a summary of this research at Spencer Weart's excellent website: 
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm 
Brute: With regard to the "corrections" of the global temperatures the net changes were miniscule. Further, the corrections to the data were done as far as I can tell before this report from NASA was completed (2008). 
Best Regards, 
W. Falicoff
Houfek 
27 January 2008 at 12:55
"Fire Bad"
Peter Martin 
28 January 2008 at 02:50
Pat T. 
" Not political? It's the freaking UN, how much more political can that be????? " 
I guess that you're not a big fan of the UN. Right? But its worth just taking a look at how the IPCC came into being and how it was pushed on to the UN. 
The Reagan administration wanted to forestall pronouncements by self-appointed committees of scientists, fearing they would be 'alarmist.' 
They promoted the IPCC's clumsy structure, and UN involvement, which consisted of representatives appointed by every government in the world and required to consult all the thousands of experts in repeated rounds of report-drafting in order to reach a consensus. Despite these impediments the IPCC has issued unequivocal statements on the urgent need to act. 
Reference: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Clim...
Pat T 
28 January 2008 at 20:45
No, suffice to say I'm not a big fan of the organization on whose human rights committee Syria had a membership, and which for years maintained a policy that "zionism is racism," and which gave us the "oil for food" scandal. The only characteristic that supercedes the UN's socialism is its anti-semitism. 
As for the "urgent need to act," I honestly believe that this urgency is a tactical one - just like the "Hockey Stick" was the result of the sentiment that "we have to get rid of the medieval warm period," the urgency is the result of the sentiment that 'we'd better get our agenda passed now before the warming levels off or subsides.' You folks can say what you want about 5, 8 or 10 year averages but at the end of the day if it's going to keep warming, 1998 has to be passed - and we're not getting any closer to 1998 temperature levels, even as we're moving farther away from 1998. We're talking about two roughly quarter-century warming periods with a cooling in between. The understanding is that that's one century-long CO2-driven warming interrupted by an aerosol-driven cooling - but that's just a best-guess. 
I also honestly believe that if Gore had been elected President and all the major industrial nations including the US had signed and ratified the Kyoto treaty and passed and lived up to the restrictions necessary to meet its emissions targets, then not only would Gore, the IPCC, UCS and the other self-styled "environmental advocacy" groups would not only concede the stall in the warming, but be taking credit for it. 
Look at it from my perspective - most of the groups pushing the issue have long had an agenda based on the notion that it is selfish to lead the "consumerist" American lifestyle. It is undebatable that this lifestyle does not economically come at anyone else's expense - rather, if anything, our consumption creates jobs around the world, enabling the creation of middle classes around the world. The reduction in poverty world-wide is the direct result of free trade - of all people Paul Krugman wrote a wonderfully-written editorial about it in the New York Times back in the late 1990s (he either fails to apply the same logic domestically or doesn't like the process when it's not his guy signing the tax cut bills and tariff-elimination treaties - you'd have to ask him). 
So these groups take little bites through environmental issues. There's a grain of truth in some of them - clearly a generation ago there remained some nuclear safety issues. But many of their claims were exaggerated or just outright falsehoods. We heard of "cancer clusters" - we'd be told that the rate of this or that rare form of cancer occurred "50% more often within a 10 mile radius of" a nuke plant - except that that meant 6 out of half a million rather than 4 out of half a million, and the standard of deviation was 3. 
These same groups create and foster urban legends like the Monsanto butterfly story and the teflon bird story (at 600 degrees F the teflon fails, giving off fumes that, if you have a birdcage in a galley kitchen, can kill a small bird - but then, at 600 F, the metal fails, giving off fumes, too - frying an egg at normal cooking temperature has no such effect). 
Occasionally there is more than a grain of truth - acid rain, for example. But I honestly think they happen upon those by accident. I honestly think that even if acid rain weren't proven, were just an urban legend like the Monsanto butterflies, Greenpeace would still be "on about it." 
There is a definite "boy who cried wolf" phenomenon with the modern-day "green" movement and it is well-earned. 
Green seems to be the new red, the back-door red. 
Back in the 1960s and 1970s there were real, legitimate issues - burning rivers and such. But Nixon created the EPA and it has been given, and has used, sweeping powers over the years and now we do not have those problems - the air and water in the US are cleaner now than they've been in 100 years. Other, developing countries like India and China, they have the problems we had a generation ago. Everyone seems to think we're the villain - perhaps their manufacturing build-out was done in part to meet US consumer demand but we have no control over China's environmental policy - they are a sovereign nation. 
I think that, as with the civil rights movement where today's young people want to re-live the battles that their parents fought and won, and which don't exist anymore in most corners, we have a similar phenomenon in the green movement, where at a rally you might hear Marvin Gaye's lyrics "things ain't what they used to be" - but they're not - they're much BETTER - and the kids don't even know it. 
So you get this combination of red-as-green and young people romanticizing about social movements and wanting to "get involved" and it's all at best wasted energy - almost all the real problems were solved 30 years ago - and at worst a major disruption to job-creating, wealth-creating economic activity. 
I think in the long run it will backfire. The reason I think this is that passionate people, while they want to belong to a movement, also do not want to be betrayed by it - they do not want to be lied to. I for example used to buy into the type of arguments that John Edwards makes - the "two Americas" argument, the "rich get richer / poor get poorer" argument. But it's only half true - the poor do NOT get poorer. I see the games the Phillips/Krugman/Edwards crowd play with the numbers to make it sound like they do - they re-state absolute income gains made by households at all levels RELATIVE to the top, to make it sound like nobody's income other than those top households went up; they leave out the fact that for the most part the "bottom 20%" are 20-somethings and immigrants just starting out and the "top 20%" are mostly 40-somethings and 50-somethings at the top of their careers; they point to increasing numbers of poor people in the US and leave out that the increase is happening at less than 1/4 the rate at which poor people from outside the US move to the US, which means that what's actually happening is that people are moving UP, just being replaced more than 1 for 1 by new poor people, almost all of whom move up too. I see that the people who lie about this issue do so to obstruct and undo exactly the policies that have enabled these people to move up. 
People are going to wake up and feel the same way about the self-styled green movement that I feel about the income-redistribution movement, and for the same reasons - the lies. 
You need to understand that I am just a person who sees his lifestyle under attack from people who have no authority over me and no reason to have any. My indignation is no different from the indignation of a gay person angry at the Pat Robertsons of the world for seeking to control their lifestyle. And yet you do not see it as being exactly the same thing even though it is. It is the government intruding upon the private lives of the citizens, to impose a subjective ideal. You don't see the similarity because you can convince yourself that when it's your ideal, it's objective. 
But it is no different. The state going into people's homes and dictating their sexual practices is no different than the government going into people's homes and telling us what lightbulbs we're allowed to use. It's not different when you do it.
Peter Martin 
28 January 2008 at 22:15
I still don't think you're thinking clearly. 
What you are saying is: 
Persons A,B,C,D,E..... make claim Y 
Persons A,B,C,D,E.... are required to work together under organisation X 
Organisation X have many policies with which I profoundly disagree. 
Therefore claim Y is false.
Pat T 
28 January 2008 at 23:50
No, what I'm saying is, person A worked for Union of Concerned Scientists, person B worked for Greenpeace, person C worked for PIRG, all of which have a history of making exaggerated or false claims with the objective of justifying limits on individual production and consumption, and that's no less a reason to disbelieve them now as it is to disbelieve person D who says the opposite and once did a study for a non-profit that received a grant from BP or GE. 
I'm also saying that in a free society, the burden of proof lies with the side seeking to limit an otherwise free activity, not with the side seeking to engage in it. 
And lastly I'm saying that when that first side has no direct, tangible proof, and when its story seems to change with the weather (e.g., hurricanes worse vs milder, more vs less frequent, polar bear populations diminishing vs growing then diminishing, generally warmer weather vs 'fluctuations' vs global warming can cause cooling vs well don't forget global dimming), then people who have their critical-thinking caps on won't give that side any benefit of the doubt.
Pat T 
28 January 2008 at 23:53
'Sides, how many years will be predicted to be "the warmest ever" (which really just means the warmest in the last century, which itself isn't as big a deal as it sounds since we're emerging from a multi-centry cold period) and then fail to reach the top 5, and how many years have to pass since the "warmest year on record" before you think it's reasonable to question the new orthodoxy on this issue? Clearly more than 8 in your mind - how about 10? 12? 15? 
Can you answer that? How many years with 1998 as the "warmest year on record" before you would agree that, for whatever reason, global warming has stalled? 
'Cuz, we're NOT talking about a century followed by close to a decade, we're talking about a quarter century followed by close to a decade. When the lack of warming continues for as long as the warming did, despite continuing increases in CO2 emission, THEN will you concede that the warming has stalled, that global warming, whatever the cause, was a 20th century event?
WFalicoff 
29 January 2008 at 00:38
Pat. T. 
I don't buy your argument that the thousands of scientists that worked on the IPCC are simply not to be trusted just because of their affiliation with the United Nations. Likewise I see no reason to discredit those who oppose the prevailing viewpoint solely on the basis of their opposition to the "majority" view (such as Dr. Lindzen of MIT and Dr. Bell). 
One must go on the merits of the science only and the quality of the research papers and data presented. You seem willing to accept the data from science researchers when their data supports your conclusion (natural cycles in global temperature over millions of years) but when the same scientists present data that goes against your conclusions you brand these scientists as politically motivated and their conclusions suspect. 
According to NOAA "Seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001". That is the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 were warmer than any years other 1998 going back to 1880. 2007 was the year with the highest land temperatures since 1880. Do you dispute the findings of NOAA. if so please provide me the "real" data. Assuming you agree with the NOAA data, your argument (that we are now in a cooling trend since 1998) based on a single highpoint in 1998 is very flimsy. It is the average over the decade that counts not a single record maximum. This is the way our planet works, records are not broken every year even in a slow warming trend. What will you say when the 1998 value is topped? I guess the best thing to do is to stop this conversation and wait a few years. We have no common ground to speak to each other or to discuss this subject. Further, I have more important things to do including working on technology which hopefully will address this issue (advanced solid state lighting with OSRAM and solar electricity generation with Boeing). 
Enjoy your debates. 
Best Regards, 
W. Falicoff
Peter Martin 
29 January 2008 at 03:42
PatT 
according to NASA 2005 was the warmest year rather than 1998. According to them 2007 and 1998 were the joint next. The five year trend is clearly still upwards. 
The 'burden of proof ' as you put it quite a difficult concept. How do we decide what is reasonable level of proof? There will always be people like yourself who will argue against the best of evidence and we'd end up doing absloutely nothing under any cimstances. Most sensible people would accept a reasonable level of scientific evidence would require us to take precautions. 
Say your child was swimming off a beach. The lifeguard noticed a fin breaking the water. According your notions, he would have to have absolute proof that the fin belonged to a dangerous shark rather than just a dolphin or some other harmless creature before he called for the swimmers to leave the water. So when your child had been mauled you'd be quite content with an explanation that, although a fin had been spotted, no conclusive proof was available at the time! Well, I do have say, that most people wouldn't!
Pat T 
29 January 2008 at 14:32
First, no, 2007 is not the second warmest. 
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27734670.htm 
Second, there's a noticeable difference between shark fins and dolphin fins - this is more analogous to there being no fins, to swimming at a beach in Maine where the water's very cold, and the local crank yanker comes up and yells "shark!"
Pat T 
29 January 2008 at 14:33
And I'm not sure how seven of the eight warmest years have occurred since 2001 given that only six years have passed since 2001. 
Must be that fuzzy math Bush was talking about.
bobclive 
29 January 2008 at 15:26
Sikkim has the largest number of glaciers in India 
Gangtok (PTI): Sikkim, comprising 0.5 per cent of India's landmass, has 84 glaciers, the largest number as compared to any other state or union territory. 
The present number of glaciers at 84, with the mapping exercise still underway to find about out more ice caps in the state has grown by about four times over the past six years as the figure of glaciers stood at 21 at that time, 
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200801121040.htm 
Antarctic is losing ice ‘nearly twice as fast as ten years ago. The rate of annual ice loss in the Antarctic has increased by almost 80 billion tonnes in a decade, a study has found. 
Measurements using satellite radar readings revealed that IN PARTS of the continent the rate of loss has speeded up by 140 per cent since 1996. 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article318... 
AGWers would say ice loss IN PARTS of Antarctica is NOT a local event yet ice gain in India is. 
In fact there has been no ice loss in Antarctica as a whole. 
More Antarctic Drama Put In Context - Early 1900's Explorer Proves The Antarctic Is Growing 
John Herron, Tuesday 15 January 2008 
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.48
Pat T 
29 January 2008 at 16:05
I just don't understand how "unprecedented" global warming is causing "unprecedented" glacial retreat that is yielding archaeological finds from medieval, Roman and earlier periods in human history. 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=434 
Maybe in addition to re-writing math so that seven of the warmest eight or nine years occurred within a six year span, they're also redefining words like "unprecedented."
Pat T 
29 January 2008 at 16:13
Oh and by the way I'm not sure why this article appears with a photo of a polar bear. 
First we heard that polar bear populations would continue to dwindle as a result of global warming. 
But then polar bear populations grew. 
Now the story is that polar bear populations will grow for a while because the warming will increase the populations of their prey but that in the long run they're doomed because of the summer loss of sea ice. 
There's a rationale for the change, just like wind shear is the rationale for the change in the story about hurricanes (which are now said to be made milder and less frequent by virtue of global warming). 
But it's pretty clear that first the facts changed, then there was an impetus to change the story to fit the facts, then they went looking for a rationale. 
Honestly, does anyone doubt that if Gore had been elected in 2000, and everyone had signed and ratified Kyoto and lived up to its measures, that not only would the AGW proponents be conceding the stall in the warming, they'd also be taking credit for it?
Pat T 
29 January 2008 at 19:22
Why don't we just settle it this way - instead of arguing in circles, why don't you pick a year - when will we have a year warmer than 1998? Clearly if it truly is getting warmer then no matter what mental gymnastics you play with averages, there has to be a year warmer than 1998 - just give me an out year, identify a year that, if it passes and 1998 is still the "warmest year on record," would cause you to think "hey, wait a minute, global warming HAS stalled." 
Then we can stop the back and forth and just wait until that year and time will tell which of us is right and which of us is wrong. 
Because if you can't do that then that's tantamount to an admission that deep inside even you think you're wrong.
WFalicoff 
29 January 2008 at 19:45
Pat. T. 
The statement from NOAA means from the start of 2001. I named the years in my post: 
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. 
That is 7 years. 
Best Regards, 
W. Falicoff
Peter Martin 
29 January 2008 at 21:08
I think Mr Faliicoff is quite right in to bow out. There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in debating with people who can't even count. 
Unless Pat T and his fellow contrarians can satisfactorily answer the question of what is reasonable level of proof, I feel that I'll go off and do some more constructive too. There is no proof possible for them. They'll argue that black is white if they have to. 
If there are 99% of glaciers that are in retreat, the important ones for the contrarians will be the 1% that buck the trend. For them all scientists are charlatans and liars. On the net, its easy to find the pesudo-science to back up any crack pot theory imaginable. I found one 'disprove' Einstein the other day. Anything that goes against their perconceived notions is bad , anything that doesn't is good. 
Incidentally I would say that polar bear numbers are increasing because they are being hunted less. The real evidence global warming is there for all, including the contrarians, to see in the satellite photos of the shrinking ice cap.
bobclive 
29 January 2008 at 21:47
RECOVERY OF GLACIER GIRL in 2002 under 286 feet of ice. 1942 to 2002 = 286ft of ice cover, what does history tell us about global warming. 
On July 15, 1942, a flight of six P-38s and two B-17 
bombers, with a total of 25 crew members on board, took off from Presque Isle Air Base in Maine headed for the U.K. What followed was a harrowing and life-threatening landing of the entire squadron on a remote ice cap in Greenland. (See photo of downed P-38 from the "Lost Squadron.") Miraculously, none of the crew was lost and they were all rescued and returned safely home after spending several days on the desolate ice. 
Fifty years later a small group of aviation enthusiasts decided to locate that squadron, who had come to be known as "The Lost Squadron," and to recover one of the lost P-38s. It turned out to be no easy task, as the planes had been buried under 296ft of ice and drifted over a mile from their original location. 
http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm#history 
http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl-recovery.htm 
Lost aircraft 
http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl-lost-down.htm
aschult5 
29 January 2008 at 22:44
You are taking a very ignorant outlook on global warming Whitehouse. I recommend you at least glance over the IPCC's report, perhaps look at the graph of average temperature since the late 19th century. There are too many factors and global warming is too far of a long term process to consider 7 years proof of a halt in global warming. A flat seven years is an observation, yes, but it is only that.
Peter Martin 
30 January 2008 at 00:07
Pat T , 
So, you are saying now that these particular glaciers, which aren't shrinking, unlike most others which are, prove that there is no real global warming? And are you also saying, but if you are wrong, and there is global warming, it is not caused by human activity and anyway as David Whitehouse has showed it has already peaked? And are you also saying that the same scientists which produced the figures, which DW himself , used are like the hoaxers, you mentioned, who call out 'shark' ? And the IPCC is in the grip of the eco-extremists of the UN who are deliberately trying to undermine western values? 
So, it seems to me that there is absolutely no proof that will convince you. The NW passage is already open to shipping, and it is expected to get much more ice free in the years to come. Canadian and US governments seem to be in dispute over jurisdiction of the passage, so they aren't treating this hypothetically. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11... 
So even when all the polar ice is lost, you'll just put it down to an increase in solar activity, or corrupt scientists, or a natural change in oceon currents. Any theory would suffice for you guys as long as human induced causes were excluded. If the Greenland ice sheet melts and sea levels rise by 6 or 7 metres there will no doubt be people like you saying that its all due to natural causes, or it isn't really happening and that the eco zealots are broadcasting fake TV pictures of the water waist deep in Time square.
bobclive 
30 January 2008 at 00:10
Peter Martin 
Here is a recent example of showing that glaciers can advance and retreat. The etching done in 1850 is of the Argentine glacier above the town of Argentine, France, and shows the glacier extending down to the edge of the town. In the photograph taken in 1966 of the same area, the valley above the town is ice-free. This is a modern-day example, but how often do ice ages occur. 
http://www.divediscover.whoi.edu/iceage/glaciers.html 
Alarm over Indian glacier's hasty retreat 
By Somini Sengupta 
Published: July 17, 2007 
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/17/news/glacier.php 
Sikkim has the largest number of glaciers in India 
Saturday, January 12, 2008 : 1050 Hrs 
Gangtok (PTI): Sikkim, comprising 0.5 per cent of India's landmass, has 84 glaciers, the largest number as compared to any other state or union territory. 
The present number of glaciers at 84, with the mapping exercise still underway to find about out more ice caps in the state "has grown" by about four times over the past six years as the figure of glaciers stood at 21 at that time. 
http://www.gisdevelopment.net/news/viewn.asp?id=GIS:N_fehgzvnkiq&cat=Industry%20Application⊂=Natural%20Resource%20Management 
IT IS CLEAR THAT GLACIERS HAVE ADVANCED AND RETREATED OVER TIME, THE PRESENT RETREAT OF SOME GLACIERS IS NOT UNUSUAL.
bobclive 
30 January 2008 at 00:18
Sorry wrong SIKKIM link. 
http://sikkim-himalayanreview.blogspot.com/2008/01/sikkim-ha...
bobclive 
30 January 2008 at 00:35
Alarm over Indian glacier's hasty retreat JULY 17TH 2007. 
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/17/news/glacier.php 
History of glacier from 1850 to 1966. 
http://www.divediscover.whoi.edu/iceage/glaciers.html 
Jan 2008 Indian Glaciers expand from 21 to 84 in 6 years. 
http://sikkim-himalayanreview.blogspot.com/2008/01/sikkim-ha...
Peter Martin 
30 January 2008 at 02:15
You have to look at the overall picture. Are glaciers , worldwide, advancing on average or are they retreating, on average? 
A glacier is essentially a river of ice. Like normal rivers the flow rate varies according to the upstream snowfall rather than the upstream rainfall which determines a river flow. Although the time constants are usually somewhat longer. So, even if average temperatures are rising , an individual glacier can still advance if its flow rate increases. 
Do you have any genuine scientific studies that show that more glaciers worldwide are advancing than retreating? 
Still no answer to my question of what would constitute a reasonable level of scientific proof? Or are you determined, with a closed mind, to continue to deny the existence of AGW in the face of all the scientific evidence, come what may?
Nelson 
30 January 2008 at 13:30
Contarians often fail to distingusih between high- and low-altitude glaciers. Those gaining mass are typically at exteme altitude, and the growth is due to changes in precipitation. They're so high and so cold that melting plays virtually no role in their mass balance: they're not really expected to retreat in our warming world.
Pat T 
30 January 2008 at 16:23
Re: glaciers all I'm suggesting is that the Greenland glacial retreat is exacerbated, as researchers from The Ohio State University have found, by magma hot spots that have become active. This is important because the source of the warming is UNDER the glacier, thus causing a fast melting of the ice along the land surface, which would obviously significantly impact the flow of the glacier. 
I don't think global warming's stall would necessarily cause glaciers to re-grow - if it's warm enough already to melt the glaciers then it would have to cool for the glaciers to re-grow. But the fact that the Greenland glacial retreat increases in pace appears to be due to the magma flow rather than to the notion that global warming hasn't in fact stalled. 
I am also suggesting that the fact that glacial retreat in the Alps is revealing archaeological evidence from prehistoric, Bronze Age, Roman and medieval times would seem to indicate significant warmth during those times - 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=434 
and the fact that there were only a few-hundred-year intervals between the Roman and medieval, medieval and present, periods would indicate that this isn't a matter of a prolonged period in which it was warm but not as warm as today, thus accounting for the past glacial retreat followed by prolonged glacial advance - indeed the Alps have been close to ice-free within human history. 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=772
Pat T 
30 January 2008 at 16:26
As for the appropriateness of using 1998, I will only point out that it is very prominent in the hockey stick. 
I will also point out that if it indeed is still warming then at some point it will have to be warmer than 1998 - at some point the averages will level off and (to the extent they're driven by the fact that they include 1998, which makes it disingenous to say that it's wrong of my side to pinpoint that one year) decline. 
At some point if we still haven't passed 1998 then it WILL be fair to say, by ANY standard, that global warming has stalled. 
All I'm asking you to do is identify that point. 
Name a year. 
Then we can just wait for that year to come and see who is right and who is wrong. 
The only harm that could come from this is that you could be wrong.
Peter Martin 
30 January 2008 at 22:17
Pat T, 
There is no real need for predictions. According to Nasa, last year was equally as warm as 1998. 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ 
Nasa report: 
"The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle." 
So, when El Nino returns and solar irradiance increases again, in the next two to three years, we do not need a crystal ball to predict with a high degree of certainty, that new records will be set.
ejz 
31 January 2008 at 15:49
You will find the answer for the "why" of the standstill (and the coming reversal of the trend into cooling) by googling on "Earthshine Project". 
The albedo (reflectivity) of the Earth has increased by 5% since it's lowest level in 1998 and is rising. Reason: higher cloud cover. Hence more solar energy reflected back into space; hence a cooler Earth. Possibly also more rain and snow. Cause of changes in cloud cover according to some: cosmic rays affected by changes in the Solar magnetosphere. 
Get your woollies ready and warm the soup!
Nelson 
31 January 2008 at 17:57
I'm not convinced by the Earthshine Project data. It's a poor proxy compared to direct measurements of the earth's albedo using satellites (which don't so such an effect) 
I think I know which dataset I prefer.
Nelson 
31 January 2008 at 18:00
Also, regarding the cosmic waves and cloud cover. It's a tentative mechanism, and cosmic rays haven't increased over the past few decades. Slight flaws in an otherwise wonderful hypothesis :)
Ant_world 
03 February 2008 at 22:13
A really fascinating debate that has turned my view on it's head. Having previously been firmly on the side of the opinion that action must be taken to halt AGW, I now find myself totally unconvinced. This follows just a small amount of research into the subject. I have found twisted thuths and total misrepresentations flooding the whole debate. Don't get me wrong - I'm not about to go out and buy a V8 4x4 (SUV) just for fun! The enviroment is being stretched by our hunger for fuel driven luxury, but the climate? I'm not so sure. The unpopular views of some scientists that the climate has been changing naturally seems to carry more and more weight as I surf the data available on the net. It's so easy to become blinkered to just one way of thinking. But what if we have all been wrong for the last few years? This is such an important debate, we must strive for the truth and not fall for the potential bias rants, which I myself have been part of, of those who have accepted that the debate has concluded. Until then, let's try to keep an open mind whilst being sensible with our precious environment.
bobclive 
04 February 2008 at 17:26
Nelson, 
You obviously have not read Svensmark and Friis-Christensen`s rebut of Lockwards solar paper.
Peter Martin 
05 February 2008 at 00:20
BobClive, 
It seems to me that you and a lot of the other contrarians on this forum need to get their story straight. First you seemed to be agreeing with David Whitehouse that Global warming had stopped. Later the story changed to global warming was real but caused by solar and cosmic ray variations. 
To anyone with the slightest knowledge of statistics, or even an ability of look back at the figures over a longer term, DW 's case is tenuous, to say the least. So, if temperature changes are all due to Solar and Cosmic ray effects, why waste time, energy and credibility defending a very weak argument when you don't need to?
stargazer 
05 February 2008 at 08:40
"Later the story changed to global warming was real but caused by solar and cosmic ray variations." 
you have not been reading thesr posts very well have you...or you did, and saw what you wanted to see. 
It is the contention of us climate 'realists' that the climate does change...naturaly... whether by cosmic rays or whatever.and 'our bit is 'at least' on top or an underlying natural variation. 
Look I cut and pasted part of what i said a dozen or so posts in, on this 750 posts long thread... 
Read again 
All this will turn out to be caused by the Sun...the Sun drives the climate as it always has. and the temp. goes up and down. Each of the last four interglacial's reached higher temps. than our current one. The temp has been higher at least 11 times during the past 10,000 years. Over the past 1000 years the medieval period being up to 2 deg C warmer than now...at the end of this period we had the 'little ice age' with very cold times between 1400 and 1850 when the temp. started to rise again. ~1850 is the date beloved by the AGW's they show this graph to 'prove' the temp.had gone up since... We can live with warm we should be glad it is. I think that the Sunspot-cosmic ray-cloud connection will turn out to be the 'smoking gun'. That said the next solar cycle (24) may be 'low' and the following one (25) lower still. This is from new research on a solar sub-surface 'conveyor' that has slowed in recent times. There is a pattern here (as there always is)... and I fear the immanent onset of a 'maunder' type sunspot minimum which bought on the little Ice age... We can live with warm...but millions may suffer (and worse) if we indeed get years/decades of extended cold...power/gas outages, crop failures, food/water shortages,all forms of transport snowed to a halt etc.And after this global warming stuff...who would now believe any scientist who says 'well we got it wrong... and forget what we said about warming ! global cooling is on its way so we must make it law to put Co2 into the atmosphere to counter it. We are being conned.... anyone interested please cut and paste these links onto your browser to see that there is no scientific consensus. The climate IS indeed changing but then it always has.
stargazer 
05 February 2008 at 08:48
And this I said towart the end of the other thread...incase you missed that too. 
Look you are missing the very obvious... I have followed this thread reading every post of both and No-One is saying that the FLAT line (that the temp is at now)...does not mean that the temp will not perhaps go up again in due course. But you don't know for sure that it will. Or as I think, it MIGHT come down and enter another 'maunder'. One thing is for sure though it will not stay flat lined. Because the climate changes.that's what it does... with or without humans. I repeat what I said earlier Its not us who deny climate change. Climate change is our point
jimbob37 
05 February 2008 at 11:15
When GW was first brought up all those years ago, it was the mainstream media who portrayed them as being nuts - hippies dancing in fields and hugging trees etc. 
After this came the phenomenon of Al Gores inconvenient truth which told us the debate was over whilst collecting an Oscar and a Nobel Prize to boot. 
From my viewpoint, the debate never actually happened, certainly not in the mainstream. It was from guitar twanging hippies in a field to big time Hollywood and "This is the truth" being thrust at us. 
Naturally, this has taken a year or so for shell shocked people to firstly worry, secondly think what can be done, and thirdly actually question whether or not it is the truth. 
The debate is over? I'd say it's only just begun and I would imagine it will become more and more of an issue as people cotton on to the fact that there is real debate. 
Scientists now need to prove beyond doubt that there really is cause for concern - if they can. The refusal of Gore to take up the debate only adds to the suspicions that he is not able to defend his turf. 
Whatever the truth, the GW camp seem to be losing ground to what seems to be a rapidly growing base of questioners – if it really is the truth then surely they should be answering these questions and researching the anomalies in the anomalies?
Brute 
05 February 2008 at 13:28
jimbob37, 
Amen. Please vote today if there is a primary in your state if you are writing from the U.S. and remember that McCain wrote the Bill titled: 
The Climate Stewardship Act 
This Bill will raise the price of a gallon of gasoline 50 cents, (Green Tax). McCain supports this nonsense.
Peter Martin 
05 February 2008 at 20:37
"Scientists now need to prove beyond doubt that there really is cause for concern - if they can" 
Sure. What you like to know? 
PS How do you define "beyond doubt"
Peter Martin 
05 February 2008 at 21:28
Brute, 
Gasoline/Petrol/Diesel are 19th century and 20th century technologies. The Saudi oilfields are peaking and recently Russia overtook Saudi Arabia as the world's leading oil producer. That probably won't last. With or without a 'green tax' petrol is going to become prohibitively expensive in the next 20 years. 50 cents extra per gallon? You haven't seen anything yet! 
There is no shortage of energy. Its not without problems but nuclear energy is potentially clean and safe. There is more than enough Uranium to keep us going for the next 100 years. The Uranium/Plutonium cycle has been the one most utilised up until now , largely because of its application to nuclear weapons. However there are other possibilities based on Thorium which is much more abundant than Uranium. 
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html 
Rather than griping about the price of gasoline and petrol, and pretending that climate scientists are all conspiring in some sort of hoax, we should be working to free ourself from fossil fuels completely. Most of the technology is already there, and even without the problem of global warming, it is something that has got to happen sooner or later anyway. Why not make it sooner?
Brute 
05 February 2008 at 23:42
Mr. Martin, 
Funny you should mention that we are running out of fossil fuels. I just stumbled accross this article today. 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080117094524.ht...
Brute 
06 February 2008 at 00:42
And this one............. 
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=518...
Peter Martin 
06 February 2008 at 00:47
Yes it sounds a lot but has anyone worked out how long it will last? 
World oil consumption is currently 84 million barrels (equiv) per day. That means that we consume 100 billion barrels of oil every three years. That's just about the same as the claimed total oil reserves of Iraq! 
The Saudis claim to have more but there is some sceptism that they are being truthful about the size of their reserves. Even if they exist they may not be recoverable. They have done considerable damage to their reservoirs by injecting too much sea water in an attempt to force the pace of their production over the years. 
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0506.drum.htm... 
I didn't say that we were running out of all fossil fuels - just conventional oil reserves. There is still a lot of coal to be dug out of the ground and also oil shales, oil sands etc. But it is still a finite resource and won't last for ever. 
Exracting oil from oil shale is very inefficient and the process does generate a lot of extra CO2 emissions. It looks like you in very much a minority in not caring about that! Even the next Republican presidential candidate has the right idea! 
CO2 sequestration technology can be used for these oil shales and coal but it won't be that cheap. I'd put my money on nuclear power in the longer term.
Peter Martin 
06 February 2008 at 01:38
"The debate is over? I'd say it's only just begun" 
The debate about AGW can't be like an ordinary political debate. For instance, we can argue about the pro and cons of VAT and whether the level should be 10% or 20% , or whatever, and reach a decision which may not please everyone, but is generally accepatble to the community as a whole. 
Its not quite like with the earth's climate. It doesn't really care whether or not what we decide is politically acceptable. The debate has to be among climate scientists and they have reached a consensus. We now have to decide whether and how to fix the problem. 
Those with vested interests have naturally tried to muddy the water and claim that there is no scientific consensus. This was the advice tha President Bush received from an advisor, Mr Frank Luntz, in 2001. 
" Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.cli...
jimbob37 
06 February 2008 at 09:08
Peter Martin - I agree that the debate is not akin to a political one. If the situation is dire then we need to fix it, regardless of whether or not it is politically acceptable. 
However, do we not need to be pretty damn sure that the situation is dire before we go in and try to fix it? 
You state that the debate has to be amongst climate scientists - I agree too, but see increasingly more evidence that there exists dramatic differences of opinion and not consensus as you state, and that is what concerns me. After all, if the scientists cannot agree as to what is going on, then how do we normal folk come to any conclusions? 
You also state "Those with vested interests have naturally tried to muddy the water and claim that there is no scientific consensus." – You are possibly correct (although don’t we all have vested interests in the planet?), that is why I am here reading this to try and extract the truth. But I reiterate that (due to the fact that I am here) there seems to be an increase in doubters and the scientific community needs to present information and findings that prove beyond doubt that this is a real phenomenon, and that includes participating in debate. 
As for what ‘beyond doubt’ means – well a scientific consensus doesn’t prove it, although it would probably coerce me to accept the theory more willingly. What would probably convince me would be evidence that has been impartially prepared, warts and all, with explanations of what the science is behind the data. 
What I don’t like and makes me suspicious of the theory are examples such as; 
1998 was touted as the hottest year and as I remember a big example of GW in practice (hockey stick). Since the plateau of temperatures, 1998’s warmth is now attributed to El Nino, thus the year shouldn’t have been so warm and makes it look like subsequent years have not warmed in line with the theory. Why was this not mentioned at the time? 
Nasa’s adjustment of global temperatures which knocked off 1998 from the top spot was dusted under the carpet with explanations that it was only tenths or hundredths of a degree inaccurate. Yet the fact remains that in the 1930’s temperatures reached levels very close (and higher) to today’s. However when 1998 was still officially the hottest year, no mention was made that it was only tenths or hundredths of a degree warmer than the 30’s, just that 7 of the last ten years were the hottest on record. 
I hope you can understand where I am coming from and apologies for the length of this post, but to me it looks like a lot of figure massaging and spin without the real data being given so that the general public can see for themselves. With all these corrections and “yes, but’s”, it seems to me that the IPCC are predicting climate change with hindsight.
Nelson 
06 February 2008 at 12:19
'Yet the fact remains that in the 1930’s temperatures reached levels very close (and higher) to today’s. ' But only in the continental US! That's 
Nelson 
06 February 2008 at 12:20
Formatting. Bah! The last post should continue 'less than 2% of the world's surface area. Don't conveniently ignore the rest of the world :)'
Nelson 
06 February 2008 at 12:21
'it seems to me that the IPCC are predicting climate change with hindsight.' You should go back to Hansen's 1988 predictions. They've turned out to be pretty astute...
Pat T 
06 February 2008 at 15:58
Falicoff, I am not saying that just because it's been warmer when CO2 levels were lower proves that this time it's not CO2. 
I am saying that it means that we cannot just infer a causal connection because this time CO2 levels have increased. 
And that inference is really all there is. 
We have NOT "ruled out" other, natural causes - we've simply demonstrated that we're unable to affirmatively prove other causes - we don't know what caused some of the last warm periods either. 
It's the difference between not having a case against any other suspect for lack of evidence either way and having enough evidence to rule out other suspects. 
What to do with that is a function of burden of proof - in a free society the individual freedom is sacrosanct and you cannot override it on the basis of an unproven theory - really, the individuals in question should not even have to pay, via their tax dollars, for you to try to prove it. If you want to shut them down you should pony up the dough to prove your case. 
In societies where individual freedom is not sacrosanct but has some value, then the government makes a cost-benefit analysis assuming the theory is correct, and acts accordingly. 
In societies where individual freedom is disregarded, the government just does what it wants. 
America was founded - broke off from the UK - on the notion that individual freedom is sacrosanct. That means for us, the burden of proof is on you. And proof remains, after the expenditure of fifteen years and tens of billions of dollars, elusive.
stargazer 
06 February 2008 at 16:29
its the sun ! 
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa7704-07.pdf
Peter Martin 
06 February 2008 at 22:00
"As for what ‘beyond doubt’ means – well a scientific consensus doesn’t prove it." 
The media don't like the idea of a scientific consensus. I'd say the main reason is that it is not so interesting for viewers and readers when everyone is agreed. Much better to get a lively debate going. This does give a false impression however. So much so, there is an general unwillingness, on the part of climate scientists to engage in debate with a politically motivated opponent. 
Although there is still active scientific debate at the edges, among climate scientists there is a 99% consensus that AGW is real and needs to be taken seriously. They'll always be that 1%, of course, but there are very very few dissenters who are both scientifically active, publishing papers etc, and financially independent from the energy corporations. If you look back at the history of the smoking/lung cancer 'controversy' , you can find that 1% or so who will have consistently disputed the link. There are probably still a few who haven't yet given up. 
If you want the real science, look at the scientific press. Scientific American is excellent. The NASA, NOAA , AAAS websites are all very good. 
I'd ask if a 'scientific consensus doesn't prove it' , then what would?
Peter Martin 
06 February 2008 at 22:10
Pat T 
"America was founded - broke off from the UK - on the notion that individual freedom is sacrosanct. That means for us, the burden of proof is on you." 
I thought it was about taxes on tea :-) The African people who were later 'recruited' to work in the cotton industry may have disagreed too. 
But anyway, let's not get into that. What would constitute a reasonable level of proof?
Brute 
07 February 2008 at 01:09
Mr. Martin, 
#1. Just to correct the record, The American Revolution was about taxation and subjugation without representation. It was also a denunciation of unreasonable authoritarian practices, (such as carbon taxes). 
#2. The British government profited handsomely from the importation of cotton and other raw materials and did not object to the practice of slavery as long as the British economy benefited financially. Slavery existed in the American colonies before independence from Great Britain as well as afterward. It also existed in the British West Indies before and after the American Revolution and was not outlawed in the West Indies until 1833, (U.S Emancipation 1865). Not an excuse, just further clarification. 
You’re right though, probably not a good idea to even go there. I won’t even get into the history of Australia……………. 
The American experience is quite unique in the history of world government. The American people are fiercely independent as well as self reliant and historically take umbrage to oppressive government intervention into their lives in any form. I believe this may be why you are having difficulty understanding our resentment. We are a free, sovereign, autonomous nation and will make up our own minds regarding policy without influence or dictates from the United Nation or the European Union. We don’t want to get sucked into another level of bureaucracy, (Kyoto). The United States was founded, as Pat quite correctly states, on individual freedoms and, (until recently), limited government intervention into the everyday lives of its citizens. 
Collectivism was attempted in the Jamestown Colony in 1607 and was abandoned after one season. It seems that the few were providing for the many who refused to help themselves and decided that they were better off on their own; providing for themselves. I believe that is the legacy of the American people; individual freedom, property rights and self reliance. We have little patience for those who refuse to help themselves. Charity is fine and we are a generous people but as charity turns to exploitation we become resentful. 
Sincerely, you should take a few minutes and read the American Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution; very well written and revolutionary (pun intended), documents for the time as well as applicable (in their original forms), to this day. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States
BigSkeptic 
07 February 2008 at 01:55
This has been stated many times before and has been written about extensively. "Scientific Consensus" is not the way a scientific topic is decided. It is decided by proceeding from hypothesis (in my opinion that is the state of AGW) to observation, experimentation, and conclusions (mothematics, physics, models, etc) that accurately predict phenomenon that subsequently occur, that accurately explain observations that have been made, and that can be replicated. 
The data used to feed current models is highly suspect as many have pointed out. Even the IPCC admits that of the many complex subsytems systems that comprise climate many are poorly understood (e.g, the sun, cloud formation, precipitation, effect of cosmic rays, etc.) and only grossly approximated in current models. 
WIth all of this variability and lack of knowledge, how can anyone conclude anything about climate change other than that it requires a lot more study.
Peter Martin 
07 February 2008 at 02:27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CO2_emission_2002.png 
I'd just draw your attention to this graph in reply to the point about energy consumption in India and China. 
Yes the American war of Independence was ,not perfectly idealistic, but still a progresssive world event. I'm still not sure why that should colour your opinion of the science though? 
To Big Skeptic and Brute, 
You can't do experiments with the world's climate in the way that experiments are normally done to test a theory. Putting 8 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year is itself a big experiment though. Why take the risk when we don't have to? 
I would say that already we do have the models "that accurately predict phenomenon that subsequently occur, that accurately explain observations that have been made, and that can be replicated." 
Sure, anyone can, and someone will always, say that more study is needed. But how much more study? You seem to be having difficulty in answering the question of what constitutes a reasonable level of scientific proof. 
If 99% of the world's scientists agree, do the 1% have a veto? If there is an error of +/- 10% in the published results do we do nothing until the errors have been reduced to 5% or 1% or what?
Brute 
07 February 2008 at 03:19
Mr. Martin, 
Something is wrong with the link; it took me Wikepedia but it was a definition of “Image”. 
I’ll try in the future to steer my comments back in the direction of the science involved; but with over 1,000 posts I think that both sides of the science has been thoroughly covered. However, about the politics, and this is a political issue, I was only attempting to point out that there are differences philosophically between Americans, Europeans, Australians, Chinese, etc. Americans are extremely distrustful of government; any government. Add to this distrust that the members of the government entity, (The United Nations), consists of politicians who are not elected by the American people and do not have the best interest of the United States citizens at heart. 
Increasingly and mistakenly, people and governments of the world view the people of the United States as “wealthy” and the American people know that they are perceived that way. The United Nations views the United States as a stream of wealth and prosperity to be exploited and raided. Hell, we have 12 million illegal foreign nationals that swim across shark infested waters; walk through scorching hot deserts or stowaway in airplane landing gear to get here to exploit the economy. To us, this Global Warming thing is a money grab. 
As more people are reviewing the information provided to them by the Alarmists they are finding inconsistencies and inaccuracies that shake their confidence; and rightly so. As a scientist, don’t you find the inaccuracies glaring? Wouldn’t you want to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt before you make policy that will affect the lives of millions of people? Stargazer has posted graphs that illustrate that the intensity of the sun follows the increase in temperature exactly; you ignored it. I’ve asked you why the record high and low temperatures are evenly distributed throughout the 20th century; you ignored it. Whitehouse and the MET Office indicate that the temperature has leveled; you ignored it. The ice thickness at the North Pole is exactly the same as it was last year; you ignored it. The polar bears are thriving, hurricanes have not been more frequent or more intense, the Greenland ice cap is thickening, the Antarctic ice is thickening and the Interior is getting colder. Glaciers are growing, (and melting) and it snowed in Saudi Arabia a couple of weeks ago. There is concrete evidence of past warming, (warmer than now); you ignored it. Why won’t you accept and cheer good news if your concern is genuinely for the health of the environment? 
All of the gloom and doom that the prognosticators have predicted have not come to fruition. We have the proof in front of our eyes. 
Your “proof” is based on computer programs generated and manipulated by environmentalists with an agenda and forecasts of things that “might” occur. 
My opinion is that the Alarmists have a lack of “proof” and the Realists have a plethora of “proof”.
Peter Martin 
07 February 2008 at 07:16
Yes there is a problem with last link. But if you copy and paste it into your browser it does work. 
I do believe that others ,or myself, have answered all the questions. Polar bears are being hunted less. Ice is still the same thickness whether its -1deg C or -20 deg C. Maybe even thicker of you count expansion! David Whitehouse's basic error has been explained in a myriad of different ways . I can't believe you want to go through it all again. The ice sheets in Greenland and the Arctic are shrinking. Its averages that matter not records. More glaciers are shrinking than expanding. Permafrost is melting . etc etc etc. 
If it is so clear to you that there is a lack of evidence for AGW, how is it that the guys at NASA and elsewhere strongly disagree? The only possible explanation that you could give, is that they are all deliberately lying. That's just a gross slander. 
If you think that way, there is no point asking for proof. When it's given to you , you'll just dismiss it all as lies.
stargazer 
07 February 2008 at 09:01
The artic ice mass is back to where is was. 
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.j... 
and the antarctic ice is 30% above 'normal'
Nelson 
07 February 2008 at 12:10
'The artic ice mass is back to where is was' - area != volume or mass.
Nelson 
07 February 2008 at 12:14
Brute, I'm still intrigued: who earns your alarmist label? Do I? Does anyone who believes that warming is man-made? 
And please, can we kill the stupid 'glaciers are growing therefore there's no warming' argument? It's risible. 
And stop saying that temperatures have stopped warming! You. Cannot. Conclude. That. From. The. Data.
Sven 
07 February 2008 at 13:05
Nelson, 
Yes. You. Can.
Peter Martin 
07 February 2008 at 14:15
OK then Sven. Are you up for the same bet as Pat T? He's saying that there will be no year warmer than 1998 before, and including, 2011. 
I'd suggest we use the same data set as used by David Whitehouse. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2006.csv 
How about US$50 just to keep it friendly?
stargazer 
07 February 2008 at 14:39
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/uah-satellit...
Brute 
07 February 2008 at 14:58
Mr. Martin, 
Because I wrote it, your contention would be more fittingly described as libelous; slander would be the spoken word. In this case, it would be considered a difference of opinion, not libel, (or slander). There are thousands of scientists worldwide that disagree with the Global Warming Alarmist Hysteria; look it up. I am well within my rights to look at all of the information, (both sides of the argument), and formulate my own opinion. 
Your arguments are all hat, no cattle. 
First of all, CO2 and Methane are not pollutants; this is exactly what I’m talking about, hysterics and misinformation propagated by the Alarmists to indoctrinate and fulfill an agenda. You and your ilk are flooding the media with half truths and outright falsehoods to promote your personal environmentalist ideology. 
Secondly, The Global Warming Alarmists contend that Polar Bear numbers are shrinking because they are drowning; both assertions are false and purposely reported to illicit sympathy. When they were caught in this lie they attributed the increase in population to “under harvesting” and that there “would be a Polar Bear crisis” if they were hunted. 
On a previous post you wrote that “it isn’t all about averages”. On this post you write that “it is about averages”. Which is it? 
The Antarctic ice sheet and Greenland ice sheet is as thick as it has ever been; not due to expansion, because weather and climate change. When it was reported that they were shrinking the Alarmist Hysterians didn’t report that it was due to “contraction”; they attributed it to evil, wicked, human beings and their wasteful ways. Please return to previous posts by Stargazer for satellite photographs; well within normal parameters.......... 
Glaciers have been advancing and receding since they were formed 10,000 years ago. 
Yes, I’m certain of it now, you’ve lost any sense of objectivity. Nasa wants to increase their budget. Believe me; I know what I’m talking about in this area. 
Climate of Fear 
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence. 
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Sven 
07 February 2008 at 15:37
Peter Martin. 
1) The question that Dr. Whitehouse asked was based on HADCRUT3 of the UK Met Office: 
1998: 0.52C (above the 1961-1990 average) 
1999: 0.26C 
2000: 0.24C 
2001: 0.40C 
2002: 0.46C 
2003: 0.46C 
2004: 0.43C 
2005: 0.48C 
2006: 0.42C 
2007: 0.40C 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual 
2) no, I'm not ready to bet anything. I'm not claiming anything for the future. In fact, it seems that nobody knows what's gonna come. My only point is that we now have something that is not just a theory or a model and we'll see where it might be heading (while knowing that CO2 consentration is clearly growing) in just a few years. And that Dr. Whitehouse had every right to phrase a question. 
3) Sure, there are predictions, but how good are we at predictions? 
Met Office global forecast for 2007 (January 4, 2007): 
Global temperature for 2007 is expected to be 0.54 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C; 
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr200... 
real outcome? 0,40! 
I'm ready for any development and see it as intriguing. But I also see alarmists and I see denialists and debate denialists. And the latter are even more extreme in their faith. 
PS. I actually hope that it will continue going down. First, it's gonna be good for the world but second - it would then also be fun and intriguing to see how gores and jameshansens are going to crawl out of their mess. Just as it's fun to see how Nelson is having his guru tamino prove the unprovable... :)
Sven 
07 February 2008 at 15:54
sorry, with the "latter" I meant the alarmists and what I call "debate denialists". That means basically the religious environmentalists. When they speak about vested interests they don't really see that their vested interest is the worst - the theory being true is almost a part of their body, it's their whole identity! Lester Brown, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Al Gore (well, he probably has different motivation), Mark Lynas, James Hansen...
Nelson 
07 February 2008 at 16:33
Sven, 
Where's the trend analysis showing that warming has stopped? We've covered this scores of times: you cannot simply draw a line through the last x years of temperature data. That's playground statistics - you have to be more deferential to the data. 
Perhaps I can express it this way. Your claim is akin to arguing that because today is 0.2 degrees warmer than yesterday, the world is warming at an alarming pace. 
It's easy it is to make nonsense claims. Let's see you support yours with rigorous analysis. You're in for a challenge: 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/ 
Can we finally find the grace to agree that the 'world has stopped warming' claim is simply wrong?
stargazer 
07 February 2008 at 17:17
Look if you are on a bus and it stops to let you off, you cant say it did not stop or that it really slowed to a crawl...it stopped...it did not go forward, it did not go backward. It stopped. There is every liklyhood that it will go forward again to the next stop... but that is the best you can say until it actualy does.
Sven 
07 February 2008 at 17:45
Nelson, 
your devotion to this tamino-guy is really amusing... Look at the figures and THINK!
Peter Martin 
07 February 2008 at 22:00
Sven, 
Declining the bet was probably a good move on your part. 
You were astute enough to start the figures at 1998 for the purpose of your argument. You would have seen the previous steep rise so do doubt you are smart enough to know that David Whitehouse is incorrect with his "Global Warming has stopped" argument. 
When travelling on the railway, we might well ask the question, from time to time, "has the train stopped". We know full well that it is going to start off again though. I believe that David Whitehouse is clever enough to play with words in this way and deliberately create a misleading impression.
Peter Martin 
07 February 2008 at 22:36
Sven, 
You raise a point with your reference to 'debate denial'. I'm not sure about your complete list . Al Gore is a politician not a scientist - I would say that he should be prepared to defend his corner. 
However, James Hansen certainly is a well qualified and respected scientist worldwide. He's been working in the field for years and sticking to his argument that AGW is something to be taken seriously at times when the data hasn't always been on his side. His contribution to the debate is to be found in a large number of scientific papers and articles on the subject. These papers are peer reviewed and many corrections are made before going to press, as a result of discussion , debate if you prefer, with colleagues. Corrections can, and often are, made after publication in the form of a letter to the scientific journal. 
Scientists working on the link between smoking and lung cancer faced a similar dilemma. In the main they avoided public debate with the paid representatives of the tobacco industry. Up until the late 90's the tobacco industry had a policy of denying the connection, claiming that the research was inconclusive, more work needed to be done , cancer occurred naturally, there was a hidden agenda on the part of many scientists, etc etc. Does this sound familiar? 
Those scientists were subject to the same charge of wishing to avoid popular debate, but I would say that time has showed they made the correct decision.
Brute 
08 February 2008 at 00:00
Mr. Martin, 
I was waiting for sunrise on the other side of the world so that I could write to you.....Not to get into the middle of things with you and Sven, but this is the second or third time that you've made this cooroIation. Isn't choosing to smoke or not to smoke a personal decision? I mean, if you think smoking is harmful to you or your immediate environment can't you simply choose not to smoke? If you think smoking is harmful don't do it! 
IF YOU THINK THAT BURNING FOSSIL FUELS IS HARMFUL TO THE ENVIRONMENT, DON'T BURN THEM! 
Also, where are you getting this 99% "consensus" figure? My apologies if you've already linked to it; I must have missed it.........
GeoffB 
08 February 2008 at 00:33
I have watched this debate for a while now and am begining to tire of Peter Martin's odious comments. So many people have said that Dr Whitehouse correctly pointed out that the years 2001-2007 are statistically indistinguishable - period. He's not playing with words and I think it is disgraceful and insulting of you to accuse him of using his words carefully to create a misleading impression. You should be ashamed of yourself, as should Mark Lynas for saying that Dr Whitehouse deliberately intended to mislead. 
His article is carefully worded, articulate and as far as the data are concerned totally accurate. 
But it seems that that really annoys some. Lets have more of Dr Whitehouse in the pages of New Statesman. 
To the New Statesman website webeditor: I'm sure we have all had enough of this now and of the intolerance and snide insinuations of the likes of Mr Martin. This article has been up for over six weeks now and has been by a mile the most discussed article in the history of your website. But with disgraceful accusations flying around like those made by Peter Martin, perhaps it is time to close this now.
Greenwatcher 
08 February 2008 at 00:43
I found this on a website about climate debate. It is David Whitehouse's response to Mark Lynas - I think it is devastating. 
WHEN THE DATA ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH 
A published email to Benny Peiser from David Whitehouse [david@davidwhitehouse.com]: 
My scientific training taught me to elevate data above all else. Whatever you might want the universe to do or to fit in with a cherished theory it is the data that tells you what the universe actually does. Huxley said, tongue in cheek, that it was the great tragedy of science that a beautiful hypothesis can be slain by an ugly fact. Data trumps everything...or does it? 
Recently, I wrote an article pointing out that the global average temperature for the past 7 years was statistically flat - that is no analysis of that data could say anything about it other than it was a flat line. I didn't think it was particularly controversial as I was merely stating what the data produced by the US National Climatic Data Center and the UK's Met Office was saying. I wondered why the CO2 levels have gone up and the temperature had not. I discounted aerosols reflecting sunlight as there has been no big volcanic eruptions in over a decade and the IPCC says that the atmosphere's aerosol load has declined, and doubted that decadal oceanic variations could do the trick either. You can read the article here. 
The article received a record 700 comments, mostly supportive. Several interesting points emerged (aside from the obvious fact that many who comment on such articles haven't actually read them) that might be of interest to readers. There are those who say the data does not exist and that I am lying! More puzzling are those who say that the data shows nothing of interest and that it is statistically irrelevant. 
Underneath this assertion is something very interesting. There is a vociferous body of opinion that says the data does not show the world hasn't warmed and that in reality the upward temperature gradient of the years 1980 -1998 is still being maintained -- it's just that the data does not show it! Some go on to say that in a 27 year temperature time series one would expect 7 flat years given the signal to noise ratio of the data. 
To my mind this is seeing what you want to see and the maxim should be that the data shows what the data shows - if it shows the last 7 years is flat then that's what mother nature says and no amount of arguing or statistical analysis is going to say it isn't so. It seems to me these people deny the data to suit their own perspective. 
However, could we expect a 7 year standstill just by sampling errors alone even though the rising trend is still upward? It's possible though highly unlikely, it is surely far more likely that the flat data represents flat data! Surely the important question here is: what would the data look like if the temperature has stopped rising? The answer is, of course, it would look exactly like what it does now. We should let Occam decide which explanation to choose. 
Then there is the argument that 7 years is too short a timescale to prove anything. In a sense they are right, we do not know if the 7 flat years will continue or if the temperature will start to rise or fall afterwards. But many twist that question and use it to dismiss the 7 years of measured flat data as meaningless. This is not valid. The 7 years remains what it is - 7 years of measured flat data and it is not an insignificant fraction of the 18 years of warming we saw between 1980 - 1998. What's more, the data set is not yet complete. It seems to me that many are judging those 7 flat years by different standards from that which they judge the 1980-1998 warming period and that is obviously unjustified. 
The response to my article is here. It commits many of the sins I mention and more -- and even says my article will go down as the most controversial ever in that I claim that global warming has 'stopped.' It even denies that the period 2001-2007 has been measured as statistically flat and claims I made the elementary error of confusing long term average with year on year variability (seems that 18 years is a long term climatic effect but ten years is a year on year variability!) 
It says that although CO2 levels are rising year on year no one claimed that the temperature would do otherwise! Average things out and the trend is hotter. (no one denies that this decade is hotter than previous ones so that is no response to my points). It cites as conclusive evidence a graph posted on the RealClimate website that uses trend lines covering the recent post 1980 spell to prove that no recent standstill exists. The News Statesman response then makes some dodgy comments about the way science progresses. 
The RealClimate graph is designed to prove what it wants to prove in that the statistical analysis chosen dilutes a 7 year flat spell at the end of a data series. It also includes no error bars on the annual temperature measurements and if it did the graph would tell a very different story and the trend lines would have a much greater degree of variation. 
The New Statesman reply says that similar 7 year standstills have occurred in the past so the current one is nothing special but it fails to add that those periods were statistically far more variable than the current 7 year standstill and that they were blips in an upward trend caused by El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo. There has been no similar event for the recent 7 years! All things considered the New Statesman reply to my article fails to make any counter case when you look at the facts in detail and not in a shallow way with the eye of faith. 
Finally, there is another aspect to the debate that worried me far more than an environmental 'activist' getting the science wrong. It is one of double standards and it has become rather predictable. Provide any criticism, even mild or supportive, or even suggest that we might be wrong and that we don't know everything and one's integrity is attacked. I am accused of intentionally or otherwise of misleading the public and you will note the association made in the New Statesman reply between myself and those who posted comments who might have been paid to take a contrary position. 
This idea that big energy companies are fuelling all so-called dissent has become a cliche, and is often used reprehensibly by those who cannot respond scientifically to argument. One recent book about the catastrophe that is global warming even had a lengthy section about the tobacco industry denying lung cancer so as to set a parallel with the 'climate change deniers' camp. 
On a recent TV debate that Benny Peiser and I took part in a representative from a well know environmental pressure group, who was obviously stressed and irritated by our comments, demanded that the question master make us swear we weren't being funded by the oil lobby. Benny and I said we weren't but thinking about it I should have demanded an apology for that slur before I decided whether to answer or not. 
We have reached a sad stage when such things happen. We should ensure that such debates are even handed and that both sides of any argument declare their vested interests, if any. Surely these big, campaigning groups have a stronger vested interest in global warming than most? 
Finally this, another well known saying: "Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
Peter Martin 
08 February 2008 at 01:10
David Whitehouse is quite capable of writing much better articles. This is what he wrote for the Independent Newspaper (UK): 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ray-of-hope-can-th... 
He's shown that he isn't on the side of the contrarians and climate change deniers. At least not in the way they may have imagined. In fact he acknowledges what is a pretty much mainstream position on the subject. He's floating the idea that we may be incredibly lucky in that the sun will decrease in intensity just a CO2 emissions are causing world temperatures to rise. 
He could be right of course. But, rather than suggesting in the New Statesman article that the climate scientists have got it all wrong, which he makes clear that they haven't in the Independent article, he should have mentioned that he may have found another factor which could offset CO2 induced AGW. 
I would be interested to know how much support his theory has among solar scientists.
Sven 
08 February 2008 at 07:02
Peter Martin, 
don't be childish. 
1) If you would bother to read what I've said all along - I have never made any claims for the future and am therefore not talking about any bets 
2) I'm also not claiming anything about 1998. It was included only because of your other debate about when will it be warmer than 1998 and the metoffice beginning of the year prediction of 2007 being warmer than 1998. When posting, I even thought about a possibility of this misinterpretation, but it's been so thoroghly discussed (and also in Dr. Whitehouse's article) I thought that this was clear to everybody that when talking about flat, we are talking about 2001-2007! So here again: 
2001: 0.40C 
2002: 0.46C 
2003: 0.46C 
2004: 0.43C 
2005: 0.48C 
2006: 0.42C 
2007: 0.40C 
Greenwatcher, 
Thanks for the article. Really interesting. In one of my comments to the pie man, I also found the cherry picking of Realclimate's Gavin Schmidt's graph. He quite interestingly provided us first with GISS 8-year graph, then, generously added a metoffice 8 year's trend and then GISS 7-year and GISS 15-year. But we are talking about met office data set and 7 year stand still. Quite convenient, isn't it, as 2000 was a significantly cool year because of the la nina and pushed the trend upward! Not a way a scientist should behave!
Peter Martin 
08 February 2008 at 07:20
Isn't the future what matters? Isn't the debate over whether global warming has stopped or whether it will indeed carry on into the future? If you've nothing to say about the future then you've really nothing to say at all!
Sven 
08 February 2008 at 08:19
No, Mr. Martin, for me the debate is about this article above and whether Dr. Whitehouse had a right to pose the question. Do not design the playing field according to your wishes. Dr. Whitehouse's question was not whether warming has stopped for ever or will it carry on in the future. He stated an obvious observational fact that it has stopped for 7 years (out of about 27) and that it is interesting and significant and worth investigating. Also, when there is a study on the significance of sun that is different from Dr. Whitehouse's, I don't think, like you, that this means Dr. Whitehouse is wrong, because I like the other one better. It means that there is DEBATE! But ok, if for you it's only about the future and your science is content with creating future predictions while discarding the current information and cherrypicking the science and scientists that suite your view, then I can't see a distinction between this science and faith. I'm off and let you read the crystal ball. Please also feel free to use tarot, ESP, clairvoyance and remote viewing. And please, if needed, consult Sylvia Browne or John Edwards. And as a remedy to help the world, I suggest transcendental meditation (oops, forgot, it's trade mark) or reiki. Ear candles and Ionic detox foot baths might be good as well. But before I leave, one more link about what Dr. Whitehouse was talking about: 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/07/more-...
stargazer 
08 February 2008 at 09:02
He's shown that he isn't on the side of the contrarians and climate change deniers. At least not in the way they may have imagined. In fact he acknowledges what is a pretty much mainstream position on the peter martin said "subject. He's floating the idea that we may be incredibly lucky in that the sun will decrease in intensity just a CO2 emissions are causing world temperatures to rise." 
you really dont read the posts...I posted this way back 
the Earth has warmed and cooled by much more than the 1 Fahrenheit (just over half deg.Celsius) that we moan it has gone up over the last 150 years. SOMETHING caused it to warm and cool in the past and for brevity I am only talking the past 10,000 years so (milankovitch cycles don't come into it) With my astronomy background I consider 10,000 years recent....and during this period the worlds temp has been much higher (and much lower) than now , AND WE DON'T KNOW THE CAUSE. it could do it again.. and I maintain that it WILL... and will swamp the miserable 'rise' we humans may have contributed. 
And i'll say again that If the worlds temp does go down 
because of natural effects (sun) then I can see a time when we are made to put C02 into the atmosphere to counter it.
stargazer 
08 February 2008 at 09:05
Above post should have started with 
peter martin said "He's shown that he isn't on the side of the contrarians and climate change deniers. At least not in the way they may have imagined. In fact he acknowledges what is a pretty much mainstream position on the "subject. He's floating the idea that we may be incredibly lucky in that the sun will decrease in intensity just a CO2 emissions are causing world temperatures to rise."
Sven 
08 February 2008 at 09:12
Also a small correction to my last posting for more clarity: "He stated an obvious observational fact that, WHILE CO2 LEVELS HAVE STEADILY INCREASED, WARMING has stopped for 7 years (out of about 27) and that it is interesting and significant and worth investigating."
stargazer 
08 February 2008 at 17:25
But here is another piece worth seeing 
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=28727941258... 
Ps. thank you Greenwatcher for posting David Whitehouse's comments
Ron McKeown 
08 February 2008 at 17:53
We are no where near the temperatures and sea levels of the Medieval Warm Period. Visit my web site at www.derbyheritageforum.co.uk for a full explanation. As a taster go to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles for AD 1070 & 1071. You will find that the rebels sailed from Peterborough to Ely and that King William sent his Naval fleet into Ely from "the sea side" Look at Peterborough and Ely today - where is the water?
Robin Guenier 
08 February 2008 at 18:18
This is a continuation of an exchange I have had with Peter Martin on the other (Lynas) thread. I thought I’d move it here as it seems to have most of the current discussion. Peter and I have been debating various issues. I’ll deal with one now & others later. 
On 7th February, I noted that climate change was inevitable and that, looking back over the past 10,000 years, there appears to be a worrying pattern. We have experienced, I said, 11 episodes of climates warmer than today (OK – mankind thrives in warmer weather) with, between them, long episodes of colder weather (not so good – mankind finds this harder to endure). (In this context, it's interesting to note the the stargazer and McKeown posts above.) Although it’s a long time since such a cold period , one will reoccur and climate history suggests we may be due for one soon. Particularly in view of today’s population, that would have seriously unpleasant consequences. Noting David Whitehouse’s observation that temperature growth may have levelled off, I suggested that perhaps we’re looking in completely the wrong direction. Peter asked if I had a reference for my “11 years of warmer weather” claim. I have such references but, before I could respond, he sent me one from Wikipedia. See: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png 
I replied that I’d use his graph and noted from it that current temperatures (LH end of graph) are plainly lower than many of those between now and the end of the last glacial period and that the current change is neither quicker nor unlike other natural changes. Peter replied that I should take a closer look at the graph: he pointed out that 8,000 years ago the temperature anomaly was +0.25 deg C and that, in 2004 (marked on the graph), it is +0.45 deg C. Here’s my reply: 
Peter: you’re right about the 2004 temperature anomaly, i.e. +0.45C. But it was clearly added to the original graph, as happens with Wikipedia. The important curve is the black line that indicates average temperatures: such averaging is inevitable over a period as long as 10,000 years. Given the granularity of this curve, measurement from a single year cannot be relevant – as Wikipedia notes. Nor would it be from the 30 year period that I think you might prefer: say, 1974 - 1998 (a steep rise) + 1999 - 2004 (a levelling out). It’s very likely that other large fluctuations occurred from time to time over the 10,000 years but that they are inevitably unresolved by the resolution used. The key point however, as Wikipedia says, is that “The Holocene Climatic Optimum was generally warmer than the 20th century". Thus, if you take a line across the graph at the current average level, it clearly shows eleven warmer periods around the following years before the present: 800, 2100, 2400, 3300, 4600, 5100, 5800, 6900, 7900, 8700 and 9600 - seven of them much warmer than the current average. Thus your chart illustrates nicely the point I was making in my earlier post when I said, "we have experienced 11 episodes of climates warmer than today".
Ron McKeown 
08 February 2008 at 21:00
I not the post by Robin Guenier and his comments. However, the evidence in the Anglo-Saxon chronicles indicates high water levels from the seventh century through to the twelfth century - around five hundred years or so. I suspect that the Little Ice Age that followed the MWP was far more severe than the climate scientists have realised giving them a false base line to work from. It is just as likely that warmer temperatures are the norm and the planet is returning to that norm.
Robin Guenier 
08 February 2008 at 21:04
My next response to Peter Martin (see above) is about his repeated claim that 99% of climatologists accept the AGW position re man’s responsibility for dangerous climate change. I had pointed out that many serious climatologists (a generic term covering many disciplines) had doubts about the hypothesis. I provided a recent reference and a note about problems re the most recent IPCC report. Peter’s response was to ignore these and to provide a link to a 2004 paper by Dr Naomi Oreskes which purported to analyse the position re AGW of the authors of 928 relevant abstracts, published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. Here’s my reply: 
Peter. I’m sure you know that Benny Peiser wrote a strong refutation of the Oreskes paper. You’ll also know that AGWers claim that this was discounted by his subsequent “withdrawal” in an email published in Media Watch in October 2006. Yet in that email contained the following: “The vast majority of abstracts in her sample do not deal with anthropogenic global warming at all.” Seems clear enough. But that spat is not the point. A far more substantial point is contained in the link I provided in my post: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.S...#report 
There are 400 scientists listed here who plainly do not accept the hypothesis. Then see: 
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002 
Another 200! These are recent: both dated December 2007 – do you want any more recent examples? Look, I don’t dissent from the view that a majority of climatologists may well sign up to the AGW hypothesis – but I cannot accept your absurd view that 99% is “perhaps an underestimate”. Come on. 
But I went further. I noted that the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment was criticised by scientists because bureaucrats were selective about statements used for the summary document (the part most read by politicians and the media). I said that one IPCC reviewer said that he was “astounded at the alterations that were imposed by government agents during the final stage of review”. So the “consensus” was political, not scientific. In any case, although thousands of scientists contributed to the Report, they covered a multitude of disciplines and by no means all were asked to confirm their assent to the AGW position (and I suspect many would have seen it as outside their speciality). It seems that only about 52 scientists were involved in preparing the summary (on which these consensus claims are based) and that they were required to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates. What’s does that say about the alleged consensus?
Robin Guenier 
08 February 2008 at 21:43
My next response (this will be shorter) to Peter Martin (see above) is re his request that I provide examples from the last century where a scientific consensus has been proved wrong. 
Peter: As I don’t accept your “consensus” fantasy, I don’t have to comply in full. But here are two: (1) Most “experts” believed that the pesticide DDT was not only harmful to wildlife (this had some substance) but also caused cancer in humans – this misconception was widely accepted and probably cost the lives of millions. (2) The “established” science about the dangers of different types of asbestos was eventually shown to be flawed – but the consequences were extraordinarily expensive and did great damage to the general public. Do you want more such examples? 
And there are plenty of non-scientific examples. In my post, I mentioned the build-up to the Iraq war when we were assured that the intelligence services, here and in the US, were certain that Saddam’s regime had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Many people, myself included, believed that the intelligence services were unlikely to have misjudged such a crucial matter. Even critics felt that they lacked the inside knowledge and expertise to question such an authoritative view. But the intelligence services got it completely wrong with the most ghastly consequences. I suggested that Weather of Mass Destruction might be the new WMD.
Pat T 
09 February 2008 at 00:12
I guess I don't understand the "Big Oil" red herring - I'm certainly not "funded" by anyone, but what if I were? Almost all of the AGW proponents are members of or work with or for groups that have, since well before the present climate change debate, been, if you will "anti-Big Oil" or "anti-consumerism" or in other ways anti-technology, anti-business or at least anti-energy-industry - such as Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the like. They're equally biased if not more so - Big Oil just wants to be allowed to sell its product, not force anyone to buy it, while the antis DO want to force people to adopt their lifestyles. 
Indeed, if having a vested interest, or the appearance of having a vested interest, disqualifies one's argument or the data upon which one basis his argument, and if we apply that standard equally to both sides of this argument, then that doesn't leave much data or many conclusions to consider, does it?
Peter Martin 
09 February 2008 at 00:18
Robin, 
DDT and Asbestos? Sure, we now know more about the effect of these, but DDT was replaced in many countries, though it is still used in some, for very good reasons, and with better alternatives. Action should probably have been taken quicker on asbestos. But, I don't see any evidence of a major 'cock-up' with either. Non scientific examples aren't relevant. 
We are talking about the 21st century, and that's really the point of the argument, not the 20th century. How hard is it to print out the graph and draw in your own black line? Then you will be able to see that your claim of 11, or whatever, previous periods is clearly wrong. There were none. You will also notice that the line you have drawn is worrying steep. It will almost be vertical. 
On the question of the degree of support for the scientific consensus, I would suggest we should try to define what is a 'climatologist'. I am sure that many so-called climatologists aren't currently working in the field, some may never have worked as climatologists. For instance, David Whitehouse is no more a climatologist than I am. Let's have some examples of climatologists, who support the anti-AGW position, and who are currently active and publishing, in peer reviewed papers, the results of their work. 
Rob McKeown, 
I'm sure that you are aware that much of the Eastern part of England was subject to extensive land reclamation, by the building of dykes, drainage channels, in the same way that the Dutch reclaimed much of their country. Do you have any scientific evidence of large sea level changes? There should be evidence of sea levels from the archeology of the structures, at the port of London, for example, during the period. 
If the MWP was warmer than has been scientifically accepted, which incidentally was slightly later than you suggest (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record) the sea-level would not have risen and fallen proportionately and at the same time. There is a long time delay due to time it takes for large volumes of polar ice to melt and refreeze and temperature changes. Incidentally, this is what makes even small temperature changes dangerous. The long term effects are not immediately apparent. 
Sven, 
I suggest that you go and find your own playing field. This playing field has been so busy, not because of the participants' historical interest, both recent and past, in the world's climate but because, in the future, there is a very real danger that it may change catastophically ( David Whitehouse's term for gloabl warming in the Independent article). Or if you take the opposing view, there is a very real danger that we will unecessarily change our lifetsyles for no good reason. 
David Whitehouse knows that the debate is about the future when he asks the question " But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? " Unfortunately for us all, the correct answer to this is "yes". There have been bigger 'blips' in the past and I dare say there will be bigger blips in the future, but the underlying trend of global temperatures is still upwards. 
.
Robinson 
09 February 2008 at 00:36
"You will find that the rebels sailed from Peterborough to Ely and that King William sent his Naval fleet into Ely from "the sea side" Look at Peterborough and Ely today - where is the water?" 
I live in the Isle of Ely. The fens were drained by dutch engineers a few centuries ago. There are extensive networks of dykes and (since the great floods of 1947) flood defences. It's nothing to do with global warming. 
As for "blips" in upward trends, the trend is given a value only from where you begin to measure it. As we don't have accurate data (relying on proxies is not accurate in the slightest) for past climate such as would justify the incredible accuracies presented in the IPCC reports and many published papers, it is a waste of time to argue the point. 
I would only direct peoples attention to the Wegman report on peer review in climate science. It makes very interesting reading. As does climate-resistance.org, and climateaudit.org. Also please note that Greenpeace has spent around $2,000,000,000 on lobbying these issues since the 1990's. Probably an order of magnitude more than the oil companies. 
A little balance please.
Brute 
09 February 2008 at 02:32
Meteorologist: Put Global Warming in Context 
http://www.carolinajournal.com/opinions/display_story.html?i... 
The Global Warming Page 
The latest news about global warming - and the associated media hype. 
http://www.akdart.com/warming.html 
Joe Bastardi's Rant on Algore and Global Warming (Technical jargon alert) 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/671334/posts
Brute 
09 February 2008 at 02:41
http://www.akdart.com/enviro7.html
Peter Martin 
09 February 2008 at 04:02
Brute, 
Can I just say that there is not a lot of point in just posting up links. The idea is that the posting should be something in your own words, rather than something you've just copied and pasted from elsewhere. Short quotes and links can then be added in support of your own arguments.
Peter Martin 
09 February 2008 at 04:38
Robinson, 
Greenpeace has spent $2 billion dollars? I find it hard to believe that they have ever had anywhere near that amount of money! And the energy companies have spent an order of magnitude less? You mean $200 million dollars? Even I wouldn't have put it that high. I think that some justification of these figures are in order. 
The Wegman report should be interpreted as part of the general discussion on the "hockey stick" controversy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy 
There is no doubt that Mann and his co-workers have been subjected, mainly on the instigation of politicians, to extreme levels of scrunity over their graph. It's much easier to be critical of others efforts than to do better yourself. You just have to go to a local football match to see and hear the the opinions of 20,000 or so 'experts' on the game. 
Its not difficult to bandy about phrases such as "somewhat incomplete', 'additional work needs to be done to clarify', etc etc etc. You could say the same about Einstein's theory of relativity if you were so inclined, although I'm sure Dr Mann wouldn't wish to be compared with Einstein. 
Anyone reading the very good account in Wikipaedia can form their own conclusion, but my understanding is that the overwhelming majority of mainstream science now accepts the validity of the hockey stick graph. 
I'm not sure why the dissenters are all against it. Isn't global warming all supposed to be due to cosmic rays? So, where's the problem?
Peter Martin 
09 February 2008 at 05:26
Pat T, 
" Just take my bet - give me four years. If none of the next four (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) is warmer than 1998 ............" 
Yes. I'll take it. US$100 is that OK? We need to discuss this. Anyone else interested? 
Sven, 
Sure that you aren't interested? You did say on the 10th Jan " I would like to bet on the most credible and authoritative opinions".
stargazer 
09 February 2008 at 08:31
Peter Here is a link (sorry), but see it ... http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_La_Nina_and_Global_Cooli... 
A global cooling is gaining momentum... to me is VERY worring. All in all, if this does turn out to be the case I would rather you were right about global warming.
Robin Guenier 
09 February 2008 at 10:33
Peter: first, some brief comments on your last posting. 
1. Read the facts about DDT and asbestos. In both cases, legitimate scientific concern lead to gross overreaction and appalling damage. Sound familiar? And, no, non-scientific examples are not irrelevant. There are wide lessons to draw from “experts” getting it wrong. And, sadly, they do so all too often. 
2. You sent me a graph using a line about 6 inches long to indicate the temperature record over 10,000 years. Your suggestion now that a period of 40 days (the 21st century) has any relevance to that is manifestly absurd. Read my observation about granularity – or perhaps you didn’t understand it. 
3. As to “consensus”, your total failure to even begin to answer the points I carefully made demonstrates your inability to do so. I hope I won’t see you mentioning “consensus” again. But I’m not holding my breath. 
A final word to you. I came to this thread, before Christmas, to respond to some ill-informed remarks about the so-called “Millennium Bug”. I knew little about the global warming issue except what might be expected of a reasonably well-informed person. But I appreciated its importance and hoped the discussion would improve my understanding. From the beginning, something struck me as interesting and worrying: I had expected the sceptics to exhibit closed minds and invective (“it’s all a hoax”, “a tax raising trick”, “a left-wing conspiracy”, etc.) and, yes, there was some of that – but I found that, by far, the believers were the ones who most exhibited these characteristics with their constant references to “consensus” and “the science is settled” and their automatic assumption that any dissenters from the established line were biased by big oil and therefore to be demonised. The effect was to push my sympathy towards the sceptics. I’m not all the way there yet and an open-minded discussion with you could have changed my mind. But alas that’s not to be: all you wish to do is to close down discussion and to impose your will. Well, its not working and I see no reason in continuing our discussion. 
Bear this in mind: the more people like me you alienate, the further you get from achieving your goal.
Peter Martin 
09 February 2008 at 11:53
Robin. 
Can I just clarify what you are saying? You previously said " We have experienced, I said, 11 episodes of climates warmer than today" 
OK we wont take the word "today" too literally. Any time this century will do. This century temperatures have shown an anomaly (relative to the mid 20th century average) of typically of + 0.4 degrees. The record was in 1998 with +0.56 degrees. 
Can, or can you not, substantiate your argument that these temperatures have been exceeded in eleven previous intervals?
jimbob37 
09 February 2008 at 12:19
Peter Martin, 
Money where your mouth is - now we are talking. I'll take the wager with you too, although $100 sounds a little low - $1000 ok with you? 
Shall we use an average of the currently common data sets to determine the figures for the next four years? 
Also as a little protection to myself, any future El Nino (or similar) years in the next four would mean the bet lasting an extra year and that year being removed from our wager. 
Up for it?
Robinson 
09 February 2008 at 13:01
Peter, go to the Greenpeace website and check over their annual reports. In todays money, they have spent $2,190,752,550 since 1994. Not on promoting purely this issue, but that is their total of expenditure on all environmental issues since then. I think the total of the 6 top oil companies is something in the order of £50,000,000 in the same time period. 
Re: Wegman, just because some politicians requested a paper from Wegman, one of the foremost statisticians alive today, it does not mean he was automatically biased in his result. This is something akin to an Ad Hominem attack on his personal integrity. In fact, I see no difference between that and government grants funding climate research. Indeed the latter has ballooned over the last decade or so. There is a definite conflict of interest there I think. Wegman showed in general how the process of peer review in climate science was far from perfect (AGW proponents spend a lot of time citing the process of Peer Review as justifying confidence in research in this area) and also showed that a lot of climate science research is based on some pretty flawed statistical methods. If experts like Wegman peer reviewed papers, you'd see a very different publication profile. Climate Science is after all, mostly based on statistics and statistical analysis. Climate Scientists only have the most basic training in this area. Steve McIntrye is another mathematician who has spent a lot of time recently investigating peer reviewed climate science papers. Perhaps you should spend some time looking over his discoveries too. 
With respect to Einstein, here we have a good example of a theory that would be easily falsified, if it were not something akin to reality. How are we to do this with the AGW theory? Some say it has already been falsified, both by the puzzling differences in trend between altitude temperature and surface temperature and by the failure of temperatures to increase in trend from 1998. 
Finally, I wouldn't put too much faith in Wikipedia as a source. You don't know who edits those pages, what their particular agenda is, or whether they have any investment in the AGW theory itself (as many climate scientists obviously do). I would point you towards Svensmark for more information about just how difficult it is to get an alternate theory to AGW published in the literature.
Ron McKeown 
09 February 2008 at 15:34
Peter Martin 
I am somewhat surprised by your comment of 9 Feb, “Do you have any scientific evidence of large sea level changes? There should be evidence of sea levels from the archeology of the structures, at the port of London, for example, during the period” 
Firstly, why should the scribes of the chronicle invent the stories? Insofar as the port of London is concerned, has anyone looked for such evidence? I cannot speak for London but my home town of Derby was affected and I have published a book on the subject. 
If you are unhappy with my references to Ely how about King Harold meeting his fleet at Tadcaster in 1066 shortly before his final battle with William? Look at Tadcaster using Google Earth and you will see he would have difficulty getting a fleet of rowing boats there today.
Brute 
09 February 2008 at 16:04
Mr. Martin, 
As previously stated, it’s obvious that you have lost all semblance of objectivity. Nothing anyone can do or say will convince you to begin to even question the information supporting the Anthropologic Global Warming Theory. Your mind was made up long ago and it is pointless to attempt to convince you otherwise. I’ve run into your type before and continue to do so on a daily basis through normal day to day activities…….. Self loathing individuals such as Mr. Lynas who view mankind as evil and despoilers……(themselves being the exception; they view themselves as “enlightened crusaders” that will “save Mother Earth”…. all the while benefiting from burning fossil fuels); the hypocrisy is so blatant it is laughable. You are so entrenched in your position that any information questioning the validly of the claim that Global Warming is occurring and is caused by mankind is considered heretical, sacrilegious and blasphemous to you and members of your cult; hence, my recent posting of links to informational websites only, without commentary. 
The only recourse that people such as I have is to disseminate information to everyone who will listen through websites such as this and E-mail and verbal communication as media outlets are so heavily biased in their coverage of this topic. 
No, the sky is not falling, but headlines such as “GLOBAL CLIMATE CATASTROPHY” sell a lot of newspapers and air time. I’m sure that you’ve heard the saying “if it bleeds, it leads”; such is the case with Global Warming and politicians have hitched their wagon to “the cause” as the perfect excuse to raise revenue. Every generation and politician needs an institutional “boogeyman” to rally against. This generation’s “rallying cry” and this crop of politicians have chosen Global Warming. 
Heard any news from Iraq lately? It’s been quiet and the strategy is working and is proving successful……..No blood or guts to report, no crying babies or “innocent victims”, so the news media won’t touch the story. Aside from that, good news in Iraq would confirm that President Bush and Tony Blair were correct and the Defeatists were wrong……the press will not go there. The same applies to the Global Warming theory; the press won’t report that temperatures have leveled off because it casts doubt in the minds of the voters and undermines the politician’s positions. (Any questions in your mind as to why a politician is the biggest cheerleader of the Global Warming Hysteria movement?). In addition, Realists are receiving help from the FACT that global temperatures have crested as reported by logical, open minded people such as Mr. Whitehouse, Stargazer, and Mr. Bastardi. If one or two people question the Global Warming theory, by viewing one link provided by any contributor to this site, it is well worth it. Possibly, that convert will tell someone else who in turn will spread the news and public opinion will change regarding this ludicrous notion of Humankind Induced Global Warming. 
As has been written in a couple of posts on this site, commenters who were previously strict believers in the theory of Global Warming have read and viewed the information provided by links and Realists comments and have had their eyes open to the fantasy of Global Warming and all that it entails. I myself was a tepid “Skeptic” before Christmas; now, after viewing information provided by these two sites over the last several weeks, I am of the opinion that the Global Warming Theory, (and all of the draconian measures and subsequent consequences for the condition of mankind as well as economic implications), requires much closer scrutiny. 
Also, following this site over the last several weeks it is readily apparent that the overwhelming majority of the contributors to this site are “Skeptics”. That, in my view, represents a “consensus” of people, (read voters), that question the religious doctrine promoted by the likes of Mr. Lynas and you. Therefore, follow your own logic and fall in line with the “consensus” view as you would have us do. 
The entire Global Warming Theory is an over reaction to natural temperature fluctuations hyped by politicians.
taghioff.info 
09 February 2008 at 16:58
Or alternatively we might want to pay attention, just in case there is a problem...
Robin Guenier 
09 February 2008 at 17:32
Peter: oh dear, here I am responding to you when I said in saw no reason in continuing our discussion. Let’s say I’m doing it for any sad person who may be following our exchange. 
I’ll spell out what I meant when I said that your graph supports my claim that we have experienced 11 episodes of climates warmer than today. Your graph covers a period of 10,000 years. Therefore, as Wikipedia states, it’s only possible to calculate average temperatures over periods of several hundred years. On that basis, the current warm period (i.e. “today”) is shown as starting about 500 years ago (i.e. when Henry VIII was driving his Range Rover). Thus it includes, as well as the warmer 20th century, the longer cold episode experienced in the 17th and 18th centuries. (Doubtless a Peter Martin living then would have been scaring us all about severe global cooling.) Now I accept that, in a 100 or more years’ time, it could be that the higher temperatures we are experiencing now will have gone on and on – so that today’s warm period eventually gets higher than some of the eleven warm periods now shown as being warmer than ours. Doubtless you think that will happen; but that can only be a guess, and 10,000 years of the planet’s actual experience suggests it is unlikely. Remember that, as the temperatures of the earlier warm periods are necessarily shown as averages, they will have experienced some years, possibly hundreds of years, when the temperatures were higher, even much higher, than those averages – already higher than today’s so far. So – given the data we have now – your graph supports my claim that, over the past 10,000 years, humans have experienced 11 episodes of climates warmer than today. 
BTW, I agree with Robinson (welcome to this thread!) about the danger of using Wikipedia as a source. It seems obvious that an AGWer (I hope it wasn’t you Peter) has tampered with the graph you sent me – the inserted reference to 2004 is totally inappropriate to the graph for the reasons I have given in earlier posts. In any case, it is unclear why the arrow for 2004 was inserted at +0.45 C. As the graph doesn’t define how the baseline (from which the variations are measured) was determined, whoever inserted it could not have known what the variation was. Perhaps (unworthy thought) they were trying to help their cause. Of course, there could be a totally innocent explanation: that the arrow was simply pointing at the LH axis, to help the viewer understand that it was that axis that represented today (the insertion being made in 2004) and that placing the arrow level with 0.45 C was purely coincidental. (You know, the more I think of it, the more likely that seems!) None of this matters, however, in view of my explanation above. The essential point is that, when the original draftsman drew the graph, the eleven high points on it were shown as higher than current because that’s what the data said.
Brute 
09 February 2008 at 18:57
Chicago Illinois February 9th 2008 
Tonight... Windy. Mostly cloudy with scattered snow showers early in the evening...then partly cloudy in the late evening and overnight. Bitterly cold. Lows zero to 4 below. Lowest wind chill readings 15 below to 25 below zero after midnight. West winds 20 to 30 mph with gusts up to 45 mph at times. Chance of precipitation 30 percent. 
Sunday... Mostly sunny. Blustery. Very cold. Highs 3 to 7 above. Lowest wind chill readings 20 below to 30 below zero in the morning. 
Weather Information For Central United States February 9th, 2008 (Temperature Degrees Fahrenheit) 
Rest of Today 
Partly sunny. Blowing and drifting snow with visibility one quarter mile or less at times. Highs 5 to 10. Windy. Northwest winds around 25 mph with gusts to around 40 mph. Lowest wind chill readings 35 below to 45 below zero in the afternoon. 
Tonight 
Partly cloudy. Lows 20 to 25 below. Brisk. Northwest winds 15 to 20 mph. Gusts up to 35 mph in the evening. Wind chill readings 40 below to 50 below zero. 
Sunday 
Mostly sunny. Highs 10 to 15 below. West winds 5 to 10 mph. 
Sunday Night 
Mostly cloudy with a 30 percent chance of light snow. Lows 10 to 15 below. 
Monday 
Mostly cloudy with a 20 percent chance of light snow. Highs 5 to 10. 
Monday Night 
Mostly cloudy. Slight chance of light snow. Lows 5 to 10 below.
Brute 
09 February 2008 at 19:30
Mr. Guenier, 
We shouldn’t be so cavalier and dismissive of the environmentalist agenda, motivation and goals; these are dangerous people as evidenced by the Pie-man and the below referenced article. The Eco-Nazis are alive and well and becoming increasingly violent. The Environmental Brown Shirts are making themselves known………. We shouldn’t take it lightly. 
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-... 
The Environmentalists/Global Warming Hysterian “solutions” rely on typical Leftist tactics to attain their goals. Examples include: MANDATORY appliance efficiency standards, MANDATORY recycling programs, MANDATORY fuel economy standards, MANDATORY automobile emissions standards, MANDATORY viewing of Environmentalist propaganda, MANDATORY power consumption limits, MANDATORY power plant emission standards, State control of commerce, Population control, etc, etc, etc……None of the aforementioned has even been suggested as being voluntary with the exception of population control. These are unfunded mandates that manufacturers are required to achieve with increased costs being passed down to consumers, (a hidden tax/agenda). Incandescent light bulbs have been outlawed in the United States even though the replacement compact fluorescent lamps contain Mercury; a known carcinogen. These strategies infringe upon personal freedoms. Incrementalism is a strategy used by dictatorial governments, (and government agencies), to accomplish their goals, (on both sides of the political spectrum). The frog in the water….. increasingly warming the pot so as not to alert the animal. Slowly, our personal liberties are being marginalized. This is not a fringe conspiracy theory; this is happening and has happened previously as you are well aware.
Robin Guenier 
09 February 2008 at 22:33
Brute: yes, I’m aware of such things. It happens here and it infuriates reasonable people. When I said to Peter Martin that the more he alienates people like me, the further he gets from achieving his goals, I said it because I share many of those goals. I believe it is essential that Western democracies reduce their dependence on oil and other fossil fuels – for security and environmental reasons, to help the poorest in society and not least for our grandchildren. We need, in my view, to find ways of changing the emphasis of our lives away from our obsession with cars and air travel. We need to think seriously about how we protect ourselves from dangerous climate change – and a lot of the material on this thread is persuading me that cooling is likely to be a more serious threat than warming. But the methods, intolerance, closed minds, self-righteousness and behaviour of people like pieman and Peter M are undermining that cause. It’s seriously worrying.
Brute 
09 February 2008 at 23:29
Agreed. An example of intolerance 
Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech 
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/ 
By the way, speaking of self righteousness and sanctimony; I understand that Mr. Lynas has written a book which has evolved into a motion picture to be aired tomorrow night here in the United States. Mr Lynas has conducted book tours recently…….. I’m assuming donating the proceeds to the Environmental Defense Fund or some such “worthy organization”, correct? 
Also, how was this motion picture funded? What will become of any profit associated with the film? I cannot find any references. A wise man wrote in a previous post on this site, “follow the money”. Is Mr. Lynas a Global Warming Profiteer as Mr. Gore?
Brute 
09 February 2008 at 23:33
Amusing................... 
A complete list of things caused by global warming 
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Peter Martin 
10 February 2008 at 03:10
Robin, Brute and others, 
So, it turns out that you can't really substantiate your claim of eleven warmer perods than todays climate except by bringing in this extraordinary definition of 'today'. 
. 
However I doubt that many who read your original statement would have interpreted it in the way you are now describing. 'Today's climate' should mean just that, or at least the latest available figures for the state of the climate which are available for the year 2007. And no I haven't altered any Wiki graphs! 
This warm period is warmer than any other since the last ice age. The rate of increase in temperature is +0.2 deg C per decade. It doesn't sound much but the temperature changes we've had since the last ice age have never previously been at anything like this rate. 
I happen to think that it's no co-incidence that it's ocurring now , just when CO2 emissions are increasing steeply, but I guess you could put it all down to cosmic rays if you can prove it. If you think that, just stick to the science and see where it leads. 
I still do not understand why politics have to be brought into the argument. This idea that those who deny that global warming due to CO2 emissions is a problem should be able to carry doing as they like, is a like allowing those who don't care about the state of the streets to be able to throw as much litter around as they like. Some decisions do have to be taken collectively. It is tempting to think about putting anti-social elements in society up against the wall at times, and if we really were Nazis I guess we would. But the fact that we are patiently trying to give you the best scientific arguments possible proves that you are quite incorrect to refer to us that way. If anyone dared call me that to my face, however, I'd have no hesitation in decking them! 
There will always be a spectrum of political opinion. So, if you do want to bring politics into the argument, why not on the basis that it allows for the best policies to enable humanity to progress?
Brute 
10 February 2008 at 03:42
Global Warming Causes Global Cooling 
http://www.wunderground.com/education/strato_cooling.asp 
2 Studies Link Global Warming to Greater Power of Hurricanes 
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/science/31climate.html?_r=... 
Global Warming Saps Hurricane Strength 
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2QwOTVhMzE5ZmI4ODEzMDc... 
Academic Travel Causes Global Warming 
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=6x0s0m2hd8xgdrs8vqt... 
Decline in Snowpack Is Blamed On Warming 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01... 
Global Warming Causes Record Snowfall, Right? 
http://differentriver.com/archives/2006/03/07/global-warming...
Robinson 
10 February 2008 at 09:53
Brute, funny though that is, you missed a recent article on the BBC that attempted to link a reduction in the shark population to global warming. No, not global warming causing a reduction in the shark population, a reduction in the shark population causing global warming! I'm afraid I cannot find the link (I didn't bookmark it at the time), but the basic synopsis was that sharks eat little fish, little fish eat algae and algae cools the climate, therefore killing sharks warms the climate. 
Needless to say, I was gobsmacked. It seems if you want to get your work published, all you have to do is link it to AGW, especially at the BBC. There may be many good reasons to stop the destruction of natural habitats (bio-diversity for one) but to have to do so by linking everything to this one false potential catastrophy, is a rather desperate measure.
cosmoos 
10 February 2008 at 12:49
Someone is making a lot of money out of Global warming.
Robin Guenier 
10 February 2008 at 19:05
Peter M: I’ll continue this exchange because I find it interesting. First, note that I’m not a scientist, I’m a lawyer; so I know something about evidence. What interests me is whether the evidence supports your claim that the science is settled. 
Yes, my assertion that there were 11 periods in the last 10,000 years that were warmer than the period we’re now in referred to periods having average temperatures calculated over hundreds of years. So, although that assertion appears to be correct based on available data, I agree that it doesn’t prove that there were any warm episodes within those 11 warm periods that were warmer than the current relatively short warm episode (late 20th century and early 21st century). 
But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You assert that, “this warm period [i.e. the late 20th century and early 21st century episode] is warmer than any other since the last ice age”. Now it’s my turn to ask for evidence. As I understand it, (apart from, say, the last 1,500 years or so which, interestingly includes the mediaeval warm period) the only temperature figures available for most of the Holocene are averages covering several hundred years. Within those averages there will have been highs and lows. How do you know that there were no episodes within those highs that were not higher than the current warm episode? Unless you can demonstrate unequivocally that there were not (and, of course, also that the MWP was lower), your assertion is ill founded. 
The same applies to the rate of change. What’s the evidence supporting your remarkable assertion that “the temperature changes we've had since the last ice age have never previously been at anything like this rate”? 
BTW that’s a most curious statement about politics being “brought into the argument”.’ A group of scientists have subscribed to a hypothesis and, as a direct result, politicians are talking of taking actions that could impact economic growth and potentially damage some of the poorest people on the planet – an epitome of political action A few people then question the validity of the hypothesis: and it is they who are accused of bringing politics into it!
Brute 
10 February 2008 at 20:03
Mr. Robinson, 
Welcome. 
A touch of insomnia last night, and out of curiosity I began searching for cause and effect relationships attributed to Anthropologic Global Warming. I typed in the most absurd conditions that I could think of and discovered that Global Warming can be attributed to everything from angina to Xenophobia…..including erectile dysfunction, extraterrestrial visitation, lack of sex drive/increased sex drive, overeating, under eating, the decline of ancient Egypt, the defeat of the Spanish Armada, the Second Coming of Christ and yes, insomnia. Amazing……… 
If these fanatics cannot achieve their goals through legislation they will subvert the democratic process and turn to the courts, (this is presently occuring). As Mr. Martin has vaguely alluded to, class action lawsuits will be filed against automobile manufacturers and energy providers, (for instance), claiming every alleged malady is caused by Global Warming much as gold diggers have raided tobacco companies blaming corporations for their lack of personal self control. They will search out and find a judge or jury that will award them damages…….. achieving their personal aims through judicial fiat. Looking back, I did a poor job of conveying this message in previous posts. 
As posted earlier, it would be an interesting exercise to examine the source of funding for Mr. Lynas’ movie as well as his personal habits as he and others are so interested in the methods that I use to heat my home and how I get back and forth to work. It would be interesting to calculate the amount of CO2 expelled into the atmosphere as a result of the making of his “Triumph of the Will”, (see Leni Riefenstahl), and his numerous book tours. I could be mistaken, however; typically, these “holier than thou” crusaders do not adhere to the measures and policies that they have chosen for us to undertake and tend to “incidentally” become extremely wealthy due to their altruistic “concerns” regarding our “fragile” planet. 
Yes, this is political. The "solutions" proposed include subsidies, taxation, government regulation of industry……….. Redistribution of wealth…… Sounds political to me. 
“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organisation which France and the European Union would like to see established.” - SPEECH BY MR. JACQUES CHIRAC FRENCH PRESIDENT TO THE VIth CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE 
THE HAGUE 
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2000
Peter Martin 
10 February 2008 at 22:26
Robin, 
The evidence that you ask for is in the same Wikipaedia graph that we've been discussing. Both in terms of the maximum temperatures and the rate of change of temperature. It shows that the temperatures are higher now than they have been since the last ice age and the rate is much quicker than at any previous period. 
The point about politics is that it doesn't have anything to contribute to the science per se. You can't decide if theories of quantum mechanics, the general theory of relativity, or evolutionary theory, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics ete etc etc are correct by employing political arguments. 
The earth's climate doesn't care about our politics and will behave the way it will, regardless of what we think about it. Or, what you think of me for that matter! 
Once we have understood the science then no doubt those on the left, centre, and right will argue that their politics are superior in being able to cope with the problem. That's fair enough. I'm not arguing against that.
Robin Guenier 
10 February 2008 at 22:27
BTW, Peter, before you respond to my request re the current warm period and the rate of change, I think you should correct what must be a mistake. You said, “The rate of increase in temperature is +0.2 deg C per decade”. But, as the IPCC reports have assessed that the temperature change over the last 120 years was +0.5 deg C (or thereabouts – rather less if recent satellite data is used and the 1998 El Nino is excluded), the rate per decade is currently about +0.045 deg C. Please don’t say you are using the rate of change from 1978 to 1998. That would be the worst sort of cherry picking.
Peter Martin 
10 February 2008 at 23:10
Brute, 
With reference to one of your many postings. The one from 10th Jan starting with "Global warming causes Global Cooling" 
Well I’m not sure that its worth trying to discuss the subtleties of atmospheric physics with someone who appears to be quite vacuous but I suspect that, with you, it is more of a determination to not understand rather than an inability. Sometimes things can be quite counter intuitive. For instance, as we move away from the earth and closer towards the sun we might expect the temperature to increase. But we know it doesn’t. Unless all those photographs of snow on the top of Mt Everest are fakes that is. You can suffer from sunburn and frostbite at the same time. Have you ever wondered why? I mean really tried to figure out what is going on? Can you prove that you are prepared to think by explaining it? In your own words, I don’t mean a quick copy and paste out of a Wikipaedia entry. 
Why is the sky blue? Why do short wave radio signals make it from Europe to America? Why do even shorter wave ones not make it, unless you use a satellite repeater? Why are sunsets red, rather than, say, green? Why do stars twinkle? Why is the South Eastern corner of the USA at much higher risk of hurricane, or other storm damage, than the South West? There are good scientific (as in atmospheric physics) answers, to all these questions but they are not all that intuitive. 
I won’t go through all the items that you have listed but I would say that the first one shouldn’t be too hard to understand. It might be interesting to do an experiment with a real greenhouse. What the authors are actually saying is that because the temperature inside the greenhouse is higher, because of the glass, the temperature outside is slightly lower as a result. Another simpler way to look at it, is that the C02 layer acts as a blanket. If the heat is trapped in the blanket, it must be cooler outside. That’s not so hard to understand surely! 
At any rate if you are going to scoff , or disagree, with some of these references at least take the trouble to get a basic understanding of the subject. I may be judging you harshly but, I wouldn’t expect you would have the first clue to most of the questions I’ve just asked.
Robin Guenier 
10 February 2008 at 23:16
Ah, Peter, when I posted the above I found you had already replied. 
That’s a wholly unsatisfactory answer. We’ve already established that the Wikipedia Holocene curve is calculated on averages over periods of hundreds of years. That – and that only – is the reason I conceded that my earlier assertion, although correctly based on the data, wasn’t particularly helpful. Now you seem to be trying to have it both ways. 
I shouldn’t have to do this but I’ll spell it out again. Within those averages, there will have been many highs and lows (just as in the “Wikipedia” period we are now in we’ve had the Little Ice Age followed by the current recovery). To substantiate your claims, you have to show unambiguously that there were no “short” (i.e. around 100 years) warming episodes (throughout the 10,000 years) that were (1) the same or warmer than we’ve experienced over the last 100 years and (2) where the rate of change was the same or greater then we’ve experienced over the last 100 years. If you cannot do this, your claims are invalid. 
And, before you do that, you should rectify the mistake I mentioned above. 
Re politics – of course politics doesn’t have anything to do with science per se. And I agree with you that politics should have no relevance while the science is being established – “Once we have understood the science”, as you put it. But I understood your view was that re AGW “the science is settled” (and it is time for action). Have you changed your mind?
Peter Martin 
10 February 2008 at 23:28
Robin, 
No. Its not cherry picking. This is the theory. 
CO2 emissions have been increasing since the start of the industrial revolution. In the 19th and early 20th century the amounts were less and the earth's oceons and forests were able to absorb most of what was emitted. 
By the late 20th century the emissions had grown to such an extent, that this was no longer the case. 
Since 1975 the average temperature has risen by approx 0.55deg C. If it were linear, that would work out at 0.16deg C per decade. Notwithstanding the current temporary levelling which can be explained by the combined effects of La Lina and the minima of the solar cycle the underlying rise is accelerating slightly. It was clsoer to 0.1deg per decade in the eigthties and sped up to over 0.2 deg C per decade in the nineties. 
So, you can see why I object to your including the era of Henry VIII in today's climate!
Peter Martin 
11 February 2008 at 00:29
The point at issue is essentially the same as over the Mann Hockey stick graph. Dr Mann presented a graph, to show that the handle of the graph represented a long period of stable temperatures and the blade represented the sharp increase over the last 30 years. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_... 
There was a determined effort, largely politically, rather than scientifically, motivated to discredit Dr Mann and others. Prof Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre arguing strongly agianst their findings. Unlike Dr Mann, Neither of these individuals is a climate scientist. RM is a professor of economics and SM is a mineral exploration consultant. 
The contrarians are never going to accept Dr Mann's findings but , with a few reservations, Dr Manns's work has been recently endorsed by a panel convened by the USA's pre-eminent scientific body, the National Research Council. 
http://www.desmogblog.com/nrc-exonerates-hockey-stick-graph-.... 
You are arguing against the hockey stick on the basis that the stick might not have been as flat as Dr Mann suggests. Of course it might have been even flatter. If you are saying that, in previous eras, there were rises in temperature equaling or exceeding the temperature rise represented by the blade- let's see your evidence. I've given you two graphs that show you are wrong. If you have one that is in agreement with your statement I would be interested to see it. 
Sure, there is always room for improvement in scientific understanding. But, by "we" , I meant the community as a whole. Politicians, especially, are prone to thinking that, because they draft the laws of the land, they decide everything -global warming included. However the name of King Canute springs to mind to prove that our leaders, elected or non-elected, are governed like everyone else by physical laws which aren't changeable by a drafted amendment. They still have some way to go in understanding the seriousness of the problem.
Brute 
11 February 2008 at 01:15
Mr. Martin, 
Oh, I get it; mere mortals are too obtuse and unenlightened to comprehend which way the wind blows or to come in out of the rain. They should just follow along with what guys like you have to say without question; like lemmings off the edge of a cliff. When they find glaring inaccuracies in your statements and assertions they should simply be ignored; blindly follow. For all of your self professed higher education, (as well as arrogance), you still were wrong. You know……. they don’t teach common sense at University Pete, (or humility), which is patently apparent in your case. You guys are too smart for your own good; you lack common sense. 
Classic slight of hand………. You and the rest of the Alarmists have had +/- 18 years for your predictions to come to fruition and the facts do not support your predictions. You were wrong. Now you're asking the world to look the other way while you parse your words. 
Does it have something to do with the optical light spectrum Pete? Light Refraction Pete? Thermodynamics? Heat Transfer? Latent Heat of Vaporization? Latent Heat of Fusion? Psychrometrics Pete? Do these references explain the connections between global warming and a rise in outbreaks of teenage acne as the "scientists" have proclaimed? 
Yes, there are good scientific explanations as to why these things happen. When you predict occurrences beforehand, the predictions are proven incorrect, then attempt to change your previous statement, you are simply wrong; no nuances or subtleties. As an Engineer, if I design a system that doesn’t perform as specified, I’m wrong, I was mistaken, my services would be terminated. I cannot simply change the calculations/specifications and say that “it would’ve worked….if only…………but go ahead and advance me another government grant; I’ll get it right next time”. 
No, I’m not going to rise to the bait and you and your Alarmist buddies are running out of “nuances” and “subtleties”..... as well as excuses.
Peter Martin 
11 February 2008 at 01:31
Brute, 
I perhaps should say that my first degree was in Physics, did a further degree in electronics, and now run my own electronics company which doesn't rely on government grants. So, I do understand what you are saying things do have to work. 
But, normally, as I'm sure you'll know, we do get a second chance if things go wrong. It costs us a bit to scrap a few PCBs etc but life and the business goes on. 
With the problem of climate change we haven't got that luxury. We are very limited in what experiments are possible. We have to build the best computer models we can, to simulate what goes on in the atmosphere. There's no real alternative than to go with the science. Your problem is your political opinions rather than anything to do with science or engineering.
Peter Martin 
11 February 2008 at 02:13
Brute, 
PS The scientific predictions have been pretty good. For all the talk about a return to the ice age in the sixties, there was never a scientific consensus about that. It was as story beat up by a few journalists. There was a general feeling that there was a new ice looming at some undefined time in the future. Of course there still would be, but for anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Or cosmic rays? :-) 
You don't like James Hansen, I know, but he started warning about the dangers in 1980. There was hardly any measured warming at the time, so your accusations of incorrect predictions are groundless.
Brute 
11 February 2008 at 03:36
Pretty good? They predicted the next ice age in 1975 not "the 60s". The story was reported by Newsweek, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe and various other top shelf news outlets for years, not a few rogue journalists in insignificant publications. 
"A new ice age looming at some undefined time in the future"? I predict that the Sun will explode "at some undefined time in the future", hardly pin point accuracy; pretty safe prediction......... 
“The ice age would have happened if we hadn't added all of this CO2 to the atmosphere”? It's a damn good thing that we have been burning all of this coal and oil then; you can't grow food if the ground is frozen. We've saved the world via burning fossil fuels if that’s the case. 
I don't know Hansen. I question his theories. His theories and predictions are proving to be wrong. 
You must be tired. You should have quit while you were ahead. I was going to apologize for being harsh in my last post. Didn’t mean to criticize you personally; I assumed you were a Climatologist from previous posts. I do criticize government funded scientist who are not being held accountable for their phony predictions. 
I work with real numbers and real people in Washington D.C. (for a privately owned company). I see the waste, fraud and mismanagement first hand. We need less government, not more.
Peter Martin 
11 February 2008 at 04:12
Ron Mckeown, 
Well I've looked at your website. Your statement " I am now of the opinion that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today which caused sea level rises of at least a meter although I suspect it was more, perhaps five to ten meters". 
That's not too scientific! You are supposed to provide references rather than be "of the opinion". The accepted scientific record can be found on this Wiki entry which shows a 20 cm rise in sea levels in the last 120 years. Before that there was an increase but very a slow one. This is the official scientific position: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise 
Have you looked at Venetian records for evidence of sea levels during the period you describe? I would imagine that if the seal levels had risen or fallen by anywhere near the levels that you mention that they might have had something to say about it.
Peter Martin 
11 February 2008 at 04:37
" They predicted the next ice age in 1975 " 
Who 's they? I don't mean press reports. If there wasn't much news that week one scientist's musing could have been blown out of all proportion. There was no scientific consensus about that, as there is now about AGW. 
"I don't know Hansen. " Maybe not . But I suggest that you take a look. He's your top climate science guy and he's been right on the money for the last 25 years. 
"Its a good thing that we've been burning all this oil then" Its possible that , if we had been heading for an ice age, that some CO2 emissions would have been beneficial. However, we've completely over done it. The amount needed was maybe a quarter of what we've actually released. And its getting worse. 
"I work with real numbers" Well as an electronics engineer I work with both real and imaginary ones :-) AC circuit theory( with capacitors and inductors etc) uses the concept complex numbers and the square root of -1. It was all scoffed at and derided as nonsense when first introduced but it all gives the right answers in practice. Quantum mechanics is even worse. It defies human compehension but, among other things, explains the behaviour of semiconductors which our whole economy is based on. 
So you can't judge everything by so-called common sense and pre-conceived notions, either scientific or political. You have to look at the evidence.
Robinson 
11 February 2008 at 09:35
"So you can't judge everything by so-called common sense and pre-conceived notions, either scientific or political. You have to look at the evidence." 
The evidence requires interpretation and statistical analysis and this is where "climate scientists" fall over. They aren't mathematicians. Steve McIntrye and Wegman et al are, and that is why their criticisms should not be taken lightly. Researchers such as Dr Judith Curry certainly are sitting up and listening and engaging in debate. McIntrye is even invited to lecture to graduate students on statistical analysis in climate science and has published papers. So don't be so quick to dismiss the "deniers" as if an argument from authority is all that is required to shut them up. They are still in the game because what they are saying makes sense.
Robin Guenier 
11 February 2008 at 13:02
I have sneaking admiration for Peter Martin – all this adverse comment and he keeps battling on. But now he’s been exposed as misguided on at least three issues and I think his credibility is over: 
1. The “consensus” issue: his repeated claim that 99% of climatologists accept the AGW position about man’s responsibility for dangerous climate change. I have twice demonstrated that many serious climatologists (a generic term covering many disciplines) have doubts about the hypothesis, providing him with recent references detailing hundreds of such climatologists and a note about problems regarding the most recent IPCC report. See my post dated 8th February. On neither occasion did he even attempt to deal with the references or the IPCC point – his only attempt at a defence was a comment was that we need to define “climatologist”. I have a horrible suspicion that the only definition he would accept would be that “a climatologist is someone who agrees with the AGW hypothesis”. 
2. The Arctic ice issue: here he has been well skewered by Brute – see current posts on the other (Lynas) thread. 
3. The “science is settled” issue. Here, by way of example, I challenged him on his assertions that “this warm period is warmer than any other since the last ice age” and “the temperature changes we've had since the last ice age have never previously been at anything like this rate”. His response (yesterday) was lamentable. IMHO this is important as it demonstrates clearly how some AGW protagonists think – so I’ll examine it in more detail on another post. 
BTW I think it’s likely that the outcome would be the same if the “hockey-stick” issue were examined – I particularly liked Robinson’s observation. But I’m not sure I have the energy to follow that one up. 
As I’ve said before, when I joined this discussion (before Christmas) I had no fixed view on the matter although I was inclined to believe that the AGW theory was likely to be valid in view of the apparent certainty about it on the part of many influential people and prestigious organisations. I was worried, however, by the “consensus” claim – that, it seemed to me, was not how science proceeded. After about eight weeks of following the developing discussion here and a most interesting review of some of the background data, I find I am inclining heavily towards the sceptics. It would be helpful (to me and, I suspect, to others) if the AGW case could be better presented. The New Statesman is a left-leaning periodical often taking a strong environmentalist position – surely someone reading this can do a better job than Peter Martin!
Sven 
11 February 2008 at 14:22
Does this look like behavior of a scientist? Here is a letter from CITIZEN (and sounds very much like an ACTIVIST?) James Hansen to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Will citizen Hansen really be able to allow SCIENTIST Hansen keep his integrity IF his theory and predictions turn out to be wrong? I doubt... 
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080122_DearChancell...
jeff 
11 February 2008 at 16:50
Yeah nice one! 
I think the phraseology should more appropriately fit the reality. Global wetting rather than global warming being more apt .... judging by the amount of water flying around us since 2000!
Brute 
11 February 2008 at 17:15
http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20071227.html 
Top 10 Climate Myth-Busters for 2007 
Thursday, December 27, 2007 
By Steven Milloy 
“I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with the facts.” That saying most appropriately sums up the year in climate science for the fanatic global warming crowd. 
As Al Gore, the United Nations, grandstanding politicians and celebrities, taxpayer-dependent climate researchers, socialist-minded Greens, climate profiteers and other members of the alarmist railroad relentlessly continued their drive for greenhouse gas regulation in 2007, the year’s scientific developments actually pointed in the opposite direction. Here’s the round-up: 
1. Cracked crystal balls. Observed temperature changes measured over the last 30 years don’t match well with temperatures predicted by the mathematical climate models relied on by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), researchers reported. 
The models predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than actually occurred, despite the availability of more and better quality data and improved modeling efforts since the late-1970s. 
“We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution,” the researchers concluded. Read more… 
2. The big yellow ball in the sky. The Sun may have contributed 50 percent or more of the global warming thought to have occurred since 1900, according to a new historical temperature reconstruction showing more variation in pre-industrial temperatures than previously thought. 
The researchers found that “the climate is very sensitive to solar changes and a significant fraction of the global warming that occurred during the last century should be solar induced.” Read more… 
3. Pre-SUV warming. Another new temperature reconstruction for the past 2,000 years indicates that globally averaged temperature 1,000 years ago was about 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than the current temperature. Since that climatic "heat wave" obviously wasn’t caused by coal-fired power plants and SUVs, the current temperature is quite within natural variability, deflating alarmists’ rash conclusions about the warming of the past 50 years. Read more… 
4. A disciplined climate. Runaway global warming -- the alarmist fantasy in which a warmer global temperature causes climatic events that, in turn, cause more warming and so-on in a never-ending positive feedback loop -- was cornered by new data from researchers at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). The new research sheds light on the mechanism by which the atmosphere self-regulates. Read more… 
5. A gnarly wipeout. Climate alarmists gleefully surfed a 2005 study that claimed greenhouse gas emissions would slow Atlantic Ocean circulation and cause a mini ice age in Europe. But an international team of researchers reported that the intensity of the Atlantic circulation may vary by as much as a factor of eight in a single year. The decrease in Atlantic circulation claimed in the 2005study falls well within this variation and so is likely part of a natural yearly trend, according to the new study. Read more… 
6. A pollution solution. A new study reported that the solid particles suspended in the atmosphere (called “aerosols”) that make up “brown clouds” may actually contribute to warmer temperatures -- precisely the opposite effect heretofore claimed by global warming alarmists. 
“These findings might seem to contradict the general notion of aerosol particles as cooling agents in the global climate system …,” concluded the researchers. Read more… 
7. Lazy temperature? Researchers reported that the rate of manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions was three times greater during 2000 to 2004 than during the 1990s. Since increasing atmospheric C02 levels allegedly cause global warming, the new study must mean that global temperatures are soaring even faster now than they did during the 1990s, right? 
Wrong. According to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Climatic Data Center, ever-changing global temperatures are in no way keeping pace with ever-increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Read more… 
8. Don’t plant that tree! Researchers reported that while tropical forests exert a cooling influence on global climate, forests in northern regions exert a significant warming influence on climate. Based on the researchers’ computer modeling, forests above 20 degrees latitude in the Northern Hemisphere -- that is, north of the line of latitude running through Southern Mexico, Saharan Africa, central India and the southernmost Chinese Island of Hainan -- will warm surface temperatures in those regions by an estimated 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. Read more… 
9. The Tropical Arctic. Dutch researchers reported that during a period of intense global warming 55 million years ago -- when the Arctic Ocean was as warm as 73 degrees Fahrenheit -- there was a tremendous release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But which came first, the warming or the greenhouse gases? 
It was the warming, according to the researchers. Read more… 
10. Much ado about nothing. In a report to Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revealed greenhouse gas regulation to be quite the fool’s errand. In estimating the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases 90 years from now under both a scenario where no action is taken to reduce manmade emissions and a scenario where maximum regulation is implemented, the estimated difference in average global temperature between the two scenarios is 0.17 degrees Centigrade. 
For reference purposes, the estimated total increase in average global temperature for the 20th century was about 0.50 degrees Celsius. 
That’s what researchers have reported this year. And let’s not forget the spanking a British high judge gave Al Gore’s movie for all its scientific inaccuracies and the thrashing non-alarmist climate scientists gave to alarmist climate scientists in a debate sponsored by the New York debating society Intelligence Squared. 
Al Gore and the alarmist mob claim the debate about the science of global warming is “over.” Given the developments of 2007, it’s easy to see why they would want it that way.
Red Ken? 
11 February 2008 at 17:19
Global waming is a capitalist plot intended to drive up the cost of property. It exists. It is real. And it is bad news for the working class.
Red Ken? 
11 February 2008 at 17:22
I'll have a large Chablis, since you're asking.
Brute 
11 February 2008 at 17:35
That makes about as much sense as anything else the Alarmist have said. It must be true...........
Patrick Hadley 
11 February 2008 at 19:00
Those still reading this thread should be interested to see that Mr Whitehouse has been supported by the latest figures from NASA's Godard Institute for Space Studies. They tell us that the global temperature average anomaly for January 2008 was 0.12 C. This is the coldest month on the planet since May 1995, and the coldest January since 1989. Temperatures dropped by more in the last 12 months than in any year since records began in 1880. 
As time goes on the correctness of this article will become more and more undeniable.
JZ Smith 
11 February 2008 at 19:12
I saw a very interesting program on The History Channel on Saturday. http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=1732... 
It talked about how, if Stargazer is correct and the AWG proponents are wrong, the world and especially those from the poorest countries will suffer if a small drop in temperature (can't remember the amount) occurs. It also discussed the Medieval Warm Period and the 3 degree average warmer climate, and how lush and beautiful the earth was. 
See it if you can.
Ron McKeown 
11 February 2008 at 21:47
I must thank Peter Martin for giving me a further thread of evidence to follow in his posting of 11 February 2008. 
He says that I am not “too scientific” and that I am “supposed to provide references” instead of forming my own opinion based on the detail I have 
discovered. 
He then says, “The accepted scientific record can be found on this Wiki entry which shows a 20 cm rise in sea levels in the last 120 years. Before that there 
was an increase but very a slow one. This is the official scientific position”. Unfortunately he does not tell us where such information came from and how it 
was proven. 
Nevertheless he does ask if I have, “looked at Venetian records for evidence of sea levels during the period you describe? I would imagine that if the sea 
levels had risen or fallen by anywhere near the levels that you mention that they might have had something to say about it”. This is a good idea but if it was such a convincing argument why has he not given chapter and verse on the subject. Perhaps Peter Martin could direct me to the archaeological record for buildings in Venice built between the 7th and 11th centuries. I would be most grateful.I have looked on his favoured Wikipedia site and found this curious comment about the very period that I claim saw higher waters. - "During the reign of duke Agnello Particiaco (811-827) the ducal seat was moved from Malamocco to the highly protected Rialto (Rivoalto, "High Shore") island, the current location of Venice". So, they relocated to higher ground. Must be a coincidence.
JZ Smith 
11 February 2008 at 22:00
Robin Guenier: 
"As I’ve said before, when I joined this discussion (before Christmas) I had no fixed view on the matter although I was inclined to believe that the AGW theory was likely to be valid in view of the apparent certainty about it on the part of many influential people and prestigious organisations. I was worried, however, by the “consensus” claim – that, it seemed to me, was not how science proceeded. After about eight weeks of following the developing discussion here and a most interesting review of some of the background data, I find I am inclining heavily towards the sceptics." 
It has been very interesting to watch your transformation!
Robinson 
11 February 2008 at 22:40
Rob, as far as I know, Venetian records would not be any evidence whatsoever, because it's likely Venice is SINKING, not that the water is rising.
Robin Guenier 
11 February 2008 at 23:02
I said earlier today that Peter Martin’s response to my request that he substantiate two assertions was an interesting example of how AGW protagonists think. I said I would examine it in detail. So here goes. (Apologies to those who will find this incredibly boring.) 
1. On 7th February, I wrote that over the past 10,000 years (i.e. since the last ice age) the globe had experienced 11 periods of climates warmer than today. 
2. Peter not unreasonably asked if I had a reference for that. I had references but, before I could respond, he sent me one from Wikipedia. See my post of 8th February for details. 
3. I replied that I would use his graph. (That was arguably a mistake as Wikipedia entries are easily changed and therefore may be unreliable – his graph had obviously been tampered with, although it was so crudely done that it was irrelevant.) I pointed out that this graph (based on ice-core samples) quite clearly showed the 11 warmer periods and that Wikipedia had confirmed that “The Holocene Climatic Optimum was generally warmer than the 20th century". 
4. Peter challenged that and, in responding (my second post on 9th February), I noted that a curve on a 10,000 year graph inevitably was based on average temperatures and that, as Wikipedia explained, those averages were calculated over hundreds of years. Thus, for example, the period it shows we are now in includes the 17th and 18th century cold episode as well as the 20th century warm episode. I pointed out that, likewise, the earlier warm periods would also have included episodes of colder and warmer climate: that’s the nature of an average. 
5. Peter replied that the above was an extraordinary definition of “today” and that he doubted if many reading my original statement would have understood it that way. 
6. I thought that was a fair point and agreed that, although my assertion appeared to be correct on the available data, it doesn’t *prove* that there were any warm episodes within those 11 warm periods that were warmer than the relatively short warm episode we are experiencing now. (Although, of course, it is very probable that there were.) 
7. Peter should have stopped when he was ahead. But, no, he went on (10th February) to assert that “this warm period is warmer than any other since the last ice age” and that “the temperature changes we've had since the last ice age have never previously been at anything like this rate”, adding that the current rate of increase is +0.2 deg C per decade. 
8. Those were extraordinary claims. So it was my turn to ask for evidence. How could he prove that the last 10,000 years contained no episodes where the temperature was higher than the current warm episode? If he could not, his assertion was ill founded. The same applied to the rate of change. I also noted that his claim that the current increase was +0.2 deg C per decade directly contradicted the IPCC’s report of only around +0.5 deg C in 120 years – i.e. about +0.045 deg C per decade. 
9. His response was hopeless. His evidence, he said, was the same Wikipedia graph that, he said, showed “that the temperatures are higher now than they have been since the last ice age and the rate is much quicker than at any previous period”. I objected that, as we’d already agreed that that graph was based on averages covering periods of hundreds of years and as there must have been warmer episodes within those averages, it couldn’t possibly prove his assertions. (See my post yesterday.) 
10. His response to that was worse. He completely ignored my point and instead referred exclusively to the temperature increase since 1975 (presumably until 1998 when apparently it stopped), implying that a miniscule period of 23 years made sense in the context of 10,000 years. He couldn’t conceivably know that within those 10,000 years there were no other climate episodes with a similar or more extreme pattern. Then he compounded that by stating that the current warming is unique is because of, wait for it, the recent growth in CO2 emissions. But that is precisely the point at issue. It’s a classic case of “begging the question” – the logical fallacy where the proposition to be proved is assumed in one of the premises. 
To make unsupportable assertions based on false logic to an audience of the poorly informed may advance the AGW case. But to do so here, where many contributors are increasingly well informed, serves only to reinforce the growing impression that the AGWers’ case is built on sand.
Brute 
12 February 2008 at 00:08
Mr. Martin, 
I'm having a difficult time convincing people.....Al Gore 
Bitter Cold, Snow Pummel Plains, East 
AP 
Posted: 2008-02-11 00:49:31 
HAZLETON, Pa. (AP) - Windy, bitterly cold weather spread from the northern Plains to the Northeast on Sunday, with blinding snow canceling church services in parts of Michigan and causing a 68-vehicle pileup in Pennsylvania. 
A woman died in the Pennsylvania pileup when her car became wedged underneath a tractor-trailer, said Lt. Jason Zoshak of Hazleton Township Fire and Rescue. About 35 people were injured, and at least 24 people whose cars were not drivable were taken to shelters, he said. 
Firefighters used ropes to rescue people who had scrambled out of their cars and jumped down an embankment to avoid being hit. "They had a heavy snow squall going through the area, zero visibility, high winds," Zoshak said. "There were vehicles everywhere." 
Also in Pennsylvania, a 60-foot tree toppled by high winds fell onto a sport utility vehicle traveling along a Berks County road, killing a 48-year-old man and critically injuring his 49-year-old wife, state police said. 
The bitter cold snap and strong winds created icy driving conditions that shut down interstates and highways in Wisconsin. Wind chills sent the temperature plunging to at least 35 degrees below zero on Sunday. 
The Wisconsin State Highway Patrol closed a seven-mile stretch of Interstate 39/90 just south of Madison for about an hour and a half because of icy driving conditions. Strong winds blew snow around to create near-whiteouts and snow drifts. 
It was the same area - but in the opposite direction - where thousands of motorists were stranded for as long as 12 hours in a snowstorm last week. 
In Michigan, the body of a missing 87-year-old man with Alzheimer's disease was found Sunday morning about five blocks from his Leland home. The man died of exposure to the cold, the Leelanau County sheriff's department said. 
The five-mile Mackinac Bridge linking Michigan's two peninsulas closed for several hours Sunday because of high winds and whiteout conditions. It reopened in the evening, with police cars escorting vehicles across at slow speed. 
Wind gusts of up to 48 mph made it painful and dangerous to venture outdoors Sunday in Copper Harbor at the tip of upper Michigan's Keweenaw Peninsula, and authorities shut down the main road to town, U.S. 41, until Monday. 
Churches across western Michigan canceled services, The Grand Rapids Press reported. "The road conditions are just terrible. There's been slide-offs all over and the roads are very icy," said William Marino, a weather service meteorologist in Grand Rapids. 
Sunday's Lansing Polar Plunge charity benefit, in which people were to jump into the cold water at Hawk Island County Park, was reset to Feb. 24, the Lansing State Journal reported. Sunday's midday temperature was only zero, but the wind chill was 23 below zero, the weather service said. 
Terry Gerhartz, of Chilton, Wis., said he made sure not to have any exposed skin when he went to his fish shanty on Lake Winnebago. "If you got stuck out there, you'd get cold in a hurry," Gerhartz, 48, said as he warmed up at a restaurant in Hilbert. 
In Madison, Wis., the temperature was minus-4 with a wind chill of minus-25, while Green Bay's temperatures got down to minus-6, with a wind chill of minus-32. 
Sunday's noon reading at Devils Lake, N.D., was 20 below, with a wind chill of minus 38, the weather service said. On Saturday, the town warmed to a high of 13 below - with a wind chill of minus-42. 
International Falls, Minn., the Canadian border city that's won the trademark of "Icebox of the Nation," was only 15 degrees below zero by noon Sunday, but the wind chill was a painful 40 below.
Patrick Hadley 
12 February 2008 at 00:37
Robin, since you may not have entered this discussion at all if it were not for my off-topic analogy about you-know-what, I would like to tell you how much I have enjoyed reading your thoughtful and balanced posts.
Peter Martin 
12 February 2008 at 01:19
Robin, 
"Methinks the lawyer doth protest too much" Apologies to Shakespeare for that misquotation. 
That the temperature has increased so quickly in a "minisule period" , as you put it, of 23 years is exactly what the world's climate scientists are worried about! You're oviously sheltering behind long term averages in making your claim. I do agree that some averaging is necessary to interpret the nature of climate change. Its wrong to take each year's figures in isolation for instance. But, obviously if we are concerned about the change in climate over 23 years (actually I'd say the last 33 ) then 100 years averaging is clearly too long. 5 year averages (NASAs choice) is pretty good and takes out a lot of "noise' from the graphs. 
Of course if you go back 120 years you get one gradient for global warming. If you go back even further you could argue that we are in a position of global cooling. 
The figure of 0.2 deg C per decade that I gave you comes from the same data source as David Whitehouse used as the basis of his article. 
Here it is on a spreadsheet in both numerical and graphical form: 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/tmp.xls 
If you would like to put a ruler, or work out a simple linear regression, perhaps you'd let me know if you disagree wildly. 0.2 deg C is also the figure used by the IPCC in their 2007 report. Or, if you don't trust my graph, then this is Nasa equivalent. I do believe that the gradient measured over the last 30 years, using their 5 running average, is also 0.2 deg C per decade. 
I agree that it an extraodinary claim. But unfortunately it is true.
Peter Martin 
12 February 2008 at 03:48
I may have to stand corrected. I have just found this reference from the CSIRO: 
http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfxh.html 
They say "It is estimated that the globe has been warming, on average, at around 0.17°C/decade since 1976." 
OK I'll withdraw my figure of 0.2deg C and go with the CSIRO figure of 0.17deg C.
Robin Guenier 
12 February 2008 at 08:43
Peter: that doesn't prove that your 23 years are the warmest since the last ice age. If you're in a hole, stop digging. 
Patrick H: welcome back. It's true - you got me into all this!
Robin Guenier 
12 February 2008 at 09:01
I should have added a greeting to JZ Smith – good to see you back as well. As the contributor who posted the first comment (19th December) on this extraordinary thread (now standing at nearly 900 posts – 1,300 including Lynas the pieman’s thread), you deserve our special congratulations.
Sven 
12 February 2008 at 13:42
This last information posted by Patrick Hadley for January 2008 from Goddard - 0,12C - is really intriguing. If I've understood correctly, their base line is not 1961-1990 like metoffice but rather 1951-1980 and thus their temperature anomalies have constantly been higher than those of metoffice (well, slightly different as well, 2005 being the warmest rather than 1998 and 2007 being very warm while metoffice had it as pretty cool, 0,40, same as 2001). As GISS had 2007 0,17 degrees warmer than metoffice (0,57 and 0,40), can it be that metoffice will have January under 1961-1990 average? For some reason metoffice has not yet posted its 2008 January data, but it's gonna be interesting. 
Keep watching! 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
Brute 
12 February 2008 at 15:03
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.B...
Nelson 
12 February 2008 at 15:13
Oh God. Not another Morano list. 
I wonder if he invented qualifications for people on this list too?
Robinson 
12 February 2008 at 19:20
Nelson, those scientists are genuine and so are their qualifications and opinions.
Peter Martin 
13 February 2008 at 03:31
Robin, 
If I remember rightly, it was I who asked you for proof of eleven warmer periods. Yet, I've done all the digging for references while you haven't broken sweat! I should congratulate you on that! Is that a lawyer's tactic? 
One more reference from me: The guys at CSIRO claim that the climate is now warmer that at any time in the last 1300 years. See fig 3 in this reference.http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pfb4.pdf 
Now I'm sure that you can manage at least one of your own. 
Brute, 
The so-called sceptics are often no longer active climate scientists, and sometimes never have been. Consequently they don't produce much , if any, peer reviewed original research. Other than in pseudo science journals of course. If there are really as many scientific sceptics as you claim, then peer review shouldn't be a problem. 
Instead of lists of sceptics, which we've all seen before, let's see some references to written papers, so that we can read what they have actually done and what they are actually saying. 
Writing that global warming isn't a problem or it's all a hoax, or whatever, doesn't make your argument correct, no matter how much you want it to be, even if you do it many times and in capital letters.
Peter Martin 
13 February 2008 at 03:52
Ron McKeown, 
Of course scientists have opinions but the general idea is to establish a case, as would a lawyer in a court, and avoid the word 'opinion'. 
The Roman port was located in Ostia at the mouth of the River Tiber and it is now well and truly high and dry. There is quite a bit you could look into. It could be that sea levels have fallen in the last 2000 years or it could be that the River has silted up, or its possible that the land has risen in the meantime.
bobclive 
13 February 2008 at 14:27
Peter Martin 
Try February issue of Astronomy & Geophysics (Svensmark, & Christensen 2007) and their rebuttal of Lockwoods recent study in the National Danish Space Center Scientific report. 
And this : INFLUENCE OF SOLAR ACTIVITY ON STATE OF WHEAT MARKET IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND, 
Lev.A. Pustilnik & Gregory. Yom. Din. 
Israel Cosmic Ray Center, Tel Aviv University.
Brute 
13 February 2008 at 15:38
Mr. Martin, 
Ok……..so these scientists’ credentials were valid when they agreed with your position but are invalid now that they dissent from the Global Warming Alarmist theory. They no longer follow the Global Warming religious doctrine so they have been excommunicated from church of environmentalism…………….Got it. 
You wrote: Writing that global warming isn't a problem or it's all a hoax, or whatever, doesn't make your argument correct. 
Let me explain it to you this way……..As an Engineer I design a pumping system that I claim will deliver 1000 Gallons Per Minute. I’ve calculated the pump size, size of the piping, pressure drop, etc, etc, etc. It all looks good on paper and should work; my computer models tell me it’s “foolproof” The system is built and operating at peak efficiency but only delivers 800 GPM; something is wrong, my system is not operating as I had calculated. 
I calculated incorrectly, my computer model was wrong, I entered the information incorrectly; I ask for more money to correct my error or attempt to change the design specifications from 1000 GPM to 800 GPM, (as the Global Warming Alarmists have done). I’m a laughing stock as well as minus one client, (probably more as word spreads through the community). 
Regardless of how any of this works out, my original design, (theory) was wrong. 
The Alarmist’s theory was that rising CO2 levels would cause global temperatures to sharply rise; they haven’t. 
Don’t you remember???? “The Earth has a fever!” – A Gore 
Weather changes; that is the natrure of weather. Yesterday was cooler than today; tomorrow may be wetter than today. Next week may be hotter or colder than this week. Next year may be colder or hotter than this year. 
Record electricity usage as Sydney chills 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/18/1981363.htm 
New South Wales in December 2007 
Wettest December in 15 years 
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nsw/archive/2007... 
Sydney has cool, wet and stormy December 
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nsw/archive/2007... 
Sydney has cool to mild and humid January 
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nsw/sydney.shtml 
China's biggest desert Taklamakan experiences record snow 
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/01/content_7544946... 
Warming temps should end worst cold snap since 2000 
http://newsminer.com/news/2008/feb/11/warming-temps-should-e... 
South America Has Coldest Winter in a 90 Years 
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/brrrr-south-americ... 
Hong Kong shivers through one of coldest weeks on record 
http://news.trendaz.com/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1126164...
Nelson 
13 February 2008 at 15:44
'Nelson, those scientists are genuine and so are their qualifications and opinions.' And for each name on that list I can find a hundred that agree with the thesis of anthropogenic global warming. 
AGW is the consensus, after all. 
Lists means nothing. Science isn't carried out by petition and assertion on Inhofe's seedy website: it's carried out in specialist literature. Try it some time.
Nelson 
13 February 2008 at 15:51
'Consequently they don't produce much , if any, peer reviewed original research' 
This is key. The only strategy available to denialists is to seed doubt. Just ask yourself the question: if their claims stand up to rigorous scrutiny then why the hell don't they publish in decent journals? Why don't they overturn the consensus? 
It's precisely the same tactic used by the tobacco industry and creationists. Seed doubt in the science. Label your opponents. Petition. Assert. But you better avoid real forums of scientific debate and exchange: you've lost the argument there already.
Pat T 
13 February 2008 at 16:01
Peter, calling everyone "vacuous" and referring to them as "deniers" using "the same tactics as the tobacco industry" isn't convincing - it is very transparent. 
People aren't as stupid as you might think - you cannot convince people that the weather all around them isn't really happening.
Peter Martin 
13 February 2008 at 21:15
We aren't disussing weather. Its climate that's the issue. So, please no more long lists of snow here and frosts there. 
" The Alarmist’s theory was that rising CO2 levels would cause global temperatures to sharply rise; they haven’t. " 
The 0.55deg C rise that we've seen since 1975 may not sound much but its enough to open up the NW passage for , instance, and cause instability to the Greenland Ice sheets. We'll be lucky to keep it down to 2deg C this century. You don't realise that a couple of degrees change to the climate is very serious. 
Pat T , 
You've gone very quiet on that bet you offered!
Robin Guenier 
13 February 2008 at 21:38
Oh no – we’re back to the tit for tat arguing again. Well, here’s an issue I tried to raise weeks ago. I failed. I’ll try again. 
If the AGWers are right, mankind faces global disaster unless it takes urgent action; some think it may already be too late. Even if they’re wrong, many informed people, including John McCain, agree that it’s necessary, for example, to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to stop the destruction of the rain forests. I agree with them. But the reality is that mankind is making things worse. Western Europe, which is supposed to be leading the way, has failed to meet its Kyoto targets, which the AGWers say are inadequate anyway, agreeing instead to targets to be achieved in the distant future. Worse, it is exempting aviation and shipping (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/13/climatecha...) from CO2 controls while continuing to expand its airports, invest in more roads and plan new coal-powered power stations. Meanwhile, the economies of the rest of the world, especially China and India, are busily growing, making yet more use of fossil fuels and especially of coal of which about 5.4 billion tons were burnt in 2006 – a 92% increase over the past 25 years. Russia, Venezuela, Iran and the Gulf states have no intention of abandoning their source of wealth and influence. Rain forests continue to be hacked down. The Bali circus moves on to more talks. And the backdrop to all this is the drumbeat of a continuing rise in the human population. In other words, all talk and no do. 
Yet the pieman and Peter Martin are “optimistic” (see PM post dated 6 February on the other thread). So I have two questions for the AGWers: 
1. What’s the evidence supporting your optimism? 
2. If it’s inadequate (Peter M and Nelson), what’s your Plan B? (It’s always wise to have a Plan B anyway.)
Brute 
14 February 2008 at 00:59
Pete, 
All kidding aside…….. 
People such as Al Gore, The United Nations and Mark Lynas have turned this topic from a discussion regarding the science of climate change into a social argument and a political indictment of humanity; no one else. They have turned this into a political crusade; this is why I am arguing this topic so vociferously. My belief is that Al Gore and others have fabricated this “planetary emergency” in an effort to undermine capitalism and infringe on personal/individual freedoms. It is quite evident that people such as the above mentioned have no desire to resolve this problem technologically; their solutions involve draconian measures, strict economic limits on industry as well as excessive taxation; classic class warfare political technique. It has also been proven that these measures, (implemented in the European Union) have failed to lower CO2 levels and tax revenues generated by green taxes have overwhelmingly been used for purposes other than lowering emissions. They have a twisted view of humanity, morality and their own self importance. Can you imagine the conceit of a person that actually believes that he can change the climate of an entire planet? 
This is an important link: 
Environmentalism or Individualism? 
http://www.econot.com/page4.html 
Humankind has never been as successful a species as today. This success is due to a steady improvement of technology and innovation over the course of human history. People all over the world, (generally), are living longer, happier, healthier lives due to these technical advancements. These advances could not have been made and are directly dependant upon energy consumption which presently is the production of electricity primarily by way of burning fossil fuels to heat water to produce steam to spin a turbine to rotate a generator. If you have a more economical, more efficient way to do that please do, but that’s the safest, acceptable, most economical and efficient method existing today. Also, the most efficient, safest, economical way to travel relatively short distances is by automobile; longer distances via airplanes. If you have a better way to do those things please do so…….no one is stopping you, certainly not me. 
Ordinarily, I would have no idea that it snowed in Australia on Christmas day or would I have given it a second thought if I had somehow heard the news. The reason that I posted the severe cold news stories is that every time a high temperature record is broken anywhere in the world by 1/100th of a degree, it is front page news and touted as “proof” of global warming. Every time a natural occurrence such as a hurricane makes landfall it is shouted from the tops of the mountains that it is “proof” of global warming. When no hurricane activity is observed, the Alarmist still say it is “proof” or “could” be proof of global warming. Does that make sense to you? (I imagine you can fantasize any occurrence or non-occurrence into “proof” of global warming… but I digress). 
I know that record cold temperatures in Siberia, (or anywhere else) is not “proof” of my argument. I also know that a record warm temperature in the Sahara, (or anywhere else), is not “proof” of the global warming argument. Summers are supposed to be hot, winters cold. Some summers are warmer than others; some summers are cooler than others; that’s how the planet’s weather systems work. 
Weather or “climate change” happens and has been happening since the beginning of time. It is a simple matter of temperature and humidity differences between one place and another. Al Gore, the United Nations or Mark Lynas can’t change that; no one can, individually or collectively. 
I’ve also looked at the proposed solutions to counter “climate change”. These solutions include taxation on individuals, regulation of business, restriction of trade and government oversight or nationalization of privately owned corporations. These proposed solutions are counter productive to national and global economics as well as individual citizen’s rights and privileges. 
In conclusion, (and this is the most important part), is that you have the freedom to do what you want to do, (within reason), and I have the freedom to do what I want to do, (within reason). You have the freedom to live a Spartan lifestyle and I have the freedom to live an unrestricted lifestyle. If you want to drive a super efficient car, you have that right. If I want to drive an inefficient car, (and I can afford it), that is my individual right. That’s how freedom works. 
Here is the challenge…… You and the rest of the Global Warming Alarmists cut your energy consumption/carbon output/CO2 output by 50% for ten years voluntarily, (that isn’t such a long period of time balanced with saving the planet is it?). If the global mean temperature continues to rise after ten years and one day, according to NASA, I’ll cut my energy consumption by the same amount. Agreed? 
You see, my way does not require you to do anything that you do not want to do anyway; the Alarmist way requires me to do something against my will. Understand?
Brute 
14 February 2008 at 01:35
Mr. Martin, 
One more thing. If you've planned a travel vacation this season, cancel it. Frivolous, unnecessary and releases CO2 into the atmosphere. This will be the first test of your level of commitment, (and Mrs. Pete’s commitment), to reducing greenhouse gases. If you've already taken your vacation, donate the exact same amount of money to Greenpeace as penance. Or, you could calculate the amount of carbon from one of those carbon analyzers and plant the equivalent amount of trees in your front lawn as a sacrament of reconciliation.
Peter Martin 
14 February 2008 at 03:54
Bob Clive, 
A return to the kind of warm climate and high sea levels ( around 150 metres higher) we had millions of years ago is precisely what we mean by 'runaway climate change.' We don't mean that the Earth's climate will become like Venus.
Peter Martin 
14 February 2008 at 04:04
Brute, 
We aren't advoacting that people wear hair shirts and live on bread and water. 
I am in disagreement with most of the Green lobby in saying that the first and most urgent priority is to replace coal burning power stations with nuclear power. I don't believe that there is any alternative. Its no use arguing that nuclear power is not safe. We just have to make it safe. 
Actually when you look carefully at the statistics, the safety record of nuclear is pretty good. There are thousands who die in coal mines every year, not to mention millions who suffer respiratory illness from coal produced pollution.
Peter Martin 
14 February 2008 at 04:30
Bob Clive, 
There are strong periodic (Cyclical) waether patterns the world over. So the price of wheat could well show a periodic cycle. The rainfall in Eastern Australia seems to follow a 10/11 year cycle for example. Oceon currents oscillate periodically. Are they connected to solar cycles? We don't know. We have not seen the rapid increase in temperature of the last 30 years before and there is no sign that it is periodic. So the 'price of wheat in the middle ages' argument does not disprove global warming. 
I thought Svenmark wasn't disputing global warming. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't he saying that it is all caused by Cosmic rays? And that it just a big co-incidence that cosmic rays have increased at the same time as CO2 concentrations. 
So if Svenmark is right, why bother to support very weak arguments like David Whitehouse's? 
So I'm still waiting for a scientific reference which supports the "no real increase in temperatures argument" which we hear so often on this thread. 
Brute, 
"Humankind has never been as successful a species as today etc " Yes absolutely right. 
And I'm sure we are smart enough, too, to fix the CO2 problem and keep the success story going. Still some way to go on that one though.
Peter Martin 
14 February 2008 at 04:57
On the point of the use of the term 'vacuous' this is what I actually wrote. 
" ....appears to be quite vacuous but I suspect that, with you (Brute) , it is more of a determination to not understand rather than an inability. " 
I was getting annoyed with some of the 'piss taking' arguments, along the lines of " these scientists say global warming causes cooling . How stupid is that? Ha Ha Ha. What idiots, or liars, these scientists are" If you really think along those lines then "vacuous" is an apt term. 
However, I suspect that even those who advance these arguments don't really think like that at all, but are being disingenuous. For, instance, even the climate change deniers know as well as normal people :-) that a well insulated house tends to have the snow stay on its roofs longer. In this case, the warm house, caused by the insulation, is producing a colder roof. So, a warm earth caused by a blanket of CO2, can also have a cold stratosphere. 
So a bit more thought and a bit less mirth please.
Brute 
14 February 2008 at 17:45
Mr. Martin, 
Would you please define "climate change"? 
If the goal of the Alarmists is to reduce greenhouse emissions, why do they oppose Nuclear Energy? 
What is the optimum temperature of the globe?
Brute 
14 February 2008 at 18:13
Mr. Martin, 
You wrote: We aren't advocating that people wear hair shirts and live on bread and water. 
Unfortunately, the Alarmists are..................They refuse to accept Nuclear Energy technology and other alternative methods of energy generation. The only solution acceptable to Greens of this perceived problem is population control and drastic reductions in energy consumption, (no matter the source), through taxation, mandatory energy rationing and minimalism. 
You’ve sidestepped the challenge to reduce your own energy use by 50%. Why would you not voluntarily make a commitment to “save the planet” in such a manner if you so robustly believe that your excessive energy consumption is causing harm to the planet? (I suspect that it is just my energy consumption that you are concerned with.) I thought that your position was that we have reached “the tipping point”?
Pat T 
14 February 2008 at 18:44
Peter are you suggesting that they don't say warming causes cooling? 
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/02/13/headli...
JZ Smith 
14 February 2008 at 19:59
Robin Guenier: 
"Even if they’re wrong, many informed people, including John McCain, agree that it’s necessary, for example, to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to stop the destruction of the rain forests. I agree with them." 
Robin, "reducing dependence on fossil fuel" and stopping the "destruction of the rain forests" are mutually exclusive terms, at least in the context of increasing the use of ethanols. 
As I commented here recently, it has been interesting to watch your transition from a slight AGW bias to a pronounced skeptical bias. However, you seem to still hold the view that the burning of fossil fuels is a bad thing. While the burning of fossil fuels might be proven (to my satisfaction) to contribute to AGW, my post of the 11th of Feb (above) regarding a History Channel TV show discussing the effects of the Little Ice Age (following the Medieval Warm Period) on human society suggests that IF, based on Stargazer's opinion, we are entering a very cold period, we ought to consider burning MORE fossil fuels to help forestall the coming ice age. Dealing with a warmer climate (the Medieval Warm period was, I think, 3 or 4º warmer than today) will be much better for life on Earth than would dealing with a colder climate.
JZ Smith 
14 February 2008 at 20:00
900
JZ Smith 
14 February 2008 at 20:00
[Sorry guys, I just HAD to do it!]
Peter Martin 
14 February 2008 at 20:24
Brute, 
As individuals we can make some choices which do help. I'm doing what I can. For instance, we don't have any heating or air conditioning at home. I'm not suggesting that this is possible for everyone but, in the part of Australia we live in, you don't really need either. I drive a small car with a 1300cc engine when I need to and use a bike for short journeys. I don't really feel any worse off as a result and I'm probably a bit fitter. I do have to fly for work, occasionally, but I don't get much choice about that. We also use low energy light bulbs etc. I'm thinking about solar panels for the roof. But, even if everyone did the same thing it may not be enough. 
True, not everyone agrees with nuclear energy. Its not just the Greens, there is a large coal lobby who are equally opposed. Some Green activists do support the nuclear option. 
http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/James_Lovelock 
France generates almost 80% of its electricity using nuclear power. Its annual per-capita CO2 emissions are an impressive 6.22 tonnes, as against a European average of around 11. The Australian and US figures must be double that. 
Its proably easier to define a target level of CO2 than to define an optimum temperature. I'd suggest 350 ppm for starters. I can understand that some parts of the world would like their climate to be warmer but melting ice caps and a higher sea level aren't worth the price. 
PatT 
Who's 'they' ? Journalists say all sorts of things that are pretty stupid, just for a story. So what? 
It is possible that Global warming could affect an oceon current, or a prevailing wind system, and change the climate in one region making it cooler. It's possible that this may have happened in Antarctica. However, the overall result of Global warming is to increase the overall average temperature. 
I'm not sure about "tipping points". I think we just have to make sensible changes as quickly as possibe and hope its not too late.
Peter Martin 
14 February 2008 at 20:52
JZ Smith, 
"the Medieval Warm period was, I think, 3 or 4º warmer than today" Any references? 
The world's temperatures are currently higher than the Medieval warm period. My reference: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period 
Any talk of a new ice age is just nonsense. There is no evidence to support that argument. 
The choice is not just between fossil fuels and bio fuels such as ethanols. The agricutural lobby have been very opportunisitic on that one. 
Besides the nuclear option , there are solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal options for electricity power generating plants and these should be the top priority. CO2 can also be removed from coal burning plants at the power station and stored. 
Transport is more of a problem. Hydrogen as a replacement for petrol isn't ready. Batteries aren't reliable enough yet. But the oil is running out anyway so we'll have to come up with something in the next 10 years or so.
Ron McKeown 
14 February 2008 at 21:10
Peter Martin 
Perhaps the word “opinion” has different connotations for you than it does for me. 
Nevertheless, I want to thank you again for drawing my attention to corroborating evidence for the sequence of high and low water levels I have found at Derby. 
You tell me that the Roman port was located in Ostia at the mouth of the River Tiber and it is now well and truly high and dry. This fits into the pattern I have discovered in England. The sequence of warm periods are Bronze Age, Roman period and Medieval Warm Period. Between each there has been a cold period when ice sheets have reformed dropping the sea levels. When the Romans came to Derby in around AD 68 they built their first fort above the 55 metre contour. After a century they were able to move down to just near the 50 metre contour to the site now called Little Chester or Deventio. When the Vikings came the water was above the 50 metre contour and did not fall below it until the middle of the eleventh century. Since then the Little Ice Age drastically reduced water levels causing the floodplains to become inhabitable. Curiously the recent floods at Tewksbury did not affect the medieval abbey, founded in 1087 by nobleman Robert FitzHamon, which was probably built on an island, a site favoured by the monks of the time. When the floods came it was an island once more.
Brute 
14 February 2008 at 21:23
Mr. Martin, 
You wrote: "But, even if everyone did the same thing it may not be enough." 
Seriously, you’re getting yourself worked up about a non-existent problem…….
JZ Smith 
14 February 2008 at 21:24
Peter Martin: 
Regarding your post about energy usage, I thought it could be useful to recall my post of Jan 14th on a related matter: [sorry, I'd have linked to it if possible] 
" JZ Smith 
14 January 2008 
A bit off-topic, but the discussions above regarding the use of fossil fuels, and the often-used statement that 'the USA is the largest consumer of energy' got wondering about global energy usage. My argument against the USA being the "largest user" of energy has always been that we use the most because we produce the most, but have never really looked at the numbers before. 
So some quick internet research comes up with some interesting bits: [But first a caveat: I am neither a scientist nor statistician; I'm only as smart as what I can read!] 
I don't mean to pick on the EU, but it is a good comparison to the USA. More in-depth research may well produce better and more accurate answers, but here goes: 
EU population: 495m 
USA pop: 303m 
EU GDP: $14.6t 
USA GDP: $13.1t 
EU per capita GDP: $28.213 
USA per cap GDP: $44,198 
EU "primary" energy consumption: 78 quadrillion BTU 
USA consumption: 122 quad BTU 
Doing the math: 
EU per cap GDP/ Quad BTUs = $362 
USA per cap GDP/Quad BTUs= $361 
So by comparison, the USA produces nearly double the per capita GDP as the EU, at roughly the same cost in quadrillion BTU's of energy usage. In other words, the USA's productivity is nearly double that of the EU, but use nearly an identical amount of energy to produce it. 
[OK, so I'm not a mathematician, either. If I've done my math wrong, please be gentle in correcting me.] 
To conclude, then, to argue that the USA is a wasteful user of energy, compared, at least, to the EU, is not true. 
By extension then, could not significant gains in energy efficiency be made, thus lowering carbon emissions to the atmosphere, but focusing attention on the EU and probably even more importantly on 2nd and 3rd world economies? Worded differently, more gains can be had by cleaning up the developing economies than working to clean up an already efficient developed economies. 
Sources: 
link 1 
link 2 
link 3 
JZ Smith 
14 January 2008 
Further clarification on my last post. 
I wrote: "So by comparison, the USA produces nearly double the per capita GDP as the EU, at roughly the same cost in quadrillion BTU's of energy usage. In other words, the USA's productivity is nearly double that of the EU, but use nearly an identical amount of energy to produce it." 
I should have written, "...nearly an identical amount of energy to produce it (per quad BTU's)." 
So the USA is, on a per capita GDP basis, far more efficient in energy use that is the EU. Far more. Not only that, but the US CO2 output dropped in recent years compared to a rise in the EU. From a recent Wall Street Journal piece: 
"Since 2000, emissions of CO2 have been growing more rapidly in Europe, with all its capping and yapping, than in the U.S., where there has been minimal government intervention so far. As of 2005, we're talking about a 3.8% rise in the EU-15 versus a 2.5% increase in the U.S., according to statistics from the United Nations. 
What's more, preliminary data indicate that America's CO2 output fell by 1.3% from 2005 to 2006. If these numbers hold up, it would mean U.S. emissions growth is nearly flat so far this decade. Europe hasn't yet released figures for last year, but it did report in June that emissions from the participants in its carbon-trading scheme, which account for almost half of Europe's CO2 production, rose slightly in 2006." 
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118764555108003341.html
JZ Smith 
14 February 2008 at 21:29
Peter Martin, 
My reference to the temperature of the Medieval Warm period is the History Channel's program on the subject. 
http://www.history.com/shows.do?episodeId=173248&action=deta... 
I do hope you are correct about AGW and the possibility of global COOLING. Warming will be much less of a problem for the Earth.
Robin Guenier 
14 February 2008 at 22:14
JZ Smith. Seemingly good points. But: (1) Your “mutually exclusive terms” is only relevant to ethanol. Here I’m totally in agreement with Peter Martin on this (he talks sense occasionally) that ethanols are bad and nuclear good: there are, as he says, other solutions to the fossil fuel problem. (2) I’m surprised you are doubtful about the burning of fossil fuels causing AGW – I think no one doubts the science: it does cause it. (3) [First a comment (Peter Martin to note this): although the record shows (see PM’s Wikipedia reference and my exchange with him about it) that the average temperature in the MWP was warmer than the average temperature today, the difficulty is that that “average” is, because of the use of “proxies” to determine temperature, a period of several hundred years. Therefore it is not certain, although in my view it is probable, that there was a period then warmer than the warm period we are now in (since the 1970s). In any case, I rather doubt if it was “3 or 4 deg warmer” then although it’s certainly possible. Sorry about that barely relevant digression JZ.] Yes, I agree that warmer is far better for humankind than colder. But the scary possibility of an imminent ice age (and the evidence, although far from conclusive, is beginning to look a little too compelling for comfort) is not a good reason for “burning MORE fossil fuels” for four reasons: (1) fossil fuels hardly make sufficient contribution to AGW to make much difference, (2) they have other deleterious effects as well as contributing to AGW, (3) they’re going to run out eventually and, above all, (4) we westerners have good economic and security reasons for reducing our dependence on them. 
The real point of my post was to show that all this talk is essentially a complete waste of time: the indisputable fact is that humankind goes on burning more and more of this stuff. And the more the AGWers shout, the more it seems to do so. I suspect (look at the lack of response from Nelson and Peter M) that they prefer to hear their own voices ranting on than even to consider a Plan B that might at least offer the prospect of some genuine progress. I even suspect (horror) that they may secretly want damaging GW to occur.
Brute 
15 February 2008 at 01:05
Now I feel bad for Mr. Martin; all of us ganging up on him..........Maybe we should beat up Nelson for a while. 
Mr. Guenier, 
The last sentence of your last post carries much weight. 
You wrote: "I even suspect (horror) that they may secretly want damaging GW to occur." 
This is not a throw away comment and is worth examination. Throughout history organizations and governments have chosen groups to demonize to achieve their aims…….someone to blame for all of the ills of society. This was primarily to distract people from the true shortcomings of the society. What better group to vilify than greedy oil companies, power company executives, materialistic/gluttonous Americans……all presently being held responsible for “ruining the planet for the rest of us.” ; class envy/warfare at its finest. Everyone hates those groups, right? Greedy industrialist persecuting poor defenseless animals…..an easy sell, a rallying cry. I can’t remember who it was who wrote on this site previously, but people tend to project outward as opposed to inward when rationalizing their own shortcomings. Many of the Alarmists I suspect would like to see those, (insert hated group here) “get what’s coming to them” and “make them pay” as that seems to be the environmentalists and the United Nations mindset. 
Also, people also have a ghoulish fascination when it comes to catastrophes, (or potential catastrophes). There was an old saying that people only attended automobile races “because they want to see cars wreck”; tens of thousands of airplanes successfully travel millions of miles daily….no news; however, if there is a plane crash it makes headline news across the globe. Another case in point; the success of horror films, murder mysteries, reality television, etc; hence the “sky is falling” hysteria from the Alarmists and the media. 
I probably didn’t do a very good job explaining this. Perhaps a psychologist could weigh in here………
Brute 
15 February 2008 at 01:11
Or maybe it could simply be that environmentalists are egotistical snobs.........makes more sense and takes less explanation.
Peter Martin 
15 February 2008 at 09:38
JZ Smith, 
" My reference to the temperature of the Medieval Warm period is the History Channel's program on the subject. " 
Well there have been TV programs on Fairies at the bottom of the garden, Santa Claus, the Yeti , Bigfoot etc etc Can't you do better than that? 
Any talk of an ice age is to muddy the waters, and I would strongly suspect the motives of anyone pushing this line, and create confusion. There is no scientific justification for this at all. 
True, a reduction in temperatures will make life more difficult in the short term for many. But warming is worse in that it creates the danger of melting ice caps and rising sea levels. 
Of course no one wants a looming environmental crisis. But, the earth's climate will behave the way it will regardless. So lets keep politics out of it and stick to the science. The motivations of the deniers still seem to be political rather than scientific. 
Your figures on energy usage are meaningless. There is no problem with using energy. The USA, and anyone else , can use as much energy as it wishes. That doesn't affect anyone else. The point at issue is CO2 emissions which do affect us all. Australia ( where I live) and the USA emit double the level per capita than the EU. France is about half the EU average because of extensive use of nuclear power. 
Pat T, 
OK No word, so I'm assuming that you've withdrawn that offer of a bet? If you guys are so confident I'm surprised you aren't really going for it. 
Brute, 
"materialistic/gluttonous American- Everyone hates those groups, right?" 
No. Americans should travel more, by sailing ship of course ! :-), when they are younger instead of waiting until they retire, to find out for themselves. We get lots of young Europeans and Asians visiting Australia, for working holidays etc, but not so many young Americans. They would be very welcome. The only young Americans I seem to meet are either on shore leave from a US navy ship or they are trying to convert me to the Church of Latter Day Saints ! 
The US are the "biggest kid on the block" so there's going to be a bit of hostility when the big kid throws it's weight about. But, even in Iran, the younger generation are very pro-US in many ways. They hate the mullahs. But the Mullahs just love it when they get attacked by the US establishment. It makes it very easy for them to portray any local opposition as unpatriotic. But, I digress. 
Robin, 
There is no Plan B. Plan A is to reduce CO2 emissions, thereby reducing atmospheric CO2 levels and the dangers of global warming. 
" ...... because of the use of “proxies” to determine temperature, a (average) period of several hundred years". 
I don't accept this. There are various techniques such as looking at tree rings and examining the % of different isotopes in each ring. A tree produces a new ring each year. What justification do you have for your assertion? Some scientific reference would be better than a TV program of course ! 
Ron Keown, 
Whatever the explanation for what happened over the years at Ostia it cannot have anything to do with the river levels in the River Derwent at Derby. Derby is right in the middle of England. If you are correct about the contour of 55 metres ( about 180 feet) above sea level then any change in sea level would have to be huge to have any effect. Even allowing for the highest of tides, the sea would have to be rise around 40 metres to affect Derby. The changes you describe just can't be connected to sea level.
stargazer 
15 February 2008 at 10:58
Peter Martin said 
"Any talk of an ice age is to muddy the waters, and I would strongly suspect the motives of anyone pushing this line, and create confusion. There is no scientific justification for this at all." 
You are very wrong !!! there is a growing body of solar scientists who are worried, because the subject of their expertise is doing something very odd. 
Even I, with my limited knowledge of solar physics can see that the sun is 'up to something'. The connection between solar activity and the climate is 
there for all to see. BUT the mechanism linking the two is unknown..It MIGHT be cosmic rays,it Might be UV. It Might be something else. 
William Herschel saw it in 1801... and today one of the most eminent Solar Physicists Leif Svalgaard is actively looking for what the connection might be. 
Solar scientists have got no agenda except to report what the data says and you saying " I would strongly suspect the motives of anyone pushing this 
line, and create confusion", actually says more about you and your ilk.
Brute 
15 February 2008 at 14:51
Mr. Martin, 
This really isn’t a contest; however, you are incorrect about the CO2 statistics. This furthers my belief that the United Nation’s agenda is not about lowering emissions but concentrating on crippling American industry. If someone as knowledgeable as you regarding this subject was not aware of this than it demonstrates to me that it has not been widely publicized by the UN or the Media. I’ll leave it up to you to surmise why that is………..As I posted last night, every failed government/movement needs a scapegoat. 
Europe v. America on CO2 
December 14, 2006 
Climate-change activists and Democrats on Capitol Hill are gearing up to push the U.S. to limit so-called greenhouse gases. In their telling, America must save mankind from an eco-Apocalypse by adopting the arbitrary targets popular with Europe and other Kyoto Protocol signatories. 
Well, let's look at results in the real world, as opposed to this Kyoto spin. Recent data show that placing artificial limits on emissions hasn't done all that much to reduce emissions, and may even be counterproductive. Contrary to caricature, the American approach offers more promise than Europe's. 
As the nearby chart shows, CO2 emissions growth in the U.S. far outpaced that of the 15 "old" members of the European Union from 1990-95 and especially from 1995-2000, when Mr. Climate Change himself, Al Gore, was the second-most powerful man in America. But, lo, the U.S. has outperformed the EU-15 since 2000, according to the latest U.N. data. America's rate of growth in CO2 emissions from 2000-04 was eight percentage points lower than from 1995-2000. 
By comparison, the EU-15 saw an increase of 2.3 points. Only two EU states, Britain and Sweden, are on track to meet their Kyoto emissions commitments by 2010. Six more might meet their targets if they approve and implement new, as yet unspecified, policies to restrict carbon output, while seven of the 15 will miss their goals. 
Cynics play down America's improvement, noting that its economy cooled from the earlier years to 2000-04. True, but the EU-15 also had lower economic growth in the latest period and still saw its emissions growth rate double. What's more, the U.S. economy expanded 38% faster than the EU-15 in 2000-04, and its population twice as fast. So the trend lines, for now, are reversing. That may frustrate the green lobby because so much of its fund raising depends on vilifying the U.S. But facts are facts, no matter how underreported they are. 
Europe's dismal record is explained by its approach to reducing emissions. The centerpiece of the Continent's plan is a carbon-trading scheme in which companies in CO2-heavy industries receive tradable permits for a certain amount of emissions. If they emit more CO2, they must buy credits from firms that are under quota. The idea is to force companies to emit less CO2 by making it prohibitively expensive to keep the status quo. 
All this scheme has done so far is provide further proof that government cannot replicate the wisdom of markets. A red-faced European Commission recently admitted that it allowed more permits than there were emissions in 2005-07, keeping permit prices low and undermining the entire system. When Brussels tried to make amends by ordering several member states to cut carbon permits by 7% more than expected for 2008-2012, industry and national capitals squealed. The market hadn't priced in such a dramatic reduction. With carbon permits trading relatively cheaply, firms have been able to get by with minimal changes to the way they do business. That has minimized Kyoto's economic impact. 
Once the supply of permits is more in line with the eurocrats' ambitious environmental goals, though, expect European industry to take a big hit. The number of firms moving manufacturing work to countries without emissions caps, such as China and India, will only grow. That might make Europe's emissions data look good, but it will have zero net effect on the world's production of greenhouse gases. 
Some companies may elect to purchase cleaner equipment, but the rising cost of compliance -- i.e., buying more carbon permits at higher prices once the supply is slashed -- will eat into the money available for developing the next generation of clean technology. In short, Europe offers no magic solution for capping greenhouse gases. 
America may even have a few things to teach the Old World. The U.S. strategy has been to keep economic growth strong and provide incentives for private industry to develop cleaner technologies. For instance, the Bush Administration has proposed $1 billion in tax credits for nine new coal-fired power plants that will double efficiency and reduce pollution compared with older generations. China is picking up on these tactics. This year it bought $58 million in machines from Caterpillar Inc. that trap methane in coal mines and use it to power electric generators. 
If global-warming activists were as interested in lowering air temperatures as they are in expanding the role of the state, they'd understand that the key to reducing carbon emissions lies in unleashing the private sector, not capping it. That's the real lesson from the policies -- and the results -- in Europe and the U.S.
Ron McKeown 
15 February 2008 at 15:28
Peter Martin on 15th Feb wrote - 
Whatever the explanation for what happened over the years at Ostia it cannot have anything to do with the river levels in the River Derwent at Derby. Derby is right in the middle of England. If you are correct about the contour of 55 metres ( about 180 feet) above sea level then any change in sea level would have to be huge to have any effect. Even allowing for the highest of tides, the sea would have to be rise around 40 metres to affect Derby. The changes you describe just can't be connected to sea level. 
This shows a lack of understanding of the effect of sea levels on inland waterways. The River Derwent runs at around 48 metres high through Derby and joins the River Trent west of Nottingham. The Trent runs Eastwards past Nottingham and turns North to empty into the Humber. Derby is about 180 miles from the outfall. That, even on Peter Martins reckoning, gives a fall of less than one foot per mile. Due to the curvature of the earth water needs a fall of 8 inches in the mile to run. (Hands up all of those who thought water was flat).If sea levels rise by a metre the Derwent will overflow its banks at Derby on a more regular basis than it does today.
Robin Guenier 
15 February 2008 at 16:05
Sigh – Peter M, you just don’t get it do you? Your last post exhibits several of the symptoms of the poorly made case that I am coming to see (reluctantly at first but increasingly now) are typical of the AGWers. Let’s examine a few: 
1. You know very well that there’s sound evidence that the MWP may have been warmer than today – see our earlier exchange. Talk of Santa Claus etc. is just silly. 
2. To say “I would strongly suspect the motives of anyone pushing this line” is back to the dreary ad hominem argument to which AGWers so often foolishly resort. 
3. Then, re a possible reversion to an ice age, you say, “There is no scientific justification for this at all.” None at all? Have a look at http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10630 and http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html. I’m not saying you have to agree with either of these but to assert that there is no evidence at all is as absurd and unsubstantiated as your earlier assertion that “this warm period is warmer than any other since the last ice age”. Cannot you see the harm these unsubstantiated claims do to your case? 
4. You say, “warming is worse” – have you no concept of how dreadful a reversion to the ice age might be? Think about it. 
5. Then we have, “The motivations of the deniers still seem to be political rather than scientific.” Once again, you choose to insult people with whom you disagree by calling them “deniers”: a great way of persuading them to take you seriously! 
6. You say, “lets keep politics out of it and stick to the science”. Can’t you understand that any body of people that (however well intentioned it may be) is campaigning, as the AGWers are, to get humanity to change its ways is engaging in a political act? Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that, e.g. the anti-slavery campaign: politics is the vehicle, for good or ill, that gets things done. But this exercise is obviously a massive issue on the political agenda. And it’s the AGWers who put it there – why deny it? 
Re my Plan A / Plan B point. You’re simply covering your eyes to block out the fact that your Plan A is failing dramatically – see my earlier post: the world is taking no practical notice of your message and goes on increasing CO2 emissions. You are exhibiting a classic case of denial. You should be asking yourself what might be done about this. Perhaps a good start might be to adopt a less hectoring tone, to cease insulting people with whom you disagree, to stop making dubious assertions, to listen with sympathy and an open mind to what others are saying and (dread thought) even to look for ways of forging common cause with people like me who wish to see CO2 emissions reduced but don’t buy into the AGW agenda. That would be a Plan B. How about it? 
A small final point. By “proxies” I mean any method of assessing temperature other than by direct instrument-based measurement. I would use it to cover tree ring evidence and, for example, sedimentary analysis. (Why do you have to drag in TV programmes for pity’s sake?)
Brute 
15 February 2008 at 17:17
Afghan thaw reveals winter toll 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7241824.stm 
Extreme Cold in Southwest Asia Seen from Above 
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog 
A sunburnt, snowed-in country 
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/a-sunburnt-snowedin-coun... 
Record cold snap continues across Queensland 
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/story.jsp?id=6812
JZ Smith 
15 February 2008 at 18:50
Peter Martin: 
"JZ Smith, 
" My reference to the temperature of the Medieval Warm period is the History Channel's program on the subject. " 
Well there have been TV programs on Fairies at the bottom of the garden, Santa Claus, the Yeti , Bigfoot etc etc Can't you do better than that? " 
You asked for my reference, and I gave it to you. I was not making a claim of accuracy of the report; indeed, I wrote "(the Medieval Warm period was, I think, 3 or 4º warmer than today)". I wrote "I think" because I'm not sure and not an expert. I assume that a major television network wouldn't televise a documentary without at least some scientific basis. 
Too bad your attitude and tone have become insulting. You ordinarily seem like a decent guy.
Brute 
15 February 2008 at 19:29
JZ, 
By the way, I saw the same program and it was very informative. They mentioned the year without a summer....I believe 1816?
JZ Smith 
15 February 2008 at 19:35
Brute: 
Yes, I think it was. They even had a regular festival in London when the Themes would freeze solid. Many died in those days, as their weakened state from starvation allowed The Plague to ravage what was at the time, all of civilization. 
I'll take warming to cooling ANY day.
JZ Smith 
15 February 2008 at 19:36
Sorry, my last post should have been "Thames" not "Themes".
Peter Martin 
15 February 2008 at 20:50
Well Gentlemen, 
I dare say that you could find some website, or even a TV program, or book that supports any claim or strange belief that you might possibly imagine. But its not real evidence. 
None of you have any real scientific evidence for your "it isn't really warming theory" or " cooling is worse than warming" or " its all down to sunspots" or even that the MWP is warmer than current temperatures . As a final position you'll withdraw to the "its all a hoax and a plot to destabilise the world" theory. 
On the Svensmark theory. He's saying that there is Global Warming but its caused by Cosmic rays. Isthat what you are agreeing with? Or are you saying that there is no global warming and that level world temperatures are caused by the exact balancing of a reduced solar contribution and an increased level of cosmic rays? 
You are all living in "cloud cuckoo land" if you think that there is an international UN led conspiracy to fake all the science that exists. 
I'm not sure what CO2 figures I've got wrong but this is where I've got them from. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CO2_emission_2002.png 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio... 
which lists the references at the bottom of the page.
JZ Smith 
15 February 2008 at 21:09
PM: Re CO2 emissions, the picture looks a bit different when you look at it on a per capita basis
Brute 
15 February 2008 at 21:29
Right...............And the massive power house industrial machine other wise know as Niue, (second only in Gross Domestic Product to the Falkland Islands), must have some very efficient blast furnaces and heavy industrial plants selling their goods all over the world.
Robin Guenier 
15 February 2008 at 22:00
Peter: why is it necessary to be so wretchedly offensive? Let's be clear: (1) I absolutely do not claim that "it isn't really warming"; (2) I have never said that "its all down to sunspots"; (3) re MWP, what I have said (several times) is that the evidence (yours) is that it was on average warmer then than it is on average today (as were during the earlier 10 warm periods in the Holocene) and that you cannot prove that there was not a short period in the MWP when it was warmer than temperatures in the current short period; (4) I have not the slightest intention of subscribing to an "its all a hoax and a plot to destabilise the world" theory and (5) I do not believe in conspiracies, UN or otherwise. Instead of this absurd and gratuitously insulting straw man argument, why don't you do me the simple courtesy of dealing point by point with my carefully and politely argued posts of yesterday and this morning?
Brute 
15 February 2008 at 23:52
Mr. Martin, 
You wrote: dare say that you could find some website, or even a TV program, or book that supports any claim or strange belief that you might possibly imagine. But its not real evidence. 
Which strange belief conveyance are you referring to? RealClimate.com, Gore's Inconvenient Lie, The Hockey Stick Graph or Lynas' movie/book?
Robinson 
16 February 2008 at 00:00
Peter, "On the Svensmark theory. He's saying that there is Global Warming but its caused by Cosmic rays. Isthat what you are agreeing with? Or are you saying that there is no global warming and that level world temperatures are caused by the exact balancing of a reduced solar contribution and an increased level of cosmic rays?" 
That isn't really what Svensmark is saying. He is saying that cosmic rays are instrumental in moderating climate, via. mechanisms related to cloud formation. We will know more when the CLOUD experiment at CERN is up and running. It is however a real, testable scientific theory, unlike the current AGW hysteria, which seems to be based on a lot of somewhat massaged data, along with a host of unreliable proxy studies. 
Whether it is warming or cooling, you only have to establish whether that warming or cooling is within the bounds of natural climate variability. From the data I have seen, it certainly is.
Brute 
16 February 2008 at 01:54
Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists 
link 
Medieval Warm Period Reinstated 
link 2 
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/qua... 
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2001Q2/211/groupE/maya_files... 
Global Warming: Enjoy it While You Can 
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA194.html 
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/qua... 
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/mwp... 
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.h...
Peter Martin 
16 February 2008 at 10:11
JZ Smith, 
I'm not disagreeing with your reference. What it shows is that the USA and Australia both emit more than 3 times the amount of CO2 per capita than France. 
( Vive La France! ) Other countries don't show up too well either, that's true. 
Robin, 
OK I'll go back to being more polite when you show me the evidence you have for saying " it was on average warmer then than it is on average today (as were during the earlier 10 warm periods in the Holocene)". If it turns out to be credible that is :-) 
You may not have made the exact same arguments yourself, but you seem to be in alliance with those who certainly have. 
Robinson, 
" to establish whether that warming or cooling is within the bounds of natural climate variability. From the data I have seen, it certainly is." You've seen data showing that +0.17 deg C is natural? I'd like to see that too. 
Rod Mckeown, 
I'm still trying to work out your argument " Due to the curvature of the earth water needs a fall of 8 inches in the mile to run." So if point A is 8 inches higher than point B , which are also a mile apart, then water will run from A to B. Presumably if A is 8 inches lower than B it will run from B to A. But it desn't matter if A is either 7 inches higher or lower, the water will stay still? I don't think that sounds right at all. I'd say you need to do some scale modelling of your river flow theory. 
Also before you jump to too many conclusions about the sea level in Roman times you should realise that there are now Roman harbours that are underwater. See http://www.usd.edu/~clehmann/caesarea.html 
There are lots of references to archeological work in the Meditteranean if you search through the references with Google. Archeolology isn't being ignored by scientists in establishing the sea level record but its not clear cut. One explanation is that the land itself isn't stable. Some is rising geologically and some is falling. 
Brute ( and Robin), 
What you first reference is saying is " MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at the eighteen sites studied." Ok That is a reasonable estimate. But the global temperature anomaly is now approx 0.1 deg C higher than that. And rising at 0.17 deg C per decade. ( According to Australian CSIRO)
Robinson 
16 February 2008 at 12:10
Peter, "You've seen data showing that +0.17 deg C is natural? I'd like to see that too." 
Given that scientists have said that a return to the next ice age could happen within as little as 20 years (I have no doubt this is just another piece of guesswork), it's clear it would be within the bounds of natural variability for a tiny, 0.17 degree change to happen one way or the other, yes. Doesn't that seem obvious to you? 
Given a 0.17 degree change (we can't measure "global temperature, even if such a measure made any logical sense, to that degree of accuracy), composed of possibly hundreds of forcings/feedbacks/signals, how on earth are scientists able to disentangle any cause and effect? My undergraduate knowledge of statistics and common sense tells me that you are chancing your arm if you have any confidence that 0.17 is human induced, even if by some miricle, scientists had very accurate measurements of past climate (which they don't). 
It is obvious to me that the unbelievably large fusion reactor in the sky is the more likely culprit than anything else.
Brute 
16 February 2008 at 15:52
Mr. Martin, 
Practically every claim that the Alarmists had initially made has been examined and found to be false. These claims were based on the projections of computer models with the data inputted by men to display information to substantiate their hypothesis. Correlations, (predictions) were drawn (falsely) of ancillary conditions that have not turned out to be valid. When evidence contrary to the Alarmist position is presented, it is dismissed as an "anomaly", an “exception” or the Alarmists attempt to rewrite their original thesis to account for the factual evidence presented. Another favorite tactic of the Eco-chondriacs is to suggest or flatly assert that the contrarian evidence is fabricated or the author is in league with “Big Oil”, “Big Coal” or some other perceived sinister organization. Others scientists have claimed that they and their compatriots have been blackballed or blacklisted for speaking out regarding the impending global warming calamity; aren’t the Alarmist doing the same thing to scientists who oppose their views? 
Sea levels are not rising, Polar Bears are not dieing, Hurricanes are not gaining in intensity and frequency……(why is it that when hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, a city built below sea level on the Gulf Coast, it was considered “proof” of global warming and lack of hurricanes is not considered “proof” otherwise?) There has been no unusual melting of ice sheets or glaciers. Mankind, (or more importantly to the Alarmists, animals or “the planet”) is not “doomed” due to carbon emissions or CO2 level rise. Many ground temperature measurement stations were located in areas that 20-30 years ago would be considered rural. These areas have been surrounded by infrastructure in a condition known as “urban sprawl” trapping heat around these once rural stations. That coupled with the elimination of many “cold climate” weather stations after the demise of the former Soviet Union have attributed in this perceived 1/10th of one degree rise in global temperatures. Think about that for a minute……..One tenth of 1 degree. Even using your number of ½ of 1 degree globally over 100 years does not constitute a “climactic change” in temperature. 
What are you doing? Do you really long for this to occur? Do you really want there to be a precipitous rise in global temperatures that causes global catastrophe? It seems to be the case; no matter what evidence is presented to you contrary to your belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming, you dismiss it. 
1960’s retreads such as Hansen, Mann and Gore are attempting to recapture their “glory days” of the late 1960’s and have created this movement. Then we have Hippie “Wanna-bes”, (the children of the 60’s retreads), who have joined this counterculture pressure group essentially picking up the torch of Environmental Alarmism. Gore and the others used to represent activism in oppossion to “the establishment” of their parents generation…… It was “cool” and chic in the late 60’s and early 70’s. They made these global warming assertions, (just after they trumpeted global catastrophe due to global cooling), beginning in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s and thought that people would follow them without question for the sake of saving “Mother Earth”. Now, after a period of reflection and examination of these claims they are proving to be wrong; common sense and close scrutiny of the claims are exposing them as being inaccurate. Responsible, open minded scientists are double checking these claims and are in increasing numbers making their voices heard; the adults are now reviewing this global warming rhetoric and finding it dubious at best. Their opinions were initially drowned out over the avalanche of Global Warming hysteria; however, the tide is now turning, (pun intended). 
The Sun is obviously driving this train you call “climate”. Do you have any notion at all of how large the Sun is and how much power and energy it emits every second? The numbers are staggering…….. 
“We won’t get fooled again” – Pete Townsend or Roger Daltry. (I don’t have time to look it up right now). 
Sea levels falling in the Atlantic Ocean 
http://www.iceagenow.com/Atlantic_Sea_Level_Falling.htm 
Antarctic Ice Sheet Growing 
Sea Levels Falling 
http://www.iceagenow.com/Antarctic_Ice_sheet_Growing_Sea_Lev... 
Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud 
http://www.iceagenow.com/Rising_Sea_Level_Claim_a_Total_Frau...
Robin Guenier 
16 February 2008 at 17:43
Peter: I must say it’s most gracious of you to say you’ll “go back to being more polite” when I’ve shown you the evidence you seek. Hmm – sounds like a threat. 
You’re looking for evidence supporting my claim that “it was on average warmer then [the MWP] than it is on average today (as it was during the earlier 10 warm periods in the Holocene)”. Well, as I’ve said before, this is clear from the Wikipedia graph that you sent to me (note: you sent it). On this graph, the black curve represents average temperature over the past 10,000 years (i.e. the Holocene): it is patently clear from this that there were 11 instances (one of them the MWP) when the average temperature was higher than the average temperature at the LH end of the curve (i.e. today). I have other material showing the same thing but this, I think, will do for now. (In this context, note my comment to JZ Smith on 13 February about averages and proxies.) 
Now, I believe, it’s your turn to provide me with evidence substantiating your assertion that, “this warm period is warmer than any other since the last ice age” – not just the MWP but “any”. I look forward to it. If you choose to refer to your Wikipedia graph, bear in mind: (1) the 10,000 year curve necessarily shows averages measured over long periods of time (see the accompanying notes) and (2) the accompanying observation that “The Holocene Climatic Optimum was generally warmer than the 20th century". 
PS: I am not “in alliance” with anyone – although I have enjoyed recent posts from Ron McKeown, Bruce and Robinson.
Ron McKeown 
16 February 2008 at 18:19
Peter Martin 
I agree that temperatures are rising but I consider that it is a normal cycle and not man-made. 
I know it is difficult to get ones head around the fact that the earth is not flat but spherical and, as a consequence, the water that clings to it follows the same profile. Therefore when trying to understand the flow of water in terms of long distances the curvature needs to be taken into account. Mapping contours are taken from sea levels and when displayed on a map they give the impression of a flat surface. 
You write that, “Also before you jump to too many conclusions about the sea level in Roman times you should realise that there are now Roman harbours that are underwater”. 
I agree. In fact when I wrote my book I too believed the hype that sea levels are higher today because of man-made global warming causing temperatures to rise. Because of this I concluded that Crustal Motion was causing the land to uplift above the normal sea levels. Unfortunately, as I continued my research I found that the waters around Viking Derby were higher than it was possible for them to be during the Roman period. I now accept that our planet was dynamic, is dynamic and will continue to be dynamic. Parts of the Mediterranean are sinking whilst the British Isles are rising from the North-west and sinking in the South-east. I have taken Crustal Motion into account in my examination of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles.
Peter Martin 
16 February 2008 at 23:05
Jimbob32, 
Sorry I missed your last posting. Yes I'm up for it. I would suggest that we agree on one data set and have no provisos. There could equally well be a volcanic eruption soon which would mean that I'd almost certainly lose.
Peter Martin 
16 February 2008 at 23:11
Robin, 
You seem to be having trouble interpreting this graph so I've brought it up to date for you. 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/holocene_temperatur... 
The figure of 0.17degC/per decade ( sorry , Robinson, I missed out the per decade in my last post) may not seem a lot but it is enormous on a geological timescale. 
We'll be lucky to keep the rise down to 2 deg C this century. In other words to keep the graph from going off scale. A natural variability of climate? I don't think so!
Robinson 
17 February 2008 at 03:05
Peter, you still haven't established cause and effect. The actual rate of increase or decrease isn't the point, quite apart from the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever to say such a rate is enormous on any time-scale. The only strongly positive correlation I know of over geological timescales is that between cosmic rays and global temperature. If the CLOUD experiment at CERN shows that hypothesis to be correct (it will start taking data in 2010) and cosmic rays to be a fundamental driver of low level cloud formation (which have a strong cooling effect on the planet), I wonder if you will change your view about AGW? 
As the AGW'ers are so fond of the scientific method, they should explain exactly what is required to falsify the CO2 hypothesis.
Peter Martin 
17 February 2008 at 07:24
Robinson, 
I'm not sure that there is much , if any, mainstream scientific support for the idea that Cosmic rays have been a significant climate driver in the earth's history and prehistory. But neither it should be claimed that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore, not himself a scientist it should be noted, implied as much in his movie). The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth's surface as it is modified by orbital variations. This hypothesis was proposed by James Croll in the 19th century, and mathematically refined by Milankovitch in the 1940s. 
The increase of CO2 levels in the last hundred years, due to the large scale combustion of fossil fuels has been a unique Geological event; which of course means there is no precedent. 
It was probably the case that CO2 levels often, but not always, did lag temperature changes as ice ages came and went. However, as ice ages ended, CO2 levels rose which in turn amplified the changes that had initially been brought about by the changing orbit, albeit small, of the earth around the sun. 
It is not logical to argue that, because an abundance of CO2 did not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor a lack of CO2 the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between. 
We do have the scientific knowledge to know that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels causes an increased temperature. The Physics is well understood and climatic computer models are increasingly accurate in their predictions. 
However, there will always be those who refuse to accept the science. They'll muddy the waters. They'll demand 'balanced' debates on TV. Do we have to have balanced debates on everything? If an AIDS/HIV expert appears on TV do they have to have to be 'counterbalanced' by someone, and there are more than a few who believe it, who says there is no connection between HIV and AIDS ? There are those who will always argue that CO2 is a natural gas and a good thing to have. But, at levels of 390 ppm or greater? How about turning the argument around? If they think that 390ppm, or higher, is a safe level, the onus on them should be to prove it. Most of us would like a lower level and are inclined to not take a huge gamble with the earth's atmosphere and climate.
Robinson 
17 February 2008 at 11:19
"The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth's surface as it is modified by orbital variations." 
Indeed Peter, and what was thought to be the fact of the matter before the theory of Plate Techtonics was proposed? If Svensmark is right, then everything we thought we knew about climate is wrong. But here is the interesting point: he and a group of 50 or so scientists and researchers have an experiment at CERN to demonstrate the effect. A real, live, experiment, taking real live data. The fact that he has met so much hostility from the Climate community (but not, as it happens, the physics community), must tell you a lot about how difficult it is to overcome any entrenched paradigm in science. So it goes. 
"The increase of CO2 levels in the last hundred years, due to the large scale combustion of fossil fuels has been a unique Geological event; which of course means there is no precedent." 
If is this is true, what is the cause and effect? Consider that wet pavements don't cause rain. What if the "ideal" CO2 concentration were 1300ppm? What if the effect of CO2 on temperature were greatly overstated? It is certainly true that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been far higher than they are today. So, the fact of the matter is what exactly? 
"We do have the scientific knowledge to know that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels causes an increased temperature. The Physics is well understood and climatic computer models are increasingly accurate in their predictions." 
No, they aren't. Climate models are hopeless excersises in curve fitting and parameter adjustment. It would not be difficult to build a model that shows a slowly increasing trend and to fool oneself into thinking the model is correct but that is not the same thing as having a correct model. The physics of IR absorbtion is well understood (there is a limit to how much IR CO2 can absorb by the way). But the various sources and sinks and their interactions are not. That is a key point. 
". They'll demand 'balanced' debates on TV. Do we have to have balanced debates on everything? If an AIDS/HIV expert appears on TV do they have to have to be 'counterbalanced' by someone, and there are more than a few who believe it, who says there is no connection between HIV and AIDS ?" 
Your straw man argument here does you no credit. Attempting to find a similarity between people who are skeptics about AGW and people who deny the link between HIV and AIDS is rather insulting to the intelligence of those skeptics who are experts in their fields (quite a few of them as well) as well as us laymen who have a good intuitive sense of when something just doesn't seem right. 
"If they think that 390ppm, or higher, is a safe level, the onus on them should be to prove it. Most of us would like a lower level and are inclined to not take a huge gamble with the earth's atmosphere and climate." 
You are taking a huge gamble just by existing, given past variations in climate (we are in an interglacial after all). The problem with AGW politically, is that its basic assumption rests on the fact that there is an "ideal" temperature, an "ideal" level of CO2, an "ideal" sea level, an "ideal" polar cap ice volume, an "ideal" number of glaciers, etc. This is a value judgement and has nothing to do whatsoever with fact. It is the ultimate luddites charter. It is the theory of the value of a changeless planet. We are perhaps the most adaptive species ever to have existed on Earth. I'm sure we'll cope. Meanwhile, lots of other problems that are more important to our long-term survival are being swamped by the noise from AGW groups. Still, surviving the last ice-age. Now that was an impressive feat.
jimbob37 
17 February 2008 at 12:32
Peter Martin, 
I'll take the bet as originally outlined by myself. We can include provisos for volcanic activity to cover you also. 
I'm not keen to take a bet that there won't be an El Nino or a large volcano, but am ecstatic to take on a bet that AGW will not cause temperatures to rise beyond the 1998 level.
Brute 
17 February 2008 at 19:41
Håkan Grudd1 
(1) Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden 
Received: 28 June 2007 Accepted: 15 December 2007 Published online: 30 January 2008 
Abstract This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period AD 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around AD 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on AD 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.
Brute 
17 February 2008 at 19:48
1,500 Years of Cooling in the Arctic 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/04/1500-... 
“The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Torneträsk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A ‘Medieval Warm Period’ is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetraäsk suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised.” (emphasis added)
Peter Martin 
17 February 2008 at 21:07
Jimbob32, 
The 1998 peak temperature figure itself was a bit of a freak and probably the combined result of some experimental error and a strong El Nino. So, if it was OK to include El Nino in the 1998 figure then it must be OK to include an El Nino in some future figure. 
Of course it is much more sensible to take a running 5 year average, rather than speculate on what might have caused a particular result for any one year. If you are looking at 5 year averages then you can't be too impatient , you need to wait for 10 years, at least, to be able to say with any confidence that the trend is changing. 
David Whitehouse knows this as well as anyone. His article is quite disingenuous. 
Anyway, how about going back to the figure of $100 and the bet exactly as suggested, but then declined, by Pat T ? No provisos. Its better to keep it simple. Don't want lawyers involved, to decide if this weakish volcanic eruption or that weakish El Nino was as significant factor.
Brute 
18 February 2008 at 02:58
Temperature is driving the CO2 
Increasing Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change 
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=13
Brute 
18 February 2008 at 03:32
Does CO2 really drive global warming? 
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_v...
Peter Martin 
18 February 2008 at 12:41
Brute, 
There are all sorts of nutty articles on the net. 
If I wanted to argue that HIV was a harmless virus I'd link to: 
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/ 
If I wanted to argue against Einsteins' Theory of Relativity: 
http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=63823 
Against quantum mechanics: 
http://www.lulu.com/content/430303 
I could probaly find websites which would argue that bird flu was not caused by the H5N1 virus or that asbestos and cigarettes were perfectly safe and didn't cause cancer. 
However, most scientists don't go along with these oddball theories any more than they go along with the idea that CO2, and methane, emissions are not a serious problem and the main driver for the increase in world temperatures that are currently being measured. 
I don't want to get involved in internal US politics, but as I have said before, most of the opposition to the idea of global warming comes from those,and usually from the US, with a political motivation, usually a very right wing neo-conservatism; rather than a genuine disagreement with the science, which they don't really understand anyway. 
Of course, neither does the average non neo-con. But they tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Neo-cons defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus. 
National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a good example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on AGW , or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology in play here is pretty unsubtle. Your average neo-con may not know much, if anything, about climate science, but, by God, they do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure, and neo-cons will let that dictate their thinking on the issue. 
I don't know much about Al Gore. Wasn't he the guy that got more votes than GW Bush in the 2000 presidential election? I know a bit more about Margaret Thatcher. Both have spoken on the issue of AGW and have said pretty much the same thing. Neither of them have ever worked as a pactising scientist, although Margaret Thatcher does have a Chemistry degree. But suppose they happened to be saying the opposite? Would it matter? Does it really make sense to allow them to affect your opinion on the science one way or the other?
jimbob37 
18 February 2008 at 15:41
Peter Martin - The bet was originally that there would be no year warmer than 1998 in the next five years. 
I am well aware that 98 was an El Nino year and thus am more than happy to take your money, although for the bet the warming has to be AGW, and not from natural causes. 
I'm not in the habit of betting on natural phenomena, but I will take a 98 El Nino year as being hotter than any subsequent years that are not El Nino. 
We don't need lawyers here - I am more than reasonable and will accept a good source from you were there to be a volcano or similar. 
Come on - don't wimp out - we are betting here on AGW heating up the planet to a point higher than the temperature 10 years ago. 
If you aren't confident that that is possible (temperatures 10 to 15 years on from 1998 being hotter than 98 in any of those years) then I think you also must have strong doubts in the AGW theory yourself.
Brute 
18 February 2008 at 17:28
Mr. Martin, 
I’ve noticed that when you are confronted with an argument questioning the certainly of the global warming theory you label the author of the challenge as a crackpot or being a “right wing neo-con”. Then you retreat into the shelter of “let’s just stick to the science”…..That is, anyone who disagrees with your theory is an “oddball” or you characterize them as being “nutty”. 
Isn’t the New Statesman a “politically left”/environmentalist friendly publication? Wasn’t Mr. Whitehouse carrying the global warming banner until this article was published, (until he reviewed the information provided by the MET Office and saw the light)? 
You wrote: “most of the opposition to the idea of global warming comes from those, and usually from the US, with a political motivation, usually a very right wing neo-conservatism; rather than a genuine disagreement with the science, which they don't really understand anyway. 
Sort of a sweeping generalization, don’t you think? Your comment reeks of arrogance and condescension. As has been written here by myself and others; any dissent from the “global warming is a certainty” and “we must act immediately” is met with ridicule and labeled as being “right wing propaganda” by the global warming sycophants. 
Al Gore held the second highest office in arguably the most powerful government organization on the face of the planet and failed to champion any legislation addressing this issue during his 8 years in that position; why is that? The Kyoto Protocol was defeated by a vote of 95-0 in the United States Senate while Al Gore presided as Vice President. You can argue the “science” of the global warming theory and believe whatever you want to; however, when your personal opinions effect my liberties and freedoms then it becomes my concern. 
The Kyoto Protocol is an instrument of politicians. The Montreal Protocol is an instrument of politicians. The United Nations and by extension the IPCC are political organizations. Greenpeace, The Sierra Club and The Environmental Defense Fund are POLITICAL lobbying organizations/pressure groups; get it? Understand? Green Taxes are levied by governments; The Climate Stewardship Act is POLITICAL LEGISLATION. Global Warming theology being force fed to children in federally funded public schools is political indoctrination. You can rationalize it to your hearts content, but after applying lipstick to a pig, you’re still left with a pig. 
If there is a consensus regarding global warming and genuine concern regarding the topic, why not simply urge the populous to voluntarily conserve energy/utilize alternative sources; why the compulsory, mandated schemes and tax levies? Why have governments involved at all? I think that you know the reason as well as I do; it’s a perfect excuse to control (tax) commerce and raise revenue…..Controlling sources and purveyors of energy is the Holy Grail of boondoggles to politicians. Every man, woman and child in the world is dependent and consume some form of energy; government control of this industry is the ultimate prize for a government or politician. 
Do you know what else? No one cares! Airports and highways are still being built at record pace as Mr. Guenier has written. You can stand in the middle of Times Square with your cardboard sign that reads “Repent! The end is near!” and people will still climb aboard airplanes to go on vacations and leave their porch lights on when they aren’t home. People are not going to ride bicycles to work, take cold showers, or wipe their behinds with one square of toilet paper as the Alarmists’ advise. 
Climate Alarmist Stephen Schneider of Discover magazine wrote: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” 
Completely off topic but you brought it up: 
Regarding HIV/AIDS; we were told by the “experts” that this disease would be the scourge of the planet akin to the Black Death; that the general population would become infected with the disease within 10 years; that was 1981. We were told that it would effect everyone on the planet unless “we acted now”. AIDS/HIV is a disease spread primarily by immoral behavior, (sexual promiscuity and illegal drug use), and has not effected the general population as was reported in the original Alarmist “the sky is falling/we’re all doomed” rhetoric. AIDS has not wholly effected the heterosexual, monogamous, non-illicit drug using portions of the population. (I’ve had a family member die from AIDS, so I know what I’m talking about). Do you have any idea how much that cost and who paid the price for his personal choices? We all make personal choices in life……… if I choose to smoke and die from lung cancer I have NO ONE, NO ONE, NO ONE to blame but myself. If I choose to drink a quart of whiskey daily and die from liver disease, I have NO ONE, NO ONE, NO ONE to blame but myself. 
(Children born with AIDS due their parents reckless behavior is a different case).
Brute 
18 February 2008 at 17:53
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide 
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm 
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? 
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth 
The inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations 
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth 
Ice Cores and CO2 
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s605542.htm 
Summary: 
Increased CO2 brings higher temperatures. Right? 
Wrong. Measurements of the Vostock ice cores reveal records of CO2 dating back 400,000 years and it's been found that, contrary to the prevailing wisdom, the lowering of the temperature preceeds the lowering of CO2 by several thousand years. 
Transcript: 
Michael Ghil: I was struck by the difference in the timing of drops in temperature and in the CO2 as soon as I became acquainted with the results of my colleagues in France on the Vostock ice core. 
Robyn Williams: They’d been digging up ice cores that go back zillions of years. How far back in fact did the measurements go? 
Michael Ghil: Originally, they went back for about 150,000 years, now they’ve gone to a little over 400,000. 
Robyn Williams: And how long are the ice cores that they take? 
Michael Ghil: Oh, they are a few kilometres deep. They go as far down as essentially Lake Vostock, which is at the bedrock, so that’s almost 4 kilometres. 
Robyn Williams: And you can see there the record of the concentration of carbon dioxide and presumably you’ve also got records of the temperature somehow? 
Michael Ghil: Well, 'the somehow' has to do with something complicated called geo-chemistry. It turns out that there are isotopes of both hydrogen and oxygen whose ratio changes with temperature and that’s how we know. 
Robyn Williams: So, which comes first the temperature change or the CO2? 
Michael Ghil: Well, funnily, it is the temperature that goes down first and the CO2 which goes down a few thousand years later. 
Robyn Williams: Hang on, wasn’t it supposed to be the other way round, that CO2 goes up and therefore temperature rises? 
Michael Ghil: Quite so. It was supposed to be the other way around and quite possibly that is the way that it works at present. 
Robyn Williams: What’s the story? How does the lowering of the temperature follow this increase? 
Michael Ghil: Actually, what’s involved are interactions on these very long time scales of thousands and tens of thousands of years between the ocean and the ice sheets. As the oceans warm they evaporate more water in lower latitudes; that water goes way south and it falls as snow and that’s the way that the ice sheet accumulates. 
Robyn Williams: So, as the temperature goes up you get more evaporation and therefore more rain, more snow and therefore you’d expect a thickening ice sheet. That would make the temperature go down in Antarctica, would it? 
Michael Ghil: Correct, actually as both the height of the ice sheet grows and the sea ice expands we expect temperatures not just over Antarctica but essentially over the entire southern hemisphere to go down. 
Robyn Williams: So what are the consequences in the short term from this sort of result as we watch what’s happening in Antarctica at the moment. I mean, the other day there was a suggestion that in fact the ice sheet is getting thicker for various reasons. 
Michael Ghil: Well, at present indeed the accumulation rates, the amount of snow deposited per year on top of the Antarctic ice sheet, is larger than at last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago. 
Robyn Williams: Even though it was supposed to be a desert and not getting terribly much snow fall. 
Michael Ghil: Correct, it’s very little but it’s more than before. At the same time there’s also increased loss of ice on the margins of the ice sheet, especially in western Antarctica. 
Robyn Williams: Yes, that was one of the pieces of news and this seemed to surprise people. Could you remind us why? 
Michael Ghil: Well, the loss of ice seems to be fairly localised, in other words, the Antarctic peninsular indeed seems to be losing some of its marginal ice sheets but on the whole actually, the major ice shelves and the ice sheet do not seem to decrease by that much. 
Robyn Williams: So how does your finding affect policy when you go to Washington to tell politicians about the latest findings on global warming. Would it affect their decision making at this point? 
Michael Ghil: I don’t think anything would affect their decision making at this point, but if I had to tell them about it my feeling is that, on the whole it confirms simply the complicated workings of climate that we know about and that a lot of additional effort has to be spent in understanding what climate does even if we weren’t around. 
Robyn Williams: A statement you made just now about how nothing would affect their decision making – what did you mean by that? 
Michael Ghil: Well, I think that given the billions of dollars involved, scientific input might be matter of greatest concern to the decision makers. 
Robyn Williams: It’s politics. 
Michael Ghil: As usual.
Pat T 
18 February 2008 at 21:30
Peter, it's a holiday in the US and I do not post every day. 
Yeah, I offered a bet - give me two years. If we get through 2009 without passing 1998, that will be 12 years since the "hottest year on record." El Nino el shmino, we've continued to emit CO2 at even greater levels and the temps should have crossed 1998 levels within 12 years if that's what's was driving the warming. 
And so you know, 2008 to day isn't going your way.
Pat T 
18 February 2008 at 21:35
And Peter, there IS NO proof - there is only proof that it got warmer in the last 20th century. There remains no direct proof of causation. It's been warmer when CO2 levels were lower. That means we cannot just infer that the late 20th century warming was caused by CO2. 
A prosecutor can prove over and over again that the victim is dead - if he has no proof that the defendant did it, the defendant walks - er, drives.
Brute 
18 February 2008 at 21:49
Pat T, 
Saw your post(s) at WSJ. Good job.
Ron McKeown 
18 February 2008 at 23:16
Brute - 17th February 2008 
I have found evidence in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles that support your argument that the MWP was warmer than today. 
www.derbyheritageforum.co.uk 
Follow link to Chronicle investigation.
Pat T 
18 February 2008 at 23:51
Continued record cold in China strands thousands: 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080218/wl_asia_afp/chinaweathe... 
Don't the alarmists ever get sick of being wrong?
Peter Martin 
19 February 2008 at 00:11
Brute, 
So you think its a "sweeping generalisation" to suggest that opposition to the concept of AGW is politically rather than scientifically motivated? Well maybe you aren't a right wing crackpot but when you use the following sort of arguments, maybe we can be forgiven for thinking otherwise. 
" 1960’s retreads such as Hansen, Mann and Gore are attempting to recapture their “glory days” of the late 1960’s and have created this movement " 
" People such as Al Gore, The United Nations and Mark Lynas have turned this topic from a discussion regarding the science of climate change into a social argument and a political indictment of humanity; no one else. They have turned this into a political crusade; this is why I am arguing this topic so vociferously. My belief is that Al Gore and others have fabricated this 'planetary emergency' in an effort to undermine capitalism and infringe on personal/individual freedoms." 
"This is the greatest hoax since Piltdown Man, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" 
"global warming theory is incorrect and based on hype and ideology." 
"The Environmentalists/Global Warming Hysterian “solutions” rely on typical Leftist tactics to attain their goals." 
"The United Nations could be one of the most racist and anti-Semitic organizations on the planet" 
"The Eco-Nazis are alive and well and becoming increasingly violent. The Environmental Brown Shirts are making themselves known " 
"AIDS/HIV is a disease spread primarily by immoral behavior, sexual promiscuity and illegal drug use" 
Not everyone on the political right has the same blinkered view. John McCain seems keen enough to address the issue in a sensible manner. The constructive concept of harnessing the power of capitalism , by creating a global market in carbon, has also largely come from the political right. There are those on the left who argue that only a world wide socialist revolution can save the planet. But they would say that wouldn't they? But, like any other political argument it doesn't make any difference one way or the other to the science.
Brute 
19 February 2008 at 00:14
Mr. McKeown, 
Thank you; I'm convinced……. Good luck with convincing Mr. Martin. He doesn’t even live in your town and feels that he is an expert on its history. We could post links of evidence that state that the Earth was warmer than it is now until we are old and grey……the Alarmists would never accept it………Sometimes people choose to see only what they desire………Pity. 
My sense is that the Alarmist desperately wants the global warming apocalyptic scenario to be genuine or at least coerce people into believing that there is a problem caused by mankind in an effort to change public policies. 
As I wrote previously; the only thing that is certain about the weather, (or “climate”), is that it is uncertain. The Alarmist can point to any change in weather, (rain/sun, cold/warmth, wind/calm), and proclaim that it is “proof” of global warming; ergo, mankind caused it and politicians have to change it. Again, the conceit of anyone to imagine that they can control the weather, either individually or collectively must be enormous. Someone with that prodigious an ego possesses, in my opinion, a God complex. 
Politicians are keen to create a perceived “victim class” whereas they are the only path to salvation. If you really study the concocted global warming fairy-tale, and all of its facets and the implications involved, it is about manipulation and control.
Peter Martin 
19 February 2008 at 00:26
Jimbob32 ( cc to Pat T), 
The figure for annual Global temperature is always a mixture of natural variability due to, for example, oceon oscillation cycles, the solar cycle, volcanic activity, and good old experimental error. There is also the underlying trend of warming due to CO2 and methane accumulation in the atmosphere. So how do we separate one from the other? I'm all for a bet but we have to keep it simple, straightforward and unambiguous to avoid any disputes later. That's why provisos are out as far as I'm concerned. Unlike Pat T who's gone very cool on the idea, which is a bit surprising as he seems to think that we are always wrong in predicting global warming, I'm not backing out and I'd still be interested in his offer, and anyone else's as well, if he were to stick to it. 
I have consistently argued that the only sensible interpretation of the data is to look at the long term trends and apply some sensible averaging to the figures. Maybe you'd like to suggest an alternative bet based on five year averaged results?
Brute 
19 February 2008 at 02:46
A report from Hadley in the event they predicted this year incorrectly also.................. 
Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model 
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/ind...
Robin Guenier 
19 February 2008 at 08:20
Peter. Your 16 February post was bizarre: to “prove” your point you’ve doctored the evidence by adding a non-existent and massive 500 year temperature rise (embracing most, including the coldest part, of the Little Ice Age!) and placed the result on your business website (rfshop.com.au). A great scientific approach. It was rather hard to take you seriously before – now it’s getting close to impossible. I suggest you spend a week (see below) reviewing the abundant paleontological evidence of global temperatures during the Holocene and during, in particular, the Climate Optimum. Remember: these are inevitability average temperatures and therefore must cover many big temperature excursions, both up and down, some decades long. Some hints: look at the literature about Greenland and Antarctic Vostok ice core findings, isotope ratios, sedimentary analyses, tree ring findings and granular and other evidence from organic residues such as fossil pollens; look at the work done by scientists such as Willi Dansgaard, Gerard Bond, Richard Alley and Willie Soon. Then produce some objective evidence (not Wikipedia and not doctored by you) clearly and unambiguously substantiating your assertion that “this warm period is warmer than any other since the last ice age”. When you’ve done that, perhaps we’ll continue our dialogue. Otherwise, I doubt if I can be bothered. 
In any case, I’m just about to leave for Egypt for a week – without my computer! I’ll be interested to see developments when I get back.
Peter Martin 
19 February 2008 at 10:04
Robin, 
Doctored the graph? Not At all. All I've done is joined up the last point of the graph, which I would estimate stopped around 1850 to the present day figure. This was the same figure as used by David Whitehouse in his recent argument, so it must be correct. :-) 
The dip of the little ice age and the previous peak of the MWP is still visible and I've marked these on the graph for all to see. 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/holocene_temperatur... 
If I remember correctly, it was I who asked you to substantiate your '11 previous warmer episodes than today' claim and presented you with a graph from Wikipedia to show that there was no real evidence of that. Your only reply is that it was probably incorrect and that your definition of 'today' goes back 100 years or more. 
OK. So you don't accept the evidence that I've presented. You have said that you have other evidence. Are you going to share that with us?
Sven 
19 February 2008 at 12:23
Met Office figure for January 2008 is finally out - 0,037C compared to 1961-1990 average. It's the coldest month globally since February 1994 and the coldest January since 1989... 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
Sven 
19 February 2008 at 12:25
In order to avoid confusion, it's "...figure for January 2008 is finally out: 0,037C ..." That means +0,037
Sven 
19 February 2008 at 12:49
What seems weird, is that while GISS shows a fall of 0,28 deg (0,40 to 0,12) between December 2007 and January 2008, then metoffice only has 0,165 (0,202 to 0,037)... That's a big difference! The only relevance of this question of course is, how reliable is all this predicting stuff all together if even direct measurements are jumping like that between different institutions...?
Pat T 
19 February 2008 at 13:44
Peter the 60 million dollar question is how to define your terms, specifically in this case "long term trends." 
The trend over the last nine months has been cooling. 
The trend over the last nine years has been a flatline. 
The trend over the last thirty years has been warming followed by that flatline. 
The trend over the prior thirty years was cooling. 
The trend over the last 100 years has been a 1 degree F warming (it was 1.2 before the last 9 months). 
But that followed upon the heels of a 4-century cool period which in turn followed on the heels of a 3-century warm period (despite the efforts of Mann et al to re-write that warm period out of the climate history). 
Look at it from our perspective: 
A bunch of Malthusian folks who have sought sharp limits on energy consumption and consumption in general for countless reasons - some legitimate (e.g., acid rain) but most grossly exaggerated (e.g., teflon birds) or just plain false (e.g., Bt corn pollen and Monarch butterflies) - going back to the dawn of the Industrial Era are now advancing the same policy for a new reason - based on a new theory. The theory was not originally created to fit the agenda but it was picked up and developed to fit the agenda. 
When facts emerge that are inconsistent with the theory, the theory is re-written to accommodate these facts - but the ultimate conclusion and policy recommendation never changes. Doesn't that sound like a stock analyst who, when the facts don't turn out to be what he thought they were, comes up with a new rationale to justify his original price target rather than changing the price target? Either that or the facts are just re-written, as with the MWP. 
The theory as to what global warming will in turn do to the climate is in constant flux - curiously following the weather at the time. When it was generally getting warmer in the 1990s (mild winters, hot summers), we were told that's what to expect: "Boston will have the climate of Atlanta." Then when cold winters returned with a vengeance and summers started to ease in most regions, we were told that global warming is really a misnomer, it should really be called "climate change" and it could mean cold weather. China and India are experiencing record cold winters and at the climate change conference in India, it was announced that global warming was CAUSING the record cold temperatures in India..... 
When hurricanes were causing increased damage because of coastal development, and then when we had a particularly bad hurricane season in '05, all we heard was global warming makes hurricanes worse and more frequent. Then after two mild hurricane seasons, we now hear the opposite. 
Whatever happens, it's caused by global warming. There's now a theory to cover every eventuality, and most AGW proponents have settled back on "global warming causes 'fluctuations'" as if that's not what weather has always done is to fluctuate. 
There's no actual proof of material human-induced warming - just the very rough correlation between the 20th century warming and increased CO2 levels plus the inability to prove it's something else - and every time your theory as it stands fails, it is just rewritten to incorporate the facts that didn't fit but still justify the same policy recommendations you've always made - that's when your side doesn't just try to rewrite the facts that don't fit, as they did with the "Hockey Stick" and with the notion of a sinking Tuvalu and, to date, polar bear populations, which have actually increased five-fold since the 1960s. 
Given all that, how can any intellectually curious, intellectually rigorous, critically-thinking person NOT be skeptical? 
Now, we have Peter on this website and Dana and Bob on Yahoo! Answers trying to reconcile the "long term phenomenon of CO2-based (and in your case methane-based) warming" with what they appear to admit are more significant natural shifts. 
This would seem to be an admission that whatever effect mankind has, a century of it is well within the natural fluctuations. 
If so, then really what's the problem - even if CO2 caused what is now a net 1 degree F temperature increase in a little over a century, what's the problem? Scarcity of fossil fuel resources and increased land values as well as better nuclear technology all add up to market forces dictating a shift away from fossil fuels over the next 150 years anyway. Thus even if you were right that man-made CO2 was the proximate cause of the 20th century warming, what's the harm? 
The only way I could see you still making your case would be to argue that the multi-century shifts show a natural trend toward warming of the level that caused such severe droughts in the 12th and 13th centuries that the Anasazi abandoned their civilization, that the Vikings farmed Greenland and lower England was wine country, etc.... etc.... - and that an MWP-type warming which was due PLUS man-made warming would bring temps to where they were during the Holocene Maximum which, because the human population is much further spread out than it was then, would be disastrous for some. 
But that would require admitting a warmer MWP than now and an even warmer Holocene Maximum than now, which would mean admitting that the hyperbole about "unprecedented warming" was a lie, which would cause most people to disbelieve anything else your side had to say. 
You've created this conundrum for yourselves.
Pat T 
19 February 2008 at 13:48
And as for 1998 being misleading because it was exacerbated by El Nino, that argument was fine for a few years but we're closing in on a decade and we're talking about a three-decade warming period to begin with. Again that goes back to my ultimate point - if CO2 was the main driver of the late 20th century warming, then there is no point, because that's clearly within the natural temperature fluctuations - - - - all the CO2 we pumped into the atmosphere in a decade is outweighed by El Nino / La Nina.
Brute 
19 February 2008 at 14:25
Pat, 
You wrote: China and India are experiencing record cold winters and at the climate change conference in India, it was announced that global warming was CAUSING the record cold temperatures in India..... 
I say: 
You've forgotten the "Global Dimming" paradox.
Brute 
19 February 2008 at 23:45
12. February 21:01 (Sidst opdateret 13. February 15:25) 
Deep freeze in western Greenland 
http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN 
Så meget is er der ud for Nuuk. Fotoet har vi lånt af RAL og det er tager fra sattelitterne 'Terra' og 'Aqua'. 
Photographer: 
By staff writers Print Tip En Ven Sermitsiaq TV 
Pujorassuaq Imiatsiaq 
Sørøg Jolle 
The ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years. 
Minus 30 degrees Celsius. That's how cold it's been in large parts of western Greenland where the population has been bundling up in hats and scarves. At the same time, Denmark's Meteorological Institute states that the ice between Canada and southwest Greenland right now has reached its greatest extent in 15 years. 
'Satellite pictures show that the ice expansion has extended farther south this year. In fact, it's a bit past the Nuuk area. We have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south. On the eastern coast it hasn't been colder than normal, but there has been a good amount of snow.' 
But how do these new reports fit in with continual reports that ice in the Arctic Ocean has been melting at a record rate due to increasing temperatures? And isn't global warming at the top of the political agenda these years? 
Shifting weather 
If it's up to meteorologists from Denmark's Meteorological Institute, there is not anything inherently contradictory that extreme cold is replaced by higher temperatures than average. Or that melting sea ice occasionally is replaced by expanding ice sheets. 
'Weather is a phenomenon which changes from year to year and right now the atmosphere has changed so we have cold weather. That will certainly mean that melting ice in the North Pole will be less this year, but next year the situation can look completely different,' according to Henriksen. 
To sum things up, global warming hasn't been called off. In the meanwhile, western Greenlanders will have to accept that the cold weather continues for some time. At least until next Tuesday when milder weather could be on the way, according to Polarfronten online.
Alex 
20 February 2008 at 00:04
What a pleasure it has been reading the whole of this discussion. I thought I was the only one who believed that the theory of man-made global warming was nonsense! I have sometimes felt very isolated in my scepticism, surrounded by an ocean of alarmists. Brute, Robin, Ron et al - thank you for standing up for the voice of reason. 
I began to wonder about CO2 in general when I was first authoritatively told that CO2 forms a "blanket around the earth" thereby trapping in the heat. I used to fly aeroplanes (just for fun) and frequently flew with the canopy open. I was worried - was I flying through this "blanket"? Was it harmful? Should I breathe it in? Was it above me? Could I see it? I was curious and looked for more information on the internet. The information I found left me puzzled. There is no blanket. What's more, there never was, and never will be. So why was I being told there was one, when it isn't true? I was also curious as to why I was being told about percentage rates of this, percentage increases of that, whereas CO2 was always referred to in parts per million. What did that mean? What does it mean to anybody? Why not use the same units i.e percentages, that everybody understands? So I converted them to a percentage, and immediately understood why ! The more I investigated, the more it appeared that the man-made global warming lobby is presenting selective facts in a way designed to make us laymen believe that mankind is responsible for global warming which is most definitely "a bad thing". The pattern of disinformation was becoming alarmingly familiar. 
During the 80's and 90's I worked with the old Soviet Union, and spent about 6 months a year there on and off. Prior to that, I studied Russian at university, and speak the language. I remember the huge slogans fixed on the tops of buildings proclaiming the superiority of Communism, and how wonderful the Soviet system was. The press was full of articles about the decaying West and how marvellous life was in the USSR by comparison. Unfortunately, some Russians had been to the West and saw for themselves that the truth was vastly different. They came back and told family and friends what they had seen and experienced, and that the slogans and articles were not true, that in fact they were being lied to. And what do you think happened to them? The truth could not be allowed to escape, and so was suppressed, sometimes brutally. I see exactly the same tactics employed by the "Greens" against the "Deniers". You don't even need to know the science or numbers involved. If there are two sides to an argument, and one side raises legitimate, reasonable questions, while the other does all in its power to silence them, then I know who is telling the truth. Once again Brute, Robin, Ron et al - thank you.
Peter Martin 
20 February 2008 at 00:24
Brute, 
".......dictating a shift away from fossil fuels over the next 150 years anyway. Thus even if you were right that man-made CO2 was the proximate cause of the 20th century warming, what's the harm? " 
Well that's not quite right. Conventional oil may be nearing the peak but there are still very large reserves other fossil fuels such as coal, oil shale, and oil sands. There is more than enough to push CO2 levels into the 'ultra dangerous' region if it is all consumed too quickly.
Brute 
20 February 2008 at 00:43
Welcome Alex. Tell your friends. You've probably written the most profound comment on this entire post. 
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke) 
Mr. Martin, 
I believe your last comment should be directed to Pat T.
Brute 
20 February 2008 at 00:52
Another Global Temp Index Dives in Jan08, this time HadCRUT 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/another-glob...
Peter Martin 
20 February 2008 at 01:26
Alex, 
I would urge you to look a little deeper into the atmospheric science of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is not such a bad thing -without it the world would be over 30 degrees cooler! Most of the effect comes from water vapour in the atmosphere. However, us humans don't have much effect, on the levels of atmospheric water vapour. Moreover, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere increases when the earth warms and decreases when it cools. This produces a positive feedback effect which means that when the concentration of other gases like CO2 and methane increases, the effect they have is amplified by changing levels of water vapour. 
Figures like 280 ppm ( the pre-industrial level) and 390ppm (the current level) don't sound much when converted to a percentage figure but they do have a significant effect. 
See this reference for an fuller explanation: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calcul... 
It isn't particularly easy to follow the exact calculations. The theory is that a doubling of CO2 levels will produce a 3 degree rise in world temperatures. 
It could well be that the world's climate scientists have got it wrong. But, if you think that is the case then you'll need to work through their calculations to prove them wrong.
Brute 
20 February 2008 at 01:35
I think the record cold temperatures need to be reported also................. 
Antarctica Ice Cap Growth Reaches Record High Levels (Photos) 
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap... 
Record Cold & Snow Blankets Acropolis in Greece 
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-record-cold-... 
TURKEY'S SNOWIEST WINTER IN DECADES CONTINUES 
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/02/turkeys-snowiest-w... 
Almost 1,000 dead from cold snap in Afghanistan: official 
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/238026.asp 
China Suffers Coldest Winter in 100 Years 
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-china-suffer... 
2007 warmest year on record? Coldest in this century 
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/2007-warmest-year-on-recor... 
HadCRUT3: Jan 2008 coldest since Feb 1994 
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/02/hadcrut3-jan-2008-coldest-... 
Near-record cold chills Interior Alaska 
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/feb/06/brrrrr-near-record...
Brute 
20 February 2008 at 02:01
CO2 Levels continue to rise and yet………………………….. 
GLOBAL WARMING? IT’S THE COLDEST WINTER IN DECADES 
ICE-AGE: Frost coated much of Britain yesterday 
Monday February 18,2008 
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/35266/Global-warming-It-...
Peter Martin 
20 February 2008 at 03:23
One year's result doesn't mean that much. A one month result means only a twelve as much! However, 2008 is predicted to be a relatively cool year both by the British Met Office and Nasa. 
link 
The Solar cycle 24 has only just started, 
link 2 
which will mean that solar irradiance is cuurently at a minimum , but will increase in the years 2009 onwards. In adddition there is currently a strong 'La Nina' in the Pacific so we have two cooling effects acting together to temporarily offset global warming. 
However there is no evidence to suggest that the underlying trend of global warming has ended. See 
link 3 
particularly "myth 6" which might well be termed the "David Whitehouse myth".
Sven 
20 February 2008 at 06:41
Peter Martin, 
a) The "myth 6" is not the "David Whitehouse myth". David Whitehouse made it particularly clear, that 1998 was an anomaly and does not count in his "stopping" question. 
b) "One year's result doesn't mean that much". Well, first, how come it always means much when it's the other way around (and that's why, as Bruce has said, he is giving all the references to the cold weather), and, second, does an 8 year's result mean much? Or 10 year's out of a period on around 30 years? When Britain was having an exceptionally warm winter this year, it was "proof of cold warming" all over. Now suddenly it has changed to exceptional cold and there is a deafening silence! 
c) From Brute's reference to Greenland: "'Weather is a phenomenon which changes from year to year and right now the atmosphere has changed so we have cold weather. That will certainly mean that melting ice in the North Pole will be less this year, but next year the situation can look completely different,' according to Henriksen. " 
Did we hear a comment like that either from you or any AGW-ers when we heard about the record melt down in the Arctic this summer? 
A little bit of consistency is needed, gentlemen!
Sven 
20 February 2008 at 06:45
"2008 is predicted to be a relatively cool year both by the British Met Office and Nasa. " 
Well, 2007 was predicted to be the warmest in history by metoffice on January 4, 2007 (0,54 higher than average). It turned out to be the 8th with 0,40. Would you imagine the press releases had the prediction turned out to be true? Where are they now?
stargazer 
20 February 2008 at 08:34
Pat T 
19 February 2008 
GOOD post.....
Alex 
20 February 2008 at 09:14
Brute 
Thanks for that - I appreciate it. 
Peter, 
Thanks for the pointer - I have in fact looked into the subject quite intensively. One of the questions that intrigued me was how does such a trivial amount of a gas in our atmosphere have such a profound effect on it - and believe me I was genuinely interested and ready to learn and be convinced. 
What I found was this: 80-90% of the CO2 in our atmosphere is natural, is supposed to be there, and is beneficial to life on earth. For some reason, this detail is usually omitted when reference is made to CO2 concentrations being 380 ppm etc. So the man made "harmful" portion of our atmosphere is 20% (at best) of .038% of our atmosphere i.e. 0.0076%. And you want to tell me that this microscopic proportion of our atmosphere is driving the planet's climate? That's like saying that if your house is getting too hot inside, then it isn't the boiler that's to blame, or the insulation in the walls and roof space, or the double glazed windows - it's the thick wallpaper in your bedroom that's trapping in all the heat! It must be immediately removed - before it's too late! - at huge expense and inconvenience, and hardship. What a load of nonsense. Of course CO2 has an effect on keeping the atmosphere warm, but it's tiny. Let me explain. 
Something that is neither publicised nor have I seen mentioned in this forum is that the effect of CO2 in warming our atmosphere is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, each increase of CO2 has proportionately less effect. Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, will not double the temperature increase. Think of it as a window blind that cuts out half the light. Another window blind will cut out half of what is remaining i.e 25%. A third will cut out half of that etc etc. The effect of each successive window blind is less and less, unti you reach saturation, when each additional blind will have no effect at all. Perhaps more significantly for present discussions on global warming, removing a window blind at saturation will also have no effect. So that begs the question - are we near saturation point with CO2 absorbtion of heat? What is it absorbing and can it absorb any more? 
CO2 absorbs thermal radiation from the earth, which is emitted at longwave infrared frequencies. The compounds that absorb it are H2O and CO2. H2O accounts for 90% of this, as there is more of it, and it has enough spectral lines in it to absorb radiation at these frequencies. If you know that the whole of the greenhouse effect is about 30 degrees of warming, and that water accounts for 90% of it, then CO2 accounts for - at most - 3 degrees. If 80% of that (at least) is natural, then the man made portion accounts for a staggering 0.6 degree rise (precisely what has been seen this century). Furthermore, 99.9% of longwave radiation in the CO2 absorbtion bands is already absorbed. So how can increased CO2 have ANY effect? (I would really like an answer to this if anybody has one, because it is a question that is constantly ignored by the Green lobby. I have seen it posed by physycists time and again, and none has had an answer. Makes you wonder why...) Again this is a detail that is omitted by all the reports that simplistically equate the same amount of CO2 with the same amount of heat. So reducing man-made CO2 by 20% will have what effect exactly.....? 
The trouble with a lot of arguments about global warming is that people can't see the wood for the trees. The precise methods used in making calculations and collecting and interpreting data are endlessly debated, whereas the big picture escapes people. If we are talking about "global" warming, we should be applying global scales, not human ones i.e " a million tons of CO2! Wow, that's a lot! Has to be significant doesn't it?" No. It's puny. In short, the Greens' battle cry of "Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming!" is all very well, except it isn't man-made, catastrophic or even global.
stargazer 
20 February 2008 at 10:42
Alex Yes indeed... 
AND... Peter said 
"The theory is that a doubling of CO2 levels will produce a 3 degree rise in world temperatures." 
Depends on what temp. figure you are doubling !!! Co2/temp is like painting a 'goth teen's' bedroom back to white after the black-paint-on-every-wall phase's is over. The first coat of white will have the biggest impact. NO subsequent coats will make such a great and immediate difference. The second coat will add to the effect of the first coat etc.until after a few coats of white, NO matter how many other coats you apply the room will get no whiter. This likely explains why the worlds temp. did not 'run away' when the C02 level was some 10-20 times greater than today, in the past.
Brute 
20 February 2008 at 11:19
JOURNALIST WHO EXPOSES U.N. CORRUPTION DISAPPEARS FROM GOOGLE 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331106,00.html 
AT THE UNITED NATIONS, THE CURIOUS CAREER OF MAURICE STRONG 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250789,00.html
Alex 
20 February 2008 at 12:22
Stargazer 
Nice analogy - I prefer it to mine and will use it from now on if that's OK! 
Brute 
Thanks for the links to the news items. How scary is that? Just like the USSR again
stargazer 
20 February 2008 at 13:57
Alex I cant take cred. 
I heard it along time ago... the wording 
of 'this version' is mine though. 
ps. 
I should have added somwhere 'that after the first coat, the whitening's 'effectiveness' diminishes with each subsequent coat' 
but maybe that it was clear anyway...
Ron McKeown 
20 February 2008 at 18:12
I know that we have been concentrating on the warming effect of climate change and this has been one of the most interesting discussions I have seen anywhere but can I suggest another thread of evidence to follow. If the purveyors of doom and green taxes consider that an increase in CO2 is to blame what mechanism do they suggest for the Little Ice Age that brought Arctic conditions to Britain? Do they follow their own argument that CO2 is to blame but in this case it was a loss of CO2 and if so – where did it go to? It is all too easy to discuss climate change in one direction only, that is rising temperatures, but how do you explain the opposite trend of plummeting temperatures? Volcanic activity may cause spells of inclement weather but the Little Ice Age lasted from the late medieval period through to the latter part of the twentieth century. When volcanic activity was the culprit we saw extremes of weather and even years without summers but as I indicate above he activity was sporadic and cannot explain the whole period. The same reasoning applies to all of the known ice ages. Oh, and by the way, volcanoes are one of the major sources of CO2. 
So Peter Martin and Co, how does CO2 work?
WFalicoff 
20 February 2008 at 22:09
Alex, 
I suggest you read Spencer Weart's history relating to the science of CO2 and global warming at 
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm 
Or his recent article at www.realclimate.org which addresses all your questions: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-satu... 
Here is the first part of this his article (to convince the rest is worth reading): 
"The simple physics explanations for the greenhouse effect that you find on the internet are often quite wrong. These well-meaning errors can promote confusion about whether humanity is truly causing global warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Some people have been arguing that simple physics shows there is already so much CO2 in the air that its effect on infrared radiation is "saturated"— meaning that adding more gas can make scarcely any difference in how much radiation gets through the atmosphere, since all the radiation is already blocked. And besides, isn't water vapor already blocking all the infrared rays that CO2 ever would? 
The arguments do sound good, so good that in fact they helped to suppress research on the greenhouse effect for half a century. In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That's not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström's result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius' wild ideas. 
Still more persuasive to scientists of the day was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the infrared spectrum, the main bands where each gas blocked radiation overlapped one another. How could adding CO2 affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that H2O (not to mention CO2 itself) already made opaque? As these ideas spread, even scientists who had been enthusiastic about Arrhenius's work decided it was in error. Work on the question stagnated. If there was ever an "establishment" view about the greenhouse effect, it was confidence that the CO2 emitted by humans could not affect anything so grand as the Earth's climate. 
Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the "greenhouse" analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works." 
I have not decided to come back and debate. It is in my view a waste of time. 
Best Regards to All, 
W. Falicoff
WFalicoff 
20 February 2008 at 22:26
Alex, 
More on the CO2 issue in part II of the article I reference above: 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-satu... 
The first few paragraphs of the article: 
"In Part I the long struggle to get beyond the fallacious saturation argument was recounted in historical terms. In Part II, I will provide a more detailed analysis for the reader interested in the technical nitty-gritty of how the absorption of infrared really depends on CO2 concentration. At the end, I will discuss Herr Koch's experiment in the light of modern observations. 
The discussion here is based on CO2 absorption data found in the HITRAN spectroscopic archive. This is the main infrared database used by atmospheric radiation modellers. This database is a legacy of the military work on infrared described in Part I , and descends from a spectroscopic archive compiled by the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory at Hanscom Field, MA (referred to in some early editions of radiative transfer textbooks as the "AFGL Tape")." 
I suggest that if any of you are serious about this discussion that you read both articles. There is really no scientific "debate" whether increase in CO2 results in an increase in long wave radiation of this planet. It is science fact, period. Further, about 50+% of the anthropogenic sources of CO2 remain in the atmosphere (the rest are absorbed by various natural mechanisms). It is not difficult to make a calculation tthat the man-made sources of CO2 "tip the balance" and why we see the CO2 levels rising during the last hundred years. 
Sorry I broke my own vow to stay out of the debate. I must leave now! 
W. Falicoff
Brute 
21 February 2008 at 01:48
180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis By Chemical Methods 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE_18-2_Beck.pdf 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final... 
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Lockwood/Gregory-CritiqueLo... 
http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf 
Carbon cycle modelling and 
the residence time of natural and 
anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: 
on the construction of the 
"Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma. 
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm 
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf 
Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/136.pdf 
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
WFalicoff 
21 February 2008 at 02:26
Re: http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm 
# Timothy Chase Says: 
26 September 2007 at 8:55 AM 
Luke Silburn (#66) wrote: 
Then there’s the bit towards the end with the diagram of the balance beam which is arguing that because the oceanic reservoir of CO2 is 50 times the atmospheric reservoir there isn’t enough fossil carbon in the lithosphere to double atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (per the IPCC’s projections). Leaving aside the fact that this ignores other sources of carbon (tundra melt, methane clathrates etc) this visualisation only holds for when the various reservoirs are in equilibrium (ie. you’ve mined all of the fossil carbon out, dumped it into the atmosphere and then waited for a millenium or three for the various carbon sinks in the earth system to draw down the increased C02 concentrations in the atmosphere and establish a new equilibrium). 
"I realize you probably already know most of this, but for the benefit of anyone new and my own understanding… 
One of the big problems with the analysis of the oceans by climate skeptics is that they will treat the ocean as if it were a single block of ocean and carbon dioxide is absorbed uniformly throughout its volume rather than relying upon ocean circulation and diffusion before it reaches an equilibrium distribution. There are layers to the ocean, and even now anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have are fairly concentrated within the top two meters. Likewise, there is a skin to the ocean where due to the increased acidity that results from carbon dioxide which has already been absorbed - and creates a barrier to the absorption of additional carbon dioxide. 
Then there is another common “error” in which they will assume that the carbon dioxide which is absorbed by the ocean isn’t largely replaced by the carbon dioxide which is leaving the ocean. Even under equilibrium conditions, the ocean is emitting carbon dioxide, but this is balanced against that which it absorbs. 
* 
Additionally, as carbon dioxide raises results in higher temperatures in both the atmosphere and the ocean (we are able to measure the effects of global warming as far down as 1500 meters), this tends to raise the rate at which carbon dioxide is emitted by the upper layers of the ocean - just as a soda is less able to hold its fizz at higher temperatures. Absorption tends to take place by the colder waters of the Arctic and Antarctic - and these are already losing their ability to absorb the carbon dioxide which we are emitting. 
* 
But the mechanism is a little different from that which we were expecting, at least in the case of the Antarctic. However, it helps to have a little background on the structure of the atmosphere to understand why. The lower part of the atmosphere, where we live, is called the troposphere. It is warmed principally by moist air convection. 
The reradiation of thermal radiation by greenhouse gases has the direct effect primarily of cooling the atmosphere. It absorbs plenty of thermal radiation, but this is more than balanced by the thermal radiation which it emits. The additional radiation which the surface receives as the result of greenhouse gases reradiating more thermal radiation (more or less in all directions - about half of which goes back to the surface will warm the surface resulting in more moist air convection. 
* 
The farther you go up, the drier the atmosphere becomes until finally you reach the tropopause where there is very little moisture. As a result there is less and less moist air convection with altitude within the troposphere until finally at the boundary of the troposphere there is no moist air convection at all. Consequently the temperature drops with altitude in the troposphere. But above the tropopause which marks the end of the troposphere, the temperature actually rises with altitude in the stratosphere. 
More greenhouse gases will have the effect of cooling the stratosphere rather than warming it, principally because it lowers the rate at which thermal radiation is able to leave the lower layers of the troposphere and surface. As such, while the climate change that results from more greenhouse gases warms our part of the climate system, it has the effect of cooling the stratosphere - with a long term thermal equilibrium within the stratosphere coming about only as the result of thermal diffusion. And it cools the stratosphere first - even before it begins to warm the troposphere. 
* 
However, one exception to greenhouse gases lowering the temperature of the atmosphere is ozone. This gas is able to absorb ultraviolet radiation directly from sunlight rather than being limited to the infrared thermal radiation being radiation from the surface. However, it tends to be destroyed in moist air - as the result of OH radicals resulting from water molecules being struck by ultraviolet radiation. Consequently it tends to be limited to the upper parts of the troposphere and stratosphere. 
The layer of ozone in the atmosphere has been partly damaged as the result of CFCs which were in use until the 1970s - and this damage shows up particularly near Antarctica. This has already reduced the temperature of the stratosphere to a fair extent in that area. However, the increased moisture in the troposphere is reducing it further, resulting in the stratosphere becoming cooler due to additional moisture in the lower atmosphere resulting in more water molecules reaching the stratosphere - and thus more OH radicals which destroy ultraviolet-absorbing ozone. 
* 
The lower temperature of the stratosphere and the higher temperature in the troposphere then results in increased atmospheric circulation - wind. This will carry the moisture in the troposphere higher, resulting in the destruction of more ozone - lowering the rate at which the ozone layer is able to heal. 
Now given the lower temperature of the Antarctic, this is where much of the carbon dioxide gets absorbed by the ocean. However, this is also where the stratosphere tends to be closer to the surface. As a result, the warmer temperature of the troposphere and the cooler temperature of the stratosphere will result in increased wind at the surface of the ocean. This brings up organic material from the depths of the ocean - resulting in more carbon dioxide being emitted in that part of the ocean. And as a result it has been lowering the ability of the southern ocean to absorb as much of our carbon dioxide emissions. 
* 
Incidentally, the cooling of the stratosphere is one of the key pieces of evidence which demonstrates that what is causing the current trend towards warming in the troposphere is increased greenhouse gases - not solar radiation. More solar radiation would result in the warming of both the stratosphere and the troposphere."
Peter Martin 
21 February 2008 at 05:23
Mr WFalicoff, 
No please don't retire from the argument! I do appreciate some help and your links and explanation of the mechanism of how CO2 , even in tiny quantities, does affect the temperature was very good. 
Ron Keown, 
The same objections do keep cropping up, such as the one about CO2 from volcanoes. The New Scientists says that " claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true." See: 
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-ch... 
Brute, 
"The fact is that industrialization/modernization provides electricity for heat, light, food, refrigeration, jobs, medicine and prosperity" 
Yes that's quite right. The challenge, now, is to generate electricity without emitting large volumes of CO2. The technology exists. The problem is all quite fixable. Rather than arguing against what science is telling us is happening, and hoping for the best , it would be better if we all just got on with it. 
Alex, 
" 80-90% of the CO2 in our atmosphere is natural" 
The generally accepted figure of atmospheric CO2 levels pre-industrialisation was 280ppm. Currently it is about 390ppm. That works out at 72% natural, 28% man-made, according to my arithmetic. If you read the references by Mr Falicoff they do explain why 28% is a big enough percentage to be worried about. It is even more of a worry that this is increasing. Methane is even more of a potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and that is contributing to the problem too.
Peter Martin 
21 February 2008 at 10:46
"decide if a 1/2 degree temperature rise over 100 years" 
You don't say if you mean deg C or deg F but either way, its not correct. It all depends on where you start from. If you go back long enough you can say that the temperature has actually fallen. 
What matters is the current gradient or rate of change of temperature. In the last 30 years the temperature has risen by 0.55 deg C. That's about 0.18 deg C per decade, which is an enormous figure on a geological time scale.It doesn't sound a lot, but this is an average and would be higher but for the large thermal mass of the oceans which take longer to warm. The temperature rise on land and in the Arctic region has been much higher.
Admin 
21 February 2008 at 12:53
Could I request that people don't put in these very long links in their postings - we have to delete them because they break our pages! 
Thanks.
bobclive 
21 February 2008 at 14:13
Here are some links to papers and video lectures, 
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate 
I have for a long time been looking for a presentation which also contains real scientific data from any climatology scientists that are advocating the established global warming catastrophic scenario. 
I have found that most information is based on spin and on claims which lack real scientific substance. 
I was therefore pleasantly surprised when I for once found a lecture held by an anthropogenic devoted climatologist which showed real scientific data. This lecture was held by Noel Harris Ph.D. and was called "Changing Clouds in a Changing Climate". This is about one hour long. 
This lecture deals with one of the most important aspect that is needed in order to understand to which degree changes in greenhouse gases affects the climate. Water vapour and clouds are the most important players relating to the greenhouse effect. 
link 
The cloud mystery & cosmic rays, this is a documentary by Svensmark in 6 parts, all the parts are available at utube, the link is 
link 
Lockwood has tried to rubbish Svensmark, here is Svensmarks reply. 
Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in ... 
link 
I hope this post is not deleted like the last one.
Admin 
21 February 2008 at 16:38
If your comment was deleted Bob it was because it was breaking the page in some web browsers. Again it happened with your latest - I had to take the link out. Sorry but it's not fair on readers who want to read the actual article.
Brute 
21 February 2008 at 18:20
Ahhhhh. The cruel governess, (or governor), Information Technology overseer. 
Just kidding; you must have your hands full managing all of these comments. We appreciate it.
JZ Smith 
21 February 2008 at 20:22
I've been away for a week and just now able to catch up on the comments. 
Robin: (I know you'll be away for a week, but hope you'll see this upon your return) I missed your post of the 13th (I think) wherein you discussed CO2 and AGW: "(2) I’m surprised you are doubtful about the burning of fossil fuels causing AGW – I think no one doubts the science: it does cause it." 
I remain a skeptic ("sceptic for you Brits!) on AGW, and therefore the view that burning fossil fuels is a bad thing. Alex's post (above) on CO2 concentrations and the subsequent debate adds fuel (no pun intended) to my skepticism. I am not, however, a scientist, but I can see the big picture and apply common sense logic to the overarching discussion. 
Finally, I saw this today that I thought this group might find interesting: 
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23254825-5000...
Ron McKeown 
21 February 2008 at 21:50
Peter artin 
I am a regular reader of new scientist and have been taking it long enough to know that for every article describing an issue there will be another describing the opposite. 
Recent BBC documentaries by Dr Iain Stewart claimed that volcanoes were the source of most of the earth's CO2. If this is not the case where did CO2 come from before mankind hit the scene? 
For anyone reading this discussion for the first time can I say that I am not a global warming sceptic. I consider global warming to be a natural cycle and we are no where near the previous highs yet.
WFalicoff 
21 February 2008 at 22:06
With regard to the assertion by several individuals that recent increasing CO2 levels are as a result of a "natural cycle": 
See http://www.radix.net/%7Ebobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html 
This was written in 1996 but it is still relevant. 
"Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year 
1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and 
290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level 
observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice 
cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from 
peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago, 
but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [Schimel 94, 
p 44-45] [White] 
* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history 
from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47]. 
* The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions. 
Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils 
must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source [Melillo, 
p 454] [Schimel 94, p 47, 55] [Schimel 95, p 79] [Siegenthaler]. 
* Most "new" CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements 
in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind 
by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time. 
The ppmv-amount of the lag at a given time has increased according 
to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. [Schimel 94, p 43] 
[Siegenthaler] 
* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon 
13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in 
the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends 
fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible 
with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the 
ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs. 
* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly 
1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life 
of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere 
by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher, 
p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago. 
Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the 
`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings, 
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb 
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257] 
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2 
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils. 
* The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon, 
almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain 
less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors 
of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in 
photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom) 
[Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and 
ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257] 
[C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2 
source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic 
carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is 
heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the 
ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher, 
p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause 
a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ? 
4. References 
[Battle] M. Battle, M. Bender, T. Sowers, P.P. Tans, 7 more authors, 
Atmospheric gas concentrations over the past century measured in air 
from firn at the South Pole. Nature 383 (1996), 231-235 
[Bender] Michael Bender, A quickening on the uptake ? 
Nature 381 (1996), 195-196 
[Butcher] Samuel S. Butcher, Robert J. Charlson et al. (eds), 
Global Biogeochemical Cycles. San Diego, CA, Academic Press 1992 
[Denman] K. Denman, E. Hofmann, H. Marchant, Marine biotic 
responses to environmental change and feedbacks to climate. 
Pages 483-516 in [IPCC 95] 
[Figge] Regina A. Figge and James W.C. White, 
High-resolution Holocene and late glacial atmospheric CO2 record: 
variability tied to changes in thermohaline circulation. 
Global Biogeochemical Cycles 9 (1995), 391-403 
[Goulden] Michael L. Goulden, J.William Munger, Song-Miao Fan, 
Bruce C. Daube, Steven C. Wofsy, Exchange of carbon dioxide 
by a deciduous forest: Response to interannual climate variability. 
Science 271 (1996), 1576-1578 
[Heimann] Martin Heimann, Dynamics of the carbon cycle. 
Nature 375 (1995), 629-630 
[IPCC 94] Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change 
and An Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios. 
J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, J. Bruce, Hoesung Lee, 
B.A. Callander, E. Haites, N. Harris and K. Maskell (eds), 
Cambridge University Press 1995 
[IPCC 95] Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. 
J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, 
A. Kattenberg and K. Maskell (eds), Cambridge University Press 1996 
[IPCC 95/II] Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and 
Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. 
Robert T. Watson et al. (eds), Cambridge University Press 1996 
[C.Keeling] C.D. Keeling, T.P. Whorf, M. Wahlen & J. van der Plicht, 
Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon 
dioxide since 1980. Nature 375 (1995), 666-670 
[R.Keeling] Ralph F. Keeling, Stephen C. Piper & Martin Heimann, 
Global and hemispheric CO2 sinks deduced from changes in atmospheric 
O2 concentration. Nature 381 (1996), 218-221 
[Melillo] J.M. Melillo, I.C. Prentice, G.D. Farquhar, E.-D. Schulze, 
O.E. Sala, Terrestrial biotic responses to environmental change 
and feedbacks to climate. Pages 445-481 in [IPCC 95] 
[Novelli] Paul C. Novelli, Ken A. Masarie, Pieter P. Tans, 
Patricia M. Lang, Recent changes in atmospheric carbon monoxide. 
Science 263 (1994), 1587-1590 
[Prather 94] M. Prather, R. Derwent, D. Ehhalt, P. Fraser, 
E. Sanhueza, X. Zhou, Other trace gases and atmospheric chemistry. 
Pages 73-126 in [IPCC 94] 
[Prather 95] M. Prather, R. Derwent, D. Ehhalt, P. Fraser, 
E. Sanhueza, X. Zhou. Other trace gases and atmospheric chemistry. 
Pages 86-103 in [IPCC 95] 
[Quay] P.D. Quay, B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong, Oceanic uptake of fossil 
fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79 
[Schimel 94] D. Schimel, I.G. Enting, M. Heimann, T.M.L. Wigley, 
D. Raynaud, D. Alves, U. Siegenthaler, CO2 and the carbon cycle. 
Pages 35-71 in [IPCC 94] 
[Schimel 95] D. Schimel, D. Alves, I. Enting, M. Heimann, F. Joos, 
D. Raynaud, T. Wigley, CO2 and the carbon cycle. Pages 76-86 
in [IPCC 95] 
[Schneider] Stephen H. Schneider, Global Warming: Are We Entering 
the Greenhouse Century ? Vintage Books, New York 1990 
[Siegenthaler] U. Siegenthaler & J.L. Sarmiento, Atmospheric 
carbon dioxide and the ocean. Nature 365 (1993), 119-125 
[Sundquist] Eric T. Sundquist, The global carbon dioxide budget. 
Science 259 (1993), 934-941 
[White] J.W.C. White, P. Ciais, R.A. Figge, R. Kenny & 
V. Markgraf, A high-resolution record of atmospheric CO2 content 
from carbon isotopes in peat. Nature 367 (1994), 153-156. 
Discussion: Nature 371 (1994), 111-112
Brute 
21 February 2008 at 23:55
Mr. W. Falicoff, 
Please, (in layman’s terms), provide your explanation of the rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period and the fall in temperature during the Little Ice Age. 
Also; if you have a minute, please explain the atmospheric stimulus that caused the ice age(s) +/- 8,000 B.C. 
I have added some text from Wikipedia for reference…….. 
Quote: “An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's climate, resulting in an expansion of the continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Glaciologically, ice age is often used to mean a period of ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres; by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).” Unquote……. 
Mr. Martin, 
I'd be interested to hear your musings on these topics as well. I believe both of you have been asked to provide explanations for these climate events in previous posts. If I have somehow missed your retort, please excuse me and provide the date of your response.
Colonel Blimp 
22 February 2008 at 11:41
Well I think it's about time you all left your computers and stepped out into the sunlight.
Colonel Blimp 
22 February 2008 at 11:41
Don't forget to turn them off.
Brute 
22 February 2008 at 13:30
"Well I think it's about time you all left your computers and stepped out into the sunlight." 
It's feezing cold and snowing here..............I think I'll stay inside until Spring.
stargazer 
22 February 2008 at 17:57
1000 its mine....
JZ Smith 
22 February 2008 at 19:56
Darn! You beat me to it!
WFalicoff 
22 February 2008 at 20:13
Brute, 
I provided a detailed response to your question but for some reason it did not post. 
In summary: 
1) The little ice age - there was major volcanic activity. 
2) from Wikipedia article on Medieval Warm Period : "It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global [2]. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying "…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries".[3] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2] 
It is obvious that there were in the past natural changes in the global temperature. Many things could cause this including: variation in solar output, volcanic activity (the earth cooled in 1991 from the output of Mount Pinatubo), growth or decay of plants, to name a few. The only question that matters as far as I am concerned is whether there is an effect on the global temperature of anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases. I think this well established. I provided papers on this subject which so far you have not addressed. The work of Dr. Tom V. Segalstad is not convincing to me. His theory on ocean buffering is not supported by science fact nor does it make any sense to me given the steady rise in CO2 measured since the 1950s. I don't find your historical air measurements of CO2 over the last 150 years to have credibility. They are all over the place with changes from one year to the next on the order of 100ppm. This is not reasonable. Nor do they show the annual swings in CO2 as a consequence of the changes seasons on this planet. 
Please confirm that you have read and reviewed the key papers I listed above on CO2. It realize it takes a great deal of time to read all the links posted by everyone. If you do not wish to read the key papers that I post than I do not think we can have a meaningful discussion.
WFalicoff 
22 February 2008 at 20:44
http://www.24.com/news/?p=ra&i=828359 
"Sydney - Australia experienced its hottest January on record this year, with the dry continent heating up as part of the global warming process, the bureau of meteorology said on Friday. ... 
It's a remarkable number certainly. Averaging, as we did across the whole country 1.3 degrees above average is the highest temperature we've seen in our history of records for Australia in January," he told AFP." 
Brute, while you are hiding from the cold others are experiencing record heat.
JZ Smith 
22 February 2008 at 21:04
Robin Guenier: 
Robin, regarding our discussion above on fossil fuels, I saw a discussion on ClimateAudit.org's discussion site about "abiogenic petroleum", a theory, according to Wikipedia, that "natural petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. The ubiquity of hydrocarbons in the solar system is taken as evidence that there may be a great deal more petroleum on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids which migrate upward from the mantle." 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin 
There is an interesting discussion of this theory at ClimateAudit.org's discussion site: 
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=81&st... 
If this theory proves to be true, then we have a virtually unlimited supply of oil, if I understand correctly. This would also mean, if the current AGW theory is NOT true, that the burning of gasoline in our cars is not quite as horrible as we've been led to believe.
WFalicoff 
22 February 2008 at 21:22
Brute, Apparently Fairbanks, Alaska is experiencing very high temperatures. Yesterday was 40F, 28F above normal. Alaska as a whole is unusually warm at the moment. Here is the info: 
History & Almanac Hide 
Max Temperature: Min Temperature: 
Normal (PAFA) 12 °F / -11 °C -14 °F / -25 °C 
Record (PAFA) 46 °F / 7 °C (1997) -50 °F / -45 °C (1932) 
Yesterday 40 °F / 4 °C 11 °F / -11 °C 
I am sure you are pleased that it did not break the record warmth for that day in 1997. 
I am always amused that skeptics of global warming always feel vindicated when it is really cold out. As I pointed out if you were living in Australia you would be complaining about the record heat. Just a few weeks ago in Southern California we had 80F over much of the region, well above normal. 
Let's wait and see what happens over the year on the whole planet. 
Have a great day inside.
WFalicoff 
22 February 2008 at 21:30
http://www.24.com/news/?p=ra&i=828359 
"Sydney - Australia experienced its hottest January on record this year, with the dry continent heating up as part of the global warming process, the bureau of meteorology said on Friday. ... 
In 2007 we find that " 
Parts of the Arctic have experienced an unprecedented heatwave this summer, with one research station in the Canadian High Arctic recording temperatures above 20C, about 15C higher than the long-term average. 
The high temperatures were accompanied by a dramatic melting of Arctic sea ice in September to the lowest levels ever recorded, a further indication of how sensitive this region of the world is to global warming. Scientists from Queen's University 
in Ontario watched with amazement as their thermometers touched 22C during their July field expedition at the High Arctic camp on Melville Island, usually one of the coldest places in North America. 
"This was exceptional for a place where the normal average temperatures are about 5C. This year we frequently recorded daytime temperatures of between 10C and 15C and on some days it went as high as 22C," said Scott Lamoureux, a professor of geography at Queen's." 
from 
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/record-temperatu... 
"Even temperatures of 15C are higher than we'd expect and yet we recorded them for between 10 and 12 days during July. We won't know the August and September recordings until next year when we go back there but it appears the region has continued to be warm through the summer." 
It's a remarkable number certainly. Averaging, as we did across the whole country 1.3 degrees above average is the highest temperature we've seen in our history of records for Australia in January," he told AFP." 
Brute, while you are hiding from the cold others are experiencing record heat.
Peter Martin 
23 February 2008 at 04:02
Ron McKeown, 
Your question about volcanoes and "Where did CO2 come from before mankind hit the scene? " 
I think Wiki explains it quite well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide 
"Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial volcanic eruptions is carbon dioxide. According to the best estimates, volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year ". This has been happening for millions of years so it is possible that most, or a substantial proportion, of natural CO2 in the atmosphere does come from volacanic activity. 
This CO2 has been utilised by plants and , in turn animals, for millions of years. 
"Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution" 
However 
"emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons)" 
Brute, 
You ask about my musings on the MWP and the little ice age. I'm happy to defer to David Whitehouse on this one. I'm not sure that he is correct but this is a plausible explanation. 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ray-of-hope-can-th... 
However, he seems to be attributing the slight levelling off of temperatures currently to the late arrival of solar cycle # 24. He's wrong about the timing though. It started last month. He's possibly still correct to some extent but, even so, his article in the Independent isn't saying that AGW isn't happening. If you look at the world temperatures since 1940 they do seem to follow a warming /cooling pattern. There is likely to be a solar component in this, I agree. After the rapid warming of the late 90's we should now be in a cooling phase not just a debatable levelling off. A graph is better than words of explanation: 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/tmp3.png 
So, when the next warming phase kicks in, probably starting next year, there is little chance that 1998 ( or 2005 if you prefer NASA's figures) will remain the warmest year on record for long. Is there no-one else who may be up for the bet that PatT offered, but then declined, that the record will remain intact at least up until the end of 2011? $100 max just to keep it friendly. 
I think PatT did say, before he changed his mind, that we AGWs should "all of you please go away and stop this crusade" if we didn't take his bet. Can I now similarly say that the contrarians should now either "go away" or take the bet?
Brute 
23 February 2008 at 04:28
Mr. WFalicoff, 
1) The Little Ice Age was due to volcanic activity? That's it? That's your explanation? 300 years of below normal temperatures due to volcanism? I thought you Alarmists said that volcanic activity only caused a miniscule amount of CO2.....Or is it that "modern" volcanism causes less CO2 than the CO2 from 1650; the rest comes from my car? 
2) Then you write: “It is obvious that there were in the past natural changes in the global temperature. Many things could cause this including: variation in solar output, volcanic activity (the earth cooled in 1991 from the output of Mount Pinatubo), growth or decay of plants, to name a few.” 
So, you state that in the past global temperatures have changed due to natural causes……but somehow this generation of change is different. Then you state that the Medieval Warm Period wasn’t really warm and that it was localized to Europe. 
OK, fine. What caused the Not So Warm Period, In Localized Regions of Europe, Sometime During the Middle Ages? 
What caused the, Not Really An Ice Age, Only In Localized Areas, Where Europeans Lived from approximately the 16th century to the mid 19th century? 
Revisionist History…………Now the Alarmists are not only changing the theory to fit the facts, after the fact, they are attempting to rewrite history and geology to fit the global warming fairy tale; Wow. 
Text from the article you posted reads: 
"but it appears the region has continued to be warm through the summer." 
This is a profound statement.......Warm in summer; who would have thought that? Yes, temperatures do tend to be warmer in summer than in winter. Also, temperatures are normally warmer at mid-day than night........I wonder why that would be? 
Australia had a record COLD summer last year and it SNOWED in San Diego last week. This is called WEATHER. Artic ice melted last SUMMER and then froze again this WINTER, (extending the ice pack beyond last year's boundaries). You chastise me for pointing out record cold temperatures around the globe and write that it amuses you...... then you do the same thing. You state that because it was warm in Australia during SUMMERTIME it is "proof" of global warming...... 
Look, I just asked for an explanation about what caused historical temperature changes and it’s obvious that it wasn’t Al Gore’s private jet or 4 mansions. 
There is something really wrong with your entire global warming theory…..Either the temperature data is incorrect, the CO2 data is incorrect, the climate models are wrong or the theory that a rise in CO2 causes increased temperature is flawed; maybe a little of all of these. 
Global temperatures have been flat for 10 years…..that’s a fact. I was trying to give you prophets of doom a way out with some dignity.
Brute 
23 February 2008 at 04:33
And Mr. Martin......about your wager. What am I supposed to do....meet you under the Eiffel Tower with a carnation in my lapel so you'll recognize me at midday in 10 years to collect? Or should I print my address and telephone number here so every kook environmentalist can call me or burn my house down because I've blasphemed the cult of Gaia? How do you propose we settle up?
Peter Martin 
23 February 2008 at 10:29
Brute, 
I was looking at some earlier 'Brute' posts; one describing how Stirling cycle engines, fueled by solar power, can be used to economically generate electrical power. All very positive. Is this the same Brute? The change from a fossil fuel economy to a 21st century low emission economy won't be without difficulty but neither will it mean that we all have to return to a medieval lifestyle. Its good that you can see this. 
You might be interested to read that China's wealthiest man, who does also have Australian citizenship, has made his fortune from solar cell (PV) technology. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/chinas_richest.php 
As to the bet , I can give you my 100% ebay rating as a reference ;-) , and I'd be happy to trust you for up to $100. 
http://myworld.ebay.com.au/peter_martin_2001/ 
Settlement would be via paypal. 
"Global temperatures have been flat for 10 years" 
Well not really. The years 2006-2007 were 0.176 degrees C warmer than the years 1996 - 1997. Calculated using UK met office / Uni of East Anglia figures. Although taking an average for two years is questionable. Id refer you to the graph in my last posting for the 5 year running average over the last 60 years or so, which gives a more accurate picture.
stargazer 
23 February 2008 at 11:51
"attributing the slight levelling off of temperatures currently to the late arrival of solar cycle # 24.He's wrong about the timing though. It started last month." 
Ahh No you are not correct. so far there has been just one small 24 spot it lasted a shot time and vanished. 
there hav been no more spots for about 20 days now. 
in any case the solar cycle 23 is still tail ending. 
and UNTIL solar cycle 23 ends even though a single 
spot of 24 has appeared cycle 24 will not actualy have any 'effect' as a new cycle (until the magnetic fields etc kick in in) any way whatsoever for another 5 or six months....
Brute 
23 February 2008 at 15:37
Mr. Martin, 
You guys like to argue the science which is entertaining and meaningful, but there is a political side to this which is upsetting many people. Big government types, tend to think in terms of the “top down” approach to things…..”Big government, (the United Nations in this case), will solve all of my problems for me.” “We will force them to save energy”! 
I happen to believe in the “down up” approach; let the people….. The masses, drive the energy efficiency / alternative energy movement, without government intervention. I don’t need government to solve my problems. If I want to save money driving a Prius, I’ll do it; if I don’t, I won’t; forcing me to will only result in antipathy…Attraction, (saving money) not Promotion, (guilt in the case of the polar bears), will change people’s minds / manipulate them to do what you desire. You guys should try that approach. 
I wrote a response on the other post that my vocation is Mechanical Engineering and at this time I’m involved with advising and developing real estate to comply with LEEDS standards. The ultimate purpose of this pursuit, (in my mind), is saving money / cutting expenses; not lowering CO2 emissions. Energy efficiency is an attractive lure for prospective clients making my products more desirable over others in terms of lower operating costs. I do not pursue these guidelines in an altruistic crusade to stop global warming or climate change; it’s about dollars and sense, (cents). An ancillary result is lower emissions which probably makes environmentalist smile; however, I’m in it for the money, (both in my home and at my job). 
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using energy efficiently, (it makes good business sense and I practice these measures personally), and as it has been demonstrated the cost benefit to doing so can be enormous…..it is a noble, (Christian, Patriotic, Sensible, Responsible, Logical, etc. etc.), quest. Therefore, businesses are moving in that direction because they can reap the benefits financially. That is the attraction, not saving the planet from global warming. 
What I do object to is government involvement in private industry and my personal energy consumption practices. I also object to deceitful / disingenuous reporting regarding the topic. People will conserve or use energy more efficiently if there is a benefit to them…..that is, if it is the initial cost can be returned to the client in a timely manner through savings. 
Frankly, the “sky is falling”, “we are all going to die”, is hurting Mark Lynas/Al Gore’s cause………bad marketing….people are rejecting it. Extremist rhetoric does not work……he should be using the “attraction rather than promotion” method to meet his goals. People resent being lied to. If he could demonstrate that people can personally benefit, (READ: SAVING MONEY), from alternative / non-conventional energy use, his platform would have much more success, he would be able to manipulate people more successfully, (it would also help if Mr. Gore practiced energy efficient techniques in his personal / business affairs). He lacks integrity. 
Laying a guilt trip on people and demonizing entire groups of people is the wrong approach, (as is throwing a pie in someone’s face).
Brute 
23 February 2008 at 15:49
There is also a political ideology, class envy aspect to this which we can address if you'd like to.
Alex 
23 February 2008 at 19:37
I am genuinely interested in whether or not our planet is warming up and why, and whether or not it is something for us to fear. I’ve read, listened and viewed most of the links that have been posted. What is very clear – and I think not in dispute - is that water vapour is by far the most important ingredient of our atmosphere that keeps is warm. It is therefore not CO2. CO2 is NOT “the most important greenhouse gas” as the Greens would have us believe, and in fact I have to question why the public is deliberately led to believe something that is so blatantly untrue. Water vapour and clouds are the leading man and lady of the performance – CO2 is just the chorus girl singing in the background. What strikes me is the depth and intensity of the research that has gone into this chorus girl – she must be awfully attractive! I can’t argue with the physics of it all – it all sounds very impressive and convincing ( thank you WFalicoff). It’s just a shame that the same level of intensity, thoroughness and enthusiasm do not appear to have been shown in establishing how everything else that could contribute to our climate works. It’s almost as if certain people are on a mission to prove that the chorus girl is not a bit-part player but is really the star of the show. Why? 
I can tell you I was totally gobsmacked to discover that despite hundreds of scientists investigating the global warming phenomenon that between them they have no idea whether clouds have a net warming or cooling effect! Apparently it’s complicated….. Not only that, but the modellers admit that their computer models are woefully inadequate in replicating what little they do know about cloud behaviour. So we have scientists that don’t fully understand clouds using computer models that can’t replicate their behaviour, and yet we have to hold them all in such reverence that their findings cannot be questioned. It’s complete guesswork! How is it that weather can’t be accurately predicted a week in advance for just one relatively small geographical region, yet the modellers confidently predict not just the weather but the whole climate not a week or month or year in advance, but 100 years! And for the whole planet!!! This has got to be a joke. In fact Mark Lynas has got it down to such a fine art, that he knows exactly what the effects of each individual degree of warming will be across the entire world, and is so confident that he’s written a book about it to warn everybody. Thank you Mark! I have to tell you I am stunned by these revelations. The effort in apportioning blame, not just to CO2, but specifically man-made CO2 is out of all proportion to its effect. Maybe the world is warming. I hope it is. That’s a whole lot better than the world cooling. Warm periods are a time of plenty – cold periods are harsh and have to be endured. I think this must be the only time in history that mankind has been scared witless of the world becoming a milder place. 
Just why CO2 should be put under such intense scrutiny was puzzling me until I read WFalicoff’s comment: 
“ The only question that matters as far as I am concerned is whether there is an effect on the global temperature of anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases.” 
So there you have it. Whereas I and many others just wanted to know if, why and how the Earth is warming up, WFalicoff et al are out to apportion blame to man. How much blame remains to be seen, but from what I have read of their arguments, the more the better. 
The case for CO2 driving our climate is not very convincing. Sure it has an effect – but it plays a supporting role, no more. It appears that certain elements just want to blame mankind, and are really not interested in the real reasons why our planet is sometimes warm and sometimes cold. That is their goal, their mission, their purpose in life. Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there. Not all of mankind is to blame. It is only industrialised man – meaning basically Europe and North America – that are the guilty parties. Suddenly the whole debate takes on an alarmingly familiar tune. And of course the biggest and most obvious culprit is America. America has to be stopped right? It seems abundantly clear, having looked at both sides of the argument, that one side is anti-industrial, anti-capitalist, and anti-American. I now understand the cries that “the science is settled!” and “the debate is over!” We want to get on with the “solution” right? We want to get on with making the culprits toe the line, and get on with the serious business of imposing regulations, restrictions, and better yet – punishments. Especially on America! And we want to start NOW! And all this from people who can’t even predict the weather, and are ready to burn as heretics anybody who disagrees with them. Case proven as far as I’m concerned.
Ron McKeown 
23 February 2008 at 20:59
Depending on which camp people are in references are being made to recent weather in order to justify one position or another. Whilst this may seem logical the reality is that the weather for individual years is no guide to the overall global direction within a warming or cooling cycle. My database of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles allows me to compare various scenarios including weather reports. The Chronicles cover most of the Medieval Warm Period but only comment on weather conditions if they are unusual. The following is a small selection from those reports and you will see that it is mostly bad weather that makes its mark but uncommonly warm or dry weather is also noted. 
A.D. 761 - This year was the severe winter 
A.D. 1046 - And in the same year, after Candlemas, came the strong winter, with frost and with snow, and with all kinds of bad weather; so that there was no man then alive who could remember so severe a winter as this was, both through loss of men and through loss of cattle; yea, fowls and fishes through much cold and hunger perished. (Candlemas is 2nd February) 
A.D. 1077 - This year was London burned, one night before the Assumption of St. Mary, so terribly as it never was before, since it was built. This year also was the dry summer; and wild fire came upon many shires, and burned many towns; and also many cities were ruined thereby. 
A.D. 1086 - And the same year there was a very heavy season, and a swinkful and sorrowful year in England, in murrain of cattle, and corn and fruits were at a stand, and so much untowardness in the weather, as a man may not easily think; so tremendous was the thunder and lightning, that it killed many men; and it continually grew worse and worse with men 
A.D. 1087 - was a very heavy and pestilent season in this land. Such a sickness came on men, that full nigh every other man was in the worst disorder, that is, in the diarrhoea; and that so dreadfully, that many men died in the disorder. Afterwards came, through the badness of the weather as we before mentioned, so great a famine over all England, that many hundreds of men died a miserable death through hunger. 
A.D. 1089 - There was also over all England much earth-stirring on the third day before the ides of August, and it was a very late year in corn, and in every kind of fruits, so that many men reaped their corn about Martinmas, and yet later. (Martinmas is 11th November)
Peter Martin 
23 February 2008 at 22:38
Alex, 
Yes you are right that water vapour is the most common greenhouse gas. However, it is not a driver of climate. Rather the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere responds to earth's temperature. The higher the temperature of the atmosphere the more water vapour it will hold. The earth's surface is more than 70% covered by water and there is no evidence that human activities have made much direct difference, except perhaps the effect of aircraft vapour trails which are thought to cause a slight net cooling, , to the water content of the atmosphere. 
It is not the same with CO2 and methane emissions. They tend to stay in the atmosphere for much longer. They have a small direct effect on the atmospheric temperature, mainly in the troposphere (the lower layer) which is then amplified by a slightly increased water content. 
Your analogy should be that the chorus ( which has many voices) represents the water vapour, but which does the following, whereas the single voice of the lead singer, represents the CO2 but which is the driver. 
The effect of water vapour can be used to explain why the total greenhouse effect is over 30 deg C . Without it the earth would freeze, but it cannot explain why the temperature has risen so quickly in the last 30 yeras. 
For the New Scientists explanation: Google { water vapour climate myth}. (I think this method of inserting links should avoid the problem of their being too long). 
The effect of water vapour is fully taken into account in climatic models such as this one: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/ 
Brute, 
"You guys like to argue the science which is entertaining and meaningful, but there is a political side to this which is upsetting many people." 
Yes I know that your objections are largely driven by the political implications of what is needed to be done to fix the problem. My view is that in most matters we can all act individually. Where to live, what books to read, what job to do, choice of religion etc etc . 
However on some issues we do have to act collectively. Such as the way we dispose of our junk, litter, and waste products of all kinds. There is no point the good citizens of a city making the effort to use a litter bin, or the good corporate citizens making sure that their industrial waste is properly treated rather than just dumped in the nearest river, if the anti social ones are allowed to make a mess and act irresponsibly. 
I can't see that this should be a major issue of political philosophy. Isn't it just common sense?
Maz 
24 February 2008 at 11:11
Peter, 
I think Alex has got it about right. I’m afraid your role here is looking increasingly like that of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno watch last 2min. Admirable, but without much basis. 
Why don’t you explain to us all what evidence you have that CO2 is the main driver of the recent (say last 30yrs) warming and on what basis the consensus hypothesis, that human CO2 is dangerously altering the planet’s climate, rests. Remember the onus is on you to provide us with evidence that, although the earth has warmed and cooled quite naturally in the past (the default position), the last 30yrs are somehow different and dangerous. 
I don’t want you to argue about whether there has been warming or not in the past century. I know there has been. Let’s not argue about just how much either. 
I don’t want you to argue about whether the Medieval Warm Period was slightly warmer or cooler than today. Let’s just say it was roughly of the same magnitude and it was not anthropogenic. Nor did it spiral out of control through positive water vapour feedback. 
I don’t want you to argue about the physics of CO2. I know it is a greenhouse gas (minor or otherwise) and in a simple model of the ocean/atmosphere would undoubtedly raise the temperature of the planet. 
Just explain to us all what evidence (not speculation) you have that CO2 is the main driver and that anthropogenic CO2 is dangerously changing the planet’s climate. I realise it's a little off topic for comments on the original article but perhaps it might redeem your position.
TheElitesWin 
24 February 2008 at 12:26
This "Great Global Warming Swindle" has been put in place as a tax collection system for sponsoring the bureaucrats in the European Union, and apart from mass civil action by the peoples of those countries, nothing will change.
stargazer 
24 February 2008 at 12:30
maz you summed 'our' stance up nicely...
Peter Martin 
24 February 2008 at 13:33
Maz, 
"Remember the onus is on you to provide us with evidence that, although the earth has warmed and cooled quite naturally in the past (the default position), the last 30yrs are somehow different and dangerous." 
The earth has warmed and cooled in the past but the current rate, over the past 30 years, of +0.17 deg C per decade ( NOAA and CSIRO figures) is too large to be a natural change. I'm not sure about all the onus being on the science. Surely, it should be mainly on those who want to take unnecessary risks with the climate by allowing GHG concentrations to rise to what the science is indicating to be dangerous levels. 
In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in. 
In the case of AGW, the theory is based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with observations and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's previous behavior. 
You may say that this isn't proof, but given the lack of any extra planet Earths, to experiment with, or a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this. 
If this is not enough, can I ask what observations or evidence you would consider constitutes proof , or at least sufficient clinching evidence, that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?
Maz 
24 February 2008 at 15:37
Oh dear, Peter, 
there’s not much evidence is there? Perhaps you rushed your reply :-) 
“The earth has warmed and cooled in the past but the current rate, over the past 30 years, of +0.17 deg C per decade ( NOAA and CSIRO figures) is too large to be a natural change.” 
I’m sorry, this is utter nonsense! What evidence do you have to make that statement? Please tell me you’re not referring to the “hockey stick” or its clones which still use the same flawed bristlecone pine proxies. See the latest reconstruction if you wish to see what happens to the paleo temperature graph when you take tree-rings out and leave all the other previously published and peer reviewed proxies. Surprise, surprise the historically documented Medieval Warm Period reappears. But let’s not go into that issue. Just look at HADCRUT3. You should be able to see that the earth warmed more and faster from 1910 to 1940 than at any time since. 
“Surely, it should be mainly on those who want to take unnecessary risks with the climate by allowing GHG concentrations to rise to what the science is indicating to be dangerous levels.” 
This is a circular argument. Look Peter. Fossil fuels have been largely responsible for the tremendous progress achieved by our civilisation throughout the last century and they continue to do so in the current. It is highly likely that by the end of this century we will move on to a different main source of energy but till then we continue to depend on fossil fuels. You have a hypothesis that unless we alter our economies in a very drastic way (extremely drastic if we are to achieve the targets being bandied about) we face climate Armageddon. I think any level minded person would suggest the onus is fairly and squarely on you (not personally of course) to provide the evidence. I never said proof. 
Of course the current theory is consistent with the laws of physics! No one would give it the time of day if it wasn’t. What we have here is a theoretical model that is riddled with uncertainties (this is accepted by the IPCC) that has been tweaked and tweaked so that it matches past observations. The role of aerosols is guessed at and that of clouds simply unknown even though we know that a percentage change of cloud cover in only single figures is enough to offset all the theoretical forcing caused by anthropogenic CO2. This model is then run into the future to produce a series of scenarios (they don’t even dare call them projections) with which to scare us into “action”. The truth is we simply do not have a Theory of Climate. 
I might agree with you that this might be some evidence of sorts but nowhere near enough to say that the science is settled and the debate is over. 
So whilst it might be a sensible thing to do, for a number of varied reasons, to gradually and as painlessly as possible to move on from our dependence on fossil fuels, the screaming urgency declared by the usual advocacy groups remains unfounded and one has to wonder what their real agenda is. Of course if you can come up with more evidence I shall be happy to reconsider. But this is your job not mine. 
Meanwhile there are far more immediately important and pressing issues to engage our resources in – eg. providing clean drinking water to all, tackling diseases such as HIV/AIDS, reducing world poverty. The world will be much better prepared to cope with a naturally variable climate if we deal with these things as a priority. Trying to stop the earth’s climate from changing by sufficiently reducing human CO2 emissions is an expensive exercise of utter futility.
Alex 
24 February 2008 at 18:29
Peter 
"....refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's previous behavior". You are joking aren't you? The models do not reproduce the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, never mind previous Ice Ages. They never could and probably never will. We have no idea what caused past ice ages, or what caused the earth - without human influence - to then dramatically warm up, only to freeze again. Svensmark's theory is the only one to come even close (thanks Bobclive). To dismiss whatever those factors might have been simply because they are unproven, and concentrate on CO2 (man-made of course) is ridiculous. 
Maz has a good point. What evidence is there that a warming of 3 degrees or so will be catstrophic for the planet? The Earth has survived far greater swings in temperature in the past. To claim that warming will only have bad consequences is dishonest and manipulative. 
Let's face it, the only reason we are so concerned about a slight warming of the planet is because we are constantly being told it will be "catastrophic". But will it? Who says? The modellers and their complicated, unwieldy inaccurate models? And that's it?! Sorry, but that's nowhere near good enough and I for one do not believe that the Earth being one degree warmer in 33 years' time will be a disaster. And anyway, isn't it true that it is the colder latitudes, winter, and nighttime temperatures that show the most increase? Sounds like the Earth is getting MILDER not hotter. Speak to people in those regions and see if they feel threatened by having less snow and ice to put up with. In which case if a warmer Earth isn't a threat to us, then all this argument about CO2 becomes irrelevant. Instead shouldn't we be using our resources in better and more efficient ways to make life more pleasant for everyone, rather than seeking to regulate and punish a chosen few?
Pat T 
24 February 2008 at 22:43
link 1. 
link 2 
link 3 
"Global warming" - we hardly knew ye.
Peter Martin 
24 February 2008 at 22:45
Maz and Alex, 
There are several dangers associated with the earth being 3 deg C warmer, and it could be worse if we carry on as normal . One of these would be mass extinctions due to plants and animals being unable to cope with a rapidly changing climate. The main danger to us will be from melting ice caps and rising seas. The citizens of New York, for instance, might welcome their winters being milder, but will they be quite so happy when they need a boat to access their expensive Manhatten real estate? 
The temperature did rise quickly between 1910 and 1940. Part of this was due to GHG's but there is evidence that solar forcing was the main component for this earlier change. But not the current one though. 
See: 
http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/ 
The current warming period is also longer and we pretty much ignored it for the first 20 years. If the current phenomena is similar to the 1910-1940 warming we should be seeing a downturn in the next decade. Unfortunately the scientific models indicate otherwise. 
The costs of mitigation are not unaffordable and are likely to create many new economic opportunities and jobs. You have to look at what governments spend on wars and weaponry to get it into proportion. But even if mitigating global warming would be costly, given that famine, droughts, disease, loss of major coastal cities, and a tremendous mass extinction event are on the table as possible consequences of doing nothing, I challenge anyone to conclusively demonstrate that such catastrophes as listed above await us if we succeed in reducing fossil fuel use. 
Now, in terms of conservation and a global switch over to alternative fuels, and I would include nuclear in the list, the people who oppose doing this for climate change mitigation might want to remember that fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource, and as such we have to make this global economic transformation regardless, whether now or a later. We are already at, or close to, peak oil. So even if, in the unlikley event, it turned out that climate mitigation was unnecessary, we would still be in a better place as a global society by making the coming switch sooner. 
Maz is still asking for more evidence. Like what? Last year the NW passage, around Canada, was open for conventional shipping for the first time. It will probably happen again this year. When we see conventional ships routinely making the journey from the Atlantic to the Pacific this way, will that be enough to convince you? If not this, then what would ? 
You seem to be all over the place with your arguments. "David Whitehouse is right, Global warming has stopped, but its all caused by Cosmic rays anyway, if he isn't , and its not a bad thing anyway" would just about sum it up.
Brute 
25 February 2008 at 00:50
Mr. Martin, 
You wrote: "You have to look at what governments spend on wars and weaponry to get it into proportion." 
Careful, you're showing everyone your cards. I thought the topic was about CO2 and "Climate Change"?
Alex 
25 February 2008 at 01:01
Peter 
What are you talking about? What famines? What disease? What melting ice caps? This is pure fantasy. Why will there be more famine? What do plants need to thrive? Water, warmth and CO2. If the Earth warms up it will turn lush and green! If snow and ice clear from Scandinavia, Russia and Canada, available arable land will vastly increase. We will be able to feed the world like never before. The famine scenario is just utter garbage. Melting ice caps? What is the average temperature of Antarctica? About minus 55 degrees C? So if it warms up 3 degrees it will be a steamy minus 52? What temperature does ice melt at again? Even if the centre of Antarctica wasn't getting thicker and colder (as it is), how exactly would it melt at minus 52? As for the Arctic, it is already 20 degrees warmer than that and hasn't melted. And before you mention about sea-ice being at record lows, etc, etc - fine. And just how much have sea levels risen by as a result ? They haven't have they? I'm sorry Peter but these doomsday scenarios are hysterical nonsense that don't stand up to any scrutiny. If this is the sort of rubbish that is driving the nonsense that is Kyoto and Bali, it has to be stopped.
Brute 
25 February 2008 at 02:33
It is very clear now that "Global Warming" or “Climate Change” is nothing more than a scenario concocted by the United Nations in an effort to set a precedent to confiscate wealth from successful / prosperous nations to be redistributed to unsuccessful / failed nations to support their self imposed disastrous political philosophies and policies. 
This is what it’s really all about. 
The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday. 
“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
Brute 
25 February 2008 at 02:34
Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.B...
Peter Martin 
25 February 2008 at 02:40
Maz, 
"We have no idea what caused past ice ages, or what caused the earth - without human influence - to then dramatically warm up, only to freeze again." 
Who is the "we" you refer to? "We" could get some idea of the mechanism by reading: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age 
or doing a Google search on "Milankovitch cycles"
Brute 
25 February 2008 at 02:42
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Challenge UN Move For Global Carbon Tax 
Experts dismiss agenda as "futile," bureaucratic scheme that will increase human suffering 
Friday, December 14, 2007 
The UN has officially announced what the fearmongering about man-made global warming has been designed to justify all along - a global carbon tax which will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions but everything to feed the trough of world government. Over one hundred prominent scientists signed a letter dismissing the move as a futile bureaucratic scheme which will diminish prosperity and increase human suffering. 
Following a discussion entitled “A Global CO2 Tax," a UN panel yesterday urged the adoption of “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations,” to impose a tax on plant food (CO2). 
Othmar Schwank, one of the participants, said that the U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund." He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.” 
The bounty from this $40 billion dollars a year windfall will go straight into the coffers of a UN controlled "Multilateral Adaptation Fund". 
What we see unfolding in Bali is one of the major final stepping stones on the road to a complete globalist stranglehold on reducing the living standards of everyone in the industrialized world, and a scheme to prevent the third world from ever lifting itself out of poverty. 
Seven years ago former French President Jacques Chirac said the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." The imminent agreement arising out of the Bali summit will be one of the final nails in the coffin aimed at decimating the middle class and the right of free people to strive for prosperity and happiness without laboring under suffocating serfdom imposed by unelected elitists. 
As MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned earlier this year, "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life." 
Lindzen is one of over 100 prominent scientists who have signed a letter slamming the UN move as a futile bureaucratic scheme, pointing out the results of a recent study in the International Journal of Climatology which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is largely a result of solar activity and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant. 
In comparison, half that number - just 52 scientists - participated in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007. 
In the letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, the scientists state, “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.” 
"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation." 
"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it." 
The letter goes into detail about several conclusions of the IPCC report that are completely contradicted by recent major scientific studies.
Peter Martin 
25 February 2008 at 03:18
"Why will there be more famine?" 
Well it is true that if you Google "Greenland and potatoes" you'll find stories that they now grow there whareas they didn't before. On the other hand the climate models show that the Indian Monsoon and the climate of Sub Saharan Africa is at risk from Global Warming. We won't know for sure until it happens of course but why take the risk? Can you prove that 390ppm of CO2 is safe? Or 500 ppm? How high would you suggest we can go safely? 
" What melting ice caps" Try reading: 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060217091552.ht... 
+ lots more on the net if you look. 
Plants tend not to grow too well under several feet of sea water which also might add to famine problems. Most of Bangla Desh would be threatened from rising seas if the Greenland Ice Sheet collapsed. Maybe they should be learning how to cultivate seaweed rather than rice?
Peter Martin 
25 February 2008 at 04:03
There are always a few renegade scientists who are happy to put the corporate dollar above science. 
However, the conclusion that AGW is real and needs to be taken seriously has been explicitly endorsed by ... 
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil) 
Royal Society of Canada 
Chinese Academy of Sciences 
Academié des Sciences (France) 
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) 
Indian National Science Academy 
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) 
Science Council of Japan 
Russian Academy of Sciences 
Royal Society (United Kingdom) 
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America) 
Australian Academy of Sciences 
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts 
Caribbean Academy of Sciences 
Indonesian Academy of Sciences 
Royal Irish Academy 
Academy of Sciences Malaysia 
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand 
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the IPCC reports: 
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS) 
American Geophysical Union (AGU) 
American Institute of Physics (AIP) 
Australian Commonwealth and Industrial Research Organisation. (CSIRO) 
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 
American Meteorological Society (AMS) 
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) 
I could probably find more. Can you find even one recognised scientific institution that agrees with Prof Lindzen? I suspect that even his own colleagues are keen to distance themselves from his views.
Ron McKeown 
25 February 2008 at 09:20
Peter Martin writes - There are always a few renegade scientists who are happy to put the corporate dollar above science. However, the conclusion that AGW is real and needs to be taken seriously has been explicitly endorsed by .……….. 
Well, yes - global warming is real and is being taken seriously - by those of us who are willing to examine the facts for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. One particularly warm period saw temperatures 17 degrees above present and was the most productive time of all, seeing the rise of the dinosaurs. Most of our carbon fuel deposits were laid down at that time. 
We have seen the response from scientists before and if Galileo was here today he would have a thing or two to say about the accepted view. There have been other classics from the recognised science community such as the proof that the bumble bee could not fly because it was aerodynamically wrong. Then of course there were the canals on Mars. 
The years 1939 to 1945 saw a tremendous increase in the release of CO2 through burning of whole cities yet 1947 was a record winter and I can confirm from personal experience that the winters throughout the nineteen-fifties always came with heavy snow and icicles of three foot long or more and 1963 was gruesome. Then we saw the clean air act and the demise of the steam railways with the rapid slowdown in the use of coal and guess what - it got warmer. 
The scientific evidence might seem to be good but the geological, archaeological and sociological evidence is saying something else.
Alex 
25 February 2008 at 09:29
Peter 
Sub-Saharan Africa is hardly the heart of world agriculture is it? How much does it contribute to the global economy compared to, say, North America, Europe and Australia? 
Nice article on melting Greenland ice sheet. I notice that it's only melting at the edges though isn't it? (It even states that snow is ACCUMULATING in the centre!) And yet the whole sheet is in imminent danger of completely melting at an unprecedented rate (maybe even befor Christmas!?!) and flooding half the world unless we stop it now! (by which I mean of course stop Europe and America from doing any more damage). 
Funny how it's always Greenland that is focused on when "proving" the Arctic is melting. The ice north of Russia and Canada, and around the North Pole is somehow never mentioned. And I still didn't see a figure for just how much sea levels have risen by. Don't they want us to know? Will it frighten us too much?
Alex 
25 February 2008 at 09:30
I forgot to mention - you're spot on, Brute
Brute 
25 February 2008 at 13:41
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations 
Dec. 13, 2007 
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon 
Secretary-General, United Nations 
New York, N.Y. 
Dear Mr. Secretary-General, 
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction 
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. 
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it. 
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts. 
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports: 
z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea- level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. 
z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. 
z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling. 
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/ wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated. 
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future. 
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems. 
Yours faithfully, 
Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference 
Published: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 
The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki- moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali: 
Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice- chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia 
William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000 
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark 
Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand 
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg 
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany 
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal 
Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S. 
Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin 
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta 
R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia 
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa 
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K. 
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand 
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma 
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J. 
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University 
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia 
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands 
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University 
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario 
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia 
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame 
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia 
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa 
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey 
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany 
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay 
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden 
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand 
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project 
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut 
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia 
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona 
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA 
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis 
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland 
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia 
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden 
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia 
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia 
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand 
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007 
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands 
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands 
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands 
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands 
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K. 
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary 
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware 
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS 
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand 
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif. 
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors 
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia 
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia 
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany 
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand 
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K. 
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph 
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia 
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand 
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University 
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University 
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway 
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia 
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden 
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic 
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia 
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa 
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University 
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia 
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia 
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University 
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota 
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia 
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan 
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences 
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force 
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology 
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands 
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C. 
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway 
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA 
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service 
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario 
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville 
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden 
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute 
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands 
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC 
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand 
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia 
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia 
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany 
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland 
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia 
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia 
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Brute 
25 February 2008 at 17:17
Mr. Martin, 
This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists. I know that you’ve stated that the signers are illegitimate, (I’ve checked out a few and found that they do exist and are legitimate scientists); but lets say that 50% don’t meet your standards….that’s still Nine Thousand Five Hundred scientists, (professional, well educated, accredited, respected leaders in their field of endeavor), that oppose the United Nations assessment. The IPCC report was signed by 51 scientists. You bristle when I question the integrity of “your” scientists, but you won’t respect the integrity of these scientists; why is that? 
You’ve also commented again about the Northwest Passage, which has been “open” for shipping several times throughout recorded history as reported below. Whether it has been open to commercial shipping or by kayak, the fact remains that the passage has melted and has been passable even before Al Gore began jetting around the world proclaiming “Repent, the end is near”! The passage is closed as of today, the ice has returned, thicker than ever even with CO2 levels rising for the last 100 years. The theory is wrong. 
By the way, what is the “normal” level of temperature and ice pack at the poles? What is the “perfect” level of ice sheet over Greenland? The last ice age began to end 10,000 years ago and the Earth technically is today still in an ice age. The glaciers and ice sheets that were formed at that time still exist and have been retreating for the last 10,000 years. 10,000 years ago there were ice sheets miles thick where I am sitting right now. Maybe the "normal" level of ice at the poles is no ice at all. Maybe the "normal" condition of the Northwest Passage is ice free. 
The United Nations is foisting a fraud on the global population to forward their Globalist Economy / Taxation agenda; period. 
(I had posted this earlier with links but it must have overwhelmed the system. If you want the links I can provide them).
JZ Smith 
25 February 2008 at 18:08
More snow cover in the northern hemisphere since 1966: 
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id...
JZ Smith 
25 February 2008 at 18:30
Authoritarian solutions for AGW: 
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d82b4774-a229-4e08-...
Brute 
25 February 2008 at 19:06
Mr. Smith, 
The authoritarian solutions article is frightening. These and the entire global warming issue are examples of fascism under the guise of “the common good”. Whatever happened to Constitutional Rights? 
Car Smoking Ban Passes Legislative Test 
http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=26013 
Bethany works on beach smoking ban 
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200... 
Tory MEP is hoist with his own canard 
When smoking was banned in English pubs last July, many landlords realised that the only way to keep a good many of their customers was to install patio heaters. 
As the Irish discovered when they introduced a smoking ban, the only pubs that didn't lose business were those that bought heaters, allowing smokers to continue their wicked habit in relative comfort outside. English publicans accordingly spent £85 million following suit. 
But then up jumped Friends of the Earth to demand that, since these heaters give off carbon dioxide, they too should be banned. This naturally made a huge impression on the greenie Lib Dems, with the eventual result that last Thursday one of their MEPs moved a motion in the European Parliament calling on Brussels to ban patio heaters. 
So imbued are MEPS with a priggish desire to save the planet that 526 voted for the ban, with only 26 against. 
In a letter in next day's Daily Telegraph, a Tory MEP, Richard Ashworth, pointed out that the amount of carbon dioxide saved by banning patio heaters in the EU was only slightly less than the amount emitted every year by MEPs themselves, as they engage in the laborious farce of transferring the entire European Parliament every month from Brussels to Strasbourg. 
Apart from the car, train and plane journeys of the MEPs, this involves a convoy of some 60 trucks trundling 100 miles between the two cities and back again, loaded with trunks-full of parliamentary papers. 
Mr Ashworth will doubtless have won plaudits from Telegraph readers reading his letter over the marmalade, for such a telling comment. 
But any who then bothered to examine the list of those 526 MEPs who supported this absurd ban might have been surprised to see among them the name of Mr Ashworth.
JZ Smith 
25 February 2008 at 19:22
If the AGW crowd gets its wishes, there will be no more barbecuing, fireplaces, campfires, beach bonfires, and, no doubt, bean burritos.
Brute 
25 February 2008 at 20:15
Should fireplace fires be banned? 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/22/... 
Public Outrage Throttles California Plan to Control Home Thermostats 
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22776
JZ Smith 
25 February 2008 at 20:41
Brute, 
I wish it was all just a joke, that could be easily passed off as just the rantings of the lunatic fringe, but honestly, these "solutions" are logical steps in the AGW agenda. They will deny it today, but like the pit bull who cinches up his hold on the throat of his opponent as it thrashes about to get free, we will soon be in a stranglehold to those who, as someone here quoted HL Menken, wants to 'save mankind by controlling it' (paraphrasing).
Brute 
25 February 2008 at 20:54
JZ, 
I wasn't kidding when I said that it is truly frightening. Political correctness, immigration lawlessness, moral relativism, environmentalist fascism, terrorism…... The world is coming apart like a cheap suit. 
Seriously, the only recourse that we have is to spread the message through friends and family via the Internet / word of mouth and let people know what is happening. When I tell people about stuff like this they think I’m joking or “it won’t happen here” and by the time they hear about it, it’s too late; Incrementalism. These people are truly out of control.
Brute 
25 February 2008 at 20:56
Leaf blowers, gas mowers could be banned by 2010 
JENNIFER LEWINGTON 
CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF 
Leaf blowers and gas-powered lawn mowers stand at the top of the city's hit list under sweeping proposals unveiled yesterday by Toronto to fight climate change."People are ready," Mayor David Miller said late yesterday, commenting on wide-ranging measures aimed, in part, at enlisting local residents in the global-warming fight.
JZ Smith 
25 February 2008 at 21:25
Besides, if Stargazer's view turns out to be true, we should all be doing all we can to burn MORE fossil fuels. Global warming is a far more attractive scenario than global cooling. BRRRR!
Brute 
25 February 2008 at 21:40
The sad part is that the scientists and lawmakers get paid no matter if they are right or wrong.......just like stock brokers.
JZ Smith 
25 February 2008 at 22:15
It get's worse: 
http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=11029
JZ Smith 
25 February 2008 at 22:55
Glaciers accelerating their advance to the sea in Antarctica... but not because of AGW! 
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010131277 
(hat tip: http://antigreen.blogspot.com/)
WFalicoff 
25 February 2008 at 23:11
Brute, 
Please acknowledge that you have read the following articles that I have referenced: 
link 1 
link 2 
link 3 
I believe the science in these articles is sound. So far the papers you have referenced that I have read (and I admit I have not read all of them) are not in my opinion convincing. Granted I am not a climate model scientist. I do have reasonable credentials in the field of energy and climate science. However, I certainly do not have the background to evaluate the current climate models and must rely to some extent on the peer reviews of others. However, I would also argue that less than 1% of those scientist who signed the petition you mentioned have the proper credentials and background to evaluate the current climate models, not the 50% figure you propose. I have looked at several of the skeptics such as Dr. Lindtzen of MIT, who have the qualifications and background to evaluate the models. None of their papers have convinced me that the current models are inaccurate. Quite the contrary. 
I do agree with you that the earth has complex regulating systems. From what I have read the climate models from 2000 onward have been to incorporate all the major and most of the minor forcing phenomena. Will there be further improvements. Most likely. But it is foolish in my view to assume that they are all rubbish based on the arguments of the skeptics. 
Finally, here is my last statement on the premise of this article. If one looks at the historical data, temperature records are broken over a period of many decades not one or two years. There are many natural factors that contribute to a record "year". What is really important is the average temperature over a reasonable period of time, on the order of a decade. In addition, we have a means of measuring the growth 
or decline of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Keeling curve data from Scripps is the longest, reliable source of this. It clearly shows the steady rise of CO2 into the atmosphere. It properly shows the annual sinusoidal change in CO2 as function of the time of year. I believe there is no question that the greenhouse gases are rising and that this will increase the global temperature. Will there be a record global temperatures next month, next year or the next five years? Most likely it will occur within the next decade. (20 century records were broken over a period of approximately every 10 to 20 years.) This is what the models I have seen indicate. The models I have seen up to the year 2100 do not show records will be broken every year but in a similar period of time as in the past. What will be broken is the average temperature of the decade. Each decade will on the average be hotter. This is exactly what we have seen. 
Best Regards, 
W. Falicoff
Peter Martin 
26 February 2008 at 03:59
It sounds like the contrarians on this forum are suffering from acute paranoia. (You've still got enemies though !) 
You could perhaps write the script for a science fiction movie. For the last 20 years the alien craft has been lying at the bottom of a deep Pacific trench. One after another the world's key climate scientists and politicians are kidnapped and replaced with look alike androids who are programmed to write papers aand make films proclaiming the dangers of global warming! 
The hero would be one of you guys who fights against all the odds to reveal the truth, saving the kidnapped scientists, and destroying the evil aliens! Finally all the humans who've been duped over the years resign from Greenpeace, FOE etc , driving off in their new 4WDs, vowing to support the Republican cause for evermore!
Brute 
26 February 2008 at 14:02
Mr. Falicoff, 
I have read the articles that you have referenced and I must say, with all candor, that the articles posted by JZ Smith regarding the Environmentalist claim that UFO’s and omnivorous, (non-vegetarian) Republicans, (see JZ Smith’s PETA Link) are responsible for Global Warming were more interesting…….. That isn’t a criticism……I’m certain that these guys wouldn’t appreciate the finer points of combustion efficiencies of gas turbines engines as I find enjoyable bedtime reading…..to each his own. You can believe whatever you’d like to, it’s a free country. You can regulate your personal energy consumption to your hearts desire; just don’t attempt to compel me to adhere to your personal beliefs / convictions. I don’t force you to attend services at my church do I? 
I’ve noticed that both you and Mr. Martin are cagey regarding “solutions” to this perceived problem, (Mr. Martin has advocated nuclear power to his credit which is flatly rejected by Environmentalists); especially the global taxation aspect and the mandatory caps on personal carbon emissions. I suspect that if the general public were acutely aware of the Environmentalists proposals they would quickly put a stop to this nonsense. 
Back to the point; the basic premise is that carbon dioxide, produced by mankind, will cause global temperatures to rise. The theoretical rise in temperature will cause: 
• Hurricanes to become more frequent and intense. (Has not / is not happening). 
• Sea levels to rise. (Has not / is not happening). 
• Polar Bears will drown. (Has not / is not happening). 
• Ice caps will melt permanently. (Has not / is not happening). 
• Glaciers will melt and disappear permanently. (Has not / is not happening). 
• Wildfires, Drought, Famine, Displacement of entire populations and various other “cataclysmic doomsday” events. (No of which have happened with any more frequency than in the past). 
What is or has been happening: 
• Hurricanes have sustained their natural cyclical frequencies and intensities. 
• Sea levels have not risen 
• Polar Bears are not drowning and in fact are thriving. 
• Ice caps are growing / expanding. 
• Glaciers are continuing to advance and retreat as they have for the last 10,000 years. 
• Global temperatures have ceased to rise as Co2 levels have purportedly dramatically increased. 
Obviously, the cause and effect relationship of CO2 to temperature that was originally put forward by the Alarmists is not and has not occurred; hence the skepticism. As I wrote in a previous post; the temperature data is incorrect, the CO2 data is incorrect, the climate models are wrong or the theory that a rise in CO2 causes increased temperature is flawed; maybe a little of all of these. A doctorate in physics or climatology is not required to determine that the Alarmist speculation regarding climate change is incorrect. The fact that the Alarmist insist that their theory IS correct despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary tells us all that their argument is not about catastrophic climate change, (which leads me to wonder what their agenda actually is). This coupled with recommendations by the IPCC, (The United Nations), advocating / requesting global energy taxes, cap and trade schemes, international control of commerce and energy as well as outright fraudulent carbon offset Ponzi schemes leads me to the conclusion that there are nefarious intentions involved regarding the immediacy and imperative desperation of late regarding the topic of “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”. 
Someone wrote on this post in December, “Follow the Money”. Think about who will and has benefited financially from this scheme…………Governments, (Local, State, National and International); Energy companies, Automobile manufacturers, any manufacturer of lighting products, any manufacturer of indoor environmental control systems……virtually any industry that produces carbon emitting products. Any manufacturer of any product can apply a “Green” label to their existing product and sell it for 10% more than they did the day before…….what a racket…….they are exploiting the hysteria; good for them. 
Think about who will pay for this; you, me, and every other chump who allows this fraud to be perpetrated on consumers. 
Now; if you'd like to discuss VOLUNTARY adherance to control carbon emmissions and seeking new / alternative methods of producing energy for national security purposes and American independance from sources of foreign energy I'm all ears.
Brute 
26 February 2008 at 14:15
I forgot to mention that "Climate Scientists" (aka weathermen) are also benefitting financially from this scheme. 
I was born, but it wasn't yesterday.....don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Alex 
26 February 2008 at 21:40
Peter, 
Regarding your earlier confident prediction that a warmer planet will inevitably lead to famine, there are literally 1000s of experiments that show that plants grow better with more CO2 in the atmosphere. What's more, most of them were done a long time ago, before the present "Climate Change" hysteria, so the scientists involved can't be accused of trying to prove a point, follow the Party Line or worse still, align themselves with "The Deniers!" 
On average a 300ppm increase in CO2 leads to 15% increase in CAM crops (those that grow in hot arid conditions), 49% for C3 cereals (rice), 20% for C4 cereals (maize, millet, sorghum), 24% for fruits and melons, 44% for legumes, 48% for roots and tubers 
and 37% for vegetables - (Idso and Idso 2000). With more CO2, plants are less susceptible to water 
loss – (Rogers et al 1983, and Fernandez et al 1998). They can withstand drought better – (Tuba et al 
1998) and they are less susceptible to damage by pollutants – (Allen 1990). CO2 also reduces the levels of low temperature stress – (Boese et al 1997). The benefits of increased CO2 levels to crops are proven without the slightest doubt. That is in addition to longer growing seasons and more arable land available. So why scare the **** out of people telling them there will be widespread famine?
Peter Martin 
26 February 2008 at 22:03
Brute, 
Most of your points in the list are wrong or questionable at best. 
I'm not sure if there has been any scientific study of drowning polar bears but if there is a lack of ice then its surely only a matter of tie even if these sort of press reports are unfounded. 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece 
"Glaciers are continuing to advance and retreat" That is probably true in a legalistic sense. I would ask the question though: of what percentage you would suggest are advancing and what percentage are retreating? 
You say "sea levels have not risen". But that's not correct. According to the Australian CSIRO: 
" The change of relative mean sea level around the Australian coastline for the period 1920 to 2000 is about 1.2 mm per year, but over the past 20 years the rate is far greater." 
" since 1993 (when satellite data has been available) the rate was increased to 3 mm per year." 
3mm does not sound very much and certainly within most people's lifetimes it isn't likely to be a serious problem, providing it gets no worse. However, we do have to remember that global warming has hardly started and that we do now have a chance to fix the problem before it is too late. The last time that the earth was 2-3 degrees warmer than it is now, about 3 million years ago, the sea level was 20 metres higher. It could take a hundred years or it could take thousand. Either way it won't matter much to most of us. If we consider that we have no responsibility for future generations then I guess , yes, we can argue that we don't need to do anything much to stop it. 
On the other hand , the change in sea level could increase very rapidly if either the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets became unstable and slipped. It is a matter of risk. The higher the level of global warming the greater that risk, and it is a risk we don't need to take. 
Like the author of the website "science is broken", which you saw fit to link to as a reference, there are plenty of "know nothings" around. They weren't born yesterday either. Nothing wrong with a lack of knowledge, of course. The problem is when you are arrogant enough to think you know it all, without even bothering to try to understand what others are saying.
stargazer 
26 February 2008 at 22:43
http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=d7c7fcce-d...
Brute 
27 February 2008 at 00:20
Not arrogance, common sense and a little research. 
Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms, New Study Says 
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080222_hurricane....
Brute 
27 February 2008 at 00:26
This one has time stamped photos from 1970 through 2008! 38 years of global warming and the snow is still there......... 
Mount Kilamanjaro - Tanzania, Africa – more snow than ever. Another Inconvenient Lie.......... 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/yet-another-...
Brute 
27 February 2008 at 00:29
NOAA: Hurricane frequency and global warming NOT the cause of increased destruction 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/noaa-hurrica...
Peter Martin 
27 February 2008 at 01:39
Brute, 
Congratulations. You've managed to give a reputable source like NOAA as your reference. If you stuck to organisations like NOAA and NASA for the data on which to base your opinions, rather than some of the other crackpot links you pass off as references, then I'm sure we wouldn't be be too much in disagreement. Are you happy to use NOAA for all your data and references or just the ones that fit your argument? I can say I do absolutely trust groups like NOAA and would not disagree with them unless, in the unlikely event, they were way out of line with what everyone else in the scientific world was saying. 
I've said the same thing before. I don't think that there is any real evidence, at least not yet, that hurricanes are related in either strength or frequency to AGW. I agree that Al Gore was ill informed on that one. 
But, to be quite blunt, I don't give a **** what Al Gore, Barbara Streisand, Britney Spears, or whoever, think on scientific questions. Unless, that is, there is something I don't know about them and it turns out that they are scientifically more qualified than I'm giving them credit for. You are far too hung up on what these guys think. So, Al Gore made a film and made some factual errors. There were factual errors in the "Great Global Warming Swindle" too. Fair enough, point out the errors, but get over it. If you take a look at the the rest of the NOAA and NASA websites you should be able to work out exactly what Al Gore was, and was not, justified in saying. 
Any answer to my question on the % of glaciers that are in advance and the % in retreat?
Brute 
27 February 2008 at 01:41
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/03/09/more-on-the-... 
More On The Polar Bear Overload 
When the Bush administration hinted at naming the polar bear as a threatened species, the Wall Street Journal did some checking. The newspaper found in January that there are 20,000-25,000 polar bears out there — 4 to 5 times as many as the 5,000 polar bears in the 1960s. 
Still lefties cling to the myth of the polar bear shortage. 
The Inuits are up to their igloos in polar bears now. Fred Langan and Tom Leonard of the London Telegraph explained the situation today: 
In small Inuit communities, hunters kill bears that wander too close to human settlements and, in this particular region, they are licensed to kill six polar bears a year. 
Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists. 
The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared — boosting the bears’ food supply. 
At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears. 
But wait, global warming people said polar bears were starving because the icecaps were melting, keeping them away from those delicious Harp seal pups. 
Now we come to learn that polar bears are feasting and going out and making more polar bears. There are so many polar bears that Man is in danger up north, not polar bears. 
How are the polar bears getting to the baby seals? Jet skis? 
Remember, the Arctic Circle is now just an ice cube. Or so they say. 
Never mind all those nettlesome facts: All this proves global warming, the global warming believers say. 
“I don’t think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming,” said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. “People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears.” 
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board is made up entirely of polar bear hunters? Who knew? 
But I am puzzled by why global warming people brought up the whole disappearing polar bear thing, when polar bears actually are thriving, thanks to all those melt-in-your-mouth Harp seal pups. 
Derocher’s “proof” that polar bears are in danger is that bear numbers on the west coast of Hudson’s Bay are down by 22% over the past decade. 
“They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson’s Bay,” he said. 
But wait, polar bear numbers are growing overall. His reply: “To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant.” 
Once again, global warming believers cherry-pick data and pretend it is science. 
Remember the big deal the NOAA made about our warm January? Here is its entire report on February: 
The average temperature in February 2007 was 32.9 F. This was -1.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 34th coolest February in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. 
1.56 inches of precipitation fell in February. This was -0.46 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 16th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.00 inches per decade. 
I have no idea if the Earth is getting warmer or colder. 
Neither do people who count polar bears on the west coast of Hudson Bay — or the people at the NOAA. 
But here’s a suggestion for the global warming people: Use that actual data to embroider another scenario, that global warming is causing an overpopulation of polar bears. 
Somehow melting the ice makes them overpopulate and they will be walking down Broadway any day now to eat us alive … that would scare people into believing. 
Hat tip: Lucianne.com. 
Polar Bear Politics 
http://www.matsuvalleynews.com/pr189.html
Brute 
27 February 2008 at 03:07
Any answer to my question on the % of glaciers that are in advance and the % in retreat? 
You've got me there Pete. I'd have to say that 100% of all of the Earth's glaciers have been retreating since the present warming trend began +/- 10,000 years ago.
Peter Martin 
27 February 2008 at 03:32
Brute, 
5000 polar bears in the 60's proabably does represent a very low number which was probably caused by excessive hunting rather than environmental factors. 
A figure of 25000 now would indicate that they have made a good, if partial, recovery due in large part to tighter controls on hunting, and which is probabaly still continuing. 
A lack of sea ice, and this would include summer as well as winter ice, will probably slow this down considerably however. It cannot be so surprising that record amounts of ice formed this winter. It has not melted in anywhere the same quantities previously. If polar ice is not permanent then Polar Bears are going to have a harder time. This is why Polar Bears are still being recommended for increased Protection by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. See: 
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/Polar_Bear... 
Polar Bears are certainly the poster boys of the AGW campaign. They may not be the most at risk though. Many species will be unable to shift to more temperate latitutudes as AGW takes increasing hold. The Great Barrier reef in Australia, as with many other coral reefs, is already suffering from bleaching. When the coral dies the whole eco system goes with it. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_reef
Peter Martin 
27 February 2008 at 05:09
Brute, 
"I'd have to say that 100% of all of the Earth's glaciers have been retreating since the present warming trend began +/- 10,000 years ago." 
Well not quite. Certainly during the LIA there would have been an overall advance in most of the earth's glaciers. 
I think you might be trying to avoid the question. I don't think you want to tell me that the overwhelming majority of the earth's glaciers are currently in retreat!
Alex 
27 February 2008 at 13:16
Regarding glaciers, the following link might help. 
http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g01130_glacier_inventory/ 
They concede that out of more than 100,000 galciers worldwide, only a very small percentage have been measured to see if they are retreating or growing. I read somewhere ( I'm afraid can't find the reference at the moment), that only 50 or so have time-series data, and that a mere 42 have records that go back 10 years......
Brute 
27 February 2008 at 13:17
Mr. Martin, 
What I am writing is that at the height of the ice age, +/- 10,000 years ago glaciers / ice sheets covered much of what is now North America, as far South as Kansas City, the remnants of this earlier cold period still exist today. From roughly 8,000 BC until now the Earth has experienced a (relatively) warm period and glaciers and ice sheets have (generally) been retreating since that time. There have been cooler, (and warmer), periods within this period, (Medieval Warm Period / Little Ice Age), which have caused the glaciers to retreat or advance, but generally speaking, all glaciers have been retreating since that time. 
You wrote: Certainly during the LIA there would have been an overall advance in most of the earth's glaciers. 
Either you or Falicoff dismissed the Little Ice Age as a regional cold period effecting Western Europe only. Are you now conceding that the Little Ice Age was a cold enough period to cause glaciers to advance? If so, a cold period for a significant amount of time to allow glaciers to grow must have been widespread and fairly severe. What caused it? 
Yes, I do post articles that report record cold temperatures and I’m certain that with the onset of Spring and Summer there will be ample opportunity for you to point out a record warm temperature reading here and there. It just seems queer to me that the media is quick to assert that a warm summer somewhere on the planet indicates proof of global warming; however, conversely, record cold temperatures go unreported. 
Cheer up, I understand that the planet is going to intersect with an asteroid in the very near future and I’m certain that somehow “scientist” and Eco-condriacts will fault America and the Bush Administration for this occurrence also. 
Ironically, Whitehouse wrote this article also. Environmentalist will find a way to blame gluttonous, greedy, Americas……..wasting money on pointless wars to stop terrorists from killing innocent civilians or some other silly endeavor when we could have concentrated on diverting this asteroid……………. 
Space rock 'on collision course' 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2147879.stm 
When the Sun explodes in 4 Billion years you can be sure that the Environmentalists will blame George Bush or Exxon-Mobil. 
There was an earthquake in Britain yesterday; more proof of global warming? It must be connected in some way, don’t you think? Maybe you guys can figure out some way to connect the two. 
You wrote: The change of relative mean sea level around the Australian coastline for the period 1920 to 2000 is about 1.2 mm per year, but over the past 20 years the rate is far greater." " since 1993 (when satellite data has been available) the rate was increased to 3 mm per year." 
3 millimeters? Is that a typographical error? About the height of a box of matches laying flat on a table? Alright, if they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to find that out good for them; sounds like a good use of taxpayer’s money as opposed to researching ways to cultivate food more efficiently or irrigate crops, (or researching alternative methods to generate electricity). Personally, I can’t conceive of an accurate measurement of 3 millimeters measured from a satellite over an area as large as the entire coastline of the Australia……hardly seems to cover the margin of error, but if they say that, I believe them. 3 millimeters is hardly the 6.6 Meter rise asserted by the IPCC as a realistic short-term prospect.
Alex 
27 February 2008 at 13:22
The IPCC 4th Assessment Report from last February maintains that glaciers make up less than 5% of the world's ice. Greenland and Antarctica make up 95%, and they have been growing for the last 30 years.
Brute 
27 February 2008 at 14:40
Interesting article regarding (natural) climate change. 
Exit from Eden - how the Sahara became a desert 
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_1_21/ai_58398...
Nelson 
27 February 2008 at 16:45
'3 millimeters is hardly the 6.6 Meter rise asserted by the IPCC as a realistic short-term prospect.' 
Glad to see someone called you out on the 'sea levels are not rising' lie, which made me once again question the reliability of your sources. It's worrying that you don't fact-check something as simple as this. 
'3 millimeters is hardly the 6.6 Meter rise asserted by the IPCC as a realistic short-term prospect.' 
Kindly show where the IPCC stated this (since they don't). If Greenland's/Antarctica's ice were to melt, there would be a catastrophic sea level rise. 
Denialists often like to point to paleoclimate records to prove that current warming projections are not unprecedented. It's worth checking out sea levels then...
Alex 
27 February 2008 at 17:21
"If Greenland's/Antarctica's ice were to melt, there would be a catastrophic sea level rise." 
That'sthe whole point, Nelson. They're not melting.
Robin Guenier 
27 February 2008 at 18:20
Well, I’m back from my trip & am amazed to find that there have been over 100 additional posts. First, welcome to Alex – you may have been surrounded by an ocean of alarmists but here at least there are some islands of good sense. I haven’t yet had time to read all the new stuff but that I have read has prompted some reflection. I’ll return to that later but, first, a comment on Peter M’s response (19 February) to my post on the same day. 
Yes, Peter, you’ve doctored the evidence. The scale of the chart is 1cm = 1,000 years. The steep upward curve you have added starts 0.45 cm into the chart: i.e. at about 1550. The LIA didn’t end until 300 years later. Also you’ve ignored Wikipedia’s note that “each curve in the main plot was smoothed … and consequently, this figure cannot resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further … it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year … It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times, but are unresolved by the available resolution.” In other words (as I’ve said before) earlier temperatures similar to or greater than today’s could well be hidden by the scale of the graph.
WFalicoff 
27 February 2008 at 18:50
Brute, 
I am working and have been working on the energy problem. Indeed I have taken time from my work to attempt to respond to the many statements made on this site. 
1) I have been working on solid state lighting sources with OSRAM - 1 kilolumen white at over 100 lumens per watt. 
2) Working with Boeing/Spectrolab and others on concentrating solar electricity generation. Spectrolab now has triple junction PV cells that have an efficiency of over 40% at 600 sun concentration. 
3) I have worked with Hughes Aircraft (some years ago) on implementing energy conservation measures on 6 million square feet of facility in southern california. 
4) I have worked with GM and several other car companies on solid state lighting forward and rear lighting. 
I don't claim to have the answer to "save the world". We humbly work on and hope what we do will slowly make our civilization more energy efficient. 
Many statements have been presented as fact on this "board". I don't have time to check them all or to see if they have been slanted or exagerated. You claimed for example, that it snowed in Los Angeles and San Diego. This was I presume some example of the super cold weather we have experienced in February in parts of the world. I pointed out that I live in Los Angeles and did not anything unusual about the weather here in January and February (other than we have experienced 80+F temperatures at times.) There has been no snow in downtown Los Angeles or downtown San Diego. San Diego and Los Angeles county both have mountainous areas in their boundaries. Each year there is some snow in these mountains. Indeed that is one feature of Los Angeles that you can go drive up to the mountains and go skiing. Presumably you have heard of Big Bear. So please stop with all the hype. I agree that there was very cold weather in China and other parts of the world in February. So what. We are looking at long term temperature changes. Wait until summer time in this part of the world and we will see what happens. In the mean time I am enjoying the 75F+ temperature in LA in February. 
Some of you claim that the ice pack in the arctic is growing over the last 30 years. If you believe this I know a very inexpensive bridge for sale in Brooklyn. Let us put the current cold weather in January and February in perspective. 2007 was one of the two warmest years over the last 100 years. The last decade was the warmest in 100 years. One cold January and February in some parts of the world 2008 does not mean we are sliding into an ice age. 
This is my last post. I must get back to solving problems. We will never convince each other of anything. This is obvious. 
Have a great day. Sorry the weather is so cold where you live. 
W. Falicoff
bobclive 
27 February 2008 at 18:50
Mr martin 
BARRIER REEF NOT REALLY DYING. 
How many times must the experts be wrong about Barrier Reef devastation before we disbelieve their scares? 
HOW many times must the Great Barrier Reef "survive" before we figure it's not really dying? 
Actually, the real question is a bit cruder. 
As in: How many times can global-warming alarmists such as Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg be wrong about the reef's "devastation" before we learn to ignore their scares? 
Dr Ben McNeil, an oceanographer of the University of New South Wales, who with colleagues from CSIRO and AIMS calculated that global warming could in fact be good for coral reefs, because warmer water helped red algae calcify faster. 
Even allowing for more acidic seas, says McNeil, "our analysis suggests that ocean warming will foster considerably faster future rates of coral reef growth". Fancy that. Not dying reefs, but growing. But only if we keep pumping out gas. 
Forget about Wikipedia read full article at 
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,18732575-2571...
Brute 
27 February 2008 at 19:42
Mr. Guenier, 
Welcome back. How was Epypt? Hot, dry, sandy, arid? Must be due to global warming!
Robin Guenier 
27 February 2008 at 20:13
Brute: good to hear from you. (I really hope we'll have that beer one day.) I was on a Nile cruise - so it was not hot (too early), dry, sandy (a little) or arid. But, viewing the extraordinary artefacts of a civilisation going back over 5000 years helps to put things into perspective. BTW congratulations on some excellent posts recently.
JZ Smith 
27 February 2008 at 20:38
Robin, welcome back as well Never been Egypt myself, but always wanted to. Maybe someday... 
Brute and Mr Falicoff, I must concur with Mr Falicoff's weather assessment from southern California. I live in the San Diego area, and while we did get more snow this year in the local mountains (went skiing at Big Bear last week!), I would say that we had far colder weather last winter than this. In fact, we had lots of frost damage to plants (last year). I lost nearly half of a Ficus tree, plus neighbors lost banana trees and many of the tropicals sustained lots of frost damage. 
However, I remain a strong skeptic!
Brute 
27 February 2008 at 21:59
These are the reports that made national news.... 
Mr. Falicoff, 
By the way, it's supposed to be cold here in February. I'm not compaining, just being sarcastic. If I didn't like the weather I'd move. Good luck with your endeavors. Sounds like interesting work. 
http://video.nbcsandiego.com/player/?id=218463 
Snow shuts down roads in San Diego CountyStory Highlights 
27-mile stretch of I-8 closed for 12 hours by snow; 500 motorists stranded 
At least 30 people taken to temporary shelters; teams check for cars off roads 
San Diego County authorities report about triple normal number of accidents 
Next Article in U.S. » 
SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- A surprise storm lashed San Diego County with rain and snow, stranding as many as 500 motorists on a mountain freeway and pouring mud down onto another roadway but causing no major damage or injuries. 
A car lies on its roof Thursday in San Diego County, California, afer a surprise storm that closed roads. 
1 of 2 The weather was expected to clear Friday. 
A 27-mile stretch of Interstate 8, which runs through the mountains in the eastern county and is a main artery from California into Arizona, was reopened before dawn Friday following a 12-hour shutdown. 
The California Highway Patrol began escorting cars through, although big-rig trucks still were not allowed. The freeway was closed shortly after 4 p.m. Thursday when blowing snow and ice made the roadway impassable. 
"It was just a big dump of snow, real fast," accompanied by high winds, California Highway Patrol Officer Jim Bettencourt said. 
Cars spun out and hundreds of motorists were stopped in their tracks. 
"I've been here for a while and trying to get around, but there's no going around, so you just have to be patient," stranded motorist Patty Kresin told KNSD-TV in San Diego. 
Don't Miss 
KGTV: Freak storm strands drivers 
Ice and snow snarl traffic, close schools 
Tornado kills woman as she leaves hospital 
Search-and-rescue teams went car to car. At least 30 people were taken to temporary shelters at a fire station and a casino nearby, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 
By early Friday, authorities were pretty sure they had found all the stranded motorists, but teams were still checking for cars that might have gone over the side of the road, Bettencourt said. 
The abandoned cars hampered snow plows. 
"Now we have a virtual parking lot of empty vehicles," Bettencourt said. "You've got big rigs that are jackknifed. So it's going to be a pretty daunting task." 
The unexpectedly severe weather snarled other roadways. Authorities reported 179 crashes on county roads between midnight and 9 p.m. Thursday, compared to the usual figure of 50 to 75 crashes in a typical day. 
Authorities also shut down an 8-mile stretch of road between Poway and Ramona because of mudslides. About 2 feet of mud and rocks slid onto the highway after heavy rain fell in an area burned by last fall's wildfires. 
The stormy weather was caused by a low-pressure system that originated in the Gulf of Alaska and unexpectedly moved into Southern California. 
Rain, hail and snow also fell in the desert near Palm Springs where temperatures had soared to 85 degrees just days ago.
JZ Smith 
27 February 2008 at 22:15
Hi Brute, 
Yes, it was a freak storm that no one predicted. Normally the winter storms lash the southern facing side of my house, but this one, for some reason, slammed the northern side. A large planter in the driveway (with a very low CG) and weighing at least 75 pounds was knocked over! We had lots of rain (we're only a few miles from the beach at about 100' of elevation), but no snow. 
My son and I went camping in the desert the next day, and almost all the roads through the mountains were closed for some time, mainly due to mud slides or tree branches blown down from snow and/or wind. The mud slides happened in areas burned last October in the fires. 
On a hike on Saturday in the desert (~75ºF) we had snowball fights with the remains of the snow. It was still fluffy and powdery snow. The lady at the General Store nearby said she'd never seen anything like it. 
It was more snow than I've ever seen in the local mountains, and at Big Bear, they have so much snow that they will be open through mid April Very unusual for southern California.
WFalicoff 
27 February 2008 at 22:17
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20071209-1057-bn06w... 
Note that I8 was affected in this storm in 2007. Perhaps the 2008 storm was more of a "surprise" to meteorologists than the 2007 storm. 
10:57 a.m. December 9, 2007 
"Residents in some San Diego mountain communities woke up to more snow Sunday as the latest chilly storm continued to deliver snow flurries. Other parts of the county got rain and thunder. 
* Mount Laguna photo gallery 
The largest snowfall was reported in East County's Mount Laguna where about 8 inches of snow had accumulated over the past two days, said Steve Vanderburg, a National Weather Service meteorologist. Mount Laguna is north of Interstate 8 and east of state Route 79. 
“For anyone going to see the snow, that's your best bet,” he said. 
Tom McWay, manager of the Laguna Mountain Lodge at 6,000-foot elevation, said snow continues to fall. 
“It's beautiful,” McWay said. “All the trees are flocked with snow.” 
More snow was expected throughout the day as showers over the deserts moved toward the mountains. 
Advertisement 
About 2 inches of snow fell on Julian overnight, but it didn't stick to most places. Lisa Rapue, manager of the Julian Gold Rush Hotel, which sits at an elevation of 4,130, said her town had a light dusting of snow overnight. 
“The trees and bushes have snow on them,” she said. “Looking on the ground, it's pretty much melted.” 
The storm also blanketed Palomar Mountain with about four inches of snow. 
A snow advisory for all San Diego County mountains was in effect until noon Sunday. 
In the valleys and along the coast, the light morning showers in southern San Diego and Chula Vista Sunday were moving east toward Jamul. 
Over the past two days, roughly a half inch of rain fell at Lindbergh Field. Vanderburg said the coast and valleys reported about an inch of rain during the same period. 
Thunderstorms also roared 20 to 30 miles offshore early Sunday but the chance of rain was expected to decrease as the day goes on, Vanderburg said. 
“By tomorrow, the storm will be gone and we'll be left with drier weather,” Vanderburg said. 
It will be a relief for motorists who encountered dozens of crashes on slick and icy roads in recent days. 
On Sunday, the California Highway Patrol closed state Route 78 from Bandy Canyon Road in San Pascual to Weekend Villa Road near Ramona due to poor weather and road conditions. 
By 9 a.m., motorists were required to have snow tires or chains on South Grade Road near Palomar Mountain and on East Grade Road near Lake Henshaw. 
The CHP said snow was also falling on Interstate 8 between state Route 94 and Crestwood and drivers had to contend with ice on eastbound I-8 from state Route 79 near Descanso to Sunrise Highway near Pine Valley. High winds and low visibility because of fog also were reported. 
The weather is expected to warm up gradually as the week goes on, Vanderburg said. “But we're not going to see a rapid increase in temperatures like we did (after) last's week's storm,” Vanderburg said. 
Temperature highs along the coast and valleys will be in the low 60s Monday. At night, temperatures will drop to the 30s in the valleys and the 40s along the coast. The mountains will have temperatures in the 40s during the day and 20s at night. 
The deserts are forecast to have highs in the mid 50s to low 60s. Temperatures will drop to the 40s at night. 
Staff writer Helen Gao contributed to this report. " 
This kind of thing happens in Southern California. 
W. Falicoff
WFalicoff 
27 February 2008 at 22:30
Just in case you think the snow in 2007 was also a weather anomaly we have this from January 2004 
NORTH COUNTY ---- Hail slammed the Escondido area Monday afternoon and snow was sticking on Palomar Mountain and Mount Laguna as another drenching winter storm struck San Diego County. 
Torrential downpours at times turned streets into puddles. Creeks became small streams. Sand or rocks closed a few roadways. Crews pumped out flooded areas in Encinitas. 
A countywide flash flood watch and a winter storm warning remain in effect until 2 p.m. today. 
Up to 10 inches of snow was expected overnight in the mountains with the snowfall level dropping to 4,000 feet, said National Weather Service forecaster Stan Wasowski. Flurries were reported on Palomar Mountain Monday, but the snow wasn't expected to last long. 
"If we get some sunshine it should start melting fast," Wasowski said. "We're thinking things should settle down this (Tuesday) afternoon." 
The National Weather Service was predicting 1 to 2 inches of rain along the coast, a little more in the inland valleys and up to 5 inches in the mountains before the winter storm moves on this afternoon. 
As of 4 p.m. Monday, Vista had 1.28 inches of rain; Carlsbad, 1.16; Palomar Mountain, 1.10; Oceanside Airport, 1.05; Escondido, 0.90; Rancho Bernardo, 0.88; Ramona, 0.62, and Julian, 0.61. 
At Lindbergh Field in San Diego, the rainfall totaled 0.95 inches, bringing the seasonal total since July 1 to 10.27 inches. 
The sun was expected to peek out from behind clouds by late this afternoon and again Wednesday, Wasowski said. More clouds are due to roll in Thursday with more rain possible Friday and into the weekend. 
Slick and wet Interstate 5 in Carlsbad turned into a massive parking lot during the Monday morning commute when a big rig jackknifed just before 7:30 a.m. in the southbound lanes at Tamarack Avenue. 
No one was hurt, but the crash involving several other vehicles shut down three lanes for an hour, said Officer Jim Bettencourt of the California Highway Patrol. 
"It was pretty bad," Bettencourt said. 
The accident was one of 184 between midnight and 8 p.m. on the highways and rural roads covered by the Highway Patrol. On a good weather weekday the agency usually lists 50 to 75 crashes.
JZ Smith 
27 February 2008 at 22:50
It's 75ºF in Carlsbad (California) right now. It feels even warmer!
Peter Martin 
27 February 2008 at 23:53
Bob Clive , 
The link that you posted re the Barrier reef wasn't even a newspaper report. It was just a blog. 
Do you have a reference to some scientific evidence that says corals thrive better and don't get bleached when the water warms up? Do you have any real evidence to suggest that you know what you are talking about? 
Alex, 
You couldn't even manage to give a blog reference to support your assertion that the volume of ice at Antarctica and Greenland is increasing. Any Scientific. yes I do mean scientific, not just some mickey mouse website, evidence for this? 
Robin, 
Ok Lets leave the evidence that I presented aside for now. Lets look at yours, if there is any. 
You reckon that there were 13 ( or was it 11? ) periods in the last 10,000 years that were warmer than today. ( anomaly figure for today is +0.4 deg C, can we all agree on that at least? ) And your evidence is that graphs showing previous climatic data have been smoothed, so that there might have, just possibly, been 13, or whatever number it was you mentioned, warmer periods? 
Well thank you Mr Guenier for your full and comprehensive answer! All my doubts are now assuaged! 
It seems to me that all you guys are very long on opinions but very short on any real evidence to support the notion that you actually know what you are talking about. Even your anecdotes about the weather are questionable. I'm still waiting for Brute to tell me why he thinks the last Australian winter was exceptionally cold. It is summer here now, in Brisbane, and the temperature last Saturday reached 40.2deg C. (104.4 deg F) That's just weather and I'm not presenting it as evidence of global warming but I can give a reference if required!
Brute 
28 February 2008 at 01:01
Nelson, 
You are correct. The claims of a 20 foot rise in sea level were made by The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Sun, The Boston Globe, National Geographic, The Miami Herald, The BBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, The Journal Science, The Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, Science Daily, The Huffington Post , The Public Broadcasting System, The Associated Press, Reuters, Live Science, USA Today, Al Gore, and numerous other publications, Television outlets, Newspapers and Radio Programs………. not the United Nations. 
Mr Martin sates that, according to the Australian CSIRO, sea levels have risen 3 Millimeters, (.01 feet or .12 inches) since 1920. The United Nations states that sea levels will rise 180 millimeters (.59 feet or 7.09 inches) on the low end to 590 Millimeters (1.94 feet or 23.23 inches) on the high end. It seems as if we only have 177 Millimeters, (.58 feet or 6.97 inches) to reach the United Nations low guess, (if I’ve done the arithmetic correctly). 
I wonder how all of these publications / media sources (and myself) could have gotten this wrong?
Peter Martin 
28 February 2008 at 01:57
Brute, 
One of the ways to get things wrong is to use the wrong figures. For instance you say " Mr Martin sates that, according to the Australian CSIRO, sea levels have risen 3 Millimeters, (.01 feet or .12 inches) since 1920." 
If you would care to check, I actually said that the current figure for sea-level rise was 3mm per year. Not per 87 years! 
You might care to read the scientific advice that your taxes in the US are actually paying for on the subject of sea-level rise, and given in an A(Australian)BC TV program for the benefit of us Aussies last year by your top climate science guy. 
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1870955.htm
Brute 
28 February 2008 at 03:06
Yep, you did write per year. I was mistaken. I'll have to go back and recalculate inches to millimeters, centimeters, increments of a foot........Damn. 
I didn’t vote for Hansen. 
Is it a 20 foot (6.6 Meter) rise or a 23 inch (590 millimeter) rise globally? Over what period of time? 
The CSIRO disagrees with the IPCC speculations? 
Are you speaking of this report? 
http://www.marine.csiro.au/LeafletsFolder/45slevel/45.html 
Of course, this is dependent on Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting, correct?
TheElitesWin 
28 February 2008 at 08:21
The Great Global Warming Swindle is here to rob you of your taxes and finance the New World Order & Co. That's all it is, scaremongering.
Nelson 
28 February 2008 at 13:43
'The claims of a 20 foot rise in sea level were made...' - you're generously forgetting your statement that this was a 'short-term' prospect. 
Now I know Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth are favourite hate figures for you (or rather, the blogs you slavishly follow), so see if you can find out - independently, this requires some effort - where he gives the timescale for this rise in sea level. 
Good luck in your search.
Nelson 
28 February 2008 at 13:49
'"If Greenland's/Antarctica's ice were to melt, there would be a catastrophic sea level rise." 
That'sthe whole point, Nelson. They're not melting.' 
Parts most definitely are. And despite claims you might read to the contrary, weaker/absent warming in Antarctica is expected and entirely consistent with global warming. 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarc... 
The real problems arise in the future when local ocean buffering of antarctic temperatures is exceeded. Remember: the world is not in energy equilibrium with the CO2 already emitted (let alone that which will be pumped out next year, or the year after, or the year after that).
bobclive 
28 February 2008 at 14:19
Mr martin 
Coral reef not dying, see this link to abstract. 
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-12/uons-gwg12090...
Brute 
28 February 2008 at 14:19
Nelson, 
So, the depictions of skyscrapers being overwhelmed by tidal waves and hydroelectric dams overflowing and crumbling was just some fantasy concocted on a Hollywood sound stage or a computer generated image? The computer enhanced topographical maps depicting coastlines disappearing in a matter of days was all just senstionalism? Whew! I feel better now. 
Why would any credible politician decieve people like that? I thought we had to act immediatly to divert the coming planetary disaster caused by my barbecue grill................
Brute 
28 February 2008 at 14:23
On the other hand, they lauged at Noah when he was building his ark............................Maybe you guys are on to something. I'll start collecting the animals by two.
Robin Guenier 
28 February 2008 at 15:26
Peter: re your post yesterday, I suggest that you should engage your brain before you make accusations. I have already conceded that my claim may be impossible to prove. Go back to my post dated 11 February where I set out in some detail a review of our exchange on the topic. Unlike you true believers, I have an open mind and, when appropriate, will have the grace to accept that I may have made a claim that I cannot substantiate. So you won that exchange. However, you unwisely ignored my advice to stop when you were ahead. Instead, you ploughed on with your assertion that “this warm period is warmer than any other since the last ice age”. Not unreasonably, I have repeatedly asked you to produce some objective evidence (not Wikipedia and not doctored by you) clearly and unambiguously substantiating that assertion. Your complete failure to do so suggests to me that it is you, sir, who is “very long on opinions but very short on any real evidence to support the notion that you actually know what you are talking about”. 
You’ve asked for scientific evidence that increased temperatures may not be harmful to corals. Well, bobclive’s initial link was a good start – and his link today appears comprehensive. For a further view, I suggest you have a look at the work published by Hecht in New Scientist, August 2004. He notes that corals have survived for hundreds of millions of years despite dramatic variations in climate. He shows how they have achieved this by “bleaching” (i.e. losing the algae living in symbiotic relationship with them) both when temperatures rise and when they fall, enabling them to survive by partnering with other types of algae better suited to the changed temperature. For a detailed study of this phenomenon, see Lewis and Coffroth in Science, 304 (2004). “Short on any real evidence”? I don’t think so – perhaps a polite apology is in order? 
You’ve also asked Alex for scientific evidence that the volume of ice at Antarctica and Greenland is increasing. I hope Alex will allow me to contribute. Regarding Antarctica, I suggest you might review the work published by Sansom in Journal of Climate, 2 (1989), by Comiso in Journal of Climate, 13 (2000), by Watkins and Simmonds in Journal of Climate, 13 (2000), by Doran in Nature advance, 415 (2002), by Thompson and Solomon in Science, 296 (2002) and by Joughin and Tulaczyk in Science, 295 (2002). (As to Nelson’s link, it helpfully supports Alex’s colder Antarctic contention even if it suggests that that is consistent with global warming (hmm).) Regarding Greenland, see in particular the work published by Hanna and Capellan in Geophysical Research Letters, 30 in 2003, by Krabill in Science, 289 (2000) and by Rignor and Kanagratnam in Science, 311 (2006). More “real evidence” – another apology? 
BTW Peter, I note that, in responding to harmlesssky’s posts on the Lynas the pieman blog, you have reverted to your old straw man technique. I thought we had weaned you off that pathetic stratagem along with ad hominem arguments and question begging (plus, as harmlesssky points out, sarcasm and dogma). Can’t you understand how, by adopting these approaches, you are descending to the level inhabited by the likes of TheElitesWin? Can’t you see how foolish this makes you seem and how it undermines the credibility of your position? 
PS: congratulations to Maz and Alex for their excellent and thoughtful posts over the past few days.
harmlesssky.org 
28 February 2008 at 16:49
Gubir: 
If you are still following this thread (big if) I'm very interested in the BBC/Oxford experiment that you mentioned back in January. Can you be more specific about what went wrong?
Robin Guenier 
28 February 2008 at 17:32
In my earlier post, I referred to posts by harmlesssky on the Lynas the pieman thread. They’re worth reading. For those who haven’t time, here’s an extract: 
“If you want to know what kind of evidence informs my scepticism see here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=47 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=53 
Climate science has become so contaminated by politics that it is no longer possible for anyone - whether scientist or layperson – to distinguish fact from fiction. It is reassuring that a majority of readers of this magazine seem to have retained a rational and cautious scepticism in the face of hysteria.” 
British readers might find the first link (above) especially chilling – “Warm Words” is a serious misnomer. If you have time, look at the entire IPPR document.
Alex 
28 February 2008 at 19:16
Thanks for the support Robin. 
Peter, I didn't post any references regarding Antarctic ice because to be honest, I didn't think it would make much difference if I did. However, in addition to Robin's links, I think it is also revealing to see the IPCC's own views on Antarctica in their 4th Assessment last year (I'm sure you already have the link). To save people the trouble of ploughing through it, here is an extract:- 
4.6.2.2.2 Antarctica 
Recent estimates of Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance are summarised in Figure 4.18 (bottom). Rignot and Thomas (2002) combined several data sets including improved estimates of glacier velocities from InSAR to obtain antarctic mass budget estimates. For East Antarctica, growth of 20 ± 21 Gt yr–1 was indicated, with estimated losses of 44 ± 13 Gt yr–1 from West Antarctica. The balance of the Antarctic Peninsula was not assessed. Combining the East and West Antarctic numbers yielded a loss of 24 ± 25 Gt yr–1 for the region monitored. The time interval covered by these estimates is not tightly constrained, because ice input was estimated from data sets of varying length; output data were determined primarily in the few years before 2002. Zwally et al. (2006) obtained SRALT coverage for about 80% of the ice sheet, including some portions of the Antarctic Peninsula, and interpolated to the rest of the ice sheet. The resulting balance included West Antarctic loss of 47 ± 4 Gt yr–1, 
East Antarctic gain of 17 ± 11 Gt yr–1 and overall loss of 30 ± 12 Gt yr–1. If all the ice thickness changes were low-density fi rn rather than ice, the loss would be smaller (14 ± 5 Gt yr–1). 
Davis et al. (2005) compiled SRALT data for about 70% of the ice sheet, and did not interpolate to the rest. The same pattern of East Antarctic thickening and West Antarctic thinning was observed (Figure 4.19). Davis et al. (2005) suggested that the East Antarctic change was primarily from increased snowfall. Assigning all thickness change to low-density firn produces growth of the monitored portions of the ice sheet of 45 ± 8 Gt yr–1; if all thickness changes were ice, this growth would be 105 ± 20 Gt yr–1. Following the suggestion that the East Antarctic changes are from increased snow accumulation and 
the West Antarctic changes are more likely to be ice-dynamical would yield growth of monitored regions of 33 ± 9 Gt yr. 
What is very clear from their report is that measurement is difficult, incomplete and prone to inaccuracies. In short, a bit melting ice around the edges of Antarctica is nothing to get hysterical about (unless of course you're one of The Faithful)
stargazer 
28 February 2008 at 19:40
Melting !!! ??? 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/27/antar...’t-cooperating/
WFalicoff 
28 February 2008 at 19:48
I am not debating the issue but I am reading the posts when I get a free bit of time. There is a mention of Gore and others claiming a 20 foot rise in water level. There is no timetable for this to happen in Gore's presentations and book. He only claims it is possible given the amount of ice on land. Gore does not claim that this will occur in this century. So are you arguing that there is not sufficient ice in Greenland and Antarctica to reach 20 feet? Or are you saying something else? 
W. Falicoff
Brute 
28 February 2008 at 19:53
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ 
Now THIS is interesting: Pielke on Dr. Joanne Simpson 
27 02 2008 
The Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. weblog today includes a letter from Dr. Joanne Simpson, recently retired. He calls her “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years”. It seems that she really spoke her mind on the subject of climate models and the problems of the changing measurement environment around climate monitoring stations. 
The full letter is here on that weblog. 
Excerpt: 
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. […] The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. 
We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. […] The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable? One distinguished scientist has shown that many aspects of climate change are regional, some of the most harmful caused by changes in human land use. 
No one seems to have properly factored in population growth and land use, particularly in tropical and coastal areas. 
[…] But as a scientist I remain skeptical. I decided to keep quiet in this controversy until I had a positive contribution to make. […] Both sides (of climate debate) are now hurling personal epithets at each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences.
Brute 
28 February 2008 at 20:50
Will sea levels rise 20 feet as Gore predicts? 
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0706/0706sea...
WFalicoff 
28 February 2008 at 21:08
Gore never states a time in the future when the 20 foot increase would occur. He simply states that there would be an increase of 20 feet in the sea level if such and such happened. 
Why argue about this? In my view it is a complete waste of time. 
W. Falicoff
WFalicoff 
28 February 2008 at 21:23
Here is a resume of Dr. Simpson 
http://www.grandtimes.com/simpson.html 
I leave it to others to decide if she is an expert on global climate models. 
W. Falicoff
Brute 
28 February 2008 at 21:47
Mr. Falicoff, 
That movie and the publicity around it has influenced public opinion, (and a Nobel Prize)? See: Leni Riefenstahl..... (No, I’m not saying that Al Gore is a Nazi; however, his film is propaganda designed to influence opinion). 
With all due respect; An infinite number of things "could happen". The point is that he and others are stating emphatically that this IS happening, (when it is not), to pursue a political goal. 
I "could" win the lottery tomorrow "if" I bought a ticket and no one else played the game today; but that has not happened and is very "unlikely" to happen. And I'm not going to waste my money on a ticket "just in case" no one else happens to play the game today. 
Reading through much of the literature I find words such as "likely" and "may occur" which is opinion and speculation, not fact. The facts paint an entirely different picture of this global doomsday scenario foisted on the public.
JZ Smith 
28 February 2008 at 21:48
I'd hardly call that a résumé, but seems to fairly accurately describe her career. 
Here is more: http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/lookingatearth/simpson_b...
Peter Martin 
28 February 2008 at 22:24
BobClive, 
Before you lay claim to Dr Ben McNeil as one of your own maybe you should read what he is actually saying rather than the "mickey-mouse" website which you linked to claims he is saying? http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~bmcneil/res.summary.html 
http://www.unsw.edu.au/research/res/resmag/17_GlobalWarming.... 
The point about coral is that it does occupy waters with a range of temperatures. And if those temperatures change slowly enough Dr McNeil is saying that it may, just may, be able to adapt. However the question is whether the temperature change will be slow enough to allow that to happen. 
The analogy would be the more common flora and fauna which we see on land. In principle, if the temperature increases then everything just shifts North (or South in the Southern Hemisphere) to compensate. It might not suit the animals who inhabit the polar regions though. The change has to be slow though, much slower than is actually happening, or we'll have mass extinctions.
Peter Martin 
28 February 2008 at 22:50
Brute, 
You ask "Will sea levels rise 20 feet as Gore predicts?" 
The last time that world temperatures were 2-3 degrees higher than they are now , about 1.5 million years ago, the worlds oceons were about 20 metres (that metres not feet) higher. So, yes, if global warming continues we will reach 20 feet at some stage. 
The current rate is 3mm per year. So you can work out for yourself how long it will take at that rate. 
However as the temperature of the earth warms the ice at the polar ice caps will melt more quickly. Some of what has already melted was sea ice which floated on the sea and therefore displaced its own weight of water anyway. The melting of this ice does not contribute to rising sea levels. 
The likelihood is that 3mm per year will become 6mm per year and then 12mm per year. But it is not possible to say over what timescale unless we also know the timescale for temperature increase.
Alex 
29 February 2008 at 00:16
It is disingenuous in the extreme to maintain that "no timescale" was ever mentioned about rising sea levels. The constant alarmism of the environmentalist movement clearly implies that not only rising sea levels but all the other catastrophies on the agenda are imminent. Please don't deny this. It is deliberate, calculated, and intended to scare people. The reason for scaring people is open to speculation, but what is absolutely certain is that a frightened population is an easily controlled one. It is this that "sceptics" of man-made global warming really object to. We don't deny the world might be getting a bit warmer. We might even believe the physics of just how CO2 traps all this horrible heat. What we maintain is: 
1 That CO2 does not drive the Earth's climate 
2 That mankind is not to blame 
3 That a warmer world will not be catastrophic 
Consequently we absolutely reject the genuinely catastrophic economic sanctions that are being proposed as a "solution" to what is essentially a non-problem (and whose effects will be felt immediately). 
In the previous posts we have seen plenty of evidence that the world is warming; that CO2 has some effect; that some ice has melted. We're not disputing that. What there has absolutely not been is any evidence to refute the main points above, particularly the third one. And if you think about it, is our scepticism really so awful? What are we saying? We're saying that the world is getting milder - Great! That life will flourish - Great! That life will be generally more pleasant - Great! And for this we are considered heretics who should be burned at the stake. They used to do that in the middle ages when they believed that witches were responsible for failed crops. Have we really not moved on since then? 
You have reluctantly conceded that sea levels aren't going to be rising significantly for a while. That's something. Consider that there aren't going to be any famines or mass extinctions either. The modellers need to get away from their computers for a while and just look outside at the REAL world.
Brute 
29 February 2008 at 00:18
Mr Martin / Falicoff, 
Just to be fair, (to myself) The headline of the article was, "Will sea levels rise 20 feet as Gore predicts?". I didn't write the article or the headline. 
Honestly, do you read the links? 
Please connect to this link posted by harmlesssky and let us know your thoughts: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/0... 
Excerpt: 
Here is an excerpt from a report published in 2006 by the Institute for Public Policy Research, one of the government’s favourite think tanks. It is called Warm Words: How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better? 
Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement. 
To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. 
The disparity of scale between the enormity of climate change and small individual actions should be dealt with by actually harnessing this disparity. Myth (which can reconcile seemingly irreconcilable cultural truths) can be used to inject the discourse with the energy it currently lacks. 
Opposing the enormous forces of climate change requires an effort that is superhuman or heroic. The cultural norms (what we normally expect to be true) are that heroes - the ones who act, are powerful and carry out great deeds - are extraordinary, while ordinary mortals either do nothing or do bad things. The mythical position - the one that occupies the seemingly impossible space - is that of ‘ordinary hero’. The ‘ordinary heroism’ myth is potentially powerful because it feels rooted in British culture - from the Dunkirk spirit to Live Aid.
Brute 
29 February 2008 at 00:23
Wayyyyyyyyy off topic.......but I wanted to extend a thank you as I just read this report. 
Thanks to you Brits reading the site for your support and God Bless Prince Harry. 
PRINCE HARRY FIGHTS ON FRONTLINES IN AFGHANISTAN; 3 MONTH TOUR 
Thu Feb 28 2008 11:01:34 ET 
They're calling him "Harry the Hero!" 
British Royal Prince Harry has been fighting in Afghanistan since late December -- and has been directly involved in gun battle. 
The prince, a junior officer in the Blues and Royals, and third in line to the throne, has been a "magnificent soldier" and an "inspiration to all of Briton." 
Prince Harry is taking part in a new offensive against the Taliban. 
Ministry of Defense and Clarence House refuse all comment. Army chiefs have managed to keep the prince away from media and have encourage fellow soldiers in his squadron to stay quiet. 
Developing...
Brute 
29 February 2008 at 01:12
I'd just like to point out that forecasters predicted a dry warm winter for the western US. They must have been using the latest climate models. 
Big snows boost snowpack to best levels in 10 years 
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-02-06-colo-snow_N.... 
Heavy snowfalls could help dry West 
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/drought/2008-02-24-drought_N... 
Alta's powdery bounty tops 500 
Inches, that is, making for 4th best snowfall on record (Utah) 
http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_8363763 
Western States Smothered In Snow 
Snow Blankets Swath From Washington To Arizona, Causing Havoc On Roads 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/29/national/main37647...
Peter Martin 
29 February 2008 at 01:12
Brute, 
You are right. It was way off topic. Anyway you guys are supposed to be Republicans, so it's a bit incongruous of you to be so mushy towards UK royalty! If your history had gone differently you'd be more like Canada today with more gun controls and socialised medicine. You might even have been like us Aussies and we'd be playing cricket matches against each other. 
Just to get it back on topic, you might be interested to know that the Queen , Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain, Northern Ireland etc etc, is herself very much a supporter of measures to curb Greenhouse gas emissions. She's quite worried that her Sandringham estates will be threatened by rising sea levels. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/oct/31/environment.gr...
Brute 
29 February 2008 at 01:37
Fortunatly we didn't go the way of Canada and I don't care if the Prince is Royalty or not, he is a brave man fighting for a noble cause when he could have easily opted out. 
Thanks also to all of the brave Australian soldiers.....didn't mean to leave them out. 
As for Queen Elizabeth, I suport her right to curtail her personal energy consumption and lower her personally generated greenhouse gas emmissions.
Peter Martin 
29 February 2008 at 02:41
Brute, 
So, by implication you are telling our Queen (yes she's actually the Queen of Australia too) to butt out of USA and World political affairs? :-) 
I think what she's got in mind are more than just the emissions from her own Rollers and Landrovers!
Brute 
29 February 2008 at 03:32
Didn't know that she was the Queen of Australia also. I'll have to read up on that. 
Yes, she should butt out of my personal choices; I don't concern myself with hers. If you are asking my opinion, she should start with herself / her office, if she is concerned about "carbon footprints". However, I will not dictate to her how she should conduct her personal affairs. I would, however, point out hypocrisy such as Mr. Gore's excessive "carbon footprint". Those who live in glass houses……you know the rest. 
America is an independent nation; many people gave their lives to secure that independence. We are not Subjects of some global governing cabal, (The United Nations).
Sven 
29 February 2008 at 08:42
Peter Martin: "Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain, Northern Ireland etc etc, is herself very much a supporter of measures to curb Greenhouse gas emissions". 
Yes, and she's also (as is the whole royal family, especially prince Charles) a great supporter of homeopathy... Guess that makes homeopathy serious business...
Robin Guenier 
29 February 2008 at 09:31
Although Gore’s sea-level predictions didn’t have a date line, the images in his film showed cities as they appear today being inundated: so most viewers could not have known he was referring to something unlikely to occur for thousands of years. If indeed he was. Greenpeace, however, is more precise. In a 2002 press release, it claimed that a massive sea-level rise caused by AGW could inundate major world cities by 2080. Its climate policy director, Steve Sawyer, said, "We're talking of about the submergence of islands, submergence of Shanghai, the submergence of Bombay, the submergence of New York City… Manhattan would be under water." Its current website says, “If you live near the sea and think global warming isn't a problem for you, it's probably time to think again. … A full breakdown would result in a catastrophic global sea level rise of 7 meters. That's bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.” As Alex put it in his excellent post this morning, this is deliberate, calculated, and intended to scare people.
harmlesssky.org 
29 February 2008 at 11:02
Robin: 
Sorry about another shameless plug for my own blog but there is an example of misused sea level rise predictions here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=30 
And this involves a leading climate scientist who was a drafting author for IPCC AR4 SPM. If the green NGO's are firing the cannons, there are some vocal researchers who seem very happy to pass them the ammunition.
Brute 
29 February 2008 at 13:59
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008 
100 Years of Global Warming Erased in 1 Year 
What went up slowly is now falling like a rock: 
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming 
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in 70 years. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. 
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. 
Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down. 
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it. 
As we've said many times, it's the sun, stupid.
Brute 
29 February 2008 at 14:38
Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age 
link 
Robin Guenier 
29 February 2008 at 14:51
Here (for what they may be worth – I’m unqualified to say) are the data referred to in Brute’s last but one post: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/ 
a-look-at-temperature-anomalies-for-all-4-global-metrics/ . 
New subject: some may find it interesting to look at http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics. It’s entitled “How to talk to a skeptic” and contains detailed instructions for Peter Martin & co about how to deal with those nasty sceptics. It’s interesting in itself, but made especially so by some write-in comments from, wait for it … sceptics.
Brute 
29 February 2008 at 15:34
Thank you Robin. I think my last post will be removed anyway; some posts have been removed for possessing links that are too long; although I don’t know what constitutes a “long” link. 
The document that was originally posted by harmlesssky and that you have alluded to is truly frightening. After reading the Institute for Public Policy Research I did feel a chill going down my spine, (and it isn’t because it is 15 degrees here this morning). The document reads like a communication policy created by Goebells or Pravda; a “how to” textbook to manipulate and misinform. 
Excerpt from Goebells biography........... 
“It was then that Goebells adopted the phrase: Tell a Lie That is Big Enough, and Repeat it Often Enough, and the Whole World Will Believe It. He assumed the world would not be gullible enough to believe "little lies," but the bigger the lie, the more likely it is that people would eventually accept it as true. By the use of misinformation, negative propaganda, movies, and various dramatic presentations, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda was successful beyond the generation's realization.” 
Again, I’m not equating environmentalist with Nazis; however, the tactics are the same. 
See Link below:
Brute 
29 February 2008 at 15:35
The Rules of the Game, Evidence for the Climate Change Communications Strategy 
link 
Nelson 
29 February 2008 at 15:41
'We're saying that the world is getting milder - Great! That life will flourish - Great! That life will be generally more pleasant - Great!' 
Now I have problems with sweeping statements like this. 
Where's your evidence that life will flourish, that we can only benefit from warming? You don't think polar migration of crop zones into tundra/the sea might have an adverse impact on agriculture? That changes in precipitaiton patterns and drough/flood patterns might impair crop yields? That rising sea levels could adversely affect coastal areas where human populations are densest? 
Global warming is a lot more complex than warmer autumn evenings to enjoy your gin and tonic. Leave the simplicity behind.
Nelson 
29 February 2008 at 15:45
Brute, 
Re your Dailytech link. Is there really a new Ice Age on its way? 
That article quoted Tapping. Let's see what he had to say when he found his work was being mispresented by denialists: 
'It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades.'
Nelson 
29 February 2008 at 15:49
'Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming' 
Argh! 
1000+ posts, scores of which go into great detail on the complexities and pitfalls of statistically analysing temperature series and we're right back at playground data interpretation. 
Brute's remedial homeowrk this evening: Why Can't You Look At One Year In Isolation?
Ron McKeown 
29 February 2008 at 16:42
The comments are getting a little bizarre with the inclusion of the British Royal Family so perhaps people are now getting bored with the discussion. However, can I just corroborate some of the comments made with evidence from history including some courtesy of my database of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles . Mention is made of the Al Gore prediction of 20 feet rise in sea levels and the lack of a timescale. A 20 feet rise would be equal to the sea levels of the latter half of the eleventh century. In so far as timescales are concerned the minimum sea levels appear to have been in the early sixth century and this minimum was again achieved in the eighteenth century suggesting a nine hundred year cycle. Another two hundred and fifty years should see us at the peak of the warming period. This might also be consistent with the arguments for a Bronze Age warm period, a Roman Age warm period and the Medieval warm period. (These are rough calculations and may be plus or minus a century)
Robin Guenier 
29 February 2008 at 17:59
Of course you’re right Nelson about the absurdity of taking one year in isolation. But just think for a minute: suppose that if, after 9 years of near flatling after the 1998 anomaly peak, global temperature had exhibited a 12-month climb of this magnitude. You know as well as I that the media would have been full of it. Sauce for the goose…?
Brute 
29 February 2008 at 18:38
Nelson, 
I understand fully the one year in isolation statement and agree fully with Robin's last post. I posted those links primarily as a sort of schoolyard taunt and to annoy you, Martin and Falicoff; but I think they also indicate a couple of other significant points: 
The first being that climatologists prophesized that this winter would be warmer than “normal”, (whatever that is supposed to be)…… I’m assuming using climate models. They were wrong; so obviously there is a flaw in the model(s). And secondly, despite the reported CO2 level rise, temperatures have dropped tremendously this season. 
Now, you may say that the Sun is weaker than it has been previously but isn't that contradictory to the Alarmist doctrine? Extrapolating the Alarmist argument; this winter season would have been warmer if the sun had been stronger? The weaker sun overwhelmed the warming effect of the CO2 greenhouse gases? 
Seriously, you guys cannot continuously change the rules to affect the outcome of the game, (metaphorically speaking).
Robin Guenier 
29 February 2008 at 20:12
For Brute: “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” (H. L. Mencken)
Brute 
29 February 2008 at 21:18
Mr. Guenier, 
There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition." 
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
harmlesssky.org 
29 February 2008 at 21:32
Brute: 
There is something else about Warm Words that I did not mention in my post because I am unable to fully substantiate it. 
About the time that this report was published, the BBC's coverage of global warming changed completely. There was no longer any pretence of balanced reporting, nor was any hint given that there are great uncertainties in the science. Caveats in research papers were never mentioned, or if they were, only as an aside at the end of a report. George Monbiot, Chris Rapley, Tom Burke and Lord May of Oxford were repeatedly consulted as impartial experts on the scientific issues, although they all hold extremely partisan views on environmental matters. The impression that I got was that the reporters and editors concerned were very familiar with Warm Words and had adopted its recommendations. It may be impossible to find out for certain as the Corporation’s editorial decisions are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act. 
The BBC used to be the gold standard for news reporting in this country, but on this matter the old rules seem not to apply. I think that anyone who has a basic knowledge of the scientific issues, and has also read Warm Words, will recognise the fingerprints of the IPPR on all their coverage of this subject now. This is worrying because a blatantly political propaganda document should have no place in the newsrooms of a trusted national broadcasting service that is immensely influential in forming public opinion.
Alex 
29 February 2008 at 22:33
Nelson 
I'm glad you propose to leave simplicity behind. I look forward to never seeing again sweeping statements like " 20 foot rise in sea levels" "more frequent hurricanes" "more extreme weather" " more drought" "more floods" " mass extinctions" etc etc. What a relief that will be. 
Talking of mass extinctions, one of you mentioned earlier how the animals won't be able to cope with such "rapid and severe warming", hence the inevitable extinctions. Can we just recap on what kind of warming we are talking about. I believe it was somewhere between 1.5 and 6 degrees in the next 100 years or so. Shall we say an average of 3 degrees? That means about a 1 degree rise in about 30 years. A thirtieth of a degree per year. That's 0.033 degrees per year......And you think this would be so unbearable for all the animals and birds, that they just won't be able to cope, and will start to die. Maybe you have a point. For example average January/February temperatures here in the UK are generally about plus 4 degrees C. The last few weeks have been between plus 8 and even 12 - a real heatwave! And you know what? Animals have been dying in their thousands, and birds have been falling out of the sky like rain! They just can't cope with such a huge and rapid rise in temperature you see. Hold on...wait a minute.... sorry, no they haven't. I just made that up. They're fine.
Peter Martin 
29 February 2008 at 22:41
The rate of rise of sea-levels due to AGW is probably the hardest of all to calculate. What Greenpeace are predicting for 2080 is possible. Its not just Greenpeace that is concerned. The Chinese are worried too: 
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-01/16/content_639657... 
and Americans: 
http://www.physorg.com/news83866855.html 
The worst case scenario would be that this sort of thing: 
http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/index.html 
starts to happen more frequently and on a much larger scale. If you drop a large cube of ice into a glass of water you'll see the rise in the water level instantly. That is a risk we'll have to live with even if CO2 emissions are reduced vey quickly. If they are not the risk will be higher, but we may get away it with even so. 
The best case scenario would be that sea -levels rise as they are now and it gets no worse. That's 3mm per year. So, by the end of the century we'll have had a 300mm (1 foot ) rise which is just below the mid-level IPCC estimate. In a thousand years time it will 3 metres (9 feet). 
The most likely scenario is that as AGW takes hold, the rate of melting and oceon thermal expansion will increase. The rate of change of sea level will accelerate. 
Assuming that the rise in sea levels is predictable, and we can say with reasonable certainty that we as a generation won't be too adversely affected, the question is: should we care about future generations? Does it matter if a 9 feet rise, which will certainly mean the end of London, much of BanglaDesh , Holland etc, will take 100 years or 1000 years? Should we just assume that future generations will be so technically advanced that they'll be able to take care of the problem themselves?
Robin Guenier 
29 February 2008 at 22:53
Here’s a possible example of what harmlesssky has in mind. On 12 February (as Brute noted) under the heading “Global Warming ‘may cut deaths’”, BBC Online published this: “The risk of a fatal heatwave in the UK within ten years is high, but overall global warming may mean fewer deaths due to temperature, a report says. A seriously hot summer between now and 2017 could claim more than 6,000 lives, the Department of Health report warns. But it also stresses that milder winters mean deaths during this time of year - which far outstrip heat-related mortality - will continue to decline.” (See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7240463.stm.) But, by the time it got to the broadcast media (TV and radio), the story had been changed to focus entirely on the dreadful effects of heatwaves – deaths and mayhem. The benefits of milder winters were ignored.
Peter Martin 
29 February 2008 at 23:14
Ron Mckeown, 
I wouldn't have thought it possible but you've made me side ,at least for this one posting, with the sceptics! 
A 20 feet sea level cycle ( up and down again) over 900 years? That would mean changes in sea levels of over 13mm per year. There is no evidence at all that it has changed at anywhere near this rate for thousands of years. Even with 2 degrees of AGW it probably wouldn't change this quickly.
Peter Martin 
29 February 2008 at 23:26
Robin, 
Thanks for the link "how to talk to a climate sceptic' . I think I'm learning fast on that one. Even how to talk to those who claim to be open minded but are secret sceptics. 
I hope you aren't working through their list of climate myths. Your last posting comes under the heading of "what's wrong with warmer weather?" . The New Scientist answers that one very well: 
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-ch...
Alex 
29 February 2008 at 23:46
Regarding glaciers melting the following link might be useful 
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb9/sum06.html 
The World Glacier Monitoring Service proudly shows that out of more than 100,000 glaciers worldwide, its figures for the years 2003, 2004 an 2005 were based on the measurements of 30, 29 and 27 glaciers respectively. Pretty impressive, huh?
Brute 
01 March 2008 at 00:42
One of your earlier posts today contained these words / phrases: 
Probably, predicting, possible, concerned, worried, worst case scenario, may, scenario, Assuming, predictable, most likely, reasonable certainty. 
These are all words used to describe imaginary events……Predictions…… 
The REALITY is that global temperatures HAVE flat lined (and dropped) for the last ten years. Ice caps and ice sheets HAVE NOT melted permanently and HAVE gained ice mass, hurricane activity HAS NOT increased and sea levels HAVE NOT risen and swamped London. This HAS been a cold year globally despite the Alarmist predictions. The predictions and theories were / are incorrect. 
(I apologize for the upper case type....the underline format option is not available).
Brute 
01 March 2008 at 01:19
Mr. Martin, 
There have been no mass extinctions, no global famines or worldwide crop failures as predicted...... no matter how much you desire these events to occur. The weather or "climate" is dependant upon the Sun and cannot be controlled no matter how many rain dances you perform or how many virginal sacrificial ceremonies to Mother Earth you conduct. 
Maybe the Alarmists should concentrate on controlling the Sun. 
And why is it that every "solution" to global warming proposed by environmentalists and politicians involves taking money out of my wallet.....raising taxes and intruding into my personal affairs?
Peter Martin 
01 March 2008 at 01:40
We make predictions and look at scenarios all the time. Looking at the worst case scenario for loss of job/ failing health/death etc when taking out insurance. We look at weather predictions and, most likely, we act accordingly. We drive with the concern and probability, or possibility, that other road users may make mistakes . A serious road accident is imaginary ....until it actually happens. There is more than a reasonable certainty that we will all experience the effects of one at some point. 
If you look at NASAs graphs of global temperature you'll see the reality is that you are wrong on your first point. Their line is still rising with 2007, jointly with 1998, the second warmest year on record. Each decade has been warmer than the last for previous 30 years. We agree about hurricanes, but have you any references to back up your assertions that sea levels aren't rising or that the ice caps are gaining mass? 
I have asked this this question before but haven't had any reply. Is there any level of CO2 in the atmosphere at which you might start to be concerned and start to think that we should try to limit its rise? 
PS I'm happy with uppercase but I'd say it was best for the first letter of a sentence, the first letter of a proper noun, and acronyms.
Brute 
01 March 2008 at 02:24
Uppercase: I was attempting to emphasize the word without any tools / options.....In some realms all uppercase type connotes shouting.....I wasn't. 
We've posted stuff about ice mass gains and ice caps expanding.......I'll try to find the information tomorrow; have to get up extremely early to be at work tomorrow; commissioning / functionality test of a new system.
Robin Guenier 
01 March 2008 at 07:18
No, Peter, you're back with your friend the straw man. That post comes under the heading "How the media turn balanced research findings into a scare story". As to warming v cooling, there no absolutes - it depends how much warming or how much cooling. Geddit?
Peter Martin 
01 March 2008 at 07:51
Alex, 
You wrote. " That'sthe whole point, Nelson. They're ( polar ice caps) not melting." 
Have you read this reference? Its not some dodgy website either. You contrarians should have a bit more respect for an organisation like NASA. 
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ice_sheets.html 
Key findings: 
1) Antarctica lost much more ice to the sea than it gained from snowfall, resulting in an increase in sea level. 
2) The Greenland ice sheet gained more ice from snowfall at high altitudes than it lost from melting ice along its coast. 
3) When the scientists added up the overall gains and losses of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, there was a net loss of ice to the sea. 
4) The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to recent sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year," 
Robin, 
You keep banging on about a straw man. I can assure you there are plenty of dodgy arguments to counter by you contrarians without having to make anything up. 
Can I finally put you in the contraraian camp now? On the 15th Jan, before I came on the scene, you wrote 
" I’m still neither a denier nor a believer but, if I am to be persuaded that unless mankind takes urgent action we face catastrophic consequences, I suggest that the believers deal with the arguments of the sceptics with rather more respect. Otherwise, only those who are already believers will listen and little will get done" 
What was all that about then? Was it genuine, or a ploy to suggest that the deniers had the best case and had succeeded in winning the argument?
stargazer 
01 March 2008 at 08:40
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html 
From above site............... 
"However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today! 
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today! 
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm."
Robin Guenier 
01 March 2008 at 08:41
When someone says something you don't like (e.g. here's the media misrepresenting the findings of balanced research) you attack what you wished they had said (e.g. warming is better than cooling). That's a straw man argument. You do it continually. 
BTW I don't belong to a "camp" - perhaps you don't understand what a sceptic is. Re my 15 Jan comment, I'm impressed by my own eloquence.
Brute 
01 March 2008 at 11:42
Antarctic Ice Sheet Thickens 
Glaciers the size of Rhode Island breaking off and floating away…grass growing along the periphery of Antarctica…coastal inundation from rising sea levels…even a forecast that Europe will freeze solid the “day after tomorrow.” These are a few of the doomsday portraits painted by a politicized few that are clamoring to have a full-throated voice in the great global climate change debate. 
Evidence that lends support to some of the theories behind these supposedly dire portraits can be found throughout the scientific literature, as is the case with many of the issues in the debate about the warming of the global atmosphere. In reference to the scenes described above, many studies have presented measured and modeled data that suggest that the greatest amount of atmospheric warming is occurring or will occur across Earth’s polar regions. However, one can just as easily search the literature and find conflicting evidence. 
In a recent issue of Science, Andrew Monaghan of Ohio State University’s Byrd Polar Research Center collaborated with fifteen colleagues from around the world on a piece describing their assemblage of a fifty-year time series of snowfall accumulation over Antarctica. To produce the time series the scientists combined climate model simulations, snowfall observations derived from a multitude of new ice core records, and snow pit and snow stake data. Antarctic ice sheets are of interest to climate change scientists because recent studies suggest a strong winter warming signal in the lower atmosphere over Antarctica since the early 1970s. An interesting twist to this is that future scenarios from global climate change models suggest that Antarctic snowfall should actually increase in a warming climate, as the warmer atmosphere comes with a greater capacity for moisture. Intuitively, increased snow accumulation supports ice sheet thickening. 
However, Monaghan et al. note that there is evidence of conflicting trends in ice sheet thickness across Antarctica: the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been thinning over the past decade, while the East Antarctic Ice Sheet became thicker over the period 1992 through 2003 (Davis et al. 2005). Previous work attributed the thickening of the East Ice Sheet to an increase in snowfall accumulation across that portion of the continent, following the logic of a warmer atmosphere and therefore greater moisture capacity. The thinning of the West Ice Sheet, however, is not well explained. As it turns out, Monaghan and his colleagues do not think that the thickening of the East Ice Sheet is well explained either! 
The group of researchers reports that across both the East and West Ice Sheets “there are no statistically significant trends in snowfall accumulation over the past 5 decades, including recent years for which global mean temperatures have been warmest.” Clearly stated by Monaghan et al. in the article is that they do not dispute a clear thickening signal in the East Ice Sheet. However, based on their findings they do disagree with the idea that increased snowfall accumulation is the cause. Following the theory of increased snowfall with atmospheric warming, the conclusions of Monaghan and colleagues raises questions about the recent atmospheric warming over the East Antarctic Ice Sheet; and/or, the work raises questions about the validity of the relationship between air temperature and snowfall over Antarctica within general circulation models. Monaghan et al. go on to suggest that “atmospheric circulation variability, rather than thermodynamic moisture increases, may dominate recent Antarctic snowfall variability.” 
To further thicken the plot, not to mention the mass of Antarctica, a recent article by Van de Berg et al. in the Journal of Geophysical Research describes a reassessment of the surface mass balance of Antarctica. The group compared results of the model-simulated surface mass balance for the continent to all available mass balance observations in a recalibration process that allowed them to construct a “best estimate” of contemporary Antarctic mass balance. What was found by the work is striking: the newly estimated surface mass balance “exceeds previous estimates by as much as 15%.” The largest differences between the findings of Van de Berg et al. and those of previous studies were up to one meter per year greater in the coastal zones of East and West Antarctica, which are “without exception in areas with few observations.” The coastal zones of the continent are areas most susceptible to melting and calving, or breaking apart, of ice (Monaghan et al. 2006). 
The group of Dutch researchers contends that the new estimate of the mass balance of Antarctica is as reliable as the reliability given to current atmospheric models. The only improvement that could be offered would have to come from new surface mass balance observations from poorly covered high accumulation regions in coastal Antarctica. Until then, there is little evidence to disprove their conclusion that the mass of Antarctica’s grounded ice sheet steadily grew from 1980 to 2004. 
The doomsday portraits of Antarctica’s glaciers reacting to a global climate change should be blurry at best. Consensus on changes in ice sheet thickness and their causes is difficult, and therefore of limited use on either side of the global warming debate. As Monaghan et al. (2006) state, “Vigorous efforts are needed to better understand this remote but important part of the planet and its role in global climate and sea level rise.” 
References 
Davis, C.H., Li, Y. McConnell, J.R., Frey, M.M. and Hanna, E. 2005. Snowfall-driven 
growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet mitigates recent sea-level rise. Science, 308, 1898-1901. 
Monaghan, A.J., Bromwich, D.H., Fogt, R.L., Wang, S.-H., Mayeweski, P.A., Dixon, 
D.A., Ekaykin, A., Frezzotti, M., Goodwin, I., Isaksson, E., Kaspari, S.D., Morgan, V.I., Oerter, H., Van Ommen, T.D., Van der Veen, C.J., and Wen, J. 2006. Insignificant change in Antarctic snowfall since the International Geophysical Year. Science, 313, 827-831. 
Van de Berg, W.J., van den Broeke, M.R., Reijmer, C.H., and van Meijgaard, E. 2006. 
Reassessment of the Antarctic surface mass balance using calibrated output of a regional amtospheric climate model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, 10.1029/2005JD006495.
Brute 
01 March 2008 at 11:48
Via Stargazer........ 
Antarctic Ice 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/27/antar...
Brute 
01 March 2008 at 11:51
Via Pat T............... 
Artic Ice 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/arctic-sea-i...
Brute 
01 March 2008 at 12:01
Mr. Martin, 
Isn't it Summer in Australia? 
Summer's end brings snow for Perisher, Thredbo 
By staff writers February 29, 2008 09:33am 
Done and dusted ... summer ends with snow at NSW ski resort Perisher Blue. Forecasters predict a bumper ski season for 2008. 
THE final day of summer in the Snowy Mountains has taken on a wintry chill after snow fell last night at the ski resorts of Perisher Blue and Thredbo. 
A light dusting of snow blanketed the NSW ski resorts overnight as temperatures dropped to a low of minus 3.8 degrees Celcius at Perisher and minus 3 degrees at Thredbo. 
Intermittent light snow flurries continued to fall into the morning on Mount Perisher. 
Weather forecasters are already predicting a bumper snow season for 2008, according to resort management. Temperatures are expected to remain low with persistent precipitation throughout winter. 
"We have barely had a summer this year," said Gary Grant, Perisher Blue's general manager of marketing. "It's felt as though it's remained cold since the end of the 2007 season, apart from a few warm days, there air has always had a nip in it." 
Perisher Blue has invested $9.75 million in new snowmaking equipment for the 2008 season.
Peter Martin 
01 March 2008 at 13:08
Brute, 
It's good that you have quoted some decent references for a change. I'm not sure if you are claiming Andrew Monaghan as an AGW sceptic. I don't think he is. 
Andrew Monaghan, a meteorologist at Ohio State University's Byrd Polar Research Center, said in an interview that his findings suggest the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2001 prediction that Antarctic snowfall would increase 15 to 20 percent by the end of the century may not be borne out. Some researchers had hoped more snow in the region would thicken the ice sheets and help counterbalance any future melt. 
He's saying that the melt figures used by the IPCC may be an underestimate. 
Yes it is summer in Australia and the whole of the summer hemisphere. The Australian government have a good meteorology dept with a good website: 
http://www.bom.gov.au/ 
Lots of useful data if you are interested. You did say that we'd had a hard winter but I'm not sure why you thought that.
Brute 
01 March 2008 at 16:17
I belive what I wrote was that the Southern Hemisphere experienced an unusually harsh winter. 
Cold snap brings 54 new records 
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2... 
Snow wreaks havoc across SA 
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=14&art_... 
State's cold snap continues 
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22103774-31... 
Cold snap prompts Peru emergency 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6729375.stm 
Buenos Aires sees rare snowfall 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286484.stm
Brute 
01 March 2008 at 16:22
Seems as if its a cool summer also despite the rise in CO2. 
Chilly February in Hobart 
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/chilly-february-in-hobart... 
Mildest and wettest February in Brisbane for five years 
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/mildest-and-wettest-febru... 
Coldest February in Canberra for 12 years 
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/coldest-february-in-canbe... 
Mildest February in 16 years for Sydney 
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/mildest-february-in-16-ye... 
Second cold blast sweeps across Victoria, Tasmania 
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/second-cold-blast-sweeps-...
Brute 
01 March 2008 at 16:26
Coolest February in 23 years? 
Icy end to summer for Sydney 
By Hannah McEwan 
February 29, 2008 17:09 
A very chilly and damp end to the summer across Sydney, with temperatures down to eight below average, according to weatherzone.com.au. 
The city reached a high of just 21 again today, five degrees below the monthly average. It is now safe to say it has been the coolest February in 23 years. 
Temperatures across the state were down to 15 below average. Cooma recorded 13 degrees as their maximum temperature today, 13 below the average and their coolest February day in three years. 
The cool temperatures were helped by gusty southerly winds that pushed along the east coast today behind a cold front. Gale wind warnings were issued for some districts. Kiama in the Illawarra recorded 87km/hr gusts this afternoon. 
The city received 33mm of rain to 9am with just a few light showers today to help keep everything wet. Showers and cool temperatures are expected to persist throughout the weekend.
Alex 
01 March 2008 at 16:34
Peter 
Thanks for the NASA link. However they do say - as you rightly quote above - that polar ice sheet melting has contributed just 2 percent of 3mm annual sea level rise. Should we still be getting hysterical about ice caps melting completely and wiping whole cities off the face of the earth?
Brute 
01 March 2008 at 16:59
Kilimanjaro's ice set to linger 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6561527.stm
Brute 
01 March 2008 at 17:00
Deep freeze in western Greenland 
http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN
Peter Martin 
01 March 2008 at 21:54
Brute, 
What you actually wrote (on the Mark Lynas forum) was ""unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Australia and New Zealand experienced record lows. " 
You attributed these observations to a David Deming but even so I would say that you should have checked them out yourself.
Ron McKeown 
01 March 2008 at 22:21
Peter Martin 
A twenty foot rise to the same sea levels as those seen in the MWP has to be viewed in relation to the very low starting point of the Little Ice Age. The highest sea levels during England’s early Roman period may have been at least equal to the MWP and perhaps a bit higher. It may also be possible that these sea levels are the norm and that it is the Little Ice Age that should be attracting all of the attention. The evidence I have is visible today in the silt deposits of the Derwent floodplain through Derby. These average ten feet deep above the natural gravels. Silt deposits are laid down in very slow moving or still water and, of course, have to be below the normal water level. They do not form above the waterline. There could be other explanations for the archaeology at particular contour heights being dateable to specific periods in time but I have not been able to establish any as yet so my natural conclusion is that the water levels recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles are reasonable.
Brute 
02 March 2008 at 00:08
harmlesssky.org, 
Regarding your comment posted on February 29th regarding Warm Words: 
Unfortunately, the same problem exists here in the states. The major news outlets have simply become mouthpieces for the political Left. They no longer report the news or the facts; they report ideologal based stories laced with commentary and omit any stories that are not sympathetic to their cause(s). The collapse of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Block has left them in a lurch; they need a new cause celeb and have chosen environmentalism / global warming. If they were to be successful, the outcome would be the same…….. government control of personal decisions and gradual nationalization of private industry. In the rare event that information contrary to the Global Warming mantra is reported, it is usually followed by a sentence that reads, “just as predicted” or “as scientists have always asserted”. It is also interesting to view local news and local human interest stories that unknowingly provide a completely different image of the “global warming crisis”. These stories / reports generally have not been sanitized. 
Example: GLOBAL TEMPERATURES HAVE FALLEN TO RECORD LOWS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING (AS SCIENTISTS PREDICTED). Or they will attempt to rewrite history stating that record snowfall and record cold temperatures are caused by global warming (as scientists have previously stated). Headline: POLAR BEARS ARE DYING DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING! Then when information is reported elsewhere that Polar Bear populations have increased they report POLAR BEARS ARE THRIVING DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING! (but are expected to die due to overpopulation caused global warming). Either way the goal is the same; to illicit concern so that you’ll willingly follow along with their agenda, like sheep. If evidence completely nullifies their earlier statements they change the argument and state that it is “for the common good” or “even though the earlier statement was incorrect the outcome will be beneficial to all”…….. Bait and Switch. 
There are a few exceptions; Fox News and talk radio which tellingly have the highest ratings. 
There was a politically Left leaning talk radio network titled Air America which has failed miserably after being propped up for years by George Soros (Media Matters) and other Socialists oriented organizations. They simply could not compete in the free marketplace due to their Leftist / Anti-American sentiments. 
People vote with their dollars, (or Pounds), and it has become quite evident that these Leftist oriented “news” outlets are unpopular with the public. My personal opinion is that people do not want to patronize establishments that constantly berate their country and beliefs. 
There is some light at the end of the tunnel being the internet, (which the Political Left is attempting to censor), and simply word of mouth. Leftist politicians have recently been attempting to silence politically Right leaning talk radio via legislation titled The Fairness Doctrine, which will attempt to compel these stations to provide “equal time” to Left leaning mouthpieces which, as I stated earlier, have failed miserably when attempting to compete in an open forum. The thinking is that if people will not embrace the Leftist ideology, politicians will force them to through repetition and censorship. 
Fairness Doctrine Watch 
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/04/15/fairness-doctrine-watch... 
Slowly, people share stories and insight through E-mail and open forums such as this and expose the truth….bypassing the propaganda that they are being force fed through the nightly news. Case in point; a recent survey has found that only 24% of the general public trust what they read in The New York Times, (extremely Leftist biased publication), as credible. The New York Times stock value has dropped like a dress on prom night and their circulation has fallen tremendously. People are not buying it. Advertising revenue has plummeted. The majority of the Leftist newspapers are losing subscribers at similar rates as are the “big three” television news networks. 
Another encouraging observation is this: 
Travel Hockey 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ 
It seems that this website has grown from 30 views in September of 2007 to 236,000 on February 1st; remarkable. People are reaching out and making up their own minds as opposed to digesting and accepting the indoctrination spewed by the “establishment” press. 
It was also refreshing to find this. More and more scientist affiliated with the likes of NASA are stepping out of the shadows and bucking the system. They could not express their views openly for fear of losing their jobs. Freedom of Speech is all well and good for these bureaucrats unless it interferes with that government agency’s official policy. 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/now-this-is-... 
Please, keep up the good work. It’s good to know that there are alternative sources of information regarding Global Warming and other topics.
Peter Martin 
02 March 2008 at 03:09
There has been a discussion on the document "Warm Words" which is fair enough of course. But I wondering, why no direct links? I , for one, would like to read what it says rather than an interpretation of what someone else is telling me it says. 
Here is the direct link: http://www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?i... 
Now I'm not endorsing everything it says but its been commissioned by the IPPR (for maybe the BBC and British government?) It has been made freely available and hasn't relied on a leak. Am I correct in saying that? 
Can you say the same thing about the advice President Bush received from an advisor, Mr Frank Luntz, in 2001. 
" Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.cli... 
The BBC (and its Australian equivalent the ABC) has always been under pressure from the political right and I'd be interested to know the "Golden Age" that has been referred to? Things now are no different to what they ever were. Are you saying that we should have 'balanced' reporting on everything? 
If a Science program is discussing evolution should that be 'balanced' that with the views of a creationist? Or bring in a flat earther every time a space program, showing a spherical earth, is aired? Or when smoking is discussed do we give equal time to those, and there are more than you might think, who say that it is safe and there are no health issues?
Peter Martin 
02 March 2008 at 05:10
Brute and Harmless.sky 
"Please, keep up the good work. It’s good to know that there are alternative sources of information regarding Global Warming and other topics." 
Yes the internet is good for alternative sources of everything. What would you like information on? Telekinises? AIDS/HIV denial? Alien abduction? Healing crystals? How the CIA demolished WTC7? 
Yes, its all there on the world wide web. Just type in the relevant keyword into Google and away you go!
harmlesssky.org 
02 March 2008 at 18:03
Brute: 
Your observations about the politicisation of the climate debate in the US are interesting, but things are a little different here. 
What worries me most about Warm Words is not that a left of centre think tank produced it, but that it specifies and recommends a policy of systematic deception that has been enthusiastically embraced by government for short-term political gain. For the last ten years the UK has had a growing problem with lack of trust in politicians that has become increasingly damaging to the whole process of government. Of course no one trusts politicians completely, but in this country there have always been certain limits beyond which retribution is exacted by parliament or the electorate. This no longer seems to be the case, and the fact that the present administration is confident enough to allow a document like Warm Words to see the light of day shows just how much things have changed. 
For me there is no left versus right issue here. Our right wing press has not seized on Warm Words as a weapon to beat the government with. The public has become so inured to spin, deception and plain old-fashioned lies from their politicians that they just shrug and carry on. It just isn’t news any more. 
Many thanks for your encouraging words about Harmless Sky. Incidentally my blog stats show that the remarkably long-lived thread here still has some life left in it if the number of referrals are anything to go by: about 150 so far.
Brute 
02 March 2008 at 19:16
harmlesssky.org, 
"it specifies and recommends a policy of systematic deception that has been enthusiastically embraced by government for short-term political gain." 
Exactly; I think that sentence sums up the entire global warming argument quite well, (politically). While I don’t think that it is devious to have a communications policy, it is devious when the policy is propagating fraud and manipulation. 
Others, (Environmentalists) have a Utopian vision of a society that is not, (and will never be to their satisfaction), attainable……unrealistic dreamers and malcontents. 
My point was essentially the same; however, I believe this particular cause allows for increased governmental intervention into the private sector which is favored by “left of center” politicians, the people who support them and media elites who are in a particularly influential position to steer public sentiment. 
Again, as I’ve stated previously, my writing skills are lacking, (I’m an American).
Brute 
02 March 2008 at 19:29
harmlesssky.org, 
There are also long term considerations politically. Taxes and government programs are rarely rescinded even after their originally intended goal has been achieved….. They exist in perpetuity.
harmlesssky.org 
02 March 2008 at 21:20
Brute: 
I don’t see any problem with the writing skills at all, and it was me who failed to make a point clearly. 
When I mentioned ‘short term political gain’ I had most of what you mention in mind, and particularly the excuse for increased taxation to reduce a growing current account deficit. When the final wording of the IPCC report was being hammered out in Paris last February, the UK delegation made strenuous efforts to strengthen the attribution sections dealing with the primacy of anthropogenic CO2 as a cause of climate change. They had some success, and as soon as the report was published the UK media were full of headlines calling for action to reduce aviation and road transport emissions, mostly based on what ministers were telling the press. 
A few weeks later our prime minister (who was then chancellor of the exchequer) presented his budget. He increased vehicle excise duty and introduced a new tax on air tickets. The net gain to the treasury was, so far as I remember, about £1bn, which is quite a lot by our standards and it was just enough to get him off the hook. Although there had been some talk of hypothecating increased revenue from punitive taxation on emissions to fund new schemes to prevent pollution, this did not happen. The treasury gobbled up the lot. 
Al Gore is fond of saying ‘Ya’know there’s money in pollution’. Well I suspect that for governments there’s a hell of a lot more money in ‘stopping global warming’ and I think we would agree about that.
Peter Martin 
02 March 2008 at 22:22
Alex, 
Yes you're right it does look quite surprising that only 2% of sea level rise can be attributed to melting ice. The other mechanism for rising sea levels is thermal expansion. So persumably this accounts for 98% according to NASA. 
It looks like we have been somewhat lucky, so far, that increased snowfall has largely mitigated the effects of the ice melt. 
There is no need for hysteria, sure, but changing the climate is a risky business and we shouldn't just expect that our luck will hold indefinitely on the sea level issue.
Brute 
03 March 2008 at 02:17
harmlesssky.org, 
You managed to convey in one sentence what took me two paragraphs. Being a product of the American Public School System, (another taxpayer funded government operated failure); it’s a miracle I’m literate at all. Skills, such as they are, were developed after “graduation”…..self taught. Universities in America have become tantamount to the 13th grade. Public schools are essentially babysitters and day care centers for pre-teens and adolescents creating more unmotivated citizens that will become dependent on the State and believe they’re entitled to reap the benefits of other people’s hard work; pathetic. I see it everyday…prospective employees who are unable to complete employment applications; quite disheartening. 
I’ve posted the link below before; however, I thought that it is interesting that the tax was originally proposed to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions” and has become a revenue stream with very little of the proceeds used to combat the perceived problem. Global Warming is the holy grail of political boondoggles. Historically, municipalities that impose these excessive taxes and punitive fees drive businesses away; the tax base relocates; the city deteriorates. Cities such as London and Washington DC may get away with it as they are government centers and tourist attractions, but Washington DC produces essentially nothing….its citizens dependent on Federal handouts. Tax rates are excessive and services are so poor it doesn’t make good business sense to operate within the city limits. People and businesses are moving out of New York State and California for the same reasons. Richmond Virginia offers tax breaks for business to relocate and set up shop providing employment, increased tax revenue and a higher standard of living, a success story. 
Treasury 'pockets extra £10bn' from green taxes 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.htm... 
London Triples Congestion Tax for SUV Drivers 
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=124830 
Green taxes 'would hit poor most' 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3955285.stm
Robin Guenier 
03 March 2008 at 08:34
Last week (27/28 February) the British government held an Energy Saving Day (“E-Day”). The objective was to demonstrate that numerous small personal savings in electricity use could make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions. Dr Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, launching E-Day from the steps of St Paul's Cathedral, described climate change as a "moral issue". Unfortunately, the day ended with a slight increase in the UK’s electricity usage. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7270218.stm 
It seems to me that this reflects an interesting modern phenomenon: the isolation of the political/media class from the general public. Despite the AGW case having captured most of political and media agenda throughout the developed world, the public is largely unmoved – either not believing the message or simply not caring. Hence, I suggest, the lack of real action on a global scale: in the end what drives politicians in a democracy is public support. 
Yet, when challenged to say how they propose to deal with this failure to achieve anything of substance, activists seem to be uncharacteristically lacking in ideas. See my post below.
Robin Guenier 
03 March 2008 at 08:36
An article in Nature (449 – 2007) about the Kyoto protocol said, “It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth. And it pays no more than token attention to the needs of societies to adapt to existing climate change.” Again, yesterday’s Observer reports the Prime Minister’s strategy unit as saying that meeting the UK’s modest EU emission targets will be “challenging” – that’s Civil Service speak for “pigs might fly”. Yet the UK is supposed to be a leader in “tackling climate change”. 
So, Peter Martin, here’s that question again: in view of these failures and as the Bali conference was unable either to set mandatory (but modest) emission targets for industrialised countries or to get firmer commitments from developing countries, what is the mechanism that would get the world to adopt your (and other AGWers’) proposals to curb CO2 emissions (see exchange in the Lynas the pieman thread)? You say you have no Plan B – so getting Plan A on track must be critical. What is your answer?
Alex 
03 March 2008 at 09:01
Interesting article in yesterday's Mail on Sunday (I'm afraid my wife reads it - it's a bit too Left Wing for me...) 
" The Government aims to reduce carbon emissions by 60% between now and 2050....Utility companies have been told to double their carbon emission reduction targets over the next 3 years, and the cost is expected to be AT LEAST £3 BILLION (my emphasis). 
Eaga has a particular advantage in this environment......uniquely positioned to help this country fulfil its carbon emissions - and make money in the process." 
It's heartening to know that some people are working so hard to save us from calamity.
Peter Martin 
03 March 2008 at 09:53
Alex, 
AT LEAST £3 BILLION? Wow! Over the next 42 years up to 2050, that works out at £71 million per year. What do you reckon to be the total spend on energy ( petrol, gas electricity etc) per year in the UK? I'm guessing now but 60 million Poms who spend £200 per year each ( ?) would be £1.2 billion p.a. . That works out at 0.6% according to my arithmetic. That £200 is probably a big underestimate. 
Robin, 
Yes it is crucial to get a CO2 carbon emissions scheme up and running ASAP. Despite what Brute might think, I'm not at all anti-American and I'd be very happy if they'd take the lead and use their own very successful SO2 emissions scheme , you know, the one which no-one seems very interested in discussing, to use as a template. Its all very well asking me for a plan B but most of the contrarians on this forum don't even have a plan A. They are quite happy to live in their own fool's paradise thinking that the world's climate scientists have nothing much better to do than concoct an eloborate hoax.
Robin Guenier 
03 March 2008 at 12:03
Oh no, Peter, that won’t do. We’ve established that you haven’t got a Plan B, so I’m not asking for one. Here again is the question you keep avoiding: as the world is taking no real notice of your Plan A and CO2 emissions keep rising, what practical measures do you think must be put in place to get your “crucial” Plan A fully and quickly on track? 
(Once again (as usual) you drag out Mr Strawman. I have never claimed that climate scientists are concocting “an elaborate hoax”. Your suggestion is insulting nonsense.)
JZ Smith 
03 March 2008 at 17:13
Robin, 
On Mar 3 you wrote: "It seems to me that this reflects an interesting modern phenomenon: the isolation of the political/media class from the general public. Despite the AGW case having captured most of political and media agenda throughout the developed world, the public is largely unmoved – either not believing the message or simply not caring." 
That is the foundation of my fears regarding "solutions" to AGW. When the UN, the IPCC, the mainstream media, and their allies in the environmental movement finally come to realize their so-far ineffectiveness at motivating the general public to action, will they attempt to legislate conformity—by force if necessary—to AGW 'solutions'? 
Mencken's words oft quoted herein come to mind again...
Robin Guenier 
03 March 2008 at 18:12
JZ: well, attempts to “legislate conformity” are already happening. But only in the western democracies and it’s pretty ineffective – IMHO western politicians are unlikely to go much further because of they fear a voter backlash. Indeed, their own actions (airport expansion, exemptions for commercial shipping etc.) suggest they don’t see control of climate change as a truly serious issue. But this goes way beyond the west. I’m waiting to hear what practical measures AGWers propose should be implemented to deal with what for them must be a serious global problem.
JZ Smith 
03 March 2008 at 18:27
Robin, 
Can you share with us your impressions of 'green practices' you witnessed on your recent visit to the Middle East? I've been to souther China (recently), and was appalled at the lack of 'green awareness'. Here in the States, at least, we go to extraordinary lengths to improve the environment, and I know of know one who doesn't support and appreciate the efforts. 
It makes me wonder if the AGWer's efforts couldn't have more immediate environmental impact if they focused on cleaning up some of these poorer countries, but I guess there's far less revenue to be collected from poor countries.
JZ Smith 
03 March 2008 at 18:32
Wow, I should have spell checked my last post! 
"no one" instead of "know one"; 
"southern" instead of "souther" 
etc. 
Sorry!
Brute 
03 March 2008 at 18:54
I think that even Mr. Martin will have a hard time convincing these people that they must cut back on their energy consumption and power plant construction because the Earth is getting warmer. 
Snow disaster leaves 1.6 mln people frostbitten in NW China province 
www.chinaview.cn 2008-03-02 00:14:39 
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/02/content_7698015...
WFalicoff 
03 March 2008 at 19:31
China has one of the most aggressive solar energy product installation programs in the world. It dwarfs that of the US in terms of the number of millions of square feet installed per year (solar thermal). In fact one of wealthiest people in China owns one of the many solar energy companies (primarily solar thermal). I agree China is an environmental disaster but it does have some good "policies" in place. There are also major investments in solid state lighting. Whole towns have been built using the latest solid state lighting technologies. I think the reason for this is a combination of government mandates and capitalism forces (lower cost of energy for solar thermal). Electricity is expensive in China (one of the few things) so solar (especially solar thermal) makes sense in many locations. 
W. Falicoff
Peter Martin 
03 March 2008 at 22:11
Robin. 
I think what I said was "most of the contrarians on this site". If you wish to make it clear that you don't think words such as "hoax" or "conspiracy" are appropriate then I'd be pleased to read it. 
I wish you were correct that the use of the term hoax was evidence of a "strawman" argument . However to quote Brute (20 Jan) "This is the greatest hoax since Piltdown Man, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion....." 
The contrarians have even got the term "hoax" incorporated into the names of their websites. These are just two that have been referenced on the NS forums: 
www.globalwarminghoax.com 
http://globalhoaxing.blogspot.com 
Just type in the word "hoax" or "conspiracy" and "climate change" or "global warming", into the Google search engine, and you'll find plenty of other examples of this line of argument. 
"What would I do about it" ? What sort of proper answer are you looking for? I'd say violent action is out of the question, if that is what you are driving at. I can't see that forming a "Green Army Faction", or the Green Brigades is likely to be other than very counterproductive. Sometimes I think that Mr Falicoff is quite right and that this is all a waste of time but, honestly, there is such a lot of crap written by the contrarians on this site that I feel that answering it as best I can is at least something that I can "do about it". 
Brute, 
I'm not sure exactly who the "these people" are that you refer to in your last post. But I doubt if they will be quite so obliging as to live in an unheated apartment just so that the western world can carry with its bad habits. 
Its not energy that needs to be cut back on, rather it is CO2 emissions. Having said that, sure, it does make sense to design buildings and cars etc to be energy efficient. Particularly, the design of many industrial buildings around the world is just abysmal in that respect. They're ice boxes in winter and ovens in summer. 
But it is CO2, and othe GHG, emissions that are the real problem.
WFalicoff 
04 March 2008 at 00:02
http://www.barentsobserver.com/hottest-arctic-winter-ever.44... 
"Hottest Arctic winter ever" 2008-02-26 
"this winter might become the mildest winter in Northern Norway ever registered. So far the average temperature in parts of the region has been up to eight degrees Celsius above the normal. 
It is temperature measurements from the winter months December, January and February which is the fundament for the alarming high average. The measurements started in 1866 at some weather stations and this winter seems to break all records. Climate scientist Ketil Isaksen at The Norwegian Meteorological Institute in Oslo says to NRK Troms and Finnmark that this is a foretaste of the global warming. 
Some of the weather stations at Finnmarksvidda have had an average at eight degrees Celsius above the normal average in the three winter months. At the station Karasjok-Markannjarga the average has been minus 7,9 degrees Celsius, while it normally is minus 16 degrees Celsius. 
In Northern Norways largest city, Tromsø, the average temperature this winter has been -0,4 degrees Celsius. That is 3,6 degrees warmer than the normal average. If this temperature level in Tromsø maintains through the winter, it will be a tangency of the record winter in 1929/1930. 
For Northern Norway as a whole the temperature in the winter months has been 5,1 degrees above the average with five more days to go. If this temperature maintains it will be the warmest winter ever, since the mesurements started in 1900/1901. 
The warm temperatures are caused by heavy low-pressure activity, which has brought a lot of mild and humid air to the region. The climate scientist believes that the region now is experiencing the start of a climate change with warmer winters. Estimates show that in the coming years up to 2100 there might be a temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius in coastal areas, and up to five degrees in inland regions."
WFalicoff 
04 March 2008 at 00:06
More on the record breaking warm arctic winter 
http://arcticportal.org/en/icr/ealat/work-packages/work-pack...
Brute 
04 March 2008 at 00:14
Mr. Martin, 
"These People" are the 1.6 Million Chinese people who are freezing to death, (right now), due to "Global Warming". 
As far as buildings being "ice boxes in the winter and ovens in the summer" these building owners could probably benefit from modern conveniences such as refrigeration equipment and fossil fuel powered heating plants. 
Quote of the week: 
"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty first- century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceed to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.” 
-Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT; member of the National Academy of Sciences; and former lead author, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
WFalicoff 
04 March 2008 at 00:21
An interesting summary of 2007 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ 
Note that the solar forcing is at a minimum (as mentioned by Mr. Martin)
Brute 
04 March 2008 at 02:45
The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade 
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663
Peter Martin 
04 March 2008 at 04:38
There is a something of a general misconception over statements like "the argument is settled". It often seems that they are said with a certain arrogance. 
However it should be understood that scientists aren't like politicians, they don't keep going over the same old ground time after time. When a new idea comes along, it is debated for while, maybe a year or two, and then it is either generally accepted or it is rejected. 
For instance, there isn't much , if any, scientific debate, over questions such as the wave/particle nature of light. Many people find it hard to accept that light can be both a wave and a particle and insist that it be treated as one or the other. But no, the official settled scientific position is that it can be simultaneously both and the issue is 'settled' and has been for the last 80 years or so. It has to be that way because science would get bogged down and be unable to make further progress if there wasn't an official line. 
There will always be renegades like Prof Lindzen who , for whatever motive, have refused to toe the line. He's also a maverick on the issue of smoking BTW. 
Einstein himself, though he was very highly esteemed of course, was a bit of a renegade on the subject of Quantum Mechanics. He never fully accepted the official scientific line but, fundamentally, it has never been changed and has stood the test of time.
harmlesssky.org 
04 March 2008 at 11:22
Brute quotes Lindzen as saying: 
"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty first- century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceed to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.” 
Peter Martin response seems to be: 
“There will always be renegades like Prof Lindzen who, for whatever motive, have refused to toe the line. He's also a maverick on the issue of smoking BTW.” 
. 
Until the advocates of AGW start to address the issues raised by Lindzen, rather than just muttering darkly about ‘motives’ and smoking, they will not be taken seriously by sceptics. Large parts of the general public just aren’t credulous enough to be persuaded by trivial invective; it makes them suspicious. 
The problem that warmers have with Lindzen is not that he has ‘motives’ or that he smokes – I’ve just paused to re-light my pipe – but that he may be right.
Brute 
04 March 2008 at 18:15
Mr. Martin, 
You wrote: 
There will always be renegades like Prof Lindzen who , for whatever motive, have refused to toe the line. 
My Rely: 
Toe the line? Renegade? Maverick? 
Blasphemy! How dare he speak out and question the religion of environmentalism! He refuses to conform to your orthodoxy so you label him a renegade? Should he be exiled? What’s next, thought reform and re-education camps? Maybe you will burn down his house as the kooks in Seattle did yesterday? 
He isn’t the only one. There are hundreds of thousands, Millions, of Global Warming “Heretics”. Holy Mother you just wrote enough to comprise a Novel in one sentence. This isn’t about “saving the planet”; this is about social engineering to force people to kowtow to some Marxist Utopian Doctrine that a few goofy politicians have dreamed up but are unwilling to adhere to themselves. 
As I’ve said all along, if you want to conserve energy for the sake of saving the planet go ahead. If you want to drive a golf cart, please do. If you want to live in a pre-industrialized world, have at it, but it isn’t about that at all is it……… This is about COLLECTIVISM on a GLOBAL scale and has been from the start with “global warming” being the catalyst / excuse. If you can’t see it then you aren’t as intelligent as I’ve given you credit for. For Heaven’s sake…………..don’t drag the rest of us into your cesspit.
Peter Martin 
04 March 2008 at 21:45
Robin, 
Yes it would be good if things would move more quickly but neither are they static. The situation in Australia has changed a lot in recent years, as you'll probably know. 
While several polls confirm that the majority , around 70% of the public here believes global warming to be a major issue, they do not accept the most feasible ways of reducing emissions. Around 50% are against nuclear power plants, and only 35% are in favour. If people are forced to choose they tend to go for status quo options; all the more so on an issue ripe for scare campaigns like this one. 
Due to the particular local history of this issue, with opposition to uranium mining an article of faith on the left, we have the situation of Labor voters being considerably more likely, 80% , than Liberal or National voters, at around 60%, to think global warming is a serious issue but considerably less likely (29% vs 51%) than Coalition voters to support the nuclear option which is the simplest way of significantly reducing emissions. 
So the percentage figures are in the bag as regards making the shift to a low carbon economy but I do suspect that if words like "piety" are used to accompany the process it will be lost. There is really no need for piety! 
The big challenge is to convince the political left that the nuclear option isn't the big bad wolf of legend. There will always be the minority who think like you and Brute but as long as you aren't more than 25% or so. Who cares?
Alex 
04 March 2008 at 22:06
Quite right Brute. I have to wonder if Mr Martin et al have bothered to read any of the previous posts. They've certainly ignored the bits they can't answer. That the world is getting warmer is probably true. That it's because of CO2 is not - certainly not because of the tiny fraction that is man made. Please re-read some of the earlier posts to remind yourself why that is the case. 
However, it is not so much the reasons for the warming that are important as the consequences. It is the "terrifying consequences", that are continually shrieked at us, that are the key to the whole AGM agenda. Without them, the AGW movement would have no purpose. It is the aversion of these consequences that gives the AGW faithful their excuse for controlling industry - because that way they will save mankind from catastrophe. Without these consequences, who cares if some ice is melting round the North Pole? Ten year's ago nobody gave it a thought, but now we're constantly updated on this "catastrophe". It is the Greens' imagined consequences of warming that are the most invidious lies (just look at Lynas' book and documentary). What was it again? Rising sea levels, extinctions (sorry, I meant MASS extinctions), famine, flood, drought..... All products of liveley, even perverse imaginations. And yet as a result of "unprecedented melting" at "unprecedented rates" sea levels have risen.... how much was it again? ...oh yes, 2% of 3mm per year, (so low it can't even be measured - it's just a calculation). The rest of the predictions are just as pathetic and would be laughable except the campaign to scare everyone to death has been very effective. How much warmer is the world now than it was 100 years ago? 200 years ago? Since the LIA? How many extinctions due to temperature have there been in that time? How much have sea levels risen? Or did life go on as normal? Have we flourished perhaps since then? In the meantime, temperatures haven't risen for the last 10 years. 
It's time to stop shrieking - we are not facing a catastrophe. Reducing a 0.0076 component of our atmosphere by 20% (or even 50%) will achieve absolutely nothing as regards temperature, but plenty as regards control, power and money for the few who would put themselves forward as our "saviours".
Peter Martin 
04 March 2008 at 23:37
Alex, Brute, Robin, 
I think Mr Falicoff has several times posted up explanations and links explaining why the "saturation theory" of CO2 in the atmosphere is incorrect and why reducing CO2 emissions are necessary to prevent several degrees of AGW in the 21st century. 
The problem for you guys is that you expect public opinion to favour your , and others of a like mind, theories over the vast majority of informed scientific opinion on the subject. It is an opinion that is backed up with mathematical and computer models. Like any other scientific theory( HIV/AIDS , smoking etc) there are a few dissenters and renegades whose motives have been questioned but the scientific consensus is clear and unambiguous. 
The majority of the public accepts the argument. Your opinions and theories have been discounted. Your attituedes are from a previous century. Get over it. Look forward to the low carbon 21st century economy. I hear those small battery powered electric cars are really fun to drive!
Brute 
05 March 2008 at 00:28
Alex, 
All good points. 
Just curious......The people that you discuss this topic with; friends, family, coworkers....are they as knowledgeable as you are regarding this? 
I must admit that I have been tepidly "skeptical" regarding this topic from the outset; but just over the last several weeks I’m amazed at the level of evidence that dashes the “global warming” theory as well as the level of deliberate and obvious exaggerations and outright falsehoods to promote this theory………I’m intrigued by the topic. 
I’m also amazed that people are generally unaware of the level of deception attributable to the Hysterians and their motivation(s). I sense that people are starting to realize that they’ve been duped and are losing confidence in the global warming message...public opinion is shifting rapidly; people are beginning to wake up. 
Consumers are willing to voluntarily use energy responsibly and are concerned about the environment; but when they are confronted with the legislative aspects of this scheme they become quite concerned and uneasy. It’s one thing to voluntarily cherish the environment; it’s quite another when you are forced to by unelected government officials with nefarious intent. 
Talk to / E-mail your friends / family and pass your knowledge along. Most people that I discuss this with get their information from the evening news and are unaware that there is a mountain of evidence that debunks this nonsense. 
Freedom is precious and many take it for granted, until it’s gone.
Brute 
05 March 2008 at 01:48
"Get over it. Look forward to the low carbon 21st century economy. I hear those small battery powered electric cars are really fun to drive!" 
I did get over it.....I built my own car, (and it isn't electric).
Brute 
05 March 2008 at 02:49
It seems as if the Europeans are having second thoughts about wealth redistribution. 
Mais Non: Even Europeans Don’t Like Climate Crackdown 
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/28/mais-no...
harmlesssky.org 
05 March 2008 at 11:23
For anyone who was interested in the 'Warm Words' report that I referred to above, I have just posted a sequel at Harmless Sky. This shows how a leaflet called 'The Rules of the Game' has been used to turn the IPPR's recommendations into action. 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=60
Alex 
05 March 2008 at 11:36
Hi Brute 
I'm afraid friends and co-workers are not informed at all - what little they know is from newspaper headlines, principally because more information is hard to come by. Unfortunately nobody knows anything other than the Party Line on global warming: that is all that they ever get to read or see. However, all are entirely sceptical of the "facts" they are being fed. 
Peter, 
Yes I saw that saturation article. Sounds interesting. But then so does the saturation theory. Who's to say which is the right one? You favour the one that suits your aims, and your aims are quite clearly to prove that mankind is adversely affecting the climate. As I said in an earlier post, you are not interested in establishing why the Earth is warming, or even undersdtanding it . You just want man to be responsible, and everything you say confirms that. You won't even consider that climate changed before man came onto the scene, and that it could be changing for the same reasons it did then (oh, sorry I forgot - it was volcanoes wasn't it?) It is you lot that belong to the Middle Ages in your blinkered outlook and outright refusal to consider anything that goes against your rigid doctrine. Which outlook is blinkered in your opinion - looking exclusively at one melting part of Antarctica or looking at the whole continent? What is blinkered - looking just a CO2, or considering everything that makes up the atmosphere, not to mention outside influences such as the sun, the Earth's orbit, it's magnetic field, solar wind and cosmic rays? What is blinkered - screaming about rising temperatures, or noticing the cold ones as well? Which is the blinkered approach? Psychologosts have a name for what you and others like you regularly do - I think it's "projection" or something like that, where the patient accuses everybody else of displaying precisely the paranoia, hysteria and psychoses that they themselves are suffering from. 
More significantly, you once again ignored the crux of the matter - so just what will the consequences be of the Earth warming up by a rapid(?)and catastrophic(?)0.03 degrees per year?
Robin Guenier 
05 March 2008 at 12:58
Peter: you’re in denial. Your suggestion that we are moving to a “low carbon 21st century economy” is contrary to the facts. Statistics published by the US Census Bureau show that, since the Kyoto Protocol (re modest CO2 reductions) was agreed in 1997, worldwide CO2 emissions have grown by about 18% – probably more, as figures are only available to 2004. (Interestingly, emissions by countries that signed Kyoto increased by 21% and by non-signers by 10%.) Moreover, many important economies (e.g. Russia, Iran, Venezuela, the Gulf States, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico and Brazil) have no real interest in CO2 reduction and even those that claim to be interested are exempting, for example, shipping, aviation and international trade. So I agree with you that things are not static – unfortunately they’re moving rapidly away from CO2 reduction.
WFalicoff 
05 March 2008 at 21:02
Courtesy of the Drudgereport 
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8449896 
A little bit from the article: 
Record warm winter for northern Europe 
By SARA SUNDELIUS Associated Press Writer 
Article Launched: 03/04/2008 10:18:24 AM PST 
Coastal ice melts in the city of Longyearbyen, in Norway's Svalbard... ((AP Photo/John McConnico)) 
STOCKHOLM, Sweden—Icebreakers sit idle in ports. Insects crawl out of forest hideouts. Daffodils sprout up from green lawns. 
Winter ended before it started in Europe's north, where record-high temperatures have people wondering whether it's a fluke or an ominous sign of a warming world. 
"It's the warmest winter ever" recorded, said John Ekwall of the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. 
In December, January and February, the average temperature in Stockholm was 36 degrees—the highest on record since record-keeping began in 1756. 
Record winter highs were set at 12 other locations across the country, according to the national weather service, SMHI. 
Across the Baltic Sea, Latvia and most of Finland reported the warmest winter since 1925. 
Latvia saw an average temperature of about 33 degrees, nine degrees above normal, according to the national meteorological agency. 
Southern Finland had only 20 days of snow, compared to 70 days normally, while neighboring Estonia had to cancel a popular cross-country ski marathon in the southern city of Tartu in early February. 
"I don't remember winter like this. We had almost no snow at all in February," said Merike Merilain, chief weather forecaster at Estonia's meteorological institute, EMHI. " 
W. Falicoff
Peter Martin 
05 March 2008 at 21:22
Robin 
"unfortunately they’re moving rapidly away from CO2 reduction." 
You should make up your mind which side of the argumement you're on! But its good that you've said 'unfortunately' 
There won't be much change until after the US presidential elections and I guess we are looking to see what happens there. The US are very used to the concept of emissions trading schemes and if they and Europe can achieve the same reductions in CO2 as happened with SO2 in the 90's then we can all be optimistic. 
Individual countries, outside of Europe and the US , may well have their doubts about being involved but there will be both penalties for staying out of the scheme and rewards for being part of it, so we can expect that there will be an increasing compliance once a critical momentum has been achieved. 
Of course its possible that the next eight years will be like the last eight and little or no progress will be made. If that continues to happen, you'll be able to say "I told you so" but we'll all be in the ****.
Peter Martin 
05 March 2008 at 21:49
JZ Smith, 
Yes the figures of CO2 per capita in the wiki link, are interesting. Trindad and Luxemburg are surprisingly high. I would imagine that in the case of Trinidad it's connected with their tar or pitch exports and it does raise the question of whether its the Trindadians , who live near the tar deposits, who are responsible for the CO2 emissions or the ones who actually use them? 
If the figures are correct the prize for the "most improved" must go to North Korea. ( No 95 on the list) I'm not sure what happened in 1997/1998 but they certain got their CO2 emissions under control! 
The prize for the best overall performer must go to France. ( No 63) They have showed that it is possible to combine high living standards with low CO2 emissions, at less than 1/3rd of Australia and the US.
Peter Martin 
05 March 2008 at 21:56
Do you think we could have a truce on the "its cold in place X last month" but " its hot in place Y" argument and counterargument. Reading these weather reports is a bit tedious and it doesn't prove anything either way either. Its climate we should be discussing not weather.
WFalicoff 
05 March 2008 at 22:18
Thick, Old Arctic Ice Nearly Gone Jan 16, 2008 article refers to study in journal Geophysical Research Letters 
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/18/arctic-ice-melt.htm...
Peter Martin 
05 March 2008 at 22:52
Alex, 
" so just what will the consequences be of the Earth warming up by a rapid(?)and catastrophic(?)0.03 degrees per year? " 
0.03 deg C per year is also 0.0025 deg C per month. That's nothing is it? 
It's also 0.3 deg C every 10 years or around 1 deg C every 30 years. So that means every generation has to cope with an extra 1 degree rise in temperature. So far we 're at the 0.6 deg mark , which is of course an average, and we can see the effects especially in the Arctic where the warming is above average. 
So I guess if you are only concerned about yourself then you don't need to worry too much about 0.03 deg C rise per year. 
On the other hand, if you are concerned about the sort of lives that your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren etc etc are going to be living then you might want to do whatever you can to reduce CO2 emissions right now.
Alex 
06 March 2008 at 00:03
Peter 
What are you on about??? What lives might my grandchildren have to live?? You're at it again! You can't switch off the hysteria and doomsday scenarios can you? They're totally ingrained in you and you're incapable of stepping back and seeing anything else. What adverse effect has that 0.6 degree rise had over the past 100 years? None! So what if the Arctic has melted a bit - what has happened as a result? Nothing! What's wrong with you?!
Brute 
06 March 2008 at 00:49
OK; Truce, you're right, it really doesn't mean anything anyway except for temperatures have globally stabilized (and dropped in some years) since 1998 despite the rise in CO2 levels and the past 12 months have been the coldest globally since the 1980s. Its freezing cold here warmer there....I guess "Earth is in Balance" (to steal a Goreian phrase). 
Mr. Falicoffs last article posted contained this statement: 
"The extinction of the older, thicker ice is effectively melting away.........." 
I suppose this is one of the mass extinctions that Lynas talks about. So, the ice is getting thicker and more extensive but it isn't "old ice", it's "new ice" which isn't as "good" as the old ice. Another example of blindly following the orthodoxy despite that the facts dispute it…..editorial spin to shape public opinion; disgusting. Despite the positive news concerning “the health of the planet” this author writes gloom and doom or “good news is still bad news” in these his eyes. 
Mr. Martin
Brute 
06 March 2008 at 01:29
Alex, 
Yes, the lack of knowledge among Alarmists is appalling. 
Recently, I received a firm wide distributed E-mail titled “green tips”. One of the “tips” was that everyone in the firm should leave single handle faucets in the cold position (even without the water flowing), as this will save the planet from global warming. 
In the letters to the editor section of the local newspaper a woman chastised the congressional decision to expand day light saving time during the summer months. She reasoned that the extra hours of sunlight would exacerbate the “global warming crisis”.
Peter Martin 
06 March 2008 at 01:43
Alex, 
You say " So what if the Arctic has melted a bit - what has happened as a result?" and " What are you on about??? " 
It's not just me thats "on about" it, as you put it . It is the subject of the IPCC's various reports and the UK's Stern report, that's worth reading BTW, not to mention this entire forum! 
It sounds like the penny might have dropped with you? I was going to suggest that the correct figure was 0.02 degC per year rather than the 0.03 deg C per year figure you had, it might rise of course, but the argument is essentially the same. 
So, just to recap, what the science is indicating, and it's not just me saying it, is that the problems may not be unmanagable at present but, little by little, they are going to get worse as time progresses. 
Brute, 
Yes you are quite right. Actions should speak louder than words every time. You've still not indicated if you feel that the US SO2 emissions trading scheme was worthwhile. If it was successful, why so much angst over extending it , or having another similar scheme to cover CO2?
TheElitesWin 
06 March 2008 at 08:34
A think tank for the Government is considering a CO2 carbon tax on obese people due to their elevated levels of CO2. Yes folks that will be next.
Alex 
06 March 2008 at 09:18
No Peter, you're wrong. The science most certainly is NOT indicating that the effects of a tiny bit of warming will be unmanageable. The science is only trying to establish: 
a) why and how the planet is warming 
b) why it has to be man's fault 
The results of the warming are pure speculation, and are managed by environmental pressure groups (of which I'm sure some scientists are members - maybe even you). The imagined catastrophic future that awaits us is based on nothing more than sensationalism and a desire for "glory" in the media by coming up with the most outrageous scenarios. The film "Day After Tomorrow" was NOT a documentary - I'm not sure how many of you are aware of that. 
Time and again the same orthodox rhetoric comes from you and all the other Greens. You still refuse to respond to those points that are inconvenient to you: 
1 - How disastrous has warming been since the LIA? 
2- Who has the blinkered approach?
Peter Martin 
06 March 2008 at 10:09
Alex, 
So far the problem is serious but, so far, not disastrous. What I said was " the problems may not be unmanagable at present" . You've taken this to be the opposite of what I was meaning in that they are , at present, fairly managable. 
At present , yes, but into the future probably not so easy. 
This is the future according to a large scale computer simulation run by climate scientists at UK's Oxford University in conjunction with the BBC. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/ 
It involved using the spare processing power of many home PCs , one of which was mine incidentally, linked together through the internet. The model was calculated and the results predict a 4 deg C rise in UK temperatures by 2080. The picture in the rest of the world is not much different. 
Who has the most blinkered approach? I'd say that anyone who expects us to believe what they say, on the basis of , at best, a few 'back of envelope' calculations, rather than a team of well educated highly experienced, highly intelligent climate scientists who have run a detailed computer model of the earth's atmosphere on more than 250,000 home computers.
Alex 
06 March 2008 at 10:40
Peter 
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear regarding blinkered approaches. Allow me to be more specific. Which is the blinkered approach?:- 
1. 
A - Looking exclusively at one melting part of Antarctica 
B - Looking at the whole continent 
2. 
A - Looking just at CO2 
B- Looking at everything that makes up the atmosphere 
3. 
A - Refusing to consider outside influences 
B - Considering outside influences such as the sun, the Earth's orbit, it's magnetic field, solar wind and cosmic rays 
4. 
A- Focusing exclusively on rising temperatures 
B- Looking at the falling ones too 
5. 
A- "Knowing" that the effects of warming will only be catastrophic 
B- Suggesting that the effects may be beneficial 
Which is the blinkered approach? I've made it as easy as possible for you and any other Greens to answer - a simple "A" or "B" will do ( even on the back of an envelope.)
harmlesssky.org 
06 March 2008 at 11:02
I think that the modeling exercise that Peter Martin is referring to is the same one mentioned by Gubir [09 January 2008 at 07:45]. He was not impressed by the methodology. It actually has a rather interesting history going back to Jan 2005 when they put out a misleading press release which resulted in headlines predicting an 11deg C (not a typo) increase in temperature by the end of the century.
Sven 
06 March 2008 at 11:11
"while neighboring Estonia had to cancel a popular cross-country ski marathon in the southern city of Tartu in early February. " 
The marathon started in 1960 and has been cancelled because of lack of snow in 1961, 1966, 1972-1975, 1988-1990, 1992, 2000, 2004 and now 2008. 
""I don't remember winter like this. We had almost no snow at all in February," said Merike Merilain, chief weather forecaster at Estonia's meteorological institute, EMHI. " 
That's an interesting statement from Merike Merilain because the news in Estonia stated that "the average temperature in Estonia in the month of February was 1,2C. "It is the third warmest in the last half-century. Only 1990. and 1989. had a warmer February, when the average was 2,4C ja 1,4C accordingly," Merilain told BNS news service." 
She is not hat young not to remember 1989 and 1990...
Sven 
06 March 2008 at 11:12
"that young" of course, sorry
bobclive 
06 March 2008 at 11:24
At the present time the only scientifically proven fact is that enhanced CO2 promotes organic growth, which is good for the increasing world population. 
There has been a small increase in global temperatures which cannot be scientifically proven to have been caused solely by enhanced CO2, In fact there is NO detrimental effect associated with the present enhanced level of CO2. 
No more hurricanes, No sea level rise, ice mass back to levels not seen for years. 
Whats the panic, all the AGWers have is if`s.
Brute 
06 March 2008 at 13:40
Mr. Martin, 
You wrote: 
You've still not indicated if you feel that the US SO2 emissions trading scheme was worthwhile. If it was successful, why so much angst over extending it, or having another similar scheme to cover CO2? 
My reply: 
I'm not certain that I understand your point. Did I write that I was in opposition of efforts to reduce SO2 emissions or CO2 emissions? I’m not being sarcastic here…..This has been a lengthy dialogue…………..please elaborate. Possibly we disagree about how to go about it and the level of government regulation / involvement?
Robin Guenier 
06 March 2008 at 16:04
This will be my last contribution to this thread so I’ll indulge in some final thoughts. A word of background: I have always tried to be guided by the tenets of the Enlightenment – “distinguished above all”, according to a 20th century commentator (Jack Lively, 1966), by “its determination to subject all received opinions to the test of reason.” 
When I first commented (before Christmas) I was inclined to believe the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis, a belief tempered by scepticism prompted mainly by references to “expert consensus” and claims that “the science is settled” and then increasingly by the self-satisfied, hectoring and political position of some AGW believers. Today, I’m less sure about the hypothesis. I now see that climate is the product of a multitude of complex, non-linear factors interacting with each other in a way no one is likely to fully understand; the only certainty about computer-generated forecasts is that they will be wrong. I suspect that future generations may be amused at our naïve arrogance in thinking that humans could “combat” climate change by adjusting just one variable. Perhaps we need King Canute again – a monarch who faced the waves to prove to his sycophantic courtiers that even he, their mighty ruler, could not control the tide. 
But my main conclusion is that this debate, though most interesting, is futile: the world doesn’t care. An opinion poll published here this morning had asked people what was “the most important issue facing Britain today”; responses were unprompted i.e. a list of possible answers was not provided. Despite all the hype, only 3% identified “the environment” (no mention it seems of “climate change” or “global warming”) and, when asked for “other important issues”, only another 4% mentioned the environment. Moreover, as I noted yesterday, the world is emitting CO2 as if Kyoto hadn’t happened – and I’m sure it will continue to do so. (I trust this will not be true of the UK where I’m think reduced reliance on imported fuels is important for national strategic reasons.) 
So I hope David Whitehouse is right in questioning the AGW hypothesis: otherwise we’re in trouble. Equally, I hope that the sunspot/cooling theory is wrong: reversion to an ice age would, I fear, be worse than continued warming. Although climate is always changing, humanity has been lucky that changes have been relatively slight over recent millennia. Let’s hope that luck holds for a little longer. But there will be changes and I believe our best strategy must be adaptation and support for the poor and disadvantaged. 
My thanks and good wishes to all contributors.
JZ Smith 
06 March 2008 at 17:51
Robin, I hope to hear from you again. Your contributions here have been excellent. 
So is the third or fourth "last post" you've submitted? I've lost count! :)
Brute 
06 March 2008 at 20:40
Sorry Mr. Martin. Can't resist..........Please post a story regarding a warm spot somewhere......... 
http://www.icecap.us/ 
Mar 05, 2008 
Sydney’s Coolest Summer in 50 Years Leaves Empty Cafes, Gloom 
By Shani Raja and Simeon Bennett, Bloomberg 
Sydney residents and tourists are cursing La Nina as the harbor city says goodbye to the summer that wasn’t. While the La Nina weather pattern is delivering rain to farmers after the worst drought in a century, it’s cutting profits for cafe owners, travel agents and insurers. Insurance Australia Group Ltd., the nation’s largest home insurer, last week posted a sixth straight profit decline after hail storms cost it A$105 million ($97 million). The yearly `Symphony in the Park,’ which usually attracts 80,000 people, had 700 this year as the orchestra played behind a tarpaulin during a downpour. 
Sydney’s famous Opera House 
“Everyone always thinks Australia is the best place for perfect weather, but I’m not sure I’ll believe it any more,’’ says Minsoo Seo, a 28-year-old marketing executive from Korea’s Jeju Island, as he gazes at the waves crashing toward Bondi Beach on Australia’s last day of summer. “The wind’s too strong,” he says after deciding against surfing on a grey, gusty morning. 
After four years of water restrictions, Sydney saw about 50 percent more rain than usual this summer, according to Mike De Salis, a spokesman at Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology. No day topped 31 degrees celsius (88 degrees fahrenheit) for the first time since 1956. Average daily sunshine totaled 6.7 hours, an hour less than normal and the lowest since 1991-92. The average maximum temperature was 25.2, the coolest since 1996-97.
Peter Martin 
06 March 2008 at 23:13
TonyN (Harmless sky) 
The BBC experiment didn't get going until 2006 so there can't have been any press release in 2005 giving any results. 
I do think I remember the release you are referring to though. I can't find a link to it on the net but I think I'm correct in saying that the wording was " could eventually rise by up to 11 deg C". 
Always be wary of the phrase "up to" ! The actual prediction was more in line with the later BBC/Oxford experiment of 3 or 4 deg C by 2080 but they did speculate in a published paper than a worse case result, a thermal runaway, could produce a much higher figure. 
They'd have been better to have left out the 11 deg C figure from the press release. However, though it is considered to be unlikely the possibility does still exist that there may be a thermal runaway which will produce this level of global warming.
bobclive 
07 March 2008 at 00:51
An interesting paper by David Archibald March 2008. 
Solar cycle 24 : implications for the United States. 
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
Peter Martin 
07 March 2008 at 01:05
Brute, 
You seem remarkably coy about the US SO2 trading scheme, You're usually not backward about coming forward with your opinions. It's almost as if you are embarrased by the resounding success of it all! Just to repeat the question: If it can be successful for SO2 then why not for CO2? 
"“Everyone always thinks Australia is the best place for perfect weather" Perfect weather is a contradiction in terms. Weather reports, unless you have a millions of them, are quite meaningless in terms of understanding the climate and small changes to the climate. 
Yes, we have a had a cooler and wetter summer than is usual in Australia thanks to the effect of La Nina. The East Coast of Australia is very dependent on the effects La Nina for its rainfall. Even so, many areas are still experiencing the effects of the worst drought on record. If La Ninas become less frequent due to Global warming as some climatic models suggest, the economic and environmental costs, will be very high.
Brute 
07 March 2008 at 02:59
Amazing……One of the coldest, snowiest, winters on record, (worldwide) and global warming Alarmists are still shrieking “the sky is falling”. 
The theory went like this: CO2 emitted from automobiles, power plants and industry, (human progress), will gather in the atmosphere and create a “warming” effect globally. When the facts, (and outcome), didn’t fit their theories and computer generated climate models they changed their buzzword to “climate change”. The fact is that CO2 levels have continued to rise and global temperatures have dropped. Now these same people who a few years ago exclaimed “the planet has a fever” have the audacity to claim that global warming causes global cooling. The agenda remains the same…… to curtail progress of the human condition and tax industry in an effort to redistribute wealth. 
These reports are anecdotal; no “spin” or sanitizing from the likes of the NY Times, the Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS or CNN and there are dozens of more like them from the Northern and Southern hemispheres stating the same thing; Global Warming Stopped in 1998. It snowed in Texas today for heaven's sake.........Alarmist call this "regional anomolies" and "nuance".........Snow in Texas in March means cold.......... 
“Its official; February has brought record snows in New England. 2007-2008 Ski and Snowboard season has been epic.” 
Abundant Snowfall Produces Record-Breaking Ski Season 
http://www.wptz.com/news/15413040/detail.html 
Whistler Blackcomb Announces Early Ski Season Opening This Saturday 
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/index.php?name=News&file=ar... 
Yet another snowstorm will blanket GTA 
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/310177 
Wintry mix blasts Panhandle, North Texas with sleet, snow 
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5599331.html 
Mr. Martin, 
You’ve asked: 
If it can be successful for SO2 then why not for CO2? 
My response: 
Again, I do not have an issue with industry and private citizens voluntarily reducing CO2 emissions, but heavy handed government intervention into private industry & private citizens personal habits is out of line; successful or unsuccessful. The Constitution of the United States does not provide for that level of intervention into private life or private industry. 
If private industry can offer CO2 reduced products and market them skillfully, the product will be profitable and the results will be successful, (as many currently are)………… No need for government involvement. I’m certain that “concerned citizens” will voluntarily pay more for a “green” airline ticket or voluntarily pay a little more for “green” power......many already do. There is no reason to force anyone to do anything. 
I do have a big problem with foreign delegations, (of failed countries) dictating policies to the my elected officials; essentially implementing programs that were not voted for by the people who will be effected by these laws / treaties. 
SO2 reduction targeted coal burning power plants and is relatively easy, (albeit costly), to remove from the coal combustion process. Every fossil fuel, (oil, gasoline, natural gas as well coal), emits CO2 when burned, the reduction of which would affect every industry, as well as every private citizen. Another big tax scam. 
Sulfer Dioxide emission damage is real, well documented and verified. Anthropological Global Warming is not, (as evidenced by the last 10 years of “global cooling”). 
By the way, portions of Alaska’s forests are being damaged by acid rain…….from China & Russia.
Brute 
07 March 2008 at 03:24
I pressed submit too quickly……. 
We live in an instant coffee, 30 second microwave oven society and have a few childish environmentalists stomping their feet with their hands on their hips screaming “I want it and I want it now”! They have no conception of the glacial pace of natural atmospheric changes or any sense of historical perspective. 
We also have a few environmental pressure groups / lobbyists exploiting base human fear and the aspirations of self serving opportunistic politicians promoting this Alarmism to further an agenda. 
In conclusion, we have slick talking, snake oil salesmen taking advantage of and promoting this hysteria for financial gain. 
I should not have written “as evidenced by the last 10 years of global cooling” in my previous post. What we have experienced is normal, reasonable, cyclical, natural changes in the weather (warmer and cooler) as it has been long before Al Gore came onto the stage and as it will be for time eternal, (or until the Sun explodes and reverts into a white dwarf star).
Peter Martin 
07 March 2008 at 06:37
Brute, 
Much as you might like to think that you are up against a petulant child what you should realise is that you are up against the entire scientific establishment. If they weren't pretty confident of their position there would be no way that they'd have nominated the IPCC for the Nobel peace prize. Ok, so Henry Kissinger got the Nobel peace prize too , but that was for political reasons not scientific. 
I can't think of any example of the scientific consensus getting it wrong, especially not on such a high profile issue like AGW. Its not , as Alex would suggest, that they are blinkered and haven't looked at solar forcings, or any of the other suggested reasons for the current warm spell. They have all been investigated and have been discounted. They do have a good, almost perfect, track record of getting things right and there is absolutely no reason why they would want to play politics on a big issue such as AGW. 
I keep posting this one up. Its the running 5 year average of exactly the same temperature anomalies as used by David Whitehouse going back to 1970. 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/temps-5yearmean.png 
You can see the slight flattening off at the end of the graph which seems to be generating so much optimism that global warming has come to an end. But if you compare this to what has happened previously you've got to be seriously delusional to think that way. 
In fact I don't think you are, deep down. You've all had the good sense to reject taking over the bet that PatT originally proposed!
Sven 
07 March 2008 at 07:25
"If they weren't pretty confident of their position there would be no way that they'd have nominated the IPCC for the Nobel peace prize. Ok, so Henry Kissinger got the Nobel peace prize too , but that was for political reasons not scientific." 
a) Do you know who nominated the IPCC for the prize? 
I think it was Norwegian lawmakers, not scientists 
b) They received the peace prize, not in any science category 
c) Peace prize is always given for political, not scientific reasons
Sven 
07 March 2008 at 07:29
Byt the way, I think it's really amusing, that you, in Australia, who is witnessing one of the coldest summers in 50 years are arguing for AGW and I, in Estonia, having just had one of the warmest winters in 50 years, am becoming more and more skeptical. 
Nothing else, just funny... :)
Alex 
07 March 2008 at 08:40
There you go again Peter. How can you possibly - after all this time - come up with a statement like "...we are up against the entire scientific establishment" . You've missed the point yet again.
harmlesssky.org 
07 March 2008 at 10:09
Peter Martin: 
I was referring to the history of the climateprediction.net project, and not the particular phase that you were involved in. This dates back to at least 2004. The press release I referred to, which was published on 26/01/2005 can be found here: 
http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/climatepredict... 
As you will see, the only figure for temperature increase that it mentions is 11deg C, therefore that is what the press reported. Later, even the media were critical of this; journalists do not like being mislead. 
In a subsequent interview for the BBC Myles Allen, one of the researchers on the project, admitted that when the results were averaged, the prediction was only 3deg C with ‘a tiny percentage’ returning 11deg C. Even this was after all predictions showing a negative values had been discarded. 
Had you read my comment carefully before responding you would have noticed that I mistakenly said that this project was predicting temperature increase up to the end of the century. In fact it was predicting the increase if CO2 doubles, and I am happy to correct this.
Peter Martin 
07 March 2008 at 10:12
I should have also said that the well loved political personality, Al Gore, also shared the 2007 prize with the IPCC. Just think, if the American political system had better represented the wishes of the population in the year 2000, he'd have been much too busy to get up to all this mischief in the past eight years. 
Also , to be fair to Le Duc Tho, I should say that he shared the 1973 Peace prize with HK. 
I'm not sure how much this was a political choice, but it was good to see that the 2005 Nobel Peace prize was shared by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Mohamed ElBaradei 
"for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way"
Brute 
07 March 2008 at 12:11
Mr. Martin, 
I believe you mentioned something about "leading by example" a few posts back? I believe I wrote something to the effect of "people who travel on 75 meter luxury yachts, (crew of 26) shouldn't cast stones"........I'm certain this excursion was absolutely necessary........................He must have had to purchase quite a few carbon indulgences to offset this flagrant violation of environmentalist church doctrine…..probably had to throw in a few Hail Mary’s for good measure, (just in case). No, I didn’t write the news blurb below. Maybe the Nobel committee will feel compelled to award a prize? 
February 8, 2008 
Prince Charles Takes Luxury Yacht to Prevent Global Warming 
The planet owes a debt of gratitude to Prince Charles, who is rescuing the Earth from the climate change menace by traveling via the 245-foot, £280,000/week luxury yacht the Leander. The ship boasts twin engines, helicopter decks, an indoor swimming pool, a Jacuzzi and — supposedly — a lower carbon footprint than flying. He and Camilla will be touring Caribbean islands so as to work on their tans and "reinforce Britain's ties with the important Commonwealth countries of Trinidad and Tobago." 
If Chuckles can sacrifice by taking the Leander, we little people have no right to complain about any stratospheric tax hikes that might be inspired by the global warming hoax.
Nelson 
07 March 2008 at 14:53
'global temperatures have dropped. ' 
You keep saying this, and I keep having to remind you that they haven't. 
I've noticed a lot of recent fuss over the observation that January 2008 was significantly cooler than January 2007. 'Evidence that the world is cooling!!11!' 
Or not. 
You see: you've forgotten once again that the data set is noisy. January 2007 was an [i]exceptionally[/i] warm month - a (relatively) cooler January in 2008 is not surprising. 
Look back at July 1998; it too was very warm due to a powerful El Nino. Lo and behold, July 1999 was cooler even than the drop between Jan 2007 and Jan 2008. But did warming stop then? Of course not. 
Let's remind ourselves again: One month does not a trend make. You can't claim that global temperatures have dropped if the trend isn't statistically significant.
Nelson 
07 March 2008 at 15:03
Bobclive, re. the 'paper' you linked by David Archibald. 
Firstly, I'm looking forward to seeing it published in a reputable peer-reviewed climatology journal. 
*cough* 
Secondly, it looks like it was presented at that Heartland-sponsored 'scientific conference' - I use that term as loosely as I possibly can - that has been (justifiably) ridiculed here: 
http://tinyurl.com/2ye73s
Ron McKeown 
07 March 2008 at 15:58
Well, well, well - new scientist is running an article this week on how the dinosaurs were affected by global warming and how it could upset today’s view.
Brute 
07 March 2008 at 16:58
Nelson, 
To quote Mr. Whitehouse: 
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a skeptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. 
Does 10 years constitute a "trend"?
Brute 
07 March 2008 at 17:16
Nelson, 
These are your “credible” scientists representing the IPCC?? Spreading distortions and hyperbole? This guy was so disgusted he quit. I suppose Lindzen, this guy and Joanne Simpson are paid off by “Big Oil”? 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/01/18/2500-... 
Partial text from his letter of resignation………(appropriate last name for a guy that studies hurricanes). 
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4." 
Sincerely, 
Chris Landsea
WFalicoff 
07 March 2008 at 21:34
"Record Warm Summers Cause Extreme Ice Melt In Greenland 
ScienceDaily (Jan. 16, 2008) — An international team of scientists, led by Dr Edward Hanna at the University of Sheffield, has demonstrated that recent warm summers have caused the most extreme Greenland ice melting in 50 years.....'" 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080115102706.ht...
Peter Martin 
07 March 2008 at 23:28
Paid off by big oil? Well I'm not sure that the oil industry, with the possible exception of Exxon-Mobile, is quite as bad as its often portrayed. 
The coal industry is more of a cause for concern beacause they have the most to lose. The website you refer to, www.worldclimatereport.com are financed by coal money. 
Mainly http://www.westernfuels.org/
Peter Martin 
08 March 2008 at 00:33
"For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a skeptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. " 
Well yes you could argue that. However , if you asked the same question "Has Global Warming Stopped?" every year from 1973 onwards you'd have been given the following answers. 
" yes,yes,no,yes,no,no,no,yes,no,yes,yes,yes,no,no,no, 
no,no,yes,yes,no,no,yes,no,no,no,yes,no,no,yes,no,no,no,yes,yes,yes " 
Using David Whitehouse's impeccable logic, there no denying that each answer is absolutely correct and an "observational fact ".
Brute 
08 March 2008 at 01:36
Exxon Gives $12,213 to IPCC, Corrupts Study! 
February 
3rd 
2007 
comments below 
Much has been made of the $10,000 that the AEI is offering to review and critique the IPCC study. After all, Exxon accounted for just under 1% AEI’s funding last year: that means that Exxon, in effect, is offering just under $100 to review the report. This is huge news! It’s on CNN and made the front page of Digg. 
But after reading the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on Global Warming, something smelled amok. 
Take this passage for example: 
Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity. 
What’s this? Why should we look at the fact that more than 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour? Clearly, the only thing we should be looking at is that CO2 Levels went from 0.028% to 0.036% of the atmosphere in the last 100 years. If mankind accounted for all of that change, it means that we may have changed the total atmospheric makeup by up to 0.008% in the last 100 years! That’s almost 0.00008% per year! 
Scientific translation = WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE! (curiously missing from the report) 
And this quote: 
Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings. Uncertainties in local forcings and feedbacks also make it difficult to estimate the contribution of greenhouse gas increases to observed small-scale temperature changes. 
What’s this? The study basically says they don’t know? Blasphemy! 
The study must have been corrupted . . . by Exxon. 
Follow the money: 
Exxon Mobil Corp paid $29.6 Billion in Income Tax last Year. 
The USA FY2006 Federal Budget was about $2.6 Trillion and will have tax receipts of about $1.9 trillion. 
$29.6B/$1.9T = 1.55% 
While not perfect, we can estimate that Exxon Mobil accounts for about 1.55% of every federal dollar spent. 
The United States Has Funded $14.5 Million of the $91.2 Million (about 16%) Raised By IPCC (Includes Franc to Dollar conversion of .8) 
The IPCC spent about $4.9 Million in 2006 
($4.9 Million) * (16%) * (1.55%) = $12,213 
(2006 IPCC Spend) * (% US Contribution) * (% Exxon Mobil of US Tax Reciepts) = $12,213 
Therefore, Exxon Mobil Corp funded about $12,213 of IPCC last year! 
I smell corruption. How else can one explain these admissions in the study about “water vapour feedback”, “uncertainties”, and “difficulties”? The only solution is to immediately halt the US Federal Government (and thereby Exxon) from funding IPCC. 
Sure, the name “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” inspires confidence that any studies will be unbiased and completely without prejudice. But with IPCC squarely in Exxon’s pocket – how can we be sure?
Brute 
08 March 2008 at 01:37
Glossary of terms used in IPCC Reports 
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/glossary.htm
Brute 
08 March 2008 at 01:40
How Global Warming Research is Creating a Climate of Fear 
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00...
Brute 
08 March 2008 at 02:26
JZ Smith, 
This is a interesting article regarding Global Warming research funding for scientsts. 
Is Global Warming Reaching Cult Status? 
http://www.tech-evangelist.com/2007/03/22/global-warming-cul... 
"Challenging the current global warming dogmas goes well beyond just a belief. It has a very strong driver that is rarely discussed. I mentioned earlier that grants and funding are the life blood of research. With out such finding, there is not research. Scientists–like everyone else–like to get paid. Government funding for global warming research really began after Bill Clinton announced that he had become a believer in the global warming issue and displayed a global warming research project with a summary section commissioned by Al Gore. 5000 scientists signed up in agreement with the Al Gore summary section which stated that global warming was here and we need to act now. At that time, Bill Clinton announced a $1 million research grant to explore the issue. As John Stossel of ABC News later reported, the part that wasn’t said was that 18,000 scientists didn’t agree with the assumptions. Which group do you think got the grants? 
During the past 6 years, the Bush administration has poured an average of $5 million per year into global warming research. Global warming research is becoming a cash cow and where there is money, there is bias."
Peter Martin 
08 March 2008 at 02:57
"During the past 6 years, the Bush administration has poured an average of $5 million per year into global warming research. Global warming research is becoming a cash cow and where there is money, there is bias" 
Cash cow? Your figure must be way too low. According to my arithmetic $5 million is jsut about enough to keep the Iraq War going for 27 minutes. This must mean that Global Warming is given just 0.04% of the priority of the Iraqi component of the WOT.
Peter Martin 
08 March 2008 at 03:23
They, the climate scientists, said it was cooling in the 70's. Why should we believe them now? 
Well actually it turns out that 'they' didn't say that after all. 
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf 
What they actually said, between 1965 and 1979 according to Table 1 of the above paper was a bit of both. However a clear majority were predicting warming with the breakdown of scientific papers on the subject being: 
7 articles predicting cooling 
44 predicting warming 
20 that were neutral
TheElitesWin 
08 March 2008 at 08:51
If you really want to know what's happening in this world in general, start reading the investigative comments of a well USA radio show host Alex Jones at http://www.infowars.com.
Brute 
08 March 2008 at 12:10
Cash cow? Your figure must be way too low. 
Ah Pete, you're probably correct. Who knows anymore. 
You're right; the numbers in my last post were probably wrong. A Billion here, a billion there; pretty soon you're talking about a substantial amount of money! Being a Global Warming Alarmist pays well and many companies are "shearing the flock". They've turned the tables on the Alarmists. Waste Management companies are reaping heavy profits from from the hysteria and I'm making money hand over fist. Keep ringing the bell and evil, greedy capitalists like myself will be able to retire early. 
U.S. Funds Nearly $4 Billion in Climate-Change Research 
Global warming is a good business to be in for government funding. More than 99.5 percent of American climate change funding comes from the government, which spends $4 billion per year on climate change research. 
Researchers use this money to promote doom and gloom reports on what man is doing to his world. 
The bigger and more catastrophic climate change cataclysm becomes, the more it is justifiable to take more money and exert more control – a cycle that feeds itself. Scientist and environmentalist Stephen Schneider explained these tactics. 
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” (Discover, October, 1989) 
Environmental lobbying, a $1.6 billion industry, puts increased pressure on government to spend more on global warming and take more control. 
Calls for higher taxes, more regulation and greater government intervention in private businesses increase as environmentalists propagate scarier scenarios.
Brute 
08 March 2008 at 12:11
The Times Warms to Cooling 
The New York Times had been cautioning its readers about global warming during the 1950s, but it too came around to the new threat by Jan. 19, 1975. 
Referring to the 1970s as being part of a 10,000-year period of warmth in between ice ages, the paper wrote, “There seems to be little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate.” 
By Dec. 30, 2005, the Times had once again changed gears and reported, “Climatologists said the ice cores left no doubt that the burning of fossil fuels is altering the atmosphere in a substantial and unprecedented way.”
Brute 
08 March 2008 at 12:12
Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming 
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandi...
Brute 
08 March 2008 at 12:15
Now all I have to do is figure out when the hysteria will shift from warming to cooling again and reinvest.
Peter Martin 
08 March 2008 at 12:34
If anyone really feels that the planet is going to start cooling soon I'd be happy to take bets: 
Is anyone prepared to back up their opinion that the next decade (2008-2017) is going to be cooler than the previous one (1998-2007) ?
Brute 
08 March 2008 at 12:47
What is with you and these bets? You should hang out at the horse track. 
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/
Peter Martin 
08 March 2008 at 23:03
Unlike this topic, I'm not really interested in horse racing. 
Maybe you are hanging out for better odds? What would you be looking for?
Brute 
09 March 2008 at 00:10
Hah. Entertaining, but it’s a foolish wager, (no matter which side is chosen). The weather, or “climate” as you call it, is as fickle as a teenage girl. Alarmists, with all of their high tech, sophisticated, expensive, computer models and equipment predicted that temperatures would rise with higher levels of CO2; didn’t happen………..they may as well toss a coin. They may predict an ice age beginning tomorrow and I’d say they were as arrogant and conceited as they are now predicting global warming. I’d have better odds at the track, (as would you). They can’t even predict with a high level of accuracy what the weather will be tomorrow much less 92 years from today. 
I tell you what…. I’ll wager that it will be warmer in the northern hemisphere this July than it was this January. Or how about this……I’ll bet you that it will be colder at midnight tonight than it will be at noon tomorrow, (here). I like those odds……………. 
I'm looking for the government to quit sticking its nose into my business and hand in my wallet. I’m looking for a secure, quiet, peaceful life, for myself and my family without my, (or anybody else’s), government intruding into my life and stealing my hard earned money to promote some whacko Environmentalists idealistic view of a “Global Collectivist Utopia” or whatever the hell they have in mind. With that being said, maybe I'm being as unrealistic as you. 
And how is it that these guys went from being "Weathermen", to "Meteorologists" to "Climatologists"? 
Sounds like a Chiropractor; which is nothing more than a masseuse with a fancy car…..more nonsense, same modus operandi.
Peter Martin 
09 March 2008 at 01:43
Brute, 
It was pity that you've rejected the offer out of hand. I was going to offer you odds of 2-1. So you must estimate the chances of the next decade being warmer than this one to be greater than 66.6% to turn it down. 
So that's a climate sceptic for you. All talk and no substance. Really you know, don't you, that you'll lose, no matter what odds are offered, just like you would have lost if you'd taken on a similar bet for any two consecutive decades in the past 40 years. 
So if you don't really believe what you say, there seems little point in even listening to, or reading, it. 
Anyway here's a link which some readers might fnd amusing. 
http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo/
Peter Martin 
09 March 2008 at 01:51
If the last link doesn't work. Try this one. 
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/05/14/global-warming-sceptic-bing...
Brute 
09 March 2008 at 02:46
Great psychology Pete regarding your wager. Why don't you just say something awful about my mother...... 
By the way the official first day of Spring is only 12 days away and we are still experiencing blizzards on this side of the equator. My odds of winning the bet may be improving......The links were cute; Thank you. I think I'll make up my own mind regarding whether or not it's cold outside instead of depending on someone doing it for me. 
Snow blankets parts of Midwest, South 
Blizzard warning in Ohio; foot of snow in Arkansas 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23488148
Brute 
09 March 2008 at 03:10
Stumbled across this gem on one of the Alarmist websites………Just about science is it? No other agenda? 
The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy 
• Endorsement From Gordon Graham, 
Henry Luce III Professor of Philosophy and the Arts at Princeton Theological Seminar: Warnings of a pending environmental crisis are no longer the prerogative of solitary prophets. They now reflect the consensus of the scientific establishment. But how radical a change in established political thinking do they require of us? This volume makes a powerful case for the view that taking environmental crisis seriously implies a radical critique of democracy itself, and a willingness to accept government by qualified expertise rather than popular election. If political thinking at its best makes the pressing questions of the day an occasion to revisit cherished fundamentals, then this book qualifies. 
• Endorsement From Otis L. Graham, 
University of California, Santa Barbara (Emeritus): Arriving at a time when governments, corporations and consumers are bragging about their voluntary emission reduction steps, this book judges current and pending efforts as failures, and moves the discussion to the next phase. For conversion to sustainable societies, liberal democracy must give way to "a form of authoritarian government by experts" which the authors sketch out at the end. This is an argument-moving book, a fresh and audacious contribution to the climate change debate. 
• Endorsement From Virginia Deane Abernethy, 
Emeritus Professor, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine: The partnership of philosopher and ecologist Joseph Wayne Smith with emeritus professor of medicine David Shearman has produced an analysis that covers the gamut from governance in a liberal democracy to a treatise on banking institutions. The authors conclude that the environmental goods necessary to sustain civilization will collapse unless humanity's "loving marriage to economic growth" can be sundered. 
Description: Climate change threatens the future of civilization, but humanity is impotent in effecting solutions. Even in those nations with a commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions, they continue to rise. This failure mirrors those in many other spheres that deplete the fish of the sea, erode fertile land, destroy native forests, pollute rivers and streams, and utilize the world's natural resources beyond their replacement rate. In this provocative book, Shearman and Smith present evidence that the fundamental problem causing environmental destruction--and climate change in particular--is the operation of liberal democracy. Its flaws and contradictions bestow upon government--and its institutions, laws, and the markets and corporations that provide its sustenance--an inability to make decisions that could provide a sustainable society. Having argued that democracy has failed humanity, the authors go even further and demonstrate that this failure can easily lead to authoritarianism without our even noticing. Even more provocatively, they assert that there is merit in preparing for this eventuality if we want to survive climate change. They are not suggesting that existing authoritarian regimes are more successful in mitigating greenhouse emissions, for to be successful economically they have adopted the market system with alacrity. Nevertheless, the authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power. There are in existence highly successful authoritarian structures--for example, in medicine and in corporate empires--that are capable of implementing urgent decisions impossible under liberal democracy. Society is verging on a philosophical choice between "liberty" or "life." But there is a third way between democracy and authoritarianism that the authors leave for the final chapter. Having brought the reader to the realization that in order to halt or even slow the disastrous process of climate change we must choose between liberal democracy and a form of authoritarian government by experts, the authors offer up a radical reform of democracy that would entail the painful choice of curtailing our worldwide reliance on growth economies, along with various legal and fiscal reforms. Unpalatable as this choice may be, they argue for the adoption of this fundamental reform of democracy over the journey to authoritarianism.
hlb1121 
09 March 2008 at 03:13
should it really matter if global warming is really happening? shouldn't we be stewards of the environment because it's the ethical thing to do, because we wouldn't leave our house in a mess so why should we leave the home of countless species in a mess? shouldn't we be concerned about the quality of the air, which pollution from cars and factories turns into a weapon against our lungs and health? if centuries from now it is determined that there really wasn't a global climate crisis, our earth will still be left the better if we take care of it and not use it as a dumpster for our needless waste. and if it turns out that there IS a global climate crisis, then we would have saved future generations. either way, we should protect our environment and treat it with respect. without Earth, we wouldn't exist. we should be humble and gracious that a planet like this came into being and not squander it as if we could just move on to a new planet.
Peter Martin 
09 March 2008 at 13:41
Brute, 
I your last posting you raise the issue of some who " conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary [to avert climate change] , but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power." 
I'd argue the opposite. There is no evidence that democracy has ever failed humanity. Especially when times are difficult and difficult choices have to be made, we should have more rather than less democracy. The former UK MP Tony Benn may be a little too left-wing for your tastes but nevertheless you might agree with much of what he has to say on the subject of democracy: 
Ask the powerful 5 questions 
1. What power have you got? 
2. Where did you get it from? 
3. In whose interest do you exercise it? 
4. To whom are you accountable? 
5. How can we get rid of you? 
Only democracy gives us that right. That is why no-one in power likes democracy - and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it. Including you and me - here and now.
Ron McKeown 
09 March 2008 at 13:48
The man-made global warming pundits and the sceptics, (or skeptiks if you are not English), may wish to read the New Scientist this week. 
http://www.newscientist.com/contents/issue/2646.html 
Then click on the link to - Dinosaurs were no strangers to climate change
Brute 
09 March 2008 at 15:43
hlb1121, 
I don't need the government to dictate to me how to keep my house; apparently you do. If you feel that your personal habits are damaging the environment, change them; you don’t need a law or government official to make that happen……….. That’s called FREEDOM; you seem to be willing to relinquish your freedoms, and mine, to vanquish some ecological boogeyman; that’s called totalitarianism, and you are willing to submit to it. 
You see, I don't need guidance from self proclaimed elitists. The Global Warming ruse is nothing more than ideological manipulation and you’ve allowed yourself to be manipulated.
Brute 
09 March 2008 at 20:27
Pete, 
I'm glad to hear that you favor democracy over the authoritarian form of government that the authors of this book and environmentalists advocate. They view democracy as a failure because the majority of population does not support their view…..thank God. I was merely pointing out that there is a growing chorus of environmentalists who feel that the only means of attaining their goals, (in this case as it pertains to the weather), is through an authoritarian government answerable to an oligarchy of scientists. Pretty frightening, much like the spoiled / demanding child that I described in a previous post and as described with the eco-terrorists that burned down the houses in Seattle recently. I’m not ecstatically supportive of everything that my government does; however, I don’t plot its overthrow as these authors seem to advocate. I can’t speak of Australian or British government. If you guys are unhappy with the course that your respective governments have taken, vote for someone else…..someone with a different mindset. My government does things that I do not support; however, that is the government that the people of the United States have chosen. 
I don’t know of this fellow Tony Benn; I’ll have to read up about him sometime. 
1. What power have you got? 
A. I have the power to voice my opinion and exercise my right to vote. 
2. Where did you get it from? 
A. The Constitution of The United States. 
3. In whose interest do you exercise it? 
A. My interests. 
4. To whom are you accountable? 
A. Ultimately, God and the laws of the United States of America. 
5. How can we get rid of you? 
A. You can’t.
Peter Martin 
09 March 2008 at 22:07
I wasn't particularly asking you those five questions! Even the last one :-) Except if you are a rich and powerful person, that is. Tony Benn suggests that these are 5 questions that we should put to them if we do get the chance. 
There's more on the "democracy film" link on this website, 
http://www.bennites.com/Home.html
Brute 
09 March 2008 at 23:52
I know, I was joking, even though I am powerful.........(my wife actually thinks she's in charge). I did a quick search of Benn's biography; another character who believes that someone else (government) will / should solve all of society’s problems. It seems that many of our elected officials have forgotten the purpose of the office(s) and who they are accountable to. I cannot understand this complete and utter willingness to rely on government; it is truly confounding. 
It seems the person who posted earlier, hlb1121, is willing to surrender their liberties and rights to a foreign, (or elected), government entity and become subservient to its dictates without a fight……must be French.
Brute 
10 March 2008 at 00:54
One other comment; John Q. Public is not off the hook in this situation by any means, (on either side of the political spectrum). Many Americans take no interest in the goings on of government, much less go to the trouble of voting. They are quick to complain about this or that but do not know who the Secretary of State is, (for instance), who their members of Congress are or who their local representatives are and what platforms they promote. They are equally to blame for ineffectual government, (if not more), than the governmental elected / appointed officials simply due to their apathy. One of the first questions I ask a person complaining about a governmental situation is: did you vote? Did you campaign? Sadly the answer more than not is that they did not vote or get involved…..couldn’t be bothered. Again, people often take their liberties and freedoms for granted.....until they are gone.
Brute 
10 March 2008 at 02:17
Interesting.......... 
Abrupt Climate Change 
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/arch/examples.shtml 
The Younger Dryas Cold Episode 
http://hoopermuseum.earthsci.carleton.ca//climate/YD.HTM
Peter Martin 
10 March 2008 at 03:11
Brute, 
I think that you've probably misjudged what Tony Benn is actually saying. He's not a "big government" man at all. Although he's on the left and you're on the right it sounds like you may at least be in agreement with at least some of what he's saying. Such as: 
" Democracy is not just voting every 5 years and watching Big Brother in between and wondering why nothing happens. Democracy is what we do and say where we live and work" 
That's just the sort of democracy which will be necessary to fix the AGW problem.
Brute 
10 March 2008 at 13:25
3 of 4 global metrics show nearly flat temperature anomaly in the last decade 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/3-of-4-globa...
Nelson 
10 March 2008 at 16:23
' For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a skeptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact.' 
But we've established that Whitehouse's analysis was incorrect. That's the entire point of this thread! 
Whitehouse's conclusions are not statistically significant. Once again I''ll point you to Tamino's website, where the trend analysis is done correctly: 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/
Nelson 
10 March 2008 at 16:51
'3 of 4 global metrics show nearly flat temperature anomaly in the last decade' 
And here we go again. Doesn't it concern you that Watts made no effort to determine statistical significance? Ten years is too short a period (as he could quite easily show if he also analysed trends for 9 and 11 years. They'd be vastly different). 
Always remember that the data are noisy and the trend is small. Here's an analogy: in 12 hours time it'll be 5-10 degrees cooler here. I could plot a beautiful graph of ambient temperature over that time. Look at the cooling trend! Does it mean global warming has stopped, though...?
Alex 
10 March 2008 at 17:20
What this whole thread has conclusively shown is that man-made CO2 is absolutley not responsible for global warming. That some people still cling to the belief that changing the overall composition of our atmosphere by 0.002% will stop the planet from warming up is truly astounding.
bobclive 
10 March 2008 at 19:50
This may have already been mentioned, 
January temperature drop of 0.65-0.75 degrees C. 
This drop in temperature is certainly very unusual. The fall of 0.595 degrees since Jan 2007 is the largest January-to-January drop in HAD CRU3 since 1875, and the biggest drop for any 12-month interval since -0.681 degrees in February 1974. 
The January temperature is the lowest for any month since 1994, and the lowest for a month unaffected by volcanic eruptions in 20 years. 
January 2008 was cooler than January 1932, even after all the downwards adjustments they have applied to the old data. 
The AGWers suggest using a 30 year reference period from 1971 - 2000, I wonder why. 
Some amazing pictures, 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnew...#StartComments 
Feb 9th 2008. 
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."
Peter Martin 
10 March 2008 at 21:58
Alex, 
Pre-industrial concentration of CO2 =280ppm 
280ppm = 0.028% 
Current level = 390ppm = 0.039% 
Therefore the change is 0.011% 
Now, we are saying that this is largely responsible for a 0.6deg C rise in temperature. Although there are some other positive contributions from methane and nitrous oxide etc. There are also some negative ones from aerosols etc but lets ignore these for the purposes of simplicity. 
What is this as a % temperature rise rise? We really should think more in terms of deg Kelvin than deg C or deg F. The last two scales use different definitions of zero, neither of which are particularly valid. The only really true zero is on the Kelvin scale. When all atoms and molecules are stopped we have 0 deg K and you cant get any colder that that. 
On this scale a typical earth temperature would be 300 deg K. (0 degC = 273.2 deg K.) Also the energy of each molecule in the atmoshere is very nearly proportional to its temperature in deg K. 
So a 0.6 deg C temperature change, also 0.6 deg K , is about 0.2% in temperature or energy terms. 
So, what we are saying is that, yes, a 0.011% change in the composition of the earth's atmosphere has been responsible for a change in the earth's average temperature of 0.2%. 
Bob, 
Yes Jan 08 was relatively cool. But, on the other hand, Jan 08 was very warm! In fact the warmest on NASAs records. Its not surprising that there is quite a large difference between the two. It will be down to a combination of the El Nino affect, natural variability and experimental measurement error. Just you wait and see! 
There's really no point in getting too worked up about one month's figures.
Peter Martin 
10 March 2008 at 22:04
Sorry, I should have said "But, on the other hand, Jan 07 was very warm"
WFalicoff 
10 March 2008 at 22:41
"in the 1970s 'all the scientists' were claiming the earth was cooling. How can we therefore trust them now". Is this statement a myth or true? 
See the paper for the answer. 
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf 
A little bit from the authors to wet your appetite for the paper. 
"To veterans of the Climate Wars, the old 1970s global cooling canard - "How can we believe climate scientists about global warming today when back in the 1970s they told us an ice age was imminent?" - must seem like a never-ending game of Whack-a-mole. One of us (WMC) has devoted years to whacking down the mole (see here, here and here, for example), while the other of us (JF) sees the mole pop up anew in his in box every time he quotes contemporary scientific views regarding climate change in his newspaper stories. 
The problem is that the argument has played out in competing anecdotes, without any comprehensive and rigorous picture of what was really going on in the scientific literature at the time. But if the argument is to have any relevance beyond talking points aimed at winning a debate, such a comprehensive understanding is needed. If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age, it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they thought this, and what relevance it might have to today's science-politics-policy discussions about climate change. If, on the other hand, scientists were not really predicting a coming ice age, then the argument needs to be retired. 
The two of us, along with Tom Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center, undertook a literature review to try to move beyond the anecdotes and understand what scientists were really saying at the time regarding the various forces shaping climate on time human time scales. The results are currently in press at the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and Doyle Rice has written a nice summary in USA Today, and an extended version based on a presentation made by Tom at the AMS meeting in January is on line. 
During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details): 
* 7 articles predicting cooling 
* 44 predicting warming 
* 20 that were neutral 
In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales. 
We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does, this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying back in the 
1970s." 
Saying something is true does not make it so if it happens to be false. 
W. Falicoff
WFalicoff 
10 March 2008 at 22:44
Sorry about this Mr. Martin already pointed to this article!
Brute 
10 March 2008 at 23:32
Nelson wrote: 
Ten years is too short a period (as he could quite easily show if he also analyzed trends for 9 and 11 years. They'd be vastly different). 
I say: 
If my stock portfolio performed like those graphs I'd say it was definitely flat.........a loser.......those are flat trend lines, (except for Hansen’s)......."noise", "small trend", “statistical significance”…. it’s all doubletalk; those lines are flat. Yep, flat. I don't care if the Pope says that ten years isn't enough time; I'd dump it, (or the scientist / politicians who sold me on the idea that the temperature would rise with CO2), the theory is a dog, a loser. Get out before it's too late; cut your losses... 
Maybe you guys can start ringing your hands, holding your head in your hands and worrying about a new "manmade environmental catastrophe” that will impact humankind for all eternity. Pharmaceuticals found in drinking water!…….Drug companies have deep pockets; now you guys can go after them and all of the overindulgent self obsessed Americans over this! Make them pay! Harder to prove…therefore easier to alarm and manipulate the populous, (you don’t have to depend on the unreliable / fussy weather and all of those nitpicky scientists who are constantly asking for silly things like substantiation). Starts out with a “cover-up”….see the headline? The drug companies are hiding something! The Alarmists could string this out for DECADES before anyone became wise to it. Quick! Get Lynas on the phone to write an article / book / movie. When life hands you lemons, make lemonade, right? 
Tainted drinking water kept under wraps 
Many researchers fear public would misunderstand, overreact to disclosure 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23504373
Alex 
10 March 2008 at 23:54
Peter 
It's a lot simpler than that:- 
CO2 is only 0.038% of our atmosphere 
Man-made proportion is about 20% = 0.0076% 
Reducing that by 30% = 0.0023% 
Changing the composition of the atmosphere by this microscopic amount will change nothing.
Brute 
11 March 2008 at 00:28
Yep, definitely flat lines….level, smooth, horizontal, flat. No deviation from horizontal........Flat. 
1. Level and Horizontal: level and horizontal, without any slope. • The flat plains stretch for miles. 
2. Even and Smooth: even and smooth, without any bumps or hollows. • back on the flat road. 
3. Not Curved: not curved inward or outward. • a boat with a flat bottom. 
4. With little Curvature: with relatively little depth or curvature. • a vase with flat sides. 
5. Lying Horizontal: in a horizontal position, parallel with or stretched out on the ground. • plants lying flat after the heavy rain.
Peter Martin 
11 March 2008 at 01:08
Alex, 
Look this is just simple arithmetic ! 
The pre-industrial figure of atmospheric CO2was 280ppm (0.028%) 
Its now approx 385ppm (0.0385%) . 
So the % that is man-made is 
100 x (385-280)/385 % = 27.3% 
27.3% of 0.0385% = 27.3 x 0.0385/100 % = 0.0105% 
So we've changed the composition of the atmosphere by 0.0105% Agreed ? 
I can see where you have got your figure of 0.0076% from. You've just taken 20% (but which is too low) of 0.038%. 
The next figure you've given is 0.0023% which is a 70% reduction not a 30% reduction. I'm not sure why you've included this, but, yes this is exactly the sort of reduction we do need to make to atmospheric CO2 levels, to be really sure that they aren't going to be a problem! 
PS What's the going rate for maths tutors in your part of the world? I think you might owe me a couple of beers at least!
Brute 
11 March 2008 at 01:57
Flater than Flat....Board flat. No upward or downward curve at all. Wow, those are flat trend lines.......
Brute 
11 March 2008 at 02:21
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene 
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/arch/docs/Bond_2001.pdf
Peter Martin 
11 March 2008 at 05:09
Dear Contrarians, 
What you really need to bolster your case, is a decade which is either cooler than the previous decade or at least the same as the previous decade. 
But you've got to go back to the 1940's to be able to claim anything like that. 
What we've noticed are that the 1960's were warmer than the 50's. The 70s were warmer than the 60s. The 80s were warmer than the 70's. The 90s were warmer than the 80s. And so far the 2000s, even with their flatish temperatures, have been warmer than the 90s. 
So, please keep track of the NASA and UK Met office figures and let us all know when that happens. Meanwhile you might want to work on your explanations of why its all due to Cosmic rays or whatever.
Alex 
11 March 2008 at 08:51
Peter 
You'r right it is simple! 
I said reduce BY 30% (not TO) which IS 0.0023! I generally find it helps if you read what is written first, before replying. You also make the incredibly simplistic assumption that ALL of the increase in CO2 is man-made. Incredible. Not one molecule could have increased due to natural causes then? It is precisely this kind of "logic" that undermines and refutes the whole AGW case.
bobclive 
11 March 2008 at 10:19
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859 
UPDATE 
This comparison actually gets a little worse. 
In the figure below, I’ve calculated the average unadjusted temperature for actual cities, rather than places like Snoqualmie Falls. My criterion for inclusion in this calculation is whether the city has a major league sports franchise and includes a variety of mostly small market cities: Milwaukee, Sacramento, Orlando, San Antonio, Cincinnati, San Diego, Seattle, Salt Lake City, New Orleans, plus a couple of larger places: Detroit, Philadelphia, Dallas. To my knowledge, no sports franchises are considering re-location or expansion to Snoqualmie Falls, Hankinson, Pine Bluff or the various other supposedly “urban” sites that dilute the Peterson network. 
In this data set that supposedly shows the following: 
Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. 
Actual cities have a very substantial trend of over 2 deg C per century relative to the rural network - and this assumes that there are no problems with rural network - something that is obviously not true since there are undoubtedly microsite and other problems. At the very end of the graphic, the change levels off - I wonder if that might indicate increased settlement effects at rural sites. 
Figure 2. Comparison of Peterson Sites with Major League Sports Franchises to Rural Network 
Now this doesn’t prove anything one way or the other about other networks - other than there is a need to be wary. However, the notion that Peterson 2003 is a sustainable authority for the IPCC proposition that “rural station trends were almost indistinguishable from series including urban sites” seems increasingly difficult to accept. 
http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/48825/2003305333281076257_r... 
This shows a flat trend from 1900 to the present. 
The obvious thing that the AGWers should have done and most probably did but hid the data as did Mann with his censored bristle cone file, is to separate real rural from actual urban, Steve has done this. 
It looks like the only temperature increase is from the urban heat Island.
Peter Martin 
11 March 2008 at 10:22
Alex, 
If you are in a hole I would suggest that it might be an idea to stop digging. Your maths tutorial fee has just gone up from two beers to three! 
If something initialy costs $76 but then price (to the nearest dollar) is reduced BY 30% the new price is $52 And if it is reduced BY 70% the new price is $23. Right? 
OK But why are you reducing this figure of yours ( 0.0076% ) , and which is too low to start with, by any amount at all ? Is it your subconcious self telling you that these are the sort of % reductions that we need to be looking at? Maybe you have a bipolar personality and the 'other you' is a big Al Gore supporter! 
But, leaving that aside why have you reduced your figure of 0.0076%,
bobclive 
11 March 2008 at 10:38
Could it be that since 1998 the majority of the weather stations have now become urban and because of this the temperature has leveled off, ie if there are very few actual rural sites left to effect the records the true temperature rise will be taken solely from urban stations and that temperature appears to be level.
Peter Martin 
11 March 2008 at 10:38
Bob Clive, 
That Urban Heat Island effect of yours is very pervasive. Not only does it increase the average temperatures in downtown NY, but it has had an effect all the way to Murmansk and , last year, cleared the ice sufficiently well to allow the freighter Kapitan Sviridov to sail all the way to Churchill on Hudsons Bay. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dB11l4-qVo&feature=user
bobclive 
11 March 2008 at 10:41
Look at Steve`s graph , where does CO2 come into play. 
http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/48825/2003305333281076257_r...
bobclive 
11 March 2008 at 10:52
Peter martin, 
I think you will find that all the data for the graphs is exactly the same data used to obtain the global temps you base your arguments of AGW on, the only difference is that the urban sites have been separated from the rural ones.
Admin 
11 March 2008 at 11:27
After a debate lasting a number of months and with well over 1200 comments we've decided to close this particular thread. Many thanks to you all for your contributions. Don't forget to check out Ecopedia for more environmental coverage

####################

Has global warming really stopped?
Mark Lynas
Published 14 January 2008
•	1715 comments
•	Print version
•	Listen
•	RSS
Mark Lynas responds to a controversial article on newstatesman.com which argued global warming has stopped
On 19 December the New Statesman website published an article which, judging by the 633 comments (and counting) received so far, must go down in history as possibly the most controversial ever. Not surprising really – it covered one of the most talked-about issues of our time: climate change. Penned by science writer David Whitehouse, it was guaranteed to get a big response: the article claimed that global warming has ‘stopped’. 
As the New Statesman’s environmental correspondent, I have since been deluged with queries asking if this represents a change of heart by the magazine, which has to date published many editorials steadfastly supporting urgent action to reduce carbon emissions. Why bother doing that if global warming has ‘stopped’, and therefore might have little or nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions, which are clearly rising? 
I’ll deal with this editorial question later. First let’s ask whether Whitehouse is wholly or partially correct in his analysis. To quote: 
"The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly."
I’ll be blunt. Whitehouse got it wrong – completely wrong. The article is based on a very elementary error: a confusion between year-on-year variability and the long-term average. Although CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing each year, no-one ever argued that temperatures would do likewise. Why? Because the planet’s atmosphere is a chaotic system, which expresses a great deal of interannual variability due to the interplay of many complex and interconnected variables. Some years are warmer and cooler than others. 1998, for example, was a very warm year because an El Nino event in the Pacific released a lot of heat from the ocean. 2001, by contrast, was somewhat cooler, though still a long way above the long-term average. 1992 was particularly cool, because of the eruption of a large volcano in the Philippines called Mount Pinatubo. 
‘Climate’ is defined by averaging out all this variability over a longer term period. So you won’t, by definition, see climate change from one year to the next - or even necessarily from one decade to the next. But look at the change in the average over the long term, and the trend is undeniable: the planet is getting hotter. 
Look at the graph below, showing global temperatures over the last 25 years. These are NASA figures, using a global-mean temperature dataset known as GISSTEMP. (Other datasets are available, for example from the UK Met Office. These fluctuate slightly due to varying assumptions and methodology, but show nearly identical trends.) Now imagine you were setting out to write Whitehouse’s article at some point in the past. You could plausibly have written that global warming had ‘stopped’ between 1983 and 1985, between 1990 and 1995, and, if you take the anomalously warm 1998 as the base year, between 1998 and 2004. Note, however, the general direction of the red line over this quarter-century period. Average it out and the trend is clear: up. 

Note also the blue lines, scattered like matchsticks across the graph. These, helpfully added by the scientists at RealClimate.org (from where this graph is copied), partly in response to the Whitehouse article, show 8-year trend lines – what the temperature trend is for every 8-year period covered in the graph. 
You’ll notice that some of the lines, particularly in the earlier part of the period, point downwards. These are the periods when global warming ‘stopped’ for a whole 8 years (on average), in the flawed Whitehouse definition – although, as astute readers will have quickly spotted, the crucial thing is what year you start with. Start with a relatively warm year, and the average of the succeeding eight might trend downwards. In scientific parlance, this is called ‘cherry picking’, and explains how Whitehouse can assert that "since [1998] the global temperature has been flat" – although he is even wrong on this point of fact, because as the graph above shows, 2005 was warmer. 
Note also how none of the 8-year trend lines point downwards in the last decade or so. This illustrates clearly how, far from having ‘stopped’, global warming has actually accelerated in more recent times. Hence the announcement by the World Meteorological Organisation on 13 December, as the Bali climate change meeting was underway, that the decade of 1998-2007 was the “warmest on record”. Whitehouse, and his fellow contrarians, are going to have to do a lot better than this if they want to disprove (or even dispute) the accepted theory of greenhouse warming. 
The New Statesman’s position on climate change
Every qualified scientific body in the world, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science to the Royal Society, agrees unequivocally that global warming is both a reality, and caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. But this doesn’t make them right, of course. Science, in the best Popperian definition, is only tentatively correct, until someone comes along who can disprove the prevailing theory. This leads to a frequent source of confusion, one which is repeated in the Whitehouse article – that because we don’t know everything, therefore we know nothing, and therefore we should do nothing. Using that logic we would close down every hospital in the land. Yes, every scientific fact is falsifiable – but that doesn’t make it wrong. On the contrary, the fact that it can be challenged (and hasn’t been successfully) is what makes it right. 
Bearing all this in mind, what should a magazine like the New Statesman do in its coverage of the climate change issue? Newspapers and magazines have a difficult job of trying, often with limited time and information, to sort out truth from fiction on a daily basis, and communicating this to the public – quite an awesome responsibility when you think about it. Sometimes even a viewpoint which is highly likely to be wrong gets published anyway, because it sparks a lively debate and is therefore interesting. A publication that kept to a monotonous party line on all of the day’s most controversial issues would be very boring indeed. 
However, readers of my column will know that I give contrarians, or sceptics, or deniers (call them what you will) short shrift, and as a close follower of the scientific debate on this subject I can state without doubt that there is no dispute whatsoever within the expert community as to the reality or causes of manmade global warming. But even then, just because all the experts agree doesn’t make them right – it just makes them extremely unlikely to be wrong. That in turn means that if someone begs to disagree, they need to have some very strong grounds for doing so – not misreading a basic graph or advancing silly conspiracy theories about IPCC scientists receiving paycheques from the New World Order, as some of Whitehouse’s respondents do. 
So, a mistaken article reached a flawed conclusion. Intentionally or not, readers were misled, and the good name of the New Statesman has been used all over the internet by climate contrarians seeking to support their entrenched positions. This is regrettable. Good journalism should never exclude legitimate voices from a debate of public interest, but it also needs to distinguish between carefully-checked fact and distorted misrepresentations in complex and divisive areas like this. The magazine’s editorial policy is unchanged: we want to see aggressive action to reduce carbon emissions, and support global calls for planetary temperatures to be stabilised at under two degrees above pre-industrial levels. 
Yes, scientific uncertainties remain in every area of the debate. But consider how high the stakes are here. If the 99% of experts who support the mainstream position are right, then we have to take urgent action to reduce emissions or face some pretty catastrophic consequences. If the 99% are wrong, and the 1% right, we will be making some unnecessary efforts to shift away from fossil fuels, which in any case have lots of other drawbacks and will soon run out. I’d hate to offend anyone here, but that’s what I’d call a no-brainer. 
Post this article to
•	Digg
•	del.icio.us
•	facebook 
•	newsvine
•	NowPublic
•	Reddit
1715 comments from readers
bdhoward 
14 January 2008 at 19:41
This shows a key problem with journalists -- they can easily fall prey to junk science mongers who have an axe to grind (usually funded by corporations or political parties). POGO says "if all else fails analyze the data."
DrColes 
14 January 2008 at 20:23
YES!!!! 
Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. 
http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz
disgusted 
14 January 2008 at 21:43
holy cow what an arrogant approach. you have convinced me to make sure I never let a dime of my money end up in your hands. I wouldn't take out a subscription to this magazine now if my life depended on it.
johnsnow 
14 January 2008 at 21:55
no mr lynas you are wrong - the FACT is that the world has not warmed for the past ten years and the previous twenty it did - Whitehouse is correct. 
Are you really saying that 20 years is a long term climatic effect and ten years is a short term weather effect, as the real climate website is saying. 
The ONLY criticism that can be made of Whitehouse's position is that it will take a few more years to see if the OBSERVED standstil lasts or is followed by a rise or a fall - as Whitehouse says in the article.
d.beck 
14 January 2008 at 23:54
Good ole Dr. Coles is still spewing his lies. 
That list of scientists feel that "it is not economically worth while" to try to stop the heating of the earth through carbon emission reductions", Doc. 
That's quite a different thing. 
Not all of them dispute AGW. Stop confusing people with your lies and spin you piece of &%^$
grantnw 
15 January 2008 at 00:13
let me get this right ... Whitehouse is 'science writer' for the new statesman, and figured global warming had stopped because of an 8 year trend? that reflects poorly on your magazine.
Mr Fnortner 
15 January 2008 at 01:25
The New Statesman is running pretty scared, as can be seen by this shrill, thin, whining defense of shoddy science. Sorry Mark Lynas, it doesn't wash. Readers, look here: http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004. There is more truth available here than you can distill from the tripe above.
docjohn 
15 January 2008 at 01:27
What a load of rubbish Mr Lynas - you set up so many aunt sally's and are so logically inconsistent as to be laughable. 
Whitehouse's excellent article isn't controversial at all - he was merely stating accepted scientific data a published by the Uk govt and that shows with no doubt that the measured temp of the world has been flat for 7 years. he has committed no 'elementary error' at all. 
Given that the recent global warming period is 1980 - present having the past decade showing no temp rise is significant. And who Mr Lynas said that temp should not rise with CO2 increase!!! That's the whole point of the greenhouse effect!!!! You seem to be ditching it in the face of inconvienient data. 
Why do you single out the ten years of no warming as an example of 'year on year variability' and being unimportant and regard the 20 years of warming as climate. You are being inconsistent and are yourself cherry picking. 
You admit we can't tell climate change from one decade to the next - so with two decades of warming and one of a standstill - how can we tell? By your own admission 2 decades of warming is barely enough to tell long term climate trends - so what is the fuss all about? 
The BIG POINT is that the period 2001-2007 is FLAT not chaotic and is too long a period and too consistent to be 'chaotic year on year variability' as you put it AND there has been no big volcanic explosion to cool the planet down in this period. 
There are so many holes, glossed over points, deliberate misreading of data, and logical inconsistencies in your article Mr Lynas that I am incredulous that you regard yourself as an informed writer. Seems to me you are biased and blinkered. You have not demolished any of Whitehouse's reasonable points he made in what I think was a moderate essay - and praise to the New Statesman for publishing it as an antidote to your lack of undestanding of scientific methodology, data and your spin.
Dr Wardlee 
15 January 2008 at 01:35
That graph you show is biased - if you smooth the data with an 8 year period then of course you will dimminish a 7 year flat period at the end of a time series. Also where are the errors on the graph, are they big or small with respect to the rise. I believe they are big therefore diluting your conclusions. 
I liked the Dr Whitehouse article. It was questioning, humble and honest. But yours is arrogant and dogmatic.
BillBroad 
15 January 2008 at 01:40
I'm not convinced by Mr Lynas - I think the Whitehouse article takes it. Someone called the authr 'Dr Lynas' - as far as I can see he has no doctorate - or indeed any academic qualifications beyond a history and politics degree. No wonder he shows he does not understand the methodology of science.
Lawrence Wade 
15 January 2008 at 02:08
Mark Lynas wrote: 
"just because all the experts agree doesn’t make them right – it just makes them extremely unlikely to be wrong." 
What!! What kind of nonsense statement is that? 
Is Mr Lynas really saying that Dr Whitehouse with his pedigree is intentionally misleading people.
ali 
15 January 2008 at 02:51
Here's another nonsense statement from the above article: 
"...because we don’t know everything, therefore we know nothing, and therefore we should do nothing." 
How does that follow? This is nonsense.
Green watcher 
15 January 2008 at 02:58
There is a flaw in your argument Mr lynas. 
the shallowing of the gradient of the trend lines in that graph are due to the cooling effect of the effects of El Chicon and Pinatubo volcanic eruptions- as is clear on the graph. 
According to the IPCC there has been no similar effect seen since then, So what hw have then is an interupted rise and what we have now is a standstill. 
You are comparing apples to oranges Mr Lynas - you are finding what you want to find.
LauraMc 
15 January 2008 at 03:08
Mark Lynas says this statement by David Whitehouse is wrong: 
"The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly." 
Mark Lynas is wrong - he hasn't shown that that staement is wrong in any way. In fact the facts in that statemt are 100% correct. 
Please Mr Lynas, do you homework, give us reason and not inaccuracy.
Brute 
15 January 2008 at 03:41
Mr Lynas, 
Who are you?
hughfalk 
15 January 2008 at 07:57
I think Mr Lynas's article was written in haste. But having read it and Whitehouse's I found much new in Whitehouse's that made me think. 
Is Lynas's defence of what he sees as the issues the best defence that anyone could put up. Are those the best arguments we have - they are obviously dodgy.
stargazer 
15 January 2008 at 08:54
You put an electric heater in a cold (say zero deg.C) room. (forget about any 'nuances'... just lets say the room starts to warm evenly)... you take the temp. of the room a (by remote sensor) every 15 mins. 
After several hours the heater stops working... and a short while later the sensor is switched off (so no more readings are possible)... 
The first scientist looks at the data and says to the other "look the room has warmed". 
The second scientist says "yes but it has cooled down from the highest temp". 
The first scientist looks at the second and says "are you nuts, the room is much warmer than zero where it aught to be". 
The second scientist says "I see what you say, but IN ADDITION to what you said, the room has cooled" 
"No I dont see that at all" says the first scientist. "we need to prove the room has warmed and we have. I'll draw a graph". 
So he does, and it shows the temp. increasing over time, and the last few points on the graph falling. 
"Look" says the second scientist. "I told you the temp went up and then went down a bit"... 
"NO" says the first scientist "the overall trend is UP what are you a denier" 
PS.I was of a mind to subsribe to this mag. but no more!!!!
dobermanmacleod 
15 January 2008 at 09:15
It is too bad that you underestimate the rate of climate change, thinking it is linear, instead of exponential. 
The ocean soaks up over 90% of the heat from global warming. Under those oceans is about 10,000 billion tons of methane hydrate, with more carbon than all the oil, coal, and natural gas. 
That methane trapped inside ice called hydrate is 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2-a sudden release of less than 30 billion tons would be like doubling the CO2 level in the air. 
As the cryosphere (the frozen part of the planet) starts to melt, vast amounts of greenhouse gas will be released, overwhelming any cuts we make. 
Yeah, global warming has stopped-how naive. Read my blog at www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod for information on removing the CO2 from the air using the low cost method of biosequestration.
schiff 
15 January 2008 at 11:05
Am I mistaken - did he actually say that no one said that the earth's temperature will go up as carbon dioxide levels increase! Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. 
Did Mr Lynas actually read Dr Whitehouse's article? 
I also see that he plays a dirty trick by ALMOST implying that Dr Whitehouse has intetionaly misled the public. Mr Lynas also tries to associate him with those who commented on his article who must be paid up denialists. Shame on you Mr Lynas.
Carl Jones 
15 January 2008 at 11:14
So far Mr Lynas you`ve not received a positive comment. 
link 
Hit the link on the page above. 
dobermanmacleod; the Earth has been much warmer than it is today, do you have any historical evidence that methane hydrate has been released at your postulated scale before?
BenArdley 
15 January 2008 at 11:14
Readers misled - good name of the new Statesman used all over the internet by deniers. 
What a pompous, arogant twerp you are. 
The Whitehouse article uncovered something that should be widely known and you haven't shown that it isn't true. I'm afraid that it is you Mr Lynas that is harming the reputation of the New Statesman which was for a brief period enhanced. 
You pontificate about carefully checked fact and distorted misrepresentation when this is exactly what your article is. Seems to me you are long on personal comment and short on confirmed fact yourself.
Nelson 
15 January 2008 at 11:15
Many people fall into the trap of claiming that 'global warming has stopped' without any consideration or understanding of the temperature data and the statistics required to analyse them. 
Small signal, large noise. Two simple facts that guarantee periods of temperature stasis or cooling. Global warming is there, but it's obscured by noise. You can prove this quite easily: 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/ 
It's entertaining to read commentators objecting to Lynas' article. But he's expounding the maths properly, something that Whitehouse failed to do. 
And that makes this article refreshing and humbling. Thank you Marc Lynas and the New Statesman.
Nelson 
15 January 2008 at 11:19
BenArdley, Whitehouse's article was based on amateurish statistical butchery. In one word, it was wrong. 
Shouldn't a retraction have been published?
stargazer 
15 January 2008 at 11:20
New Statesman says " 1998, for example, was a very warm year because an El Nino event in the Pacific released a lot of heat from the ocean." 
And dobermanmacleod says "The ocean soaks up over 90% of the heat from global warming" 
Ah So you are talking about a redistribution of heat then, and so 1998 is not therefore the AGW beloved Hottest year due to warming by Co2 in the atmosphere trapping the heat (as in greenhouse.) yea right 
See this do the math http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm
AlKing 
15 January 2008 at 11:20
I have to agree that Mr Lynas doesn't make his case very well. It is interesting to see that Mr Whitehouse sticks to observed data. because of this I will paraphase galileo in my reply to Mr Lynas and Nelson 
but it is still flat.
Tgallagher 
15 January 2008 at 11:25
For me the bottom line is the observations and we must trust the UK Met Office. If they say that the last 7 years are statistically no different from each other then until the world starts to do something else the world has stopped warming. To me that's a no brainer. It doesn't matter what stastical interpretation or analysis you use - the observations show that there has been no change for the past 7 years. end of argument.
cwood 
15 January 2008 at 11:33
Nelso said that it was amateurish stastical butchery - rubbish. 
It is a public service to point out what the Met office said about the global temperatures staying the same for the past seven years. You may not like it. You may want to wish this inconvienient data way with statistics but seem to be thay are a fact that Nelson or Mr Lynas could not honestly deny. 
For a moment there was a breath of logic and intellectual honesty in the global warming debate with a trained scientist talking about DATA and not rhetoric. But now it seems we are back to the bias and misrepresentation of Mr Lynas who obviously has a vested interest in global warming so I say to him in the absence of a convincing argument that he has failed to make...you would say that wouln't you.
Gareth Evans 
15 January 2008 at 12:05
Mark is exactly right, there are always shorter-term fluctuations in temperature (and weather - as we know all too well in the UK). The argument Whitehouse makes, one that is often made by others, is a nonsense and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the difference between weather and climate. As Mark says, climate is the average of weather (and temperature). No one who wants to be taken seriously on this issue can argue, on the basis of the globally accepted graph of MEASURED DATA above that the world is not warming. The effects of warming are witness to this AVERAGR TREND (Arctic and Antarctic ice melt etc). Those who do not (do not want to) believe that the melt is occurring (even more rapidly than expected) should read the literature - new reports on Arctic and Antarctic ice melt have been published recently. 
Gareth Evans
Robin Guenier 
15 January 2008 at 12:07
I became involved with the thread following Dr Whitehouse’s article for reasons unconnected with climate change. I am neither a denier nor a believer – in fact, I knew no more about the subject than might be expected of a reasonably well-informed person. So I was willing to learn. And I did. One surprise was that, whereas I had expected the intemperate views to be expressed by the deniers or sceptics (“it’s all a hoax”, “a tax raising scam”, etc.), if anything the opposite was the case. That pattern is followed in these two articles: David Whitehouse is quiet and reasoned and Mark Lynas assertive and rather shrill. 
I urge anyone who has not read Dr Whitehouse’s article to do so and to judge for themselves: http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004. 
I’m still neither a denier nor a believer but, if I am to be persuaded that unless mankind takes urgent action we face catastrophic consequences, I suggest that the believers deal with the arguments of the sceptics with rather more respect. Otherwise, only those who are already believers will listen and little will get done.
James Garvey 
15 January 2008 at 12:24
It's difficult to judge Dr. Whitehouse's article without a peek at the references. We have, anyway, always had a division of epistemic labour. Laypeople like us can do little better than listen to the experts unless we've got reason to roll up our sleeves and find out for ourselves. Right now, the experts are calling the evidence for anthropogenic climate change unequivocal. If you want to roll up your sleeves, read the IPCC's stuff for yourself. Click on the Summary for Policy Makers here and make up your own mind: 
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
BritishAirman 
15 January 2008 at 12:35
Please see my briefing today pertaining to 'Deforestation' on MarKat (Scotland). 
http://markatscotland.blogspot.com
Nelson 
15 January 2008 at 13:34
cwood, it seems you still don't understand the point Marc Lynas is making. 
Global temperature data are a noisy scatter superimposed on a small signal. This low signal to noise ratio means you are guaranteed to have periods of cooling or temperature stasis, even though the underlying warming signal is still there. 
It's a fundamental property of the data that you can prove to yourself in about 30 seconds with Excel: 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/ 
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/dead-heat/ 
Take the time to read these posts. They helped me learn a little more statistics, too.
stargazer 
15 January 2008 at 14:17
Gareth Evans.... is wrong.... the antarctic Ice mass is at an all at time high . The world Ice cover 'overall' is also high 
The so call 'acrtic melt' according to some scientists is more than likley to have been due to winds and currents moving the ice to lower latitudes. 
see here for current world ice mass 
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
stargazer 
15 January 2008 at 14:43
and more 
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/latest_antarctic_sea...
ferdWell 
15 January 2008 at 14:57
I don't follow Nelson. Seems that 20 years of rising temperature is significant but ten years of a standstil is 'just what you would expect if the temp was still rising!' that's a very biase way of looking at it and seeing what you want to see. Isn't there the possibility that the data is saying exactly what it is showing us? Seems that obvious though hasn't occured to those who don't want to see the standstil. 
The fundamental point as far as I can see, is that the data would look just the same if the worlds temperature was at a standstill. you can't just dismiss it and say that you would expect a standstill so golbal warming continues. You have no statistical or logical justification for looking at that particu;ar piece of the data and saying you don't like it and it doesn't mean what it says. 
As for references to Whitehouse's article it doesn't take much searching to find these: 
Met Office press release 
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr200... 
It says “2008 is set to be cooler globally than recent years say Met Office and University of East Anglia climate scientists, but is still forecast to be one of the top-ten warmest years.” 
Note bullet point 3; 
The forecast value for 2008 mean temperature is considered indistinguishable from any of the years 2001-7, given the uncertainties in the data. 
In that press release a professor - in exactly the same way as Mark Lynas - deliberately misses the point by saying don't worry global warming hasn't gone away because theis current decade is warmer than pervious ones - ignoring the fact that the data shows it hasn't warmed for 7 years. 
the Us National Climatic Data Centre says the same; 
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/monitoring.html 
As a scientist i am dismayed by the lack of scientific rigour being displayed here, especially in the singling out of acceptable and non-acceptable data according to the prejudices oof the selector. 
I have seen such people called - in the perjorative terminology of the debate that Mark Lynas seems to like - data deniers. the data is right in front of them but they don't want to see it. 
Some people, some on this list and Mark Lynas will not recognise that there is anyway to disprove the Co2 - temperature linkage - they say that no matter what the temperature does its still evidence of global warming! That's not science and you can't argue with that. 
Seven flat years is a statistical blip - that's a remote possibility but it's much more likely to be exactly what it implies. If it goes on for another few years that argument will go away.
Brute 
15 January 2008 at 15:43
Stargazer, 
After viewing the ice mass satellite images, I’m completely convinced. 
What is going on here? Why is the media blatantly publishing this one sided argument forecasting the imminent demise of the planet if we don’t adhere to their “sacrifices”? Everything that they’ve published is untrue. Polar bears are not dying, ice caps are not melting, hurricane activity has not increased and sea levels are not rising.
gnuneo 
15 January 2008 at 15:45
ignoring both articles (a brave position), here are the simple facts: 
pollution from carbon fuels is destroying our environment, and is also running out rapidly, as the excellent documentary "end of suburbia" argues quite succinctly (by both a senior member of the 'energy taskforce' set up by cheney, and also the Iranian minister for energy in the documentary). 
we therefore, if we are indeed a rational species, should already be looking to shift to sustainable energy sources. 
and also to try to ensure our children have a decent environment. 
it is also a fact, that being wrong on AGW will simply mean we have converted earlier than 'necessary', yet being right will prevent catastrophic effects, some of which will go through anyway, but we will be able to cut back on later ones. 
it is also a fact that GAIA is an extraordinarily complex system that we are only just beginning to understand through chaos modelling, and will undoubtedly have some surprises - both pleasant and otherwise - as our environment continues to adapt to the ***undeniable*** chemical changes we are creating. 
whilst much AGWists are definitely to be categorised as 'Malthusian', most of the sceptics can also be called 'pig-headed deniers' if you will accept my apologies for the term (and i am guessing most of you won't). 
and one reason for the 'shrillness' of this article is that for decades there has been a solid body of environmentalist scientists who have been warning of AGW, and being derided by many scientists who have their bills paid for by the oil-lobby - who were entirely uninterested in the actual studies, and more with their pension plans - scientists as individuals are no better than the 'average guy' in this respect. 
fortunately or unfortunately? 
nonetheless, the fact remains that the measures that are being demanded by the environmentalists will be required anyway, and if they had been taken seriously earlier we would not now be facing an enormous global building program for nukes - with all the horrors that will bring, in myriads of ways. 
whether or not AGW is serious (any chemist who claims there is no effect from a chemical output into our environment is someone who needs to go back to nursery school, and use their diploma as a crayon scrap-book), the measures have to be implemented anyway, so this entire argument is really moot - and one finds oneself wondering why the issue raises such - almost religious - fervour, especially from the conspiracists, who appear to have decided that it is all a corporate scam, every single bit of evidence regarding corporate behaviour to the contrary! 
btw, just to illustrate the 'scam fallacy', if i am holding your daughter hostage, and demand $500,000 for her continued existence, and a corrupt police negotiator ups that to $1,000,000 to rake of the rest himself, does that mean that your daughters life is not in real peril? 
being scammed or not, the fact is that our climate IS warming up *dramatically* (faster than any period we have discovered in the geological record), as measured over a scale of centuries or millennia, and it would require an ostrich to ignore the evidence of retreating mountain glaciers, and what this means for much of mankind - and whether it is a mere synchronicity that such warming is coincidental with our pumping out certain chemicals that clearly have exactly this effect (of capturing heat, just like raised CO2 levels in greenhouses etc), we do still need to act upon the effects this has - as a (disgustingly rare) honest poster pointed out, those scientists who left the IPCC group to become sceptics are actually arguing that we cannot change the effects already in the works - however we *can* regard the switch to sustainable energy as necessary anyway (and local based energy production will be far more efficient and stable, and far less open to large scale disasters such as hurricanes knocking out centralised production/distribution), and we will also have to work to mitigate the worst effects that climate change will have - whether or not it is man-made. 
so from whence comes all this bile? 
what the sceptics should be doing, is following the various projects (such as carbon annulling forests), and ensuring they are NOT run as scams but as serious environmental projects - they should be overseeing and keeping accountable those govt/supra-govt bodies/corporations they are so (rightly) sceptical of, and recognise that the Petroleum Age is coming to an end. 
it is, simply, Time for a Change.
Brute 
15 January 2008 at 15:50
gnuneo, 
So, are you admitting that there is no evidence that the planet is "doomed" because of Global Warming and that this was all a carefuly planned ruse to have everyone conserve and seek out alternate fuel sources? It simply "time for a change" and you and a handful of others have decided that for me?
Gareth Evans 
15 January 2008 at 15:57
Stargazer, below are the FACTS on Antarctic ice melt. 
Gareth Evans 
Loss of Antarctic ice has soared by 75 per cent in just 10 years 
Parts of the ice sheets covering Antarctica are melting faster than predicted, with the net loss of ice probably accelerating in recent years because of global warming. A satellite survey between 1996 and 2006 found that the net loss of ice from Antarctica rose by about 75 per cent as the movement of glaciers towards the sea speeded up. Scientists estimate that that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet lost about 132 billion tons of ice in 2006, compared with a loss of 83 billion tons in 1996. In addition, the Antarctic peninsula lost about 60 billion tons of ice in 2006. 
"To put these figures into perspective, 4 billion tons of ice is enough to provide drinking water for the whole UK population for one year," said Professor Jonathan Bamber, of the University of Bristol. "We think the glaciers of the Antarctic are moving faster to the sea. The computer models of future sea-level rise have not really taken this into account." 
Sea levels are estimated to have risen by 1.8mm a year on average during the 20th century, but data from the past decade or so suggest that the average rise is now about 3.4 mm per year. 
Computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predict that sea levels will rise by no more than about 50cm by 2100, are based largely on the stability of the Antarctic ice sheets. But many scientists now believe this forecast is too restrained. "I agree with a number of scientists who feel the IPCC is likely to have underestimated the upper bound of predicted sea-level rise by the end of the century – 50 cm is probably too conservative," Professor Bamber added. 
There are two key factors in estimating the net loss of Antarctic ice. The first is the flow of glaciers towards the sea; the second is the build-up of snow over the vast landmass of the frozen continent. The IPCC models imply that global warming will increase the moisture content of the atmosphere and so may actually increase snowfall over Antarctica, much of which is too cold to be affected by rising global temperatures. This would suggest a net build-up of ice. However, Professor Bamber believes the IPCC's models have not taken into account the complex, dynamic interaction between the ocean and the ice shelves of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula, which are warmer than East Antarctica. 
Eric Rignot, who led the latest study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, said the findings indicated a rapid loss of ice to the sea rather than a net gain. "We have determined that the loss is increasing with time, quite rapidly at 75 per cent in ten years," Dr Rignot said. "We have also established that most of this loss, if not its entirety, is caused by glacier acceleration. The IPCC focussed on the surface mass balance component. We find this component is not indicative of the true mass balance." 
The acceleration in ice loss over the past 10 years could increase in coming decades, he added. "As some of these glaciers reach deeper beds, their speeds could double or triple, in which case the contribution to sea-level rise from Antarctica could increase quite significantly beyond what it is now. Many people suspect Antarctic ice to be immune from changes. We are finding this is not the case. 
"The future is the big question. The potential exists for ice speed to increase two or three times, which will result in a doubling of the mass deficit from Antarctica."
Gareth Evans 
15 January 2008 at 16:09
And Stargazer - see the link below for info on UNPRECEDENTED Arctic Ice melt and read about glacier melt in China. Now explain to this audience why this ice melt is occurring around the world (if it is not because of global warming). 
Gareth Evans 
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003464/index.h... 
Global warming causing China's glaciers to melt quickly 
BEIJING (AFP) — Global warming has caused some of China's glaciers -- a source for many of Asia's greatest rivers -- to have melted by more than 18 percent over the past five years, state media reported Friday. 
A survey of nearly 20,000 square kilometres (8,000 square miles) of China's glaciers showed they were on average 7.4 percent smaller than five years ago a government-funded survey reports. 
A glacier along the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra River on the Tibetan plateau had shrunk by more than 18 percent, the survey found. 
Two other glacial areas in China's far northwest Xinjiang region had also melted by more than 18 percent. 
"Global warming is causing grave loss to glaciers and it has become a burning need to monitor changes of glacial reserves," the researchers from the China Academy of Sciences said as they released their findings. 
The survey, covering roughly one third of China's glaciers, was conducted to trace the impacts of global warming. 
China's glaciers, in the west of the country, feed many of Asia's greatest rivers, including the Yangtze, Mekong, Yellow and Ganges, as well as the Brahmaputra. 
In the past four decades, China's glaciers shrank by 3,248 square kilometres, or 5.5 percent since the 1960s, according to previous studies published in the state-run press. 
One of China's top glaciologists, Yao Tangdong, warned last year of an "ecological catastrophe" in Tibet because of global warming. 
He said most glaciers in the region could melt away by 2100.
Mr Fnortner 
15 January 2008 at 16:22
My dear gnuneo, most everything that happens on this earth is, or involves, a chemical reaction of one sort or another. While most of us would probably not actually use our chemistry diplomas as coloring books (though some should probably line their canary cages for all the good they seem to be doing), not all chemical reaction yields are polluting. 
As far as the kidnapped daughter scenario, there is something to be said for extracting one's loved one at almost any cost. Do read O'Henry's "The Ransom of Red Chief" for another way of looking at the topic, though: http://www.literaturecollection.com/a/o_henry/3/ 
. 
. 
. 
Regarding the preponderance of eminent authority that the global warming scientists continually bring to bear on this matter in an attempt to crush the skeptics, I might remind them that one among you sneered at the prospect of hope in the Deity (see http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004, Peter Martin, 12 January 2008). Now, with millions of eminent theologians, learned doctors and scholars of every stripe and faith among them; and billions of believers who can testify to the salutary blessings and life changes wrought by the Creator over the centuries, how is it possible that any scientist would dare face the authority of such a contingent and enormity of a tsunami of evidence and say, "I don't believe"? 
But when the critic says, what's with this global warming thing coming off track? the scientist says, we are knowledgeable and many, and you are not, so believe us, it's still on track. (Would you buy a used car from these people?)
stargazer 
15 January 2008 at 17:13
Gareth Evans said 
"Loss of Antarctic ice has soared by 75 per cent in just 10 years " 
How... how... has it melted, the temp Never gets much above minus 35C
Nelson 
15 January 2008 at 17:20
'Never gets much above minus 35C' Over the entire antarctic...?
Nelson 
15 January 2008 at 17:24
ferdWell, 
'Isn't there the possibility that the data is saying exactly what it is showing us?' 
Yes there is. It's also possible that the underlying warming trend could have doubled since 2000 - but the New Statesman shouldn't publish an article claiming so, just as it shouldn't have published Whitehouse's.
Brute 
15 January 2008 at 17:41
Mr Fnortner, 
The Wheels are falling off of the Global Warming used car and not a moment too soon 
Mr. Evans, 
Glaciers are growing as well as melting. That’s what glaciers do. You are being duped, hoodwinked, lied to. 
Mont Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink? 
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says in their recent 2007 Summary for Policymakers “Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise.” Someone in Europe missed the memo on this subject as a recent article has appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research entitled “Very high-elevation Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th century climate change.” To say the least, we at World Climate Report were interested in what the authors had to say. 
The research was conducted by six scientists from leading agencies and departments in France and Switzerland that deal with hydrology and glaciology. Before you see the title of the article and immediately suspect some conspiracy funded by European coal companies, be aware that the research was funded by Observatoire des Sciences de l’Univers de Grenoble (OSUG), the European Programs ALPCLIM and CARBOSOL, and by the city of Chamonix Mont-Blanc. Given the title of the article, we wonder if the six scientists will ever be funded again by any European agencies. 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/06/26/mont-... 
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968 
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ 
http://www.climateaudit.org/
gnuneo 
15 January 2008 at 21:09
"gnuneo, 
So, are you admitting that there is no evidence that the planet is "doomed" because of Global Warming and that this was all a carefuly planned ruse to have everyone conserve and seek out alternate fuel sources? It simply "time for a change" and you and a handful of others have decided that for me?" 
brute: i can tell you are entirely uninterested in finding a balanced and nuanced agreement to this, your entire attitude reeks of someone as fundamentalist as any Grand Inquisitor. 
please open your mind to the possibility that both extremes of the debate are somewhat wrong, and reread my post. 
i clearly "admit" nothing, i am merely attempting to find a common ground - your position is that *only* your position is correct, and that we should steam on regardless, as though there is not a wider debate about pollution, sustainability, and non-limitless carbon based resources. 
you then use 'science' in order to shore up your already decided mind, a tactic quite clear as you entirely discount the possibility that the 90%+ of the rest of the scientific community may actually have a point - instead you (like every good fundamentalist, as aldous huxley argues well in his 'eyeless in gaza') then attempt to paint all those who disagree with you as either fools, fanatics or corrupt. 
fanaticism always gives itself away, because it rejects all positions short of its own, and attempts to paint everything into black/white, the mark of a damaged or diseased mind. 
what i was *actually* saying, was that it really doesn't matter - the entire energy basis for our societies is naturally running out, and we need to shift over to sustainables anyway - unless you can think of a process where we can create millions of barrels of oil, using less energy than we put in. 
no? 
thought not. 
so why the religious conviction that no change is necessary? You are exactly the kind of person who would still be huddled in trees, attempting to organise the tribe against the new ideas of using fire to cook food. 
mr fortner: your link to the NS article unfortunately fails, and even a search of "peter martin" does not turn anything up, can you clarify? 
and i am aware that not ALL human activities can be considered 'pollution', nor indeed that the effects of even pollution are to be negative upon human activities. 
indeed, were we to be starting a colony upon Mars, as Kim Stanley Robinson points out in his fantastic Mars trilogy: 
link. 
then we would regard CO2 and other GW gasses as a godsend. 
however - we live on Earth, and here upon our green and blue pleasant globe, more heating will inevitably produce more blue and less green - not a pretty picture whilst we are also facing desertification from the so-called Green Revolutions draining of the continental water tables. 
environmentalists have been warning us for well over half a century about the continuation of certain policies, and some of them are now in the apparent 'sceptic camp' - but they are warning more about corrupt programs, and corrupt govts, and whether it is still possible to be thinking (and saying) we can still turn back AGW, when it is clear to them (they perceive) that matters are now too far, and such messages are ignoring the very real dangers we face - inevitably - and arguing about using low-energy bulbs is simply not going to cut it. They are both right - and wrong. 
we are still going to keep going, and it is just straight common sense to cut down our energy use as much as possible - it is information exchange that determines a societies evolution, not the amount of energy used and consumed, and everything we can do to evolve our economies to be more efficient is following nature in its own evolutionary patterns. 
perhaps AGW is indeed a *complete* scam (which is unbelievably unlikely, when you consider it rationally, and follow the arguments that lead back to well before the 50s), but even so, if changing just our light bulbs would remove the need for say just one more nuclear plant - then is that not a worthwhile change? 
look at the fanatics (like brute) on the sceptic side, as well as the Malthusians on the AGW side - can you really beleive that such a widespread consensus across virtually every physical science field is possible to have been manufactured? Have you considered the scale of that proposal? 
it would be simply staggering, this is not a case of the US/UK govt deliberately lying about 'yellow cake' and informing us we are not worthy to see the actual data but we have to trust them anyway, this is an overwhelming avalanche of data and analysis that has slowly overturned the *really* corrupt corporations and govts message that "All Is Well, Remain Asleep, Purchase, Do Not Question". 
even now, we can see the corporations *using* the evidence to push their own agendas, such as the UK govts forcing through of Nuclear without even investing the amount spent on just 'consultancy' about the proposed nuclear power upon actual building sustainables! 
the US govt has been burying its warnings from its own environmental scientists for *decades* - and especially under Bush - scientists many of whom lost their positions and grants because they wouldn't shut-up about what they saw happening. 
all this is forgotten in the sudden rush of 'conspiracy-sceptics', that literal generations of honest, frantically worried scientists who lost everything due to their trying to warn the general public and Govts, these were not people basking in some fictional multi-billion dollar research cushy existence. 
i... words fail. I personally have nothing to gain whatsoever from my support for the environmentalist movement, except a belief that i should try to leave a better world for my children and grandchildren, and unlike so many, i have been tentatively following the environmentalist struggles since the 80s, when through Sci-Fi i learned that these debates were going on, i have not come to the debate through the conspiracy web-sites and programs, who only look back just a couple of years, and imagine that al gore is somehow a 'grand-daddy' of the environmentalists, when actually he is just the upstart great-grand-child, managing to make money off the same message that so many hundreds of dedicated environmentalists have lost their livelihoods, careers, reputations and even sometimes lives to bring to a wider audience. 
i have no respect for idiots like bruce, who have no knowledge of the history of the struggle, and beleive it is all cooked up in the last few years to scam money and freedoms from the tax-payer and citizenry. 
we have tended to agree on other issues, i hope my words can at least make you pause and consider. 
Remember that i am NOT saying that govts/corps are not scamming scamming us - i am saying however that this argument goes back far further than some cooked up plot on conspiracy sites, as some of the fanatics are trying to claim. 
i will now read your linked story. 
if you have read all this, thank you.
bobclive 
15 January 2008 at 21:11
From The Times 
January 14, 2008 
Antarctic is losing ice ‘nearly twice as fast as TEN years ago, yet only 5 months earlier Saturday, August 4, 2007 Antarctic ice grows to record levels since 1979, it appears the new study is again CHERRY PICKING. 
link 1 
ITN attempts to link man-made CO2 emissions with the claim that the Antarctic's ice is 'disappearing' news at ten. 
link 2 
(USHCN) station from 1930-2005 
Hot Springs' mean annual temperature has cooled by 1.26 degrees. 
link 3 
Carbon emisions don`t cause global warming. 
link 4 
Climate Change Science a full explanation of the true facts with links. 
link 5
willpeter 
15 January 2008 at 21:34
Mark Lynas, 
You are not telling us the truth. On this website you say you were 'deluged' with emails about the Dr Whitehouse article. 
On your (not working) website marklynas.org you say you had several. 
That's about as reliable and accurate as the other things you have to say.
pianoguy 
15 January 2008 at 21:34
Mountain Pine Beetles unaware that global warming has ceased: 
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/15/beetle-inf... 
Obviously they need to keep on top of the latest publications.
Mr Fnortner 
15 January 2008 at 22:31
gnuneo and others, sorry about the wild goose chase. It looks like a comma got included in the link http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004 to my point about religionists en masse. You know us Luddites. We're all thumbs when it comes to things modern, like these bloody letters atop springy sticks you folks write with nowadays.
gnuneo 
15 January 2008 at 23:08
Mr Fortner: after a little searching, i now understand your point. 
i do however have a reply, i don't know if it will 'satisfy' you, but i can but try. 
physical scientists measure physical processes, and in this field i would *tend* to rely upon them, especially if there is overwhelming consensus upon such a physical, and physically measured process. 
however, on a matter of values, or in the example you used spiritual process, then i would be far more sceptical of their claims - if it cannot be physically measured, then their claims on the matter are as valid as any other layperson. 
is this not common sense? An overwhelming majority of psychotherapists could be convinced that the Earth is flat, but as this is not their field i would be sceptical. Social scientists may have overwhelming evidence that human actions are at least in part caused by human values - this is their field, and i would tend to respect that - if however they argued that water boiled at 50oC, then i will be more sceptical, as their training and 'expertise' does not lie in that direction. 
would this answer your point? (Which btw is a very valid one, as far too often these physical scientists regard themselves as mini-Gods, followers of the Pope Popper who is Infallible and Universal.) 
but... on the physical side of science - you can see where i'm going, right? ;)
gnuneo 
15 January 2008 at 23:17
btw, that story is excellent, many thanks!
Nelson 
15 January 2008 at 23:46
Brute, perhaps you might respond on this thread. The paper you link to about glaciers: do you think there's a reason they included the clear qualifier 'very high-elevation' in the title? 
Because if you read the abstract, you find the following sentence: 'Surface ablation is negligible for these high-elevation areas'. It's so cold at these altitudes that melting and evaporation don't determine mass balance, snow accumulation does. You don't expect them to shrink in a warming world (yet). 
You should be careful when someone cites a paper. Sometimes it doesn't support their argument.
Nelson 
15 January 2008 at 23:52
The paper itself goes into more detail: 
'The sensitivity of glacier mass balances to climate change is widely recognised' 
'studies show that glaciated areas below 3000 m a.s.l. have been strongly affected, especially 
over the last two decades'
bjk 
16 January 2008 at 00:07
I think a few words about Mr Lynas are in order given his uninformed and personal attack on Dr Whitehouse's integrity. 
Mr lynas of course was the idiot who thrust a pie in the face of Bjorn Lomborg at a bookshop in Oxford because he didn't like what Lomborg had to say about global warming. Given his writings for the New Statesman that must surely mark the high water mark of his contributions to the environmental movement. 
So will we now expect that he will bung a cuatard pie in the face of Dr Whitehouse? 
the mans an idiot and it does not reflect well on the New Statesman that he is their environmental 'correspondent.'
PennyWr 
16 January 2008 at 00:18
Isn't Mark Lynas one of those that believes (contrary to any real evidence) that we are on the verge of a runnaway greenhouse effect that will engulf us all. If so then he has changed his tune in the above article and no wonder he doesn't like the fact that the world has not warmed in 7 years - he has a vested interest in carastrophism and is obviously an extremist. 
Should we take his comments seriously?
Mr Fnortner 
16 January 2008 at 00:51
This has been a far more jolly thread than the one following Dr. Whitehouse's article. Perhaps we are all tired. Or maybe Mr. Lynas's absurdity is just so blasted hard to follow with anything resembling decorum. 
gnuneo, I am pleased you found Red Chief fun. As an engineer, practiced at being disciplined with observations, analysis, computations, projections, conclusions, and the like, I would much rather have my scientists and engineers boring and stuffy and their science dead-on accurate, than to have them colorful and their science wobbly. 
Throughout this global warming debate (?) over the past several years I have seen primarily grandstanding and politics and little in the way of sincere, humble research. Al Gore, who hasn't done an honest day's work in his life, cobbled together a pastiche of smokestacks, polar bears, and ice bergs and grabbed a Nobel Peace Prize. We know he's no scientist, but the risk is that his fraud will taint the perceptions of honest work of others. Linus Pauling (for example) must be rolling over in his grave. 
My reference to religion versus science was to point out the parallels between the efforts to use a count of the number of authorities as a basis for credibility. Yes, pure science deals in physical rather than metaphysical phenomena. However, until mechanisms are clearly and unambiguously understood in either realm, they are indistinguishable from magic (thanks to A. C. Clarke for the turn of phrase). 
More later.
Brute 
16 January 2008 at 01:29
Miss. Gnuneo, 
Such emotion and I’m the fanatic? Yellow cake Uranium conspiracy? Maybe you should review your post (and ingest a Seconal/ Quinalbarbitone). So fragile…..Get a hold of yourself; put on your big girl panties. What you fail to realize is that Environmentalism is your “religion” complete with doomsday scenarios (global warming), sinful behavior (failing to recycle), the one true God (Mother Earth), evil satanic figures (me and other skeptics), a Messiah (Al Gore), and various other Prophets, Saints and Martyrs. Think about that. 
History of struggle? What the hell are you talking about, African Slavery? Anti-Semitism? Feminism? The right to vote? We’re discussing the Global Warming theory! 
Society has advocated many “alternate” forms of energy all denounced by the Environmental Lobby. What is it that you want? 
Nuclear: Radiation 
Solar: Too expensive, Too “Unatural” 
Clean Coal: Too Dirty 
Oil: Too Dirty 
Hydroelectric: Disrupts Fish Spawning 
Off Shore Wind Farms: Ted Kennedy can see it from his beachfront mansion/kills birds. 
You are incorrect about inexpensive available oil. There is plenty of oil in Alaska and offshore but the Environmental Lobby opposes utilizing it. 
You are correct, scientists have been warning us for years; however, it has been over one-hundred fifty years. I suppose the “scientists” are correct this time. I’m sorry, but this time the burden of proof is on the accuser and it will have to be proven beyond any doubt. 
Headlines: 
Here is a quote from Newsweek magazine: 
“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.” 
A headline in the New York Times reads: “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output.” Here is a quote from Time Magazine: 
“As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.” 
All of this sounds very ominous. That is, until you realize that the three quotes I just read were from articles in 1975 editions of Newsweek Magazine and The New York Times, and Time Magazine in 1974. 
link 
They weren’t referring to global warming; they were warning of a coming ice age. 
Let me repeat, all three of those quotes were published in the 1970’s and warned of a coming ice age. 
In addition to global cooling fears, Time Magazine has also reported on global warming. Here is an example: 
“[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.” 
Before you think that this is just another example of the media promoting Vice President Gore’s movie, you need to know that the quote I just read you from Time Magazine was not a recent quote; it was from January 2, 1939. 
Time Magazine in 1951 pointed to receding permafrost in Russia as proof that the planet was warming. 
In 1952, the New York Times noted that the “trump card” of global warming “has been the melting glaciers.” 
Here is a quote from the New York Times reporting on fears of an approaching ice age. 
“Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.” 
That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times. 
Let me repeat. 1895, not 1995. 
The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: “Ice Age Coming Here.” 
By the 1930’s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: 
“America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933. The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. 
An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: 
“Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.” The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be “wiped out” and Switzerland would be “entirely obliterated.” 
A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.” 
The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that “A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable.” These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don’t they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president’s brand of climate alarmism. 
After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today’s voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom. 
Much of the 100-year media history on climate change that I have documented here today can be found in a publication titled “Fire and Ice” from the Business and Media Institute. 
link 2 
Brute 
16 January 2008 at 01:48
Come on Nelson.....now we are distinguishing between high altitude and low altitude glaciers. The man said all of the glaciers are melting. I've provided examples of areas where glaciers are growing. Is this one of your "nuances"? Now we have caveats because field evidence doesn't support your notion? 
By the way, when were these glaciers formed? Was it during the last ice age? 10,000 years ago? Do you expect that the temperature of the earth may have fluctuated in the last 10,000 years once or twice? 
How many glaciers has Al Gore checked; what percentage? The man said that Greenland ice is melting; Stargazer or Mr. Clive provided evidence that it's thickening. Antarctica is getting colder and accumulating mass. The polar bears are fine....The beach houses are fine....come on. 
Have you seriously given any thought that your theory could be wrong? That the Earth's temperature may be more profoundly effected/affected by the ENORMOUS NUCLEAR FURNACE AT THE MIDDLE OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM? I know, I wrote that last thread; I'm tired. 
Here’s a glacier in Chile that’s growing because it’s “getting warmer”………….Please……. 
link 
Sven 
16 January 2008 at 07:03
I think this article is really revealing. An activist (as his own introduction tells us) environment editor who got his day of fame by thowing a pie into Lomborg's face has to rush in, appologise on behalf of the magazine and state clearly the official stance of the magazine on this scientific issue. What other fields of science does The New Statesman have official views on? What is the magazine's official standpoint on Newton, quantum physics or false memory?! We've come to the point where everybody is running scared and must swear they are on the "right side" or risk being cursed and demonised. I can only imagine what kind of threats The New Statesman received because of it's courage. But don't worry, the ranks are in order again... And the only thing that is supposed to be proving the activist's point is that his fellow activists from realclimate have come up, in a panicky rush, with an alternative graph to Met Office's?! Shame on you! And shame on The New Statesman for having a religious and extremist activist as their environment editor.
KeithBond 
16 January 2008 at 07:53
Well said Sven. 
What started out as enlightening with Dr Whitehouse's excellent questioning article has now become a dogmatic, intolerant rant from an 'activist' whose claim to fame is custard pie throwing instead of debate. 
This does not reflect well on the New Statesman.
nerne 
16 January 2008 at 08:18
Go back to the graph, sceptics. Point out where it is wrong or providing a false picture.,because that upward trend looks pretty convincing to me, Back up your criticism with links to real scientific data showing global warming has stopped and you might start getting somewhere.
stargazer 
16 January 2008 at 08:53
Nerne ... YOU are missing the point. I am re posting this just for you because it illustrates what Dr Whitehouse is saying and what us some of us also get. realclimate's graph showing little stick like trend lines is a smoke screen.... The worlds temp has over several years come down...And NO one can say for shure what it will do next, the BEST anyone can offer is that it MIGHT go up again. 
You put an electric heater in a cold (say zero deg.C) room. (forget about any 'nuances'... just lets say the room starts to warm evenly)... you take the temp. of the room a (by remote sensor) every 15 mins. 
After several hours the heater stops working... and a short while later the sensor is switched off (so no more readings are possible)... 
The first scientist looks at the data and says to the other "look the room has warmed". 
The second scientist says "yes but it has cooled down from the highest temp". 
The first scientist looks at the second and says "are you nuts, the room is much warmer than zero where it aught to be". 
The second scientist says "I see what you say, but IN ADDITION to what you said, the room has cooled" 
"No I dont see that at all" says the first scientist. "we need to prove the room has warmed and we have. I'll draw a graph". 
So he does, and it shows the temp. increasing over time, and the last few points on the graph falling. 
"Look" says the second scientist. "I told you the temp went up and then went down a bit"... 
"NO" says the first scientist "the overall trend is UP what are you a denier" 
PS.I was of a mind to subsribe to this mag. but no more!!!!
Colonel Blimp 
16 January 2008 at 10:33
Global warming? Not from where I'm sitting young sir, damn you. Blimp Hall's not much better than an ice house. I'm freezing the family jewels off - and that's despite my modest staff of five servants standing in a semi-circle blowing on me! Thanks to them my hand has unlocked - hence my being able to pen this missive despite the fact I can barely keep a grip on my quill because it's so damnably cold. God I miss India.
Sven 
16 January 2008 at 10:33
Sorry for the ad hominem, Mark, btw., I really hate this approach in a debate, but I could not help it, it really looks ridiculous. About the graph - as I understand, the Met Office has been using a 5 year average (blue line) and as this did not fit the realclimate view, they came up with an alternative 8-year average as the standstill visible from Met Office data is for the last 7-8 years? Or am I wrong? 
Here the Met Office charts again: 
link 1 
as well as BBC figures based on their data: 
link 2 
Whatever the answer - as said, nobody knows what's going to happen, maybe it will start going up again, but the Met Office information is unequivocal (to use the IPCC language) and Dr. Whitehouse had every right to raise a question. I think that the only relevant big question and criticism that I have seen in the debate is that there have been other stops and declines that are also visible on the Met Office chart - around 1980 and 1990. So it might be the same thing again. It will probably be clear in a few years. If agenda driven "scientists" will not start fixing the hard data to suite their views, that is, of course :) But the method that realclimate and Mr. Lynas are using does not seem fair.
Colonel Blimp 
16 January 2008 at 10:33
Sorry, I meant to say 'God I miss Miss India'. She was a lovely girl
jwebster 
16 January 2008 at 10:34
Putting the science aside for one minute, let's think about risk management: 
If you're sitting enjoying a nice meal with your children and a majority of the waiting staff tell you there is a bomb in the restaurant and will you please leave. Some of the waiters seem unsure if there is a bomb and some strenuously deny there is any bomb at all. What will you do?
Colonel Blimp 
16 January 2008 at 10:36
Warm too!
Nelson 
16 January 2008 at 11:31
'Here’s a glacier in Chile that’s growing because it’s “getting warmer”' 
Where does it state in the IPCC report that 'all glaciers should be shrinking'? They're not expected to. Changes in precipitation patterns will, shockingly, encourage some to grow. And yet you still find people on blogs linking to papers like that above with the triumphalist cry 'Where's your global warming now, warmista!' 
Sven, you obviously haven't yet grasped the consequences of a small signal to noise ratio. 
From first principles again, then. 
1) The warming trend in global temperature data is subtle, much smaller than interannual variation (noise in a chaotic system). 
2) This has the inevitable mathematical consequence that any analysis of short periods of data will be dominated by noise (as Mark's linked Realclimate graph shows: look at the variation in 8-year means, although tellingly not over the last decade...). 
3) Why publish meaningless articles about data noise? 
But for argument's sake let's continue with shoddy short-term analysis. What artefacts might we see? One obvious possibility is cooling or stasis (cf Whitehouse). But noise operates in both directions, so imagine the fuss if it suggested massively amplified warming since 2000. 
Would you still dispute that the analysis had been shoddy then?
Sven 
16 January 2008 at 11:44
Nelson 
Your questions are not to me but Met Office, damn it! It's them who publish "meaningless articles about data noise". But we've been through this before - it's not something that would convince you because it contradicts your firm belief... 
I've said before - I, for one, do not hold strong beliefs one way or the other, and if the chart would have shown amplified warming since 2000, of course I would buy this. It's hard data from most convincing scientists, not "activists" or believers. 
As to the glaciers and other stuff, this seems to be a side show as the real issue is what the Met Office data has shown us and did Dr. Whitehouse have a good enough ground to ask his question. I think he did.
Colonel Blimp 
16 January 2008 at 11:58
And a really marvellous cook!
Sven 
16 January 2008 at 11:58
Here is, btw., a comprehensive (and long) overview of the Met Office calculation algorithm 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf
sonicdeathmonkey 
16 January 2008 at 12:34
New Statesman should be ashamed of giving Whitehouse a podium for his ignorance. Why do 'science writers' still try to argue against the science? 
NS editorial policy should be given a kick in the right direction- no more crap articles like Whitehouse's unless the conclusions of the article have been agreed by at least two independent climate scientists (people with fellowships!- Not just some grotty postgrad student or lobbyist!).
Colonel Blimp 
16 January 2008 at 12:58
If I hadn't got cold feet she might never have left. Blasted heating.
Sven 
16 January 2008 at 13:54
And, Nelson, because of your strong faith, I think a more appropriate question would be: 
Would YOU then still insist that the analysis had been shoddy then?
Brute 
16 January 2008 at 14:23
Every generation has its climate hysteria media blitz. Coincidentally, they all correspond to increased solar activity. Thanks to Mr. Clive for posting this earlier. 
link 1 
Also, these reasonable scientists seem to have a solution to this problem. I suppose every little bit helps………………. 
link 2 
Kangaroo farts could ease global warming 
December 06, 2007 11:56am 
AUSTRALIAN scientists are trying to give kangaroo-style stomachs to cattle and sheep in a bid to cut the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, researchers say. 
Thanks to special bacteria in their stomachs, kangaroo flatulence contains no methane and scientists want to transfer that bacteria to cattle and sheep who emit large quantities of the harmful gas. While the usual image of greenhouse gas pollution is a billowing smokestack pushing out carbon dioxide, livestock passing wind contribute a surprisingly high percentage of total emissions in some countries. "Fourteen per cent of emissions from all sources in Australia is from enteric methane from cattle and sheep,'' said Athol Klieve, a senior research scientist with the Queensland Government. "And if you look at another country such as New Zealand, which has got a much higher agricultural base, they're actually up around 50 per cent,'' he said.Researchers say the bacteria also makes the digestive process much more efficient and could potentially save millions of dollars in feed costs for farmers. "Not only would they not produce the methane, they would actually get something like 10 to 15 per cent more energy out of the feed they are eating,'' said Mr Klieve. Even farmers who laugh at the idea of environmentally friendly kangaroo farts say that's nothing to joke about, particularly given the devastating drought Australia is suffering. "In a tight year like a drought situation, 15 per cent would be a considerable sum,'' said farmer Michael Mitton. But it will take researchers at least three years to isolate the bacteria, before they can even start to develop a way of transferring it to cattle and sheep. Another group of scientists, meanwhile, has suggested Australians should farm fewer cattle and sheep and just eat more kangaroos. The idea is controversial, but about 20 per cent of health-conscious Australians are believed to eat the national symbol already. "It's low in fat, it's got high protein levels it's very clean in the sense that basically it's the ultimate free range animal,'' said Peter Ampt of the University of New South Wales's "It doesn't get drenched, it doesn't get vaccinated, it utilises food right across the landscape, it moves around to where the food is good, so yes, it's a good food.'' It might take a while for kangaroos to become popular barbecue fare, but with concern over global warming growing in the world's driest inhabited continent, Australians could soon be ready to try almost anything to cut emissions.
Sven 
16 January 2008 at 14:23
jwebster 
The risk management that you raised is very much a cost-benefit ratio issue. Security policy usually deals with probability-impact analysis of threats. A nuclear attack on Western Europe, for example, is categorised as low-probability high-impact, a small scale terrorist attack in Israel high-probability low-impact. And security measures are employed according to these analysis. As long as we have no clear and sober threat analysis but rather Gore on Lester Brown type scare mongering, it's impossible to put together any reasonable response. Would you be willing to pay, say, $ 50 000 a year for the insurance of your 1989 VW Golf?
bobclive 
16 January 2008 at 15:31
I presume the New Statesman published Dr Whitehouse`s article believing that it would be trashed by the readers of their website, HOW WRONG THEY WERE,. 
This article by Mark Lynas who obviously has his brains nailed to the bottom of his shoe and his shirt firmly nailed to the AGW realclimate site (run by M..Mann and his followers famous for the now totally debunked hockey stick graph) will again indicate to the New Statesman that the majority of free thinking individuals don`t believe the crap put out by the IPCC or magazines similar to the New Statesman whose opinion Mr Lynas obviously represents. I have included temperature graphs from ARMAGH a RURAL observatory which has unbroken temperature records for over 200 years, reference study by C.J.Butler 2004 
link 1 
link 2 
link 3 
link 4 
link 5 
link 6 
link 7 
These graphs show a STEADY warming starting from 1796, there appears to be no relationship between temperature and CO2, just a natural recovery from the little ice age which Mann and his followers tried to erase.
Nelson 
16 January 2008 at 16:11
bobclive, your posts have descended into ugly ad hominen. 
If you dispute Mark Lynas' analysis, can we have some dispassionate maths instead of rabid insults? 
In my experience, those who don't believe the 'crap' put out by the IPCC are arrogant or scientifically illiterate. Free thinkers critique, they don't assert. Where are the citations to published work that undermine the very fundament of climate change? 
Is all you have the Armagh temperature record? Right. You're rejecting carefully collated global temperature sets and satellite data in favour of a record from one geopgraphical location? That's cherrypicking worthy of co2science.org (who you linked to upthread. Congratulations). 
Incidentally, a paper on at Armagh data set includes the following sentence: 
'For 7 of the last 10 years of the temperature record, annual mean temperatures 
at Armagh Observatory exceeded 10 °C, an unprecedented occurrence n the record.'
bobclive 
16 January 2008 at 16:35
Sikkim has the largest number of glaciers in India and they are GROWING, GETTING BIGGER, LARGER, interesting. 
Gangtok (PTI): Sikkim, comprising 0.5 per cent of India's landmass, has 84 glaciers, the largest number as compared to any other state or union territory. 
The present number of glaciers at 84, with the mapping exercise still underway to find about out more ice caps in the state has grown by about four times over the past "six years" ( HAS GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED) as the figure of glaciers stood at 21 at that time. The glaciers have been mapped by using remote sensing application system and capturing data through satellite, he said. 
The rise in the number of glaciers belied the impact of the global warming phenomena. 
link 
Brute 
16 January 2008 at 16:44
Mr. Clive, 
YOU should be knighted or awarded the Nobel Prize. The case is closed; problem solved. 
Next we should discuss how to reduce the Sun's output; or maybe the Environmentalists will attribute solar output to Exxon/Mobil.? 
Did Exxon/Mobil or Halliburton exist in 1796?
bobclive 
16 January 2008 at 17:27
Nelson, 
I saw that pie in the face video, was that the standard bearer for the AGW brigade. 
The Armagh data sets have no UHI influence, they are one of the most important data sets in the world, the graphs speak for themselves, it does not matter whether 7 of the last 10 years of the temperature record exceeded 10 °C. What matters is that Armagh and other similar rural sites show there has been NO unprecedented warming over the past 100 years just as I have already stated a steady natural warming since 1796 and the data is clean. 
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
Brute 
16 January 2008 at 17:36
Year of Global Cooling 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20...
bobclive 
16 January 2008 at 17:39
The Kyoto Protocol and ENRON. 
http://www.predictweather.com/articles.asp?ID=36
Brute 
16 January 2008 at 17:55
For those interested, according to NOAA, if you plot the time period from 1934 to 1998, the change in mean temperature trend is zero, nada, nichts... you get the point. In fact, from 1998 to now, the average mean temp in the US has dropped. Oophs, was that an inconvenient truth?
bobclive 
16 January 2008 at 19:56
Baliunas and the Climate Research controversy 
In 2003, 
Baliunas co-authored a highly controversial paper that reviewed previous scientific papers and came to the conclusion climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. But 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work, and several editors of Climate Research resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process which allowed the publication. 
Among the sharp criticisms of the Climate Research paper was one from Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. When von Storch, then the journal’s editor, read Mann’s critique, he said he realized his journal should never have accepted the study: “If it would have been properly reviewed, it would have been rejected on the basis of methodological flaws.” Shortly after, Von Storch, along with two other members of the Climate Research editorial board resigned in protest - "they submitted flawed research," Von Stroch stated at the time. 
Can you believe Mann stated that the Baliunas and Soon study was METHODOLOGICALLY FLAWED, and then came along Steve McIntyre.
Cybertiger 
16 January 2008 at 20:31
After all this hot air, the plain fact is, the main global problem is not climate change - it's the depletion of the world's energy resources - and the Americans. Of course, as we all know for certain, the Americans are the single greatest threat to life on the globe. And it's American folk (like Brute and Mr Fnortner) who are the scariest creatures on the planet Earth. Let's hope the crazy critters move to Mars before it's too late for the rest of us.
Peter Martin 
16 January 2008 at 20:58
Cybertiger, 
Your crude anti-Americanism is pretty embarrassing to read on this column. You are making the assumption that energy and conventional oil are the same thing. There are hundreds of years of coal supplies left in the world + lots of unconventional oil in the form of tar shale etc. If that is burnt too quicly there is more than enough to cook the planet. 
There is an abundance of solar and wind energy. We just need to work out how to use it. There is lots of energy in the form of Uranium 235. Enough to keep us going for hundreds of years. Then there is Deuterium and Tritium in the oceon. There is really no energy shortage at all. 
Read this guy's biography and tell us again that all Americans are ............ 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
Mr Fnortner 
16 January 2008 at 21:28
Peter Martin, [sotto voce, so as not to attract attention] Cybertiger is New Statesman's very own troll. He is best not responded to. 
Nonetheless, you make excellent points about the world's energy wealth. That energy which the sun deposited here over billions of years, if released over hundreds, would shock us. 
You're about to say that that's the point of global warming--and I know I gave you an opening--but it's not that easy. 
Given 'if p then q,' proving q does not prove p. Only when 'if and only if p then q' does proving q prove p. So my scientist friend, prove q (warming) is true, and show if and only if p (mankind's actions) then q. That's all we skeptics ask before our governments unleash their draconian measures upon us. Please.
aelfinn 
16 January 2008 at 22:53
It certainly reflects badly on the New Statesman to have published the article by David Whitehouse -- though certainly not for saying what he said. The one thing that is absolute incredible, though, is that he managed to get his views published without giving even a single source for any of his allegations. For what it's worth, he could have made up all of it without anyone being able to disprove his contentions by simple referring to sources of data and conclusions. The editor in charge of this article should have flatly rejected it. 
Mark Lynas makes a well-considered and entirely appropriate point -- the mindless, wholly unsupported blathering of some commentators here about a "shrill" and "arrogant" article notwithstanding. Moreover, his point about wiser policies being "a no-brainer" should be well taken and is sadly underrepresented in mainstream media. Whether sea-levels will rise a foot or five feet over the next fifty years will always be debatable. To insist on burning fossil fuels that are inefficient and produce lots of pollution is thus at the most basic level imaginable simply and painfully stupid. Wherever the debate goes, this fact will not go away.
bobclive 
17 January 2008 at 00:07
Met Office predicts plateau then record temperatures 
Powerful computer simulations used to create the world's first global warming forecast suggests temperature rises will stall in the next two years, before rising sharply at the end of the decade. 
From 2010, they warn, every year has at least a 50% chance (Heads or tails) of exceeding the record year of 1998 when average global temperatures reached 14.54C, (give or take a few urban heat islands), 
The study's findings raise the prospect of hotter summers and episodes of torrential rain in the UK (its happened before see pics) 1998 brought temperatures peaking at 32.2C, although the UK record was set in 2003 at 38.1C. 
The forecast from researchers at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter reveals that natural shifts in climate will cancel out warming produced by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activity until 2009, but from then on, temperatures will rise steadily. Temperatures are set to rise over the 10-year period by 0.3C. Beyond 2014, the odds of breaking the temperature record rise even further, the scientists added. 
The forecast of a brief slump in global warming has already been seized upon by climate change sceptics as evidence that the world is not heating. Climate scientists say the new high-precision forecast predicts temperatures will stall because of natural climate effects that have seen the Southern Ocean and tropical Pacific cool over the past couple of years. 
They didn`t say that last year,are they getting worried. 
link 1 
link 2 
link 3 
link 3 
link 4
bobclive 
17 January 2008 at 00:24
aelfinn, you say (The editor in charge of this article should have flatly rejected it.) I suppose he checked it out with the Met office, this is interesting. 
link 1 
link 2 
Brute 
17 January 2008 at 00:34
Mr. Clive, 
Two good sites. 
link 1 
link 2 
News Item: : NASA Revises Temperature Data - 1930's warmest on record 
Thursday 09 August 2007 - 19:06:13 
In a stunning turn of events data (quietly) released by NASA shows that the 4 warmest years ever recorded occurred in the 1930's, with the warmest year on record being 1934 (not 1998). (Lets see if Al Gore revises his road show). Update - Global Warming is actually a Y2K bug! 
Data discovered on NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website revises recorded temperatures for the United States. It is expected that similar revisions will also be made for global temperature recordings. This information was discovered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit on Wednesday (8/8/2007). No NASA press release, no James Hansen (head of GISS) announcement, nothing. Could it be because they don't want anyone to see it? The data is certainly devastating for the Al Gore camp which has based much of their Carbon Credits sales pitch on recent temperatures (e.g. claiming that 1998 was the warmest on record). 
Other aspects of the data are just as stunning. 
Only 4 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the past 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006) 
Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940 
The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900 
1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average. 
1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998). 
We're almost back to the 1970's theory of global cooling. The data clearly changes things. 
Had we been living in 1934 we would have heard the same claims of global warming, this is the evidence that we would have heard at the time: 
8 of the past 10 years had been above average. 
1934 was the warmest year ever recorded. The warmest in over 54 years. 
Shift that to 1944 and you would have seen that 17 of the past 21 years had been warmer than average. It is obvious that in just the past 125 years there have been other periods just as warm, or warmer, than what we are now experiencing. If we could look at the past 1,000 years with the accuracy of the past 100 years we would most likely find that this is not unusual at all. 
Update: Turns out this NASA data was revised because of a Y2K bug in the algorithm used to adjust measurement station raw data. Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data. NASA's James Hansen has refused to release his algorithms but they were reverse engineered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and NASA has since updated their data (so you know he Steve got it right). What this author finds truly disturbing (and disgusting) is that NASA would keep these algorithms secret. This is public information. Steve really should file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to obtain this and what ever else he needs. NASA would be very hard pressed to justify withholding that information. These events seriously call in to question anything James Hansen has touched, supervised, or managed. Not just because he got the math wrong but because he also hides his methods. He is apparently attempting to establish a new religion by requiring people to have faith in his data. 
References: 
Newsbusters.org 
NASA GISS Data 
Climate Audit - Steve McIntyre's site that started it all
bobclive 
17 January 2008 at 00:43
telegraph.co.uk 
Global warming impact may be overstated 
Posted by aka bob on January 16, 2008 11:06 AM 
Report this comment 
Well done Daily Telegraph on reporting science that runs counter to the 'consensus' on global warming showing that it is not as simple as many of the environmental 'activists' would have us believe. 
Go over the new.statesman.com 
and you will see a fascinating and pertinent article entitles 'has global warming stopped?" Although it only points out well-know government data on global temperatures over the past few years it is an eloquent and important read. Then read the rediculous rejoinder. 
The tide of data is turning - it's not as simple, or as catastrophic, as some make out.
aelfinn 
17 January 2008 at 00:57
@bobclive: The point is that Whitehouse doesn't *give* any sources. This is a reason for rejection of his article, irrespective of whether such sources could in fact have been procured. 
Quite apart from that: the study you quote says that "large ice sheets indeed did exist for short periods" during warm periods although "it is not clear where such a large mass of ice could have existed". There is nothing in the quotes to suggest any connection to our current global warming situation at all. On the contrary, one scientist is quoted as saying that "global climate change is now happening on a completely different, much more rapid, time scale". 
I don't know what you were trying to accomplish, but irrelevant arguments certainly don't get us anywhere.
aelfinn 
17 January 2008 at 01:01
This may well be an exercise in futility, but for what it's worth, the Royal Society says on their website: "Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming." 
But then I suppose the Royal Society is just another bunch of "environmental 'activists' ".
Gareth Evans 
17 January 2008 at 11:06
Below is another new report on ice melt and global warming (this time in Greenland). So here have been four major new reports in the last month on ice melt in the Arctic, Antarctic, China's glaziers and now Greenland by the acknowledged experts in the fields. The North West Passage was open for the first time last year, of course - an historic event. 
Gareth Evans 
Global warming is behind the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, new research from an international team of glaciologists and climatologists confirms. 
The scientists, from the UK, Belgium, Denmark and the US, arrived at their conclusion after analysing glaciological and meteorological records going back some five decades. Their findings are published in the Journal of Climate. 
Their investigations revealed that between the 1960s and 1990s, changes in the Greenland ice sheet were due to regional, rather than global changes in the climate. However, over the past 15 years there has been a statistically significant link between global temperatures and temperatures in Greenland. Over the same time period, levels of ice melting in Greenland increased. 
Half of the annual run-off from the ice sheet takes place in July, and the four warmest summers on record were within the last six years. Summer 2003 was exceptionally warm around the edges of the ice sheet, and this led to the second-highest meltwater running off from the ice sheet in the last 50 years. The summer of 2005 broke the melting record, which was broken again in 2007 - a year which was almost as warm as 2003. 
'Our statistical analysis suggests that southern Greenland climate is currently responsive to general Northern Hemisphere warming,' the scientists conclude. 'As a consequence, the GrIS [Greenland ice sheet] is likely to be highly susceptible to ongoing global warming, in which Greenland temperatures are predicted to increase ~1° - 8°C by 2100.' 
'Our work shows that global warming is beginning to take its toll on the Greenland ice sheet which, as a relict feature of the last Ice Age, has already been living on borrowed time and seems now to be in inexorable decline,' commented Dr Edward Hanna of the University of Sheffield, who led the research. 'The question is can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions in time to make enough of a difference to curb this decay?' 
If the Greenland ice cap were to melt entirely, it would cause sea levels to rise by seven metres. Understanding its current situation and response to climate change is therefore extremely important.
Gareth Evans 
17 January 2008 at 11:13
PS Still do not believe that sea ice is melting at an unprecedented rate? Read below, Governments and large oil companies do!! 
Gareth Evans 
Global warming speeds up Race for North Pole 
London , 15 January 2008 – Global warming is accelerating the quest for the North Pole’s vast energy resources, which are becoming accessible due to the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, Jane’s Defence Weekly reports. Claiming Arctic sovereignty is fast becoming a high-stakes – and potentially dangerous – game. 
Unsurprisingly, the Arctic nations are locked in territorial disputes. Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the USA are all vying for access. Their claims may become even more contentious should energy reserves be proven to be recoverable in the vast, unforgiving environment. 
A preliminary assessment by the US Geological Survey (USGS) suggests the Arctic seabed may hold as much as 25 per cent of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas reserves. Diminishing ice coverage will make extracting resources in the North Pole more feasible. 
The Northwest Passage opened for the first time in human memory in 2007 and is poised to become a premium navigation route. As an alternative to the Panama Canal, it would cut roughly 7,000 km from the traditional shipping route between Asia and Europe, saving shippers fuel and time. 
No country has clear legal authority to conduct maritime interdictions, ensure safe transit of commercial shippers or conduct routine surveillance of maritime traffic. This lack of clear jurisdiction has created a major security vacuum in the waterway. 
“There is a risk that the Northwest Passage will become attractive to those who wish to traffic in weapons of mass destruction, missile components, centrifuges and other things of both national and global security concern,” said Michael Byers, an Arctic expert at the University of British Columbia. 
Sovereign rights to energy resources in the Arctic seabed are also still largely undetermined under international law. The UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a legal framework to govern all uses of the world’s oceans and resources, but the major players in the Arctic are still gathering evidence to bolster their own claims under the treaty. The US has not even ratified the UNCLOS. 
Competition to claim parts of the Arctic seabed is likely to intensify as Arctic energy reserves become more accessible and the price for oil rises. The region could be ice-free in the month of September as early as 2040, according to a 2006 study sponsored by the US National Science Foundation and NASA. 
Arctic powers are expanding their military and civilian footprints in the region. Canada, Russia and the US are investing in northern-capable research, surveillance and combat assets and boosting their Arctic operations tempo to include more military exercises, overflights and exploration missions using icebreakers. Forces operating in the Arctic region are exploring the full range of military capabilities, since there is no ban on weapons in the Arctic as there is in Antarctica. 
Some experts say the build-up suggests that debates about Arctic sovereignty and security have reached a critical juncture: progress must be made on the diplomatic front or conflict may be unavoidable. The critical question is whether territorial disputes in the Arctic will descend from diplomatic annoyances to military brinkmanship or even armed conflict.
stargazer 
17 January 2008 at 11:16
well see this 
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/15/what-can-we-learn-about-...
stargazer 
17 January 2008 at 11:24
Gareth ....just using the Antarctic as you mention it 
here is data taken from 3 seperate web sites 
I ask again HOW can it be melting ... Look at the temps quoted... 
Mean Temps: 
Winter: -40 to -94°F (-40 to -70°C) 
Summer: -5 to -31°F (-15 to -35°C) 
The Interior 
The interior of Antarctica receives the most indirect rays from the sun which makes it cooler. For long periods in the winter it receives no sunlight at all. The interior has a very high altitude which adds to the very cold temperatures. 
Because the interior of Antarctica is a land mass and far away from the ocean, it gets no warming effect from the water.The interior is characterized by extreme cold and light snowfall. Raging blizzards often occur, however, when winds pick up previously deposited snow and move it from place to place. Almost continuous daylight occurs during the southern hemisphere's summer and darkness during the southern hemisphere's winter. On the polar plateau, temperature is controlled by solar input, latitude and altitude. 
The annual average temperature is -50°C (-58°F). Winter temperatures drop quickly, then level out. Summer is short, from mid-December to mid-January, however, temperatures can reach a balmy -30°C (-22°F)! This is partly due to the increase in solar radiation, but also the surface of the ice is a little darker and, therefore, less reflective after the winter. A small accumulation of fresh snow at the onset of winter quickly restores the high surface albedo. 
A common feature of the plateau is a temperature inversion. Temperature inversions occur when extremely cold, dense air settles near the surface with warmer temperatures at some distance above (normally, temperatures decrease with elevation). These inversions may only be 300 feet thick, but the temperature difference can be over 50°F in that short distance. The intensity of inversions is greater in winter when winds are lighter and there are fewer clouds. 
Coastal Areas 
The coastal areas of the Antarctic continent are characterized by somewhat milder temperatures and much higher precipitation rates, mainly occurring as snow. Annual precipitation amounts range from 20 to 40 inches (500 to more than 1,000 mm). The ocean has a tempering influence on coastal temperatures. Temperatures are maritime in the summer and can go as high as 9°C (48°F). In the winter, incoming solar radiation decreases, sea ice grows, and albedo increases, causing cooling at the coast. With the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula, coastal winter temperatures can drop to -40 to -50°C (-40° to -58°F). Annual mean temperatures range from ° to 14° F (- 15° to - 10° C). 
The average temperature in Antarctica is a chilling -49 degrees C. Therefore it is 49 degrees under freezing point (that is 0 degrees C). The average mean temperature of Antarctica in summer is 0F and winter is 70F. The temperature of Antarctica varies according to region. The coasts of Antarctica have comparatively milder temperatures reaching freezing point only in summer. The highest temperatures are on the high polar plateau. At the South Pole the temperatures vary from -20c to -70 in winter. The lowest ever temperature on the surface of the earth has been recorded at the Vostok Station a Soviet base in Antarctica- -89.6 degrees C (-129 degrees F). This temperature is sufficient to shatter steel. There are various stations in Antarctica which record temperatures. At the Palmer Station the average annual temperature is -3C, at the McMurdo Station it is -17 C and at the South Pole Station it is -48C.
bobclive 
17 January 2008 at 11:37
aelfinn, The Royal Society is wholly government funded and it will obviously toe the government line, because of this I will treat any utterings from that quarter with caution. 
Like Phil Jones of the Met office he now says that CO2 is causing warming and cooling, I think that`s called hedging your bets. 
When things are not going the activists way they put out this sort of rubbish, see link. 
link 
There is NO research money for scientists sceptical 
to AGW, because of this those scientists have to accept funding from any source otherwise there research would stop and there would be NO AGW debate. Fortunately (and not to the liking of the AGW brigade) there is at present two sides to this AGW argument and the general public like myself will make an informed decision after reading all the literature, at the moment it appears according to these two forums the sceptics are winning the debate.
bobclive 
17 January 2008 at 11:58
THE BBC REPORTS. 
Global warming can make sea level plunge 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/467928.stm
bobclive 
17 January 2008 at 12:03
Google this, then read the comments, I believe they are almost 100% against AGW same as here. 
(Global warming impact may be overstated)
Gareth Evans 
17 January 2008 at 13:03
Below is a summary of the latest report on Antarctic ice sea melt published by EXPERTS in the Journal of Nature Geoscience. The melt is OBSERVED in a satellite survey (pictures) - that is, the conclusions do not come from computer models etc with associated uncertainties (there are no scientific theories and measurements that the general public may not understand). Likewise, Arctic and Greenland ice melt and China's glacier melt (all reported recently) can be OBSERVED - there are no scientific tricks. Ice does not melt without warming and what is that old adage, "seeing (that is, observation) is believing". The doubting "EXPERTS" contributing to this blog will still have other views and correct me - and will not invest in Arctic oil exploration companies!! 
Gareth Evans 
Loss of Antarctic ice has soared by 75 per cent in just 10 years 
Parts of the ice sheets covering Antarctica are melting faster than predicted, with the net loss of ice probably accelerating in recent years because of global warming. A satellite survey between 1996 and 2006 found that the net loss of ice from Antarctica rose by about 75 per cent as the movement of glaciers towards the sea speeded up. Scientists estimate that that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet lost about 132 billion tons of ice in 2006, compared with a loss of 83 billion tons in 1996. In addition, the Antarctic peninsula lost about 60 billion tons of ice in 2006. 
"To put these figures into perspective, 4 billion tons of ice is enough to provide drinking water for the whole UK population for one year," said Professor Jonathan Bamber, of the University of Bristol. "We think the glaciers of the Antarctic are moving faster to the sea. The computer models of future sea-level rise have not really taken this into account." 
Sea levels are estimated to have risen by 1.8mm a year on average during the 20th century, but data from the past decade or so suggest that the average rise is now about 3.4 mm per year. 
Computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predict that sea levels will rise by no more than about 50cm by 2100, are based largely on the stability of the Antarctic ice sheets. But many scientists now believe this forecast is too restrained. "I agree with a number of scientists who feel the IPCC is likely to have underestimated the upper bound of predicted sea-level rise by the end of the century – 50 cm is probably too conservative," Professor Bamber added. 
There are two key factors in estimating the net loss of Antarctic ice. The first is the flow of glaciers towards the sea; the second is the build-up of snow over the vast landmass of the frozen continent. The IPCC models imply that global warming will increase the moisture content of the atmosphere and so may actually increase snowfall over Antarctica, much of which is too cold to be affected by rising global temperatures. This would suggest a net build-up of ice. However, Professor Bamber believes the IPCC's models have not taken into account the complex, dynamic interaction between the ocean and the ice shelves of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula, which are warmer than East Antarctica. 
Eric Rignot, who led the latest study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, said the findings indicated a rapid loss of ice to the sea rather than a net gain. "We have determined that the loss is increasing with time, quite rapidly at 75 per cent in ten years," Dr Rignot said. "We have also established that most of this loss, if not its entirety, is caused by glacier acceleration. The IPCC focussed on the surface mass balance component. We find this component is not indicative of the true mass balance." 
The acceleration in ice loss over the past 10 years could increase in coming decades, he added. "As some of these glaciers reach deeper beds, their speeds could double or triple, in which case the contribution to sea-level rise from Antarctica could increase quite significantly beyond what it is now. Many people suspect Antarctic ice to be immune from changes. We are finding this is not the case. 
"The future is the big question. The potential exists for ice speed to increase two or three times, which will result in a doubling of the mass deficit from Antarctica."
Sven 
17 January 2008 at 14:17
Ha ha! Realclimate, the source of this graph in the atricle, based on GISTEMP 8-year trends 
link 
has now, as their readers have requested, done additional graphs all to prove their point. Interestingly these are UK Met Office Data 8-year trend, GISTEMP 7-year trend as well as GISTEMP 15-year trend. Is this not revealing and symptomatic of trying to prove their point?! The issue at hand and assumptions of global warming having stopped are about the last 7 years (since 2001) based on UK Met Office data. Why did they not include UK Met Office 7-year trend? Well, one big difference between UK Met Office's HADCRUTv3 and GISTEMP is that GISTEMP has 2005 as the hottest instead of Met Office's 1998! If 2008 will be cooler than 2007 will they start using HADCRUT 9-year trends and then 10 and so on? If this does not remind you of the accusation that denialists are mainly attacked for - namely cherry picking - then I can't understand what might! The approach clearly is to come up with convinient and suitable explanations.
Sven 
17 January 2008 at 14:26
One more thing - 8-year trend is extremely convenient as 2000 was an exceptionally cool year...
Sven 
17 January 2008 at 14:43
Gareth Evans 
When some research finds IPCC's predictions or estimations wrong but to the "right" direction, as is your reference on the Antarctic, it seems that you buy this without hesitation. But when somebody's findings are to the "wrong" directions, like Met Office temperature data they are skeptics and denialist and wrong and misinterpreting and worth fighting against?
Gareth Evans 
17 January 2008 at 15:17
Sven, no disrespect but you confuse shorter term weather variability with longer term climate trends. Do visit the British Met Office website to gain a better understanding. 
Global warming and climate change are for real. Most Governments around the world now accept it and are starting to prepare for it. No Government wants this, no Government wants to spend money on new energy, new technologies and adaptation - but most are convinced that they cannot ignore it on the balance of evidence. 
As a parent I would prefer for it not to be real. Forget the science and the models, if this does not convince or confuses you, and just look at the obsevational evidence - it is overwhelming. Ice in large parts of the world is melting at an unprecedented rate, because of warming, and this is happening faster than most experts expected. The North West Passage opened up for the first last summer - do you realise what a monumental occurrence this was? There is a new island off Greenland called "Warming Island" - this is the way our world is already starting to change. 
Deny this and try to convince others if you so wish, that is your right in a free thinking society - but that will not stop the advance of global warming and climate change. 
There will be fluctuations, that is weather, but the climatic trend is upwards - and that is indisputable fact. 
Gareth Evans
Brute 
17 January 2008 at 15:37
Still Funny..................... 
Global Warming Expedition to North Pole Cancelled Due to Cold and Frostbite 
http://newsbusters.org/node/11369 
Folks, you can’t make this stuff up. However, I sincerely beg all readers to properly stow potables, combustibles, and sharp objects before proceeding further. 
An expedition to the North Pole to bring attention to global warming was cancelled due to the extraordinarily cold weather. I kid you not. As reported by the Associated Press Monday (emphasis mine throughout): 
The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment. 
"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition. 
I’m verklempt, and having difficulty typing through the tears of laughter. But, unlike our intrepid explorers, I must go on for the benefit of mankind: 
Then there was the cold - quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said. 
"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said. 
How cold was it? : 
She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze. 
Ouch. That’s cold! Marvelously, it was much colder then Bancroft’s trip 21 years ago: 
The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted. 
: 
Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures. 
"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability." 
Yep. It was soooooo cold up there because of global warming. 
Talk amongst yourselves, for I’m having trouble breathing and might need medical attention.
Brute 
17 January 2008 at 15:38
I’m sorry; I can’t resist. Global warming concert; poor attendance; because it was too cold. Priceless…….. 
UB40 - LIVE EARTH JOHANNESBURG OFFICIALS BLAME CLIMATE CHANGE FOR POOR TURN-OUT 
Officials at Live Earth Johannesburg have blamed the effects of climate change for poor audience attendance at Saturday's (07Jul07) South African event. Organiser John Langford believes extremely cold weather in the region - it snowed last week (ends06Jul07) for the first time in a quarter of a century - kept people away from the concert, which starred Joss Stone, UB40, Angelique Kidjo and Baaba Maal. Speaking before the event, Langford said, "We're expecting 10,000 here tonight. It's a bit chilly, and we've had a strange winter... is it climate change? We had snow in Jo'burg last week for the first time in 25 years." But critics have blamed poor publicity for the weak turn-out. 
08/07/2006 
link.
Brute 
17 January 2008 at 16:11
Mr. Evans, 
You wrote: "Most Governments around the world now accept it and are starting to prepare for it. No Government wants this, no Government wants to spend money on new energy, new technologies and adaptation" 
Are you kidding? Governments love to spend money on non-sensical programs and "victims" who do not exist. The Global Warming fraud is the perfect ruse; everyone is a "victim". Every weather event is "evidence". 
Warmer than usual: Global Warming 
Cooler than usual: Global Warming 
Flooding: Global Warming 
Drought: Global Warming 
More Cyclones: Global Warming 
Less Cyclones: Global Warming 
What a scam! They’ve covered every conceivable event! Brilliant! What a marketing scheme! 
The public and media latch onto this craze because it’s “hip”, “cool”, “new age”, “progressive” and most importantly, anti-establishment. What do you think happened to all of the “wanna be” Communist, Socialists, Revolutionaries after the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed…..They joined the environmentalists movement! 
It would be a much more credible ruse if they actually applied all or even the majority of the “green” tax revenue they collect to "green" policies and programs. Then they may actually be taken seriously. 
“Who are you going to believe; me, or your own eyes?” – Groucho Marx (or in this case Al Gore).
Sven 
17 January 2008 at 16:22
Gareth Evans 
I do not deny "this" and am not convincing others. I used to be convinced about claims how unequivocal it all was, but was skeptical on the alarmism, scare mongering and willingness of going to extremes for mitigation. What I also found disgusting were the ad hominem attacks and religous ferver in the debate. Well, I do understand the difference between weather variability and trends and that's why I think it's still significant that realclimate chose not to do a 7-year Met Office trend line. I am still more convinced than not that global warming is happening and that there is a human component in it but I think 
a) there is much more debate than is admitted 
and 
b) it is quite obvious that these last 7 years tell us something (not only what we see on the graphs, but Met Office unequivocally saying that since 2001 there is no change). Whether it's a temporary slow down or stop like somewhere around 1980 and 1990 or something more significant or even a turning point, time will tell very soon. But to deny this and treat people like Dr. Whitehouse or others who question this, denialists and traitors and whatever is not only bad science but wishful thinking, faith and denialism! 
PS. I was the one who posted the Met Office link 
link 
with their algorithm yesterday, so I would suggest you should be the one to go and have a look at that! 
That's all folks!
Sven 
17 January 2008 at 16:55
And why did I say in my first comment that activists had to come up with an alternative graph "in a panicky rush"? It's because they never used any of these calculations earlier. It was only after the information for 2007 came out and the article in The New Statesman. Everything was fine with the graphs used until then. And I can't help it, this seems very much a religious persons defensive behavior to me.
idunno 
17 January 2008 at 17:14
I am intrigued both by the specific debate over Whitehouse v. Lynas, and by the zeal with which the climate change sceptics seize on the suggestion that global warming may have slowed/stopped/not be happening at all. 
Climate science is an immensely complex business, the systems are chaotic and unpredictable and global in scale, there is massive latency built into the system through the many carbon and temperature sinks that we know (and don't know) about, and we are undoubtedly contributing to the process to some extent through our own rapid dumping of fossil carbon into the current systems. So maybe this apparent/alleged slowdown/pause is real, perhaps it might even be a long-term feature. Maybe not. 
But we don't know, and the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists seem to agree that something new is happening, and it could well be long-term anthropogenic global warming. Certainly we now have plenty of evidence that seems to indicate warming of many areas and of the oceans, and suggestions of increase heat energy affecting the atmosphere . And we can see how global warming can affect a planet in the long-term - look at Venus or Mars: one heated to a crisp by a runaway greenhouse effect, the other apparently frozen by the loss of its greenhouse effect. 
And anyway, does it not seem just a little too convenient that the anti-climate-change message plays straight into the hands of the fossil fuel lobby, oil companies, huge commercial interests and so on, who might suffer financially if anybody tried to cut their profligate consumption? 
And what if you're wrong? Would it not be wise to start looking at alternatives to conserve energy resources, even if we are not (yet) compelled to do so by runaway climate change? Right now the US and UK are involved in two wars at least partly driven by the need for access to oil, we may be about to launch another to prevent one country (Iran) from developing nuclear power as an alternative to oil, while the UK is about to expand its own nuclear power programme. 
If we decided to invest in developing alternative energy sources and conserving the energy consumed from existing ones, we might free ourselves from dependence on supplies from the more volatile regions of the world, while creating a useful new industrial edge over the countries whose current smoke-stack industries have overtaken ours long since. 
Or are we really just like the frog in the pan of boiling water?
stargazer 
17 January 2008 at 17:40
Ice Returns as Greenland Temps Plummet 
On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time in a decade. “The ice is up to 50cm thick,” said Henrik Matthiesen, an employee at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute who has also sailed the Greenlandic coastline for the Royal Arctic Line. ‘We’ve had loads of northerly winds since Christmas which has made the area miserably cold.’ Matthiesen suggested the cold weather marked a return to the frigid temperatures common a decade ago. 
Temperatures plunged to -25C earlier this month, clogging the bay with ice and making shipping impossible for small crafts, according to Anthon Frederiksen, the mayor of the town of Ilulissat, where Disko Bay is located. The mayor cautioned against thinking that the freezing temperature indicated that global warming claims were overblown. He noted that a nearby glacier had retracted more in the past two decades than in recorded history. But he noted “‘We Greenlanders have acclimated to changing conditions over the past 1100 years,” said Frederiksen. “Temperatures change at regular intervals.”
stargazer 
17 January 2008 at 18:00
huge amounts of rain over vast areas of Queensland in the past week signalled the start of a pattern not seen since 1977, 
"This is the sort of weather we had right through the 1950s and through to the mid-1970s," he said. 
link 
Mr Fnortner 
17 January 2008 at 18:00
I withdraw my comment about "jolly."
Maz 
17 January 2008 at 18:03
Idunno, 
both Mars (95%) and Venus (97%) have atmospheres composed almost entirely of CO2. You simply cannot compare these planets to Earth. I know the BBC has tried to make similar comparisons in many a past pop science documentary (complete with theatrical voiceovers and dramatic sound effects). But that corporation has long lost any vestige of impartiality on the issue under discussion. 
Venus is the temperature it is because of the closeness to the Sun and because of the crushing atmospheric pressure – about 90 times our own. Ever tried to push a bicycle pump plunger down whilst occluding the tip? The pump heats up. That’s why Venus is a cauldron. To suggest that it is in some way a warning of what can happen to Earth is pure and utter nonsense. 
The zeal is present on both sides of this debate. What I find very disconcerting though is the characterisation of anyone that does not confirm to the currently fashionable viewpoint as a denier, in pay of the oil companies or plainly deluded. Any free thinking individual can plainly see the difference in approach in the two articles. One sticks to the facts (confirmation of which is easily done online) 
link the other is arrogant and dismissive appealing to authority to shore up his viewpoint. 
It matters not a jot that one is a qualified scientist and that the other’s claim to fame is throwing a pie in the face of the man he did not agree with. My vote goes to the man with the reasoned argument.
Brute 
17 January 2008 at 18:52
Snow causes many deaths in Asia 
By Pam O'Toole 
BBC News 
Severe winter weather conditions are continuing to cause casualties and hardship in Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asian countries. 
Unusually low temperatures and heavy snow have led to scores of deaths in the region over recent days. 
The latest casualties were reported in western Afghanistan, where officials say more than 50 people have now died. 
Most of the deaths were in the province of Herat. The heavy snow has caused avalanches in some places. 
In neighbouring Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made an unannounced visit to the northern province of Mazandaran to see the problems caused by unprecedented cold weather and gas shortages. 
Food shortages 
In Afghanistan, officials in Ghoriyan district in Herat province said 45 people had been killed there over the past two days as a result of the snowfalls. 
Officials in neighbouring Ghowr province also blamed avalanches for 13 deaths over recent days. 
Extensive road closures in these provinces have led to severe food shortages in some districts. 
In Iraq, Baghdad has seen its first snowfall in living memory, as have parts of neighbouring Iran. Many areas in Iran have been suffering from low gas pressure, or even cuts in gas supplies. 
'Not predicted' 
President Ahmadinejad, on his visit to one of the worst affected provinces in northern Iran, Mazandaran, explained the reasons for gas shortages. 
"The first cause of the problems was the unprecedented cold weather whose severity and scope was not predicted. Nearly all the country was affected by conditions of severe cold," the Iranian president said. 
"We had a sharp drop in temperature and nearly two-thirds of the country was faced with freezing conditions and heavy snow fall. This was beyond the capacity of our gas distribution networks. It imposed a sudden high demand on the gas network in the country." 
The president also blamed a cut in gas exports from Turkmenistan. 
Parts of Central Asia are also suffering from energy shortages. In southern Kazakhstan, people say they are struggling to keep warm in unusually low temperatures, ranging from -10C during the day to -25 degrees overnight. 
In Uzbekistan, which has been suffering its coldest temperatures for almost four decades, human rights groups reported that a small group of women and children held a demonstration in Samarkand to protest against shortages of gas and electricity supplies to rural areas nearby. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7184030.stm
Sven 
17 January 2008 at 19:58
Consensus? No debate? Only fascists, fools, exxon/mobilists, flatearthers? 
http://climatedebatedaily.com
Gareth Evans 
17 January 2008 at 23:51
Below is a useful report to study Sven, if you have not done so, but parts are already dated. 
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/global-c... 
Stargazer, your latest submissions suggest that you may also confuse weather with climate. Just because this winter is colder than last in Greenland does not mean that global warming has stopped (if this is the purpose of your submission). This, in climate science terms, is the same as saying that today is colder than yesterday so global warming has stopped - it really is (almost) that simple. Weather fluctuates from day to day, month to month, and year to year (don't we all know it) and will continue to do so as global warming advances (perhaps with bigger fluctuations and more unpredictable and changable weather around an ever increasing mean global temperature). 
Climate is the longer term trend, this is a basic definition. Whitehouse, of course, makes the same mistake of confusing weather with climate. 
No more from me on this, except to recommend Mark's book "Six Degrees" as another useful overview. 
Gareth Evans
Brute 
18 January 2008 at 00:00
Mr. Evans, 
You write: Weather fluctuates from day to day, month to month, and year to year (don't we all know it)....... 
That's exactly right, and there is nothing you, Al Gore, or any of the rest of us, either individually or collectively, can do to change this salient fact. 
link 
Brute 
18 January 2008 at 01:30
Mr. Evans, 
The paper you link to was written by The Center For Inquiry? 
"The Center for Inquiry evaluates claims of the paranormal (phenomena allegedly beyond the range of normal scientific explanations), such as psychic phenomena, ghosts, communication with the dead, and alleged extraterrestrial visitations. It also explores the fringes and borderlands of the sciences, attempting to separate strictly evidence-based research from pseudosciences." 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Inquiry
Peter Martin 
18 January 2008 at 03:13
Well if its been cold in Riyadh recently its been bloody hot in Perth: 
link 
44.2 deg C, which for our American friends is 112deg F . 
But as Gareth Evans, has tried to explain to you, this is weather , not climate, and doesn't mean much on its own. But incidentally the climate has changed in Perth. Its got noticably hotter and drier in recent decades. 
Look, no-one has all the answers. Not Al Gore for sure! But take a look at what the Royal Society has to say on the subject; 
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229 
Its all very well to be sceptical. Its good to be sceptical but at the end of it all if you ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence you put yourself in the same camp as those, with religious convictions, who believe that the science of evolution is all wrong. 
Its not so much scepticism as contrarianism and no amount of scientific explanation will change your mind.
Martin Mills 
18 January 2008 at 04:46
Mr Lynas - and News Statesman. 
Your article is a disgrace. In a snide way you attack the integrity of Dr Whitehouse who has a far greater scientific background and journalistic pedigree tha Mr Lynas. You imply he might be intentionally misleading the public and lump his name among the people who commented on his excellent article who you think may be paid to say what they say. 
That is disgraceful Mr Lynas, underhand and snide and the sign of someone who has not been able to counter wahat he says. You owe him an apology.
Peter Martin 
18 January 2008 at 05:06
Martin Mills, 
I think you are probably missing the point. There is nothing underhand and snide in what Mr Lynas wrote. Dr Whitehouse will no doubt have every opportunity from the New Statesman to back up his case with references and additional data as Mark Lynas, and many other well qualified scientists, have asked him to do. 
Dr Whitehouse is well qualified as you have suggested, and that he's written a scientific article based on just seven years of cherry picked data is quite extraordinary. Maybe he's acting as a "devils advocate"? If he wanted to stir up some debate he has succeeded marvellously.
Peter Martin 
18 January 2008 at 06:19
Dr Wardlee, 
I decided to test your claim " That graph you show is biased." 
Instead of the 8 year average which you suggested I used a running average of 9 years. The year itself +/- 4 years. I hope that is OK with you. You can see the last seven data points which are quite flattish. DW is quite right there the last seven years have been remarkably flat. 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/tempavs.png 
I do believe that this graph does give the true situation. Interestingly there is just a hint of a downturn in the long term average which might give the AGW doubters some glimmer of hope that they may be right. 
It is far too early to say of course. Partly the graph has been influenced by the very warm year of 1998. I would suggest that there may be some experimental error in that data point. 2008 is forecast to be another relatively cool year at +0.4 deg C warming. However the climate models do suggest that the 2009 will be much warmer and that the temperature will continue its steady climb.
Sven 
18 January 2008 at 06:34
Gareth Evans, 
I know the article. I'm a long time subscriber of the Skeptical Enquirer, and, in fact, I wrote in my very first comment to Dr. Whitehouse's article: 
"...I was convinced that the deniers are conspiracy theorists or people like creationists, intelligent designers or astrologers. Some time ago even The Skeptical Inquierer carried a long article attacking the AGW denialists..." 
But one of the main things I've learned from being a healthy skeptic, trying to base my views on evidence rather than conviction or belief, is that the most common mistake people make in assessing any claims, is confirmation bias. It means they accept only the evidence that confirms their views. In climate debate I thought it mainly applied to the sceptics. But not any more. It's the same on both sides and what concernes these two articles, it's very much the pie man who is making this mistake. The same about glaciers. Sure there is a new study on the Antarctic, but there is also what UK Met Office has to say about this (and Greenland): 
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/antar... 
So, this is not a nice scientific debate but rather a religious war in trenches where, sadly, I see the alarmists use even more dirty ammunition than the other side. 
So I'm off air and waiting for the coming years to show us were we are heading...
stargazer 
18 January 2008 at 09:03
Gareth Evans said 
"Stargazer, your latest submissions suggest that you may also confuse weather with climate. Just because this winter is colder than last in Greenland does not mean that global warming has stopped " 
This debate is about 'have the past few years showed a drop in the worlds temp'. The case's quoted (and linked to) of 'cold weather' from all over the world that I and others have posted is to show why the Earths temp has dropped, it wont have dropped unless SOMEWHERE on the planet has gotten cooler..... Look you know darn well that had that SAME article on Greenland having the 'worst' cold spell for years ' had INSTEAD have said that it had the warmest weather for years, the world media would have put it on the front page and blamed it on 'us' and global warming !!!!! 
Peter Martin Said 
"a hint of a downturn in the long term average which might give the AGW doubters some glimmer of hope that they may be right." 
WOW...and struth. That's ALL we have been saying all along....Bet you could draw a graph using the same data 
that would make that downturn clearer to see. YES the world temp has gone down and it MIGHT go back up again BUT it MIGHT keep going down.Time will tell. 
Sven... you have gone through the same process I went through
Sven 
18 January 2008 at 10:12
Sorry, I said I'll be off air, but can't resist. Just found that James Hansen (GISS) has just come out with their 2007 information that is very different from UK Met Office's (just as their hottest year is 2005 vs. Met Office's 1998). 
2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.ht... 
Looking at Hansens earlier behavior it seems that the results and especially timing might be suspiciously suitable. I hope that we're not witnessing something that I said earlier: "If agenda driven "scientists" will not start fixing the hard data to suite their views, that is, of course :)" 
But it seems we now have two quite contradicting hard data sets. And still - what is itriguing is that we might have some clarity in a few years. And looking at the (history of the) debate, it seems to be a kind of a new situation in this regard 
But now I'm hopefully really off
idunno 
18 January 2008 at 12:09
Hi maz, 
"both Mars (95%) and Venus (97%) have atmospheres composed almost entirely of CO2. You simply cannot compare these planets to Earth. " 
A bit off-topic, I know, but just to clarify: The Earth also had a high CO2/nitrogen atmosphere originally, but life helped change it to high O2. Venus has its original CO2 and nitrogen, but its water all boiled into the atmosphere and then dissociated, losing hydrogen to space and leaving the ozygen to combine with the sulphur being released by volcanic action, so you get a big heavy atmosphere full of sulphuric acid. CO2 and SO2/3 are all powerful greenhouse gases which is why Venus just kept on heating in a runaway greenhouse effect. 
Meanwhile, Mars used to be warmer than it is now, with higher atmospheric pressure (allowing liquid water on surface) a long time ago, but couldn't hold onto its water because of its low gravity. And Mars (like Earth and Venus) is still warmer than it should be based purely on its distance from the sun, because the CO2 in its atmosphere traps the infrared energy that would otherwise be emitted into space. 
So both planets give us useful real-world examples of how the greenhouse effect works out on a planetary scale, even if both cases are far more extreme than the Earth. The science works, even if we are still arguing over the precise short-term details of much finer distinctions here on Earth. 
Hope this helps.
bobclive 
18 January 2008 at 13:31
Reports of Record Arctic Ice Melt Disgracefully Ignore History, read last section 
link 
bobclive 
18 January 2008 at 13:41
Arctic Sea-Ice: Another Hockey Stick? 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/10/30/arcti...
stargazer 
18 January 2008 at 13:52
For anyone who does not know the story about the downfall of the hockeystick, read it here and weep over the death of science. 
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html
Brute 
18 January 2008 at 14:02
It was just 14 degrees this morning in Timbuktu. 
link 
stargazer 
18 January 2008 at 14:20
MWP 
The First graph on this page shows the REAL graph for this period... beleive me you have to look hard on the net for MWP sites that have a graph that IS NOT Mann's Hockeystick...so insidious has that graph become !!! 
However the first graph on this page is one such. 
link 
And there is mounting evidence that the MWP was a worldwide phenomena see here 
link 2 
bobclive 
18 January 2008 at 14:37
Link 
The issue according to Professor Pielke Jr.: 
Real Climate has been speaking with two voices on how to compare observations of climate with models. Last August they asserted that one-year's sea ice extent could be compared with models: 
A few people have already remarked on some pretty surprising numbers in Arctic sea ice extent this year (the New York Times has also noticed). The minimum extent is usually in early to mid September, but this year, conditions by Aug 9 had already beaten all previous record minima. Given that there is at least a few more weeks of melting to go, it looks like the record set in 2005 will be unequivocally surpassed. It could be interesting to follow especially in light of model predictions discussed previously. 
Today, they say that looking at 8 years of temperature records is misguided: 
John Tierney and Roger Pielke Jr. have recently discussed attempts to validate (or falsify) IPCC projections of global temperature change over the period 2000-2007. Others have attempted to show that last year's numbers imply that 'Global Warming has stopped' or that it is 'taking a break' (Uli Kulke, Die Welt)). However, as most of our readers will realise, these comparisons are flawed since they basically compare long term climate change to short term weather variability. 
So according to Real Climate one-year's ice extent data can be compared to climate models, but 8 years of temperature data cannot. 
You can follow the whole discussion here. 
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climat...
bobclive 
18 January 2008 at 14:42
Public release date: 27-Sep-2007 
University of Southern California 
CARBON DIOXIDE DID NOT END LAST ICE AGE. 
Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science. 
A correlation between melting Antarctic sea ice and increased springtime solar radiation over Antarctica, suggesting this might be the energy source. 
IT`S THE SUN. 
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd09250...
Brute 
18 January 2008 at 15:01
Mr. Clive/Stargazer, 
Hardly scientific, but a quick look at the lowest recorded temperatures in the United States indicates that 24 of 51 record low temperatures were recorded after 1950, (this is when Global Warming Alarmist feel that industrialization began to impact climate). 16 of 24 of the record low temperatures were logged after 1975. Following the Alarmist logic, (or illogic), wouldn’t the records indicate that record lows would be more prevalent in the period before industrialization; in other words, record low temperatures would become a thing of the past? Looking at these temperature records for a 100 year period the record low temperatures seem to be evenly spread across the century. Wouldn’t a higher percentage of record low temperatures be recorded before industrialization if the Global Alarmist theory were correct? 
Record Lowest Temperatures by State 
State Temp.°F 
Temp.°C 
Date 
Alabama 
–27 –33 Jan. 30, 1966 
Alaska 
–80 –62 Jan. 23, 1971 
Arizona 
–40 –40 Jan. 7, 1971 
Arkansas 
–29 –34 Feb. 13, 1905 
California 
–45 –43 Jan. 20, 1937 
Colorado 
–61 –52 Feb. 1, 1985 
Connecticut 
–32 –36 Jan. 22, 19611 
Delaware 
–17 –27 Jan. 17, 1893 
D.C. –15 –26 Feb. 11, 1899 
Florida 
–2 –19 Feb. 13, 1899 
Georgia 
–17 –27 Jan. 27, 1940 
Hawaii 
12 –11 May 17, 1979 
Idaho 
–60 –51 Jan. 18, 1943 
Illinois 
–36 –38 Jan. 5, 1999 
Indiana 
–36 –38 Jan. 19, 1994 
Iowa 
–47 –44 Feb. 3, 19961 
Kansas 
–40 –40 Feb. 13, 1905 
Kentucky 
–37 –38 Jan. 19, 1994 
Louisiana 
–16 –27 Feb. 13, 1899 
Maine 
–48 –44 Jan. 19, 1925 
Maryland 
–40 –40 Jan. 13, 1912 
Mass 
–35 –37 Jan. 12, 1981 
Michigan 
–51 –46 Feb. 9, 1934 
Minnesota 
–60 –51 Feb. 2, 1996 
Mississippi 
–19 –28 Jan. 30, 1966 
Missouri 
–40 –40 Feb. 13, 1905 
Montana 
–70 –57 Jan. 20, 1954 
Nebraska 
–47 –44 Dec. 22, 19891 
Nevada 
–50 –46 Jan. 8, 1937 
New Hampshire 
–47 –44 Jan. 29, 1934 
New Jersey 
–34 –37 Jan. 5, 1904 
New Mexico 
–50 –46 Feb. 1, 1951 
New York 
–52 –47 Feb. 18, 19791 
North Carolina 
–34 –37 Jan. 21, 1985 
North Dakota 
–60 –51 Feb. 15, 1936 
Ohio 
–39 –39 Feb. 10, 1899 
Oklahoma 
–27 –33 Jan. 18, 19301 
Oregon 
–54 –48 Feb. 10, 19331 
Pennsylvania 
–42 –41 Jan. 5, 1904 
Rhode Island 
–25 –32 Feb. 5, 1996 
South Carolina 
–19 –28 Jan. 21, 1985 
South Dakota 
–58 –50 Feb. 17, 1936 
Tennessee 
–32 –36 Dec. 30, 1917 
Texas 
–23 –31 Feb. 8, 19331 
Utah 
–69 –56 Feb. 1, 1985 
Vermont 
–50 –46 Dec. 30, 1933 
Virginia 
–30 –34 Jan. 22, 1985 
Washington 
–48 –44 Dec. 30, 1968 
West Virginia 
–37 –38 Dec. 30, 1917 
Wisconsin 
–55 –48 Feb. 4, 1996 
Wyoming 
–66 –54 Feb. 9, 1933
idunno 
18 January 2008 at 15:10
Hi "Brute": 
Just a quick question: Wouldn't mean temperatures be more indicative of any trend? It's perfectly conceivable that the mean temperature could be rising, while at the same time getting more extreme one-off temperatures at either end of the scale.
bobclive 
18 January 2008 at 15:20
Are sunspots prime suspects in global warming 
There are some empirical bits of evidence that show interesting relationships we don't fully understand," says Drew Shindell, a researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. 
For example, he cites a 2001 study in which scientists looked at cloud cover over the United States from 1900 to 1987 and found that average cloud cover increased and decreased in step with the sun's 11-year sunspot cycle. The most plausible cause, they said: changes in the ultraviolet (UV) light the sun delivers to the stratosphere. 
www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html 
www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/09/carbon_dioxide_did_not_end_the.html 
BBC bias, 
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/08/no_line.html
Brute 
18 January 2008 at 15:32
idunno, 
I was trying to consider it from a different perspective; just thinking outside of the box. Many variables, inconsistencies and proven inaccuracies with the mean temperature data provided. I was looking for a completely neutral/impartial account of temperature without all of the influences, (from both sides). I would think that the percentage of low temperature would decrease over time if carbon dioxide were the culprit. 31% occurred in the last quarter of the 20th century.
bobclive 
18 January 2008 at 15:47
This is worth a read 
link 
A Sceptic 
18 January 2008 at 15:57
I agree bobclive, it is the Sun there is growing evidence to support this theory. 
However, the man-made global warming is happening only not in the way the politicians would have you believe. 
The man-made part is the way the IPCC is manipulating the data, you know sexing up the facts and we all know where that got us with respect to the Iraq war - the very same political tactic is being used to sex up AGW. 
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit who discovered the missing MWP from the 'hockey-stick', the incorrect NASA data that showed 1998 was the warmest year, and now the truncated tree-ring data that showed cooling that has been removed to enhance the hockey-blade of the 'hockey-stick' graph. 
See: 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1542 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1579
bobclive 
18 January 2008 at 16:11
Danish National Space Center Study Concludes: ‘Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf
bobclive 
18 January 2008 at 16:16
Last post for now, plenty of info here. 
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/P8/
Brute 
18 January 2008 at 16:20
Mr. Clive, 
Maybe "BIG OIL" paid off the Danes also?
bobclive 
18 January 2008 at 16:25
Nelson/realclimate, 
What are your comments relating to - 
link 1 
and 
link 2 
Brute 
18 January 2008 at 18:00
Idunno, 
Conversely, of the highest recorded temperatures in the United States over roughly 100 years only 11 of 51 have occurred after 1950, (21%). If increases in Global Temperature were influenced by industrialization, wouldn’t there be a higher percentage of record high temperatures recorded in the latter part of the 20th century? 9 of 51 occurring after 1975 (17%). 
Record Highest Temperatures by State 
State Temp. °F Date 
Temp. °C 
Alabama 
112 44 Sept. 5, 1925 
Alaska 
100 38 June 27, 1915 
Arizona 
128 53 June 29, 1994 
Arkansas 
120 49 Aug. 10, 1936 
California 
134 57 July 10, 1913 
Colorado 
118 48 July 11, 1888 
Connecticut 
106 41 July 15, 1995 
Delaware 
110 43 July 21, 1930 
D.C. 106 41 July 20, 1930 
Florida 
109 43 June 29, 1931 
Georgia 
112 44 Aug. 20, 1983 
Hawaii 
100 38 Apr. 27, 1931 
Idaho 
118 48 July 28, 1934 
Illinois 
117 47 July 14, 1954 
Indiana 
116 47 July 14, 1936 
Iowa 
118 48 July 20, 1934 
Kansas 
121 49 July 24, 1936 
Kentucky 
114 46 July 28, 1930 
Louisiana 
114 46 Aug. 10, 1936 
Maine 
105 41 July 10, 1911 
Maryland 
109 43 July 10, 1936 
Massachusetts 
107 42 Aug. 2, 1975 
Michigan 
112 44 July 13, 1936 
Minnesota 
114 46 July 6, 1936 
Mississippi 
115 46 July 29, 1930 
Missouri 
118 48 July 14, 1954 
Montana 
117 47 July 5, 1937 
Nebraska 
118 48 July 24, 1936 
Nevada 
125 52 June 29, 1994 
New Hampshire 
106 41 July 4, 1911 
New Jersey 
110 43 July 10, 1936 
New Mexico 
122 50 June 27, 1994 
New York 
108 42 July 22, 1926 
North Carolina 
110 43 Aug. 21, 1983 
North Dakota 
121 49 July 6, 1936 
Ohio 
113 45 July 21, 1934 
Oklahoma 
120 49 June 27, 1994 
Oregon 
119 48 Aug. 10, 1898 
Pennsylvania 
111 44 July 10, 1936 
Rhode Island 
104 40 Aug. 2, 1975 
South Carolina 
111 44 June 28, 1954 
South Dakota 
120 49 July 5, 1936 
Tennessee 
113 45 Aug. 9, 1930 
Texas 
120 49 June 28, 1994 
Utah 
117 47 July 5, 1895 
Vermont 
105 41 July 4, 1911 
Virginia 
110 43 July 15, 1954 
Washington 
118 48 Aug. 5, 1961 
West Virginia 
112 44 July 10, 1936 
Wisconsin 
114 46 July 13, 1936 
Wyoming 
115 46 Aug. 8, 1983
bobclive 
18 January 2008 at 19:43
http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2001754922405437461][IMG]http://aycu05.webshots.com/image/42284/2001754922405437461_r...[/IMG][/URL]
Maz 
18 January 2008 at 20:40
Idunno, 
“So both planets (Mars, Venus) give us useful real-world examples of how the greenhouse effect works out on a planetary scale, even if both cases are far more extreme than the Earth. The science works, even if we are still arguing over the precise short-term details of much finer distinctions here on Earth.” 
Reference to Mars or Venus and speculative descriptions of their past histories are unnecessary. The physics of the greenhouse effect is not in dispute. It is the extent to which the changes in the concentration of a relatively minor greenhouse gas affect the climate and atmospheric conditions on planet Earth that underpins the whole debate (if you at least accept there is one). Additionally the qualitative and quantitative nature of the various feedbacks in the climate system are also poorly understood and modelled such that (some hold the view) our current models are still unable to model our past climate from first principles. They are therefore very unlikely to successfully model the future. 
The actual reasons for the differences between Mars, Earth and Venus are decidedly off topic and remain almost entirely speculative at this point in our knowledge. I shall not go into them. 
The atmospheric conditions on Venus or Mars bear no relevance to a discussion on the theory of AGW, a point that some commentators consistently fail to appreciate.
Brute 
18 January 2008 at 22:36
http://www.carboncreditkillers.com/
Robin Guenier 
18 January 2008 at 23:12
In 2003 and 2004, Mark Lynas wrote two articles for the New Statesman asserting that “the debate about climate change is over” and describing those sceptics who were not oil and gas frontmen as “semi-deranged obsessives”. So now you know. However, after referring to the “end-Permian apocalypse” when “up to 95 percent of species (were) wiped out”, his main point was that now “we stand on the brink of a similar cataclysm” but that this time “the agent of death is man”. He suggested that we might already “have reached the point of no return". 
Pretty worrying stuff – especially as it was written several years ago. If we hadn’t quite reached the point of no return then, we must be pretty close by now. Moreover, mankind today, instead of doing anything much about the looming apocalypse, prefers instead more and bigger airports, more coal burning power stations, more and more motor vehicles, etc. So, unless there has been a substantial change Mr Lynas’s view of climate change, which seems unlikely, he must surely feel now that we’re all hopelessly doomed. 
Therefore, he might be expected to welcome the glimmer of hope provided by Dr Whitehouse that perhaps things might not be so bad after all. Yet, far from noting the possibility however remote that mankind might after all be saved and agreeing that perhaps we need a better understanding of why climate changes, he simply asserts that Dr Whitehouse is “completely wrong”. Seems odd to me. 
PS: his 2003 and 2004 articles attracted only 2 comments whereas the Whitehouse article and his rejoinder have already attracted over 830. Hmm.
Brute 
18 January 2008 at 23:41
The fraud behind carbon credits 
Thomas Lifson 
The sale of indulgences for those who emit so-called greenhouse gases is built on widespread fraud. The illusion of "carbon neutrality" is very often nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Business Week, hardly a conservative source, has investigated a number of these schemes and found widespread questionable practices. 
For example, consider the carbon offsets included in the OscarsTM goodie bag: 
Each Oscar favor represented 100,000 pounds of emission reductions drawn from TerraPass' portfolio of offset projects. 
One of the largest in its portfolio is a sprawling garbage dump outside of Springdale, Ark., from which TerraPass has purchased thousands of tons of gas reductions. [....] 
... one thing is clear: The methane system was launched long before any promise of carbon-offset sales. In other words, it appears that the main effects of the TerraPass offsets in this instance are to salve guilty celebrity consciences and provide Waste Management [owner of the dump], a $13 billion company based in Houston, with some extra revenue. 
Other similar schemes were uncovered by BW. Companies forced by regulators to take action subsequently sell them as offsets. Nobody is reducing any CO2 emissions as a result of money changing hands. 
Common sense tells anyone that if you think it is a bad thing to generate carbon dioxide, you should curtail your activities that do so. Anything else is morally fraudulent. 
http://www.newsbusters.org/node/12314 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df106... 
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/business/05online.html?_r=...
Peter Martin 
18 January 2008 at 23:51
Is it just a co-incidence that the global warming scare has started after the demise of the USSR? Can it be that the European and American Reds are looking for new ways to destabilise western capitalism? Did they retrain to be climate scientists in early 90s so they could infiltrate the UK Met Office and the NASA Goddard Space centre? 
Maybe they have teamed up with their comrades in the BBC and Newstatesman to wreak havoc?
JZ Smith 
19 January 2008 at 00:20
Mr Guenier, it is a pleasure to read your always elequent writings, 
Let me finally add to this thread by referencing one of my favorite bloggers from Down Under, Dr. John Ray, of Brisbane. He is a psychometrician, and has a series of wonderful sites discussing leftism and its roots in the psyche. 
One of his fundamental descriptions of leftism is an ego in constant need of fuel (hopefully not fossil fuel). They are authoritarian, and their egos drive them to set up and/or seek out situations wherein they can come to the rescue of those they find being unfairly treated. Often, it's the poor, and they see themselves as champions of their (the poor) cause. A deep-seeded need for "fairness" and "equality" is also in their core, and in the more extreme examples equal outcomes, not equal opportunity, are their desired goals. The AGW point of view fits perfectly into this framework for the leftist, as their is an unfairly treated victim (the Earth and its climate), and a villain (modern corporate western society and the enabling political system capitalism). 
The leftists are now riding gallantly in on their white horses to save the planet. 
Ref: http://jonjayray.110mb.com/psychlef.html
Brute 
19 January 2008 at 00:30
Mr. Martin, 
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing the other day. 
If you use the acronym IPCC, reverse the order of the letters, remove the “I” and add a “C” at the beginning, it spells CCCP. Coincidence? Hmmmm…….
Cybertiger 
19 January 2008 at 08:46
"If you use the acronym IPCC, reverse the order of the letters, remove the “I” and add a “C” at the beginning, it spells CCCP." 
I worry that the term 'American intelligence' has become an oxymoron.
Robin Guenier 
19 January 2008 at 09:55
Those who read my contributions to the Whitehouse thread may recall my concern that, although the IPCC position on climate change may have convinced politicians and the media, most voters are sceptical, continuing to think it is a hoax or tax raising scam. And voters matter – hence increased investment in airports, roads etc. What can be done about it? Well, rummaging around the links on pieman Lynas’s interesting blog (www.marklynas.org), I came across the suggestion that there should be “A mandatory call-up requiring every known adult to see 'An Inconvenient Truth'” and that the UK government should seek “international treaties requiring most/all adults in as many other countries as possible to attend [such screenings] with language translated versions as appropriate”. 
Interesting idea.
badcop666 
19 January 2008 at 10:26
I'll need to wipe up all the moral cliche's dripping from this mess before I can read any of it...something tells me that some people are emotionally attached to one side of the argument and not really interested in having to put their toys back in the toybox
bobclive 
19 January 2008 at 14:32
Robin Guenier 
Regarding pieman Lynas’s blog My comment to that site is Nazi propaganda
bobclive 
19 January 2008 at 15:47
Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age 
Public release date: 27-Sep-2007 
Are there any comments on this recent study. 
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php
AEB 
19 January 2008 at 15:59
I do not think there is ( or was ) an ENHANCED greenhouse gas effect. 
Please consider the following. 
Let C = total number of carbon dioxide molecules in the pre-industrial atmosphere at 280ppmv 
k = the increase factor in CO2 concentration relative to pre-industrial conc. of 280ppmv. 
s = proportion of emitted photons escaping to space 
win = total number of photons escaping to space through the “window” per unit time 
For CO2 increase factor k, let 
b = proportion of carbon dioxide molecules excited by absorption of photons, and 
intermolecular collisions 
Then, number of CO2 molecules excited by absorption/collision = kbC 
All these molecules emit photons. 
Let the following expressions apply for unit time, where p is the appropriate constant of proportionality. 
Then in general, we have: 
Number of photons escaping to space = pskbC + win ………………….. (Eqn 1) 
Now consider the case of the pre-industrial atmosphere. 
We can put k = 1 and b = b1. 
Then, number of photons escaping to space = psb1.C + win ………….....(Eqn 2) 
Now in energy balance conditions, the number of photons escaping to space must be constant. 
Therefore, from Eqn (1) and Eqn (2), we have pskbC + win = psb1.C + win 
Hence, kb = b1 
But b1 is a constant. 
So as k increases, b must decrease for this relationship to be satisfied and energy balance to be maintained. That is, as the amount of carbon dioxide is increased, the proportion of the number of CO2 molecules participating in the process is reduced. This requirement can be accommodated by a fall in temperature from the pre-industrial value at high altitudes. 
This means that increased CO2 produces extra COOLING at high altitudes. 
What happens in the atmosphere? 
In general, 
Number of photons returning to the atmosphere = p(1 – s )kbC ……....… (Eqn 3) 
And for the case of the pre-industrial atmosphere, k = 1 and b = b1, as before. 
So, the number of photons returning to the pre-industrial atmosphere = p(1 – s )b1.C …..(Eqn 4) 
Therefore, the change in photons returning to the atmosphere = p(1 – s )kbC – p(1 – s )b1.C 
= p(1 – s )C(kb – b1) 
But, in energy equilibrium, kb = b1. 
Therefore, the change in the number of photons returning to the atmosphere = 0 
This means that there is no change in the temperature of the atmosphere due to increasing the amount of CO2 present.
bobclive 
19 January 2008 at 16:18
September 08, 2007 
NASA's Hansen Frees the Code ! 
Quote, 
One of the goals I and many other concerned citizens have had this summer is to get full disclosures on the measuring environment, data, methods, and computer source code used by NOAA and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) to arrive at adjustments to data for the surface temperature record. Given the error discovered in August that led to a restructuring of temperature in the USA and hottest year temperature rankings (see 1998 no longer hottest year on record) renewed calls for full disclosure put NASA GISS in a nearly indefensible position. 
I'm happy to report that NASA GISS has in fact released the computer code used to arrive at temperature adjustments for the USA and the world. 
Apparently us "court jesters" (as as Dr. James Hansen calls us) carry some weight after all. Even with such unfortunate characterizations, I wish to publicly thank Dr. Hansen for making this new information available. It was the right thing to do. Thank you. 
I got an email from one of the www.surfacestations.org volunteers, Chris Dunn, that sums up the problem pretty well: 
I downloaded the raw and adjusted text versions of the GISS data for Walhalla, and did a simple subtraction of annual figures: adjusted minus raw. It's clear that they created a step-up over time. They started by subtracting 0.3 from the early record, then progressively reduced this amount by 0.1 degree a couple of times until 1990, after which there were no adjustments made. This artificial "stepping down" of the historical temperature record as you go back in time induces a false upward trend to the data where, in my opinion, one shouldn't be. Consider that this is a rural site and the CRS was unmoved, and in the middle of a large, empty and level field in a relatively static, isolated setting from at least 1916 to 2000. There is just no justification for this whatsoever when looking at the site and the general area. 
Of course, this "step" procedure is what McIntyre et. al. have been documenting over on CA for some time, now, but having visited the Walhalla site personally and seeing how pristine it was during that period, I am just shocked to see how the data have been so clearly & systematically manipulated. It seems if they can't find an upward trend, they simply create one. It's an outrage to an average citizen such as myself, especially when I think of the good people (private observers, among others) who dedicated their time every day for so long to create an accurate record. That's the real rub as I see it - the arrogant disregard of honest people who have put so much of their lives into it. I truly see just how important this work is that is being done by you and the folks over at Climate Audit. 
I'm considering writing my congressmen, but will wait to see what the results are when McIntyre is done. 
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/09/
Gareth Evans 
19 January 2008 at 16:20
AEB - Arrhenius carried out these calculations for us over a century ago - and his estimates hold pretty true today. Arrhenius was a lit bit better a scientist than most of us who contibute to this blog!! The link between global warming and CO2 is not a new phenomenon - we forgot about it for a while - until its manifestations started to become obvious. 
This is definitely my last contribution to this blog (most of you will be glad to know) but do read about Arrhenius below. 
Gareth Evans 
Svante Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect ("On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground", Philosophical Magazine 1896(41): 237-76). He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of CO2 and water vapour. Arrhenius' painstaking calculations were later shown to be erroneous. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows: 
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression. 
Which is still valid in the simplified expression by Myhre et al. (1998). 
ΔF = αln(C/C0) 
Arrhenius' high absorption values for CO2, however, met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands. Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether. He touched the subject briefly in a technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (1903). He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906), German translation: Das Werden der Welten (1907), English translation: Worlds in the Making (1908) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population. He was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes would cause global warming. Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. From that, the hot-house theory gained more attention. Nevertheless, until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the hot-house / greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice ages as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital changes of the earth (Milankovitch cycles), which has proven to be a powerful predictor of most of the past climate changes for millions of years. Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback. 
Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4 - 5 °C and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 - 6 degrees Celsius [1]or 7 - 11 degrees Fahrenheit. Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 degrees. What is remarkable is that Arrhenius came so close to the most recent IPCC estimate. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions in his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now predicted to take about a century.
Brute 
19 January 2008 at 16:47
TOP 10 CLIMATE MYTH-BUSTERS FOR 2007 
Thursday, December 27, 2007 
By Steven Milloy 
“I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with the facts.” That saying most appropriately sums up the year in climate science for the fanatic global warming crowd. 
As Al Gore, the United Nations, grandstanding politicians and celebrities, taxpayer-dependent climate researchers, socialist-minded Greens, climate profiteers and other members of the alarmist railroad relentlessly continued their drive for greenhouse gas regulation in 2007, the year’s scientific developments actually pointed in the opposite direction. Here’s the round-up: 
1. Cracked crystal balls. Observed temperature changes measured over the last 30 years don’t match well with temperatures predicted by the mathematical climate models relied on by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), researchers reported. 
The models predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than actually occurred, despite the availability of more and better quality data and improved modeling efforts since the late-1970s. 
“We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution,” the researchers concluded. Read more… 
2. The big yellow ball in the sky. The Sun may have contributed 50 percent or more of the global warming thought to have occurred since 1900, according to a new historical temperature reconstruction showing more variation in pre-industrial temperatures than previously thought. 
The researchers found that “the climate is very sensitive to solar changes and a significant fraction of the global warming that occurred during the last century should be solar induced.” Read more… 
3. Pre-SUV warming. Another new temperature reconstruction for the past 2,000 years indicates that globally averaged temperature 1,000 years ago was about 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than the current temperature. Since that climatic "heat wave" obviously wasn’t caused by coal-fired power plants and SUVs, the current temperature is quite within natural variability, deflating alarmists’ rash conclusions about the warming of the past 50 years. Read more… 
4. A disciplined climate. Runaway global warming -- the alarmist fantasy in which a warmer global temperature causes climatic events that, in turn, cause more warming and so-on in a never-ending positive feedback loop -- was cornered by new data from researchers at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). The new research sheds light on the mechanism by which the atmosphere self-regulates. Read more… 
5. A gnarly wipeout. Climate alarmists gleefully surfed a 2005 study that claimed greenhouse gas emissions would slow Atlantic Ocean circulation and cause a mini ice age in Europe. But an international team of researchers reported that the intensity of the Atlantic circulation may vary by as much as a factor of eight in a single year. The decrease in Atlantic circulation claimed in the 2005study falls well within this variation and so is likely part of a natural yearly trend, according to the new study. Read more… 
6. A pollution solution. A new study reported that the solid particles suspended in the atmosphere (called “aerosols”) that make up “brown clouds” may actually contribute to warmer temperatures -- precisely the opposite effect heretofore claimed by global warming alarmists. 
“These findings might seem to contradict the general notion of aerosol particles as cooling agents in the global climate system …,” concluded the researchers. Read more… 
7. Lazy temperature? Researchers reported that the rate of manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions was three times greater during 2000 to 2004 than during the 1990s. Since increasing atmospheric C02 levels allegedly cause global warming, the new study must mean that global temperatures are soaring even faster now than they did during the 1990s, right? 
Wrong. According to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Climatic Data Center, ever-changing global temperatures are in no way keeping pace with ever-increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Read more… 
8. Don’t plant that tree! Researchers reported that while tropical forests exert a cooling influence on global climate, forests in northern regions exert a significant warming influence on climate. Based on the researchers’ computer modeling, forests above 20 degrees latitude in the Northern Hemisphere -- that is, north of the line of latitude running through Southern Mexico, Saharan Africa, central India and the southernmost Chinese Island of Hainan -- will warm surface temperatures in those regions by an estimated 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. Read more… 
9. The Tropical Arctic. Dutch researchers reported that during a period of intense global warming 55 million years ago -- when the Arctic Ocean was as warm as 73 degrees Fahrenheit -- there was a tremendous release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But which came first, the warming or the greenhouse gases? 
It was the warming, according to the researchers. Read more… 
10. Much ado about nothing. In a report to Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revealed greenhouse gas regulation to be quite the fool’s errand. In estimating the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases 90 years from now under both a scenario where no action is taken to reduce manmade emissions and a scenario where maximum regulation is implemented, the estimated difference in average global temperature between the two scenarios is 0.17 degrees Centigrade. 
For reference purposes, the estimated total increase in average global temperature for the 20th century was about 0.50 degrees Celsius. 
That’s what researchers have reported this year. And let’s not forget the spanking a British high judge gave Al Gore’s movie for all its scientific inaccuracies and the thrashing non-alarmist climate scientists gave to alarmist climate scientists in a debate sponsored by the New York debating society Intelligence Squared. 
Al Gore and the alarmist mob claim the debate about the science of global warming is “over.” Given the developments of 2007, it’s easy to see why they would want it that way.
Brute 
19 January 2008 at 16:55
MANMADE ANTARCTIC MELTING, INDEED 
Thursday, January 17, 2008 
A new study, much hyped by the media, blames humans for escalating ice loss in Antarctica. The media, however, seems to have no idea as to how truly manmade the supposed ice loss may be. 
“Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica; Sheets Melting in an Area Once Thought to Be Unaffected by Global Warming” was the Washington Post’s front-page, above-the-fold headline last Monday (Jan. 14). 
The headline for the continuation of the article was “Antarctic Ice Loss Could Speed Rise in Ocean Levels.” 
If true, it would be quite a worrisome situation given that Antarctica contains enough ice to raise ocean levels by about 60 meters, a deluge that would put every major coastal city in the world deep under water and uproot hundreds of millions, if not billions of people. 
NASA scientist Eric Rignot reported in Nature Geoscience (Jan. 13) that increased melting had been detected in the ice sheets of western Antarctica, an area where surface temperatures have remained unchanged. 
As warming surface temperatures could not be blamed for the ice loss, Rignot hypothesized that the cause may be the flow of warmer waters from the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that circles much of the continent. “Something must be changing the ocean to trigger such changes,” Rignot told the Post. “We believe it is related to [manmade global warming]”, he added. 
Rignot may indeed “believe” that humans are the cause – he is, after all, part of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization founded on the belief that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. But the facts belie such beliefs. 
First, standard climate alarmism claims that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are warming surface temperatures. But not only is such warming not being observed in Antarctica, it’s actually getting cooler in western Antarctica, according to surface temperature analysis from each of eight NASA stations located there. 
Rignot, of course, admits that standard climate alarmism can’t possibly explain the western Antarctic melting; that’s why he shifted to blaming man for the warmer Antarctic Circumpolar Current. But is this true? 
In an effort to support Rignot’s hypothesis, Columbia University’s Douglas Martinson told The Washington Post that “the [Antarctic Circumpolar Current”, which flows about 200 yards below the frigid surface water, began to warm significantly in the 1980s, and that warming in turn caused wind patterns to change in ways that ultimately brought more warm water to shore.” 
But Martinson also admitted to the Post that there is not enough data to say for certain that the process was set in motion by global warming. Truth be told, there is good reason to question Martinson's assertion about the temperature trend, let alone its hypothetical cause. 
According to World Climate Report, a 2007 study by University of Washington researchers reported that, although there is much interest among scientists in ocean temperature, “below-surface ocean temperature data are sparse, and the existing data sets involve substantial ‘interpolation, extrapolation, and averaging’ that may compromise the integrity of results from such data sets.” 
Adding to the mix is the most recent IPCC report, which says that the upper ocean adjacent to west Antarctica warmed by 1 degree Celsius from 1951 to 1994. But global surface temperatures actually declined from 1940 to 1976, even as manmade emissions of carbon dioxide dramatically increased. 
The bottom line is there is no established linkage between manmade emissions of greenhouse gases and any melting in the western Antarctic. 
But then, is there even any net ice loss in the western Antarctic to begin with? 
While Rignot did use satellite observations of Antarctica’s coastline to estimate melting, he compared this real-life data to computer model estimates of Antarctic interior snow accumulation. So the western Antarctic appears to be losing mass only when compared to computer models that, when it comes to global climate, are of questionable relevance to the real world. 
At JunkScience.com, we label these sorts of computer modeling exercises as “PlayStation® climatology.” 
Even if you put faith in climate models, Rignot’s don’t seem to agree with those of the IPCC, which stated in its most recent assessment, “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.” 
Finally, according to NOAA data presented on the web site of Bill Chapman of the Polar Research Group at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign), the global level of sea ice has reached about the same level as it was at in 2003. The current change in global sea ice coverage is a positive 1 million square kilometers — that is, a gain of 1.8 million square kilometers in the Southern Hemisphere netted against a loss of 800,000 square kilometers in the Northern Hemisphere. 
It’s quite possible that the reported Antarctic melting is manmade — but the “man” may be Eric Rignot, as opposed to the term’s broader connotation. 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/14/quest... 
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily....
Robin Guenier 
19 January 2008 at 17:01
The following is relevant to my post earlier today about the proposed mandatory call-up to see 'An Inconvenient Truth': http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html 
bobclive: “Nazi propaganda” is perhaps too harsh a description of the pieman’s blog. But it does contain some strange material. For example, under the heading “The other side needs to be heard for balance” (that’s encouraging, I thought), there’s a comment that the judge (see link above) should have pointed out that Gore’s film may not have been sufficiently scary … “Just to be fair and balanced”. 
Also, re my post yesterday advising sceptics that Mr Lynas saw them as “semi-deranged obsessives”, I see he is now describes them as “a lunatic fringe of conspiracy theorists and mavericks”. Not much softening of his position then.
AEB 
19 January 2008 at 17:03
To Gareth Evans 
The work of Arrhenius is quite well known, but at the time he did not have the advantage of the HITRAN data. Moreover, he did not deal with the additional, complimentary absorbing effect of water vapour. 
Please do not misunderstand me. I have no problem with the natural greenhouse effect. It is the ENHANCED effect which I do not accept. 
So, no global warming from this (non) effect.
bobclive 
19 January 2008 at 17:18
Gareth Evans, 
Arrhenius Theory 
Implies that the current climatology hinges on unaudited paleo climate hypotheses from the past. Who audited Agassiz when he invented the Ice ages?; or Arrhenius when he overstated the effect of CO2 forcing considerably?; or Dansgaard when he invented that isotopes in ice are temperatures?; or numerous carbon dated events that have been mistaken for real calendar dates before the calibration with counted proxies was possible? 
So everybody is happy with that? continuing climate assumptions on highly misunderstood past paleao climates
bobclive 
19 January 2008 at 17:47
11 January 2008 
This latest tree ring proxy study shows Medieval warming, Little ice age and post industrial warming. 
Yin et al. remind us that tree growth in that part of the world is sensitive to changes in soil moisture, and they identified Qilian junipers in their study area that are over 1,400 years old. They extracted 1050 increment cores from 493 trees (the trees are not harmed), and they carefully measured characteristics of each ring width (there is one ring per year). The tree ring widths are highly statistically significantly related to the soil moisture levels, and just like magic, they could reconstruct soil moisture levels a long way back in time. They further note “We developed tree-ring chronologies over 1400 years long, which included several important climatic events, such as the medieval warming, Little Ice Age, and the post-industrial period warming.” 
Yin et al. definitely are not making any friends with the greenhouse advocates and their findings definitely will not be featured in any self-respecting climate-change-hyping newspapers anytime soon. 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/11/raini...
Brute 
19 January 2008 at 19:13
Mr. GUENIER, 
In the same vein as your earlier posts regarding political pressure and government implemented indoctrination……As you know, Liberal Fascists such as Mrs. Clinton, use these tactics quite frequently to intimidate businesses to apply policies favorable to their agenda… much like organized crime syndicates…(also known as racketeering/strong-arming……). Quite frightening. Maybe National Socialism, (Nazism), as Mr. Clive alluded to earlier (or Global Socialism), is not too harsh a description? 
Global Warming’s Bottom Line 
Thursday, November 15, 2007 
Sen. Hillary Clinton last week proposed that publicly-owned companies should be required to disclose to shareholders the financial impacts of global warming. 
Financial reality, however, is already overtaking the financial fantasy of climate alarmists. 
The idea behind Sen. Clinton’s proposal — and other similar efforts by other Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and the environmental advocacy group Ceres, to name a few — is that the alleged environmental consequences of global warming, ranging from drought and wildfires to lawsuits against energy companies and automobile manufacturers, pose significant financial risks that ought to be disclosed to shareholders. 
Putting aside that weather-related events can’t be tied to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), and that it's the Democrat-supporting environmental advocacy groups that are banging the drum for global warming-related litigation, Sen. Clinton’s proposal completely ignores the real climate-related threats to business: the alarmism itself and attendant government regulation. 
To illustrate this point, my colleague Tom Borelli and I examined some ongoing climate alarmism-related financial risks faced by the 20-plus corporate members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a coalition of corporations and environmental advocacy groups lobbying for global warming regulation. 
Congress and the state of California, for example, are considering legislation to ban by 2012 the incandescent light bulb, thereby forcing consumers to buy compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). Because USCAP member General Electric manufactures CFLs in China, it now faces labor problems with its U.S. employees who make incandescent bulbs. 
Ironically, GE is working on a more efficient incandescent bulb that is slated to be available by 2010 — just in time to be banned. 
Speaking of CFLs, let’s not forget the mass tort lawsuit potential against manufacturers and sellers of potentially billions of mercury-containing CFL light bulbs that require special clean-up and disposal procedures. 
GE also has a business interest in coal -– a major source of CO2 emissions. The company makes turbines for traditional coal-fired power plants and is developing so-called “Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle” (IGCC) technology — a system for capturing CO2 from coal-fired electricity plants. 
Although GE needs greenhouse gas regulations to drive growth for IGCC, its entire coal business is threatened by alarmism and regulation that would ban or greatly reduce the use of coal-fired power plants. Recent environmental group pressure caused the cancellation of eight coal-fired power plants that TXU Corp. planned to build. The cancellation caused, in turn, TXU to cancel its orders with GE for steam turbine generators. 
USCAP member PepsiCo’s bottled water business is also being jeopardized by promotion of global warming alarmism. The mayor of San Francisco recently banned the purchase of bottled water by the city government because plastic bottles sold to U.S. consumers "require about 47 million gallons of oil, the equivalent of one billion pounds of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere." 
San Francisco is not an isolated case. The mayor of Salt Lake City is urging the U.S. Conference of Mayors to promote tap water as a way to limit greenhouse gas emissions. 
Moreover, if bottled water is bad for the climate, it may be tough for PepsiCo to argue that other drinks in plastic bottles aren’t similarly harmful to the climate. 
A recent Congressional Budget Office study that found coal production would drop by 40 percent under global warming regulation. You might think that would cause heavy-equipment manufacturer Caterpillar — whose biggest customers include coal mining companies — to think twice before joining USCAP, but you’d be wrong. At least one coal company is now boycotting Caterpillar products because of its participation in USCAP. 
Energy-intensive companies like USCAP members Alcoa, Alcan, Dow Chemical and DuPont already disclose in government filings that high-energy prices a near-certain outcome of global warming regulation are a significant business risk. While these companies may plan to offset higher energy prices and even profit by selling any carbon credits given to them for free by Congress as part of a cap-and-trade scheme, there is no guarantee that these companies will attain the favorable legislation they seek. 
As the politics of windfall, pork-barrel global warming profits for special business interests become untenable, it is quite possible that Congress may decide to auction the carbon credits instead of giving them away. Companies that counted on free carbon credits may find that auctioned ones are a financial loser. 
The corporate failure to disclose the risk of global warming regulation goes beyond USCAP members. 
Wal-Mart actively promotes the notion that action needs to be taken against global warming, despite the likelihood of high energy prices. The company’s disappointing earnings in August 2007, after all, were attributed to an "increase in the cost of living and gas prices" and the fact that "many customers are running out of money towards the end of the month." 
High-energy prices will significantly increase the cost of Wal-Mart’s operations since it’s the largest private user of electricity in the U.S. Each of its 2,074 supercenters uses an average of 1.5 million kilowatts annually — enough as a group to power some small countries. Wal-Mart’s fleet of trucks is the second largest and travel a billion miles a year. 
The irony in all this, of course, is that many businesses are actually pushing Congress to make global warming-related financial risks come true. Do these companies know something that we don’t? Or is this just reckless political correctness? Only time will tell. But in the meantime, shouldn’t shareholder be told about the risks related to global warming alarmism? 
Robin Guenier 
19 January 2008 at 22:02
Brute: I don’t think I agree. But, when I consider the mentality of someone who would forcibly conscript us to view Gore’s seriously flawed movie (see my posts above), I begin to have doubts. 
But hey (as you say in the good ol US) it’s good to be back in that pub. Mine’s a pint of bitter - room temperature please.
Brute 
20 January 2008 at 00:04
Understood; make mine Guinness Stout. 
What she is attempting, is to pass legislation that forces private industry, through the Security and Exchange Commission, to publicly state that they agree with the Global Warming viewpoint; endorse the environmentalist’s position. 
What she cannot achieve, (as of yet), through the ballet box, she will impose upon private industry through legal action or implied legal action. She is attempting to force private enterprise, through political fiat and intimidation, to promote, or at least acquiesce to the point of view, that Man-Made Global Warming is a reality and to frighten shareholders into considering the legal ramifications to the corporations they have invested in, if these corporations do not publicly address an issue that they may or may not adhere to, through the application of class action lawsuits similar to the legal action inflicted upon the tobacco industry. 
Basically passing a law that requires corporations to inform investors that if the comanies do not “go green”, then they are subject to lawsuits from the likes of Mr. Lynas.
idunno 
20 January 2008 at 11:58
Hi Brute: 
"As you know, Liberal Fascists such as Mrs. Clinton, use these tactics quite frequently to intimidate businesses to apply policies favorable to their agenda… much like organized crime syndicates…(also known as racketeering/strong-arming……). Quite frightening. Maybe National Socialism, (Nazism), as Mr. Clive alluded to earlier (or Global Socialism), is not too harsh a description?" 
Er, arguing over the scientific evidence is one thing, and I have no particular axe to grind over that - I'd prefer to see what the evidence says. 
But what the hell has that got to do with screaming accusations of "fascist" and "Nazi" at your opponents? 
If global warming is a reality, then it is entirely rational to take urgent steps to combat it. We invest huge amounts of money in things like nuclear weapons, not because we expect to be attacked with nuclear weapons tomorrow, but because we regard them (rightly or wrongly) as an insurance policy against something that is unlikely but would prove utterly devastating. It makes perfect sense - if you are convinced of the evidence for global warming - to make defending against global warming a political and economic priority. 
As for the tactics of racketeering and so on, surely the oil companies are past masters at this kind of thing, both through their immensely wealthy and powerful political lobbies and through their direct action in suppressing opposition to their activities on the ground in places like Latin America or West Africa? 
Not to mention the "defence" racketeering of companies like Halliburton with friends in the oil business. 
Neither side has a monopoly on morality, and it seems there is plenty to debate in terms of the scientific evidence. So debate the evidence "ad rem" not "ad hominem". 
If you disagree with the "global warming" interpretation of the available evidence, you might be right or wrong, but either way that does not mean your opponents are "Nazis". 
Grow up.
idunno 
20 January 2008 at 16:05
In case anybody is interested in keeping up with the scientific developments on climate change, here's a link to the New Scientists's dedicated web pages: 
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-ch...
Brute 
20 January 2008 at 18:51
Idunno, 
When schoolchildren are being forced to view a movie that has been proven to be riddled with inaccuracies, deception, fraud and outright lies as well as political doctrine; when school children are being told through government sponsored programs that their parents are evil and killing polar bears and penguins because they own vehicles powered by internal combustion engines or vote for Conservative representatives; what would you call it? This is the greatest hoax since Piltdown Man, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Orson Welles' Mercury Theatre radio broadcast with the consequences being enormously destructive both in economic and humanitarian terms. 
I should grow up? I haven’t thrown a pie in anyone’s face in my life. 
There is growing evidence, (unadulterated evidence), indicating that the global warming theory is incorrect and based on hype and ideology. What bothers me most is that the basis of the global warming argument is computer generated predictions that purport to display future prospects. Unfortunately, these computers cannot provide “predictions” of past weather events using the programs that are currently being used to predict the future. 
So, the results forecasted in the year 1995, (for instance), by these computers have been proven to be inaccurate; however, politicians and policy makers ignore these facts and continue to pursue doctrines as if they were correct for “our own good” or “just to be on the safe side” no matter how they effect the economies of western societies let alone emerging Third World economies all in an effort to garner votes with Left Wing ideologists, peaceniks and radical environmentalists……. How nice; how elitist. 
Here we have politicians and policy makers ignoring proven facts and implementing law demonizing private industry because they don’t follow the “party line”; yes, that is racketeering and indoctrination in any case, whether it supports your personal opinion regarding the subject or not. This goes far beyond Lobbying. 
On the other side of the coin; how would you feel if Creationism or Eugenics were taught in public schools exclusively? Would that be alright with you? Would it be alright with you if Conservatism was promoted and embraced by taxpayer funded educators and professors as the morally superior ideology? 
The point here is that human beings, at this stage of development, cannot change the weather or "the climate”; even if we all close ours eyes, hold hands and sing Kumbaya; that’s reality. 
Now, if these politicians want to pursue these policies with the result being a cleaner environment, energy independence or to prevent foreign military entanglements they should simply say that; not prophesize a global catastrophe or demonize productive citizens and businesses in an attempt to promote their agenda. If their platform is worthwhile and reasonable, the electorate will support it. Ironically, the “Global Warming” crusade is being marginalized by extremists such as Mr. Lynas and Mr. Gore. It’s a straw man argument……sophistry… and is having the opposite effect than I would think reasonable environmentalists, (if there is such a thing), would like to see. The hysteria is alienating people as opposed to endearing them to the cause. People resent being lied to, no matter how noble the cause. The “Global Warming” movement is losing momentum and being exposed as fraud; these eco-socialists are becoming desperate as evidenced by the pie throwing tactics employed by their standard bearers and the refusal to debate the topic when clear evidence refutes their assertions. Essentially, a child that is losing the match and upsets the game board. 
If a person wants to be carbon neutral, whatever the hell that means; more power to them. That’s a personal choice and this is a free country; (at least it used to be); but don’t force others through intimidation and bullying to adopt your position; especially when the position is based on a lie and personal preferences.
Brute 
20 January 2008 at 19:30
U.N. Climate Distractions 
Wednesday, November 21, 2007 
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just issued the final installment of its year-long scare-the-pants-off-the public assessment of global warming. 
It should come as no surprise that, according to the U.N., 257 years of western development and progress has placed the Earth in imminent danger of utter disaster and that the only way to save the planet is to drink the U.N. Kool-Aid and knuckle under to global government-directed energy rationing and economic planning. 
Oh, and did I mention that the U.N. says we only have seven years to end the growth of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and 40 years to stop them entirely if we are to avoid killing as many as one-fourth of the planet’s species? 
I’d be scared too, if I didn’t know that this is the very same U.N. that just admitted to inflating the African AIDS epidemic -- thereby maximizing the public panic feeding its fundraising efforts -- and the very same U.N. that presided over the corrupt oil-for-food program which gave Saddam Hussein as much as $20 billion in kickbacks while delivering food unfit for human consumption to hungry Iraqis. 
What we need to do is peer through the U.N.’s frantic efforts to distract us with a multitude of dire predictions of climatic Armageddon and focus on the core issue of the global warming debate -- only then does it become obvious why the U.N.’s claims call for extreme skepticism. 
That key issue, of course, is whether or not manmade CO2 emissions drive global temperature. In its shockingly brief and superficial treatment of this crucial issue, the U.N. states, in relevant part, that, “Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures, since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over every continent (except Antarctica)." 
This glib statement overlooks that fact that from 1940 to 1975 globally-averaged temperature declined (giving rise to a much-hyped scare about a looming ice age) while manmade CO2 emissions increased. Global temperature has fallen since 1998 despite ever-increasing CO2 emissions. So for 27 of the last 50 years, globally-averaged temperatures have declined while CO2 emissions have increased. 
If there’s a cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and temperature in the last 50 years at all, it seems to be slightly in the opposite direction from what the U.N. claims. And if we are experiencing manmade global warming, someone should tell Antarctica to get with the program. 
The U.N. also says that, "Atmospheric concentrations of CO2… exceed by far the natural range over the 650,000 years." Readers, apparently, are supposed to let their imaginations run away with them as to the implications of this statement. What the U.N. left out is that the relationship between CO2 and temperature over the last 650,000 years is precisely opposite of what it has led the public to believe with statements like the preceding one. 
Increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 actually lag global temperature increases anywhere from 800-2,000 years according to the Antarctic ice core record that covers the 650,000-year span of time. Note to readers: A video debate on this point produced by me can be viewed by clicking here. 
A new temperature reconstruction for the past 2,000 years created by Craig Loehle of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement indicates that, 1,000 years ago, globally averaged temperature was about 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than the current temperature. Since that climatic "heat wave" obviously wasn’t caused by coal-fired power plants and SUVs, the current temperature is quite within natural variability, further deflating the UN’s rash conclusion about the warming of the past 50 years. 
There's also the matter of the quality of the temperature records relied on by the U.N. 
In his project entitled, "How Not to Measure Temperature," meteorologist Anthony Watts travels the U.S. inspecting stations at which temperature data are recorded by NASA. In the recently released Part 34 of his series, Watts found that the Klamath Falls, Ore., station was located amid acres of heat-trapping asphalt and exposed to huge amounts of waste heat from electric power conversion. Watts says the location of the temperature station seems to have been chosen for the convenience of the observer rather than the integrity of the temperature reading. 
It's not hard to imagine how the upward bias in temperature readings from this and similarly situated stations around the world has raised serious questions about the validity of official temperature records and, consequently, their use in the global warming debate. So when the U.N. claims to have divined a global warming trend averaging 0.75 degrees Celsius per century regardless of its cause, it’s useful to keep in mind that NASA alarmist James Hansen says that the margin of error around the average global temperature is plus/minus 0.7 degrees Celsius. 
So we can’t possibly have all that much confidence in what the U.N. claims to be happening global temperature-wise. 
Don’t be distracted by the alarmist arm-waving and sideshows about the North Pole melting, polar bears drowning and the myriad other supposed catastrophes mentioned in the same breath as man-made CO2 emissions and global warming. There's no evidence that man-made CO2 emissions have created any environmental problem and certainly no scientific justification for handing the keys of the American economy over to the U.N. 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU 
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/how-not-to-m...
Peter Martin 
21 January 2008 at 02:01
Brute, 
"handing the keys of the American economy over to the U.N." 
Who's suggesting that? As "idunno" has tried to explain to you, its not a political issue. If CO2 is the problem that the scientists tell us it won't matter one jot if its been released from a capitalist , a socialist, or a communist run power staion. Or, from one that's run by the UN for that matter! 
Similarly, any effective technical solution will be equally effective whether its made by the political left , centre or right. 
I suspect that your politics are what might be termed the "libertarian right". That's fair enough. If you believe in that system then argue how it will be better than the alternatives in fixing the problem.
Brute 
21 January 2008 at 04:41
Mr. Martin, 
No, I don't think I would be pigeonholed as "Libertarian Right", (I don’t support Ron Paul). 
As Mr. Guenier has stated; it has become a political issue, like it or not. I don't like it, but that's what this has become. What was a kooky, earth worshipping cult has now been embraced by politicians as a cash cow. Alarmist environmental scare-tactics and outright lies are not the way to resolve the problem; it turns people off….. 
PLEASE, read this: 
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover050705.htm 
I'm completely in agreement about research and development of alternative methods of producing energy as I have stated 100 times. Improved technology is the answer. To the radical environmentalists, population control is the answer. To the politician, excessive taxation, regulation and platitudes is the answer. Nuclear power would be ideal to bridge the gap as you or “Mr. Idunno” have proposed, (I don't remember which one of you). I have also advocated clean coal, hydrogen technology as well as solar powered Sterling Engines as a local means of generating power. If the politicians are going to steal money from us anyway, they should at least funnel this revenue to research and development into these areas. (I’d hold my nose and agree, reluctantly). 
As much as you don't believe or choose not to believe that this is political; it is. 
Is the United Nations a political organization? 
Is the IPCC part of the U.N.? 
Have you read the Kyoto Protocol? Do you understand what it means? 
The IPCC gathers information from scientists. The information is passed to, (you guessed it), POLITICIANS. These politicians then forward information to the General Assembly, (addition politicians). 
By the way; I commented a few days ago that record low temperatures in the Continental United States were disproportionably higher in the second half of the 20th century as the first half and conversely, the majority of high record temperatures were record between 1900 and 1950, (before industrialization). Can any of the Global Warming alarmists reading these posts explain this to me? Wouldn’t the high temperature records be achieved as industrialization increases; in the second half of the century? At least a higher percentage? 
I suppose the alarmists haven’t had a chance to manipulate the data as of yet. 
Don't Look to Government to Cool Down the Planet 
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23293
Peter Martin 
21 January 2008 at 06:18
Brute, 
I'm sorry if I tried to pigeonhole you. Maybe you could give your own description of your political outlook.. 
However your comment " Don't Look to Government to Cool Down the Planet" isn't a surprise. But I'd ask if not Governments -who? Its much too big a problem for anyone else. As I've said previously it can be fixed without Draconian measures. But, the longer we prevaricate or look to pseudo-science, or, even worse, religion, the harder it will be.
stargazer 
21 January 2008 at 11:21
Peter 
what IF all this IS indeed caused mostly by 'natural causes' (With our AWG bit on top) 
William Herschel (astronomer, and discoverer of Planet Uranus) noted in 1801 that "when there are few spots on the Sun the price of wheat went up". 
The fact that this was noted in 1801 implies that you dont need to look too deep to find a Solar connection, as he did .... I look at solar data and I see it TOO. 
The fact is I saw years ago that the worlds temp would start going down when solar cycle 23 began falling..And IT has. I think warming will pick up again as cycle 24 progresses. And IF the next two cycles are 'low' (24 & 25) 
we may get cold. ...very cold, for decades.. (and on this I am perhaps 'of a different oppinion' than other anti AWG'ers) because this will cause greater death and misery than warming would do. IF I am right removing Co2 will make thing worse, indeed I see a time when we are TOLD to put C02 into the atmosphere to counter cooling. 
I cant speak for the other anti AWG'ers, because though we 'deniers' are all likely to be of the same opinion in that 'there is much more to this than AGW'... there are, as with everything, different 'shades' so I speak for myself only. 
SO let me tell you what I think... And accept that I cannot possibly fit all of my years of reasons and reasoning onto this post. 
I don't believe in UFO's, creationism, God(s), the grassy knoll, that 'we' did not land on the moon, the lochness monster, bigfoot, ghosts, and corn circles and I DONT think the holocaust did not happen!!! . In other words I am very 'scientific' in my world view, and don't hold with ANY conspiracy theories. 
Over the years, I have given many public lectures On Astronomy and 'space science', and so am well used to very long timeframes, and big numbers. So I do not subscribe to viewing the Earths climate ONLY over 150 years.... That said 'the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step', and so I believe that the 'flattening out of temp, in recent years may be very significant.but only time will tell. 
I have spent some 20 years looking into this global warming/climate change stuff. NOT to satisfy anyone else, (only myself) as to the 'truth'. I started off 'on the fence' about it. And now I think that there is more going on than just AGW/Co2. My conclusion... and NO I cant prove it, (if I could I'd be world famous) is that the Sun will turn out to be the main driver eg. natural climate change. 
YES I KNOW the worlds temperature has gone up. I don't disagree with that...and I think that for our own comfort we should clean up our act. This means Clean energy (nuclear), electric cars, all down the line to homes producing less waste.... 
I don't think anyone here disagrees (Denies) that the climate is changing (as it always has). But the CAUSE of it is indeed of utmost importance...how can we adapt to something if we don't know what (for sure) the cause is. (Yes...I know the AGW already have the answer.) But as you must well know, the MWP and LIA, and not to mention that the ice mass of the globe is increasing overall, and so do not sit well with co2 theory on its own. We may ruin the worlds economy and other things by 'blaming' the wrong thing, and so then by doing the wrong thing. 
I think that far from warming...we may well get cold...soon.... I could place plenty of links on this here but no-one would read them, so I wont. Looking at the past (as we MUST), we see that each of the last four interglacial's reached higher temps. than our current one. The temp. has also been higher than now at least 11 times during the past 10,000 years. 
Over the past 1000 years the medieval period being up to 2 deg C warmer than now and at the end of this period we had the 'little ice age' with very cold times between 1400 and tail ended as recently as 1850...when the temp. started to rise again. ~1850 is the date beloved by the AGW's they show this graph to 'prove' the temp.had gone up since... well whoopee-do. 
We can live with warm we should be glad it is. Millions will suffer greatly when we get cold again. I think that the Sunspot-cosmic ray-cloud connection will turn out to be the 'smoking gun'. Even William Herschel (astronomer, and discoverer of Planet Uranus) noted in 1801 that "when there are few spots on the Sun the price of wheat went up". 
At this time the sun is 'quiet' sunspot cycle 23 has ended (and cycle 24 is just beginning) and there are virtually no spots on the Sun... and the world is cooler.. is this coincidence? 
That said the next solar cycle (24) may be 'low' and the following one (25) lower still. This is from new research on a solar sub-surface 'conveyor' that has slowed in recent times. 
There is a pattern here (as there always is)... and I fear the immanent onset of a 'maunder' type sunspot minimum. We can live with warm...but millions may suffer (and worse) if we indeed get years/decades of extended cold...power/gas outages, crop failures, food/water shortages,all forms of transport snowed to a halt etc. and maybe war ...not good!!... And after this global warming stuff...who will believe any scientist who says 'well guys we got it wrong... forget what we said about warming ! global cooling is on its way so we must make it law to put Co2 into the atmosphere to counter it'...Think it cant happen !!! Yeah right. 
IF the Sun were indeed to be the main factor in Global warming (and cooling)...and IF we were heading for another cold period then removing Co2 (at great cost) could therefore make things worse. We can live with warm. ...but millions may indeed suffer and die if we indeed get years/decades of extended cold 
There has been no global warming for almost 10 years.1998 being the most recent warmest year. All this will turn out to be caused by the Sun...the Sun drives the climate as it always has, and the temp. goes up and down. WHAT if our civilization (exactly as it is now) had occurred during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. when the climate WAS warmer than today (no-one disputes this) would you complain that we had warmed the climate by an extra one degree f.... 
And what if you could know that in some 'alternative universe's future civilization' the temp was STILL lower than yours despite the added man caused C02.warming. 
you and me have become milch cows for the politicians over this....And No this is NOT why I am anti AGW... read above.
Robin Guenier 
21 January 2008 at 11:55
Climate change is the epitome of a political problem. If the chief scientific adviser to the UK government is correct in describing it as “the biggest challenge our civilisation has ever faced”, it demands the global resolution of a range of conflicting but fundamental priorities. Politicians may have great difficulty in resolving these conflicts. But there is not the remotest chance that scientists will. 
The environmentalists are strong on telling us how dreadful the problem is and how much worse it could get – see for example pieman Lynas’s blog. There’s some pretty scary stuff there and some attacks on those who disagree with the “consensus”. But there’s no convincing attempt to tackle the enormous problems involved in overcoming the perceived problem. (That, bobclive and Brute, is why it’s not “fascist propaganda” – if it were, it would be demanding a state-sponsored authoritarian solution.) What puzzles me is how people like the pieman expect the world to deal with their problem. The real world, that is: the world where, despite media entreaties, the bulk of voters in the western democracies are not interested or think it’s all a hoax, tax raising scam or left-wing conspiracy; the world where western politicians pay lip service to the issue but, giving priority to economic growth, defer real action for years; the world where the US Senate (under a Democratic President and chaired by Al Gore) voted 95 – 0 against the Kyoto treaty; the world where the rich expect more and bigger airports, more investment in roads – and get them; the world where the poor are desperate for basics such as drinking water and food, basic healthcare, freedom from continual violence etc. – all of which require increased economic growth; the world where China and India are demanding more and more resource to drive their economic growth and are understandably not interested in moderating that demand; the world where the ambitions of increasingly powerful nations such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran depend almost entirely on continued demand for fossil fuels; the world where renewable energy may be proving to be rather less eco-friendly and efficient than had been hoped; the world where the profits to be made by destroying rainforests are overcoming governments’ expressed intentions; the world where the potential for GM crops to overcome the destructive industrialisation of agriculture is ignored or demonised; the world where the views of sceptics such as stargazer are getting increasing attention; the world where the environmentalists are falling out amongst themselves – e.g. about biofuels and nuclear energy; the world where the Bali conference achieved hardly anything except an agreement to hold more conferences; the world where human populations just go on expanding, perhaps to 10 billion people in 50 years time. And so on. 
These (Peter Martin) are all political issues – and many appear hopelessly intractable, even in the long term. How do the protagonists of man-made global warming propose they be tackled – especially as several years ago some of them were suggesting it was already too late? Perhaps it is they who are in denial.
Dallas Beaufort 
21 January 2008 at 12:13
Hi Brute.. I would consider Global warming, climate change, greenhouse gases and their advocates to be a secondary "political" result , But firstly a human social endeavor. Vacuum's produced by society need to be filled with active lubricants, be they an agent of change or groups of people probably with lots of unfulfilled desires, like outcomes. . When Global Warming enterprise merchants, their masters, followers and aspirants lift their sights and recognize the solar conclusions, then these hidden true realities may fulfill their own personal shortfalls. What will this Global Warming party plan diversion cost society? Is this just marking time to further develop communication skills on the internet? Or will it justify the financial miscalculations which are needed in other areas of human endeavor and their social responsibility. I would look closer to home near personal relationships or relatives who are probably no longer in their picture. Faith and trust would also fit into the lost children of this new millennium and their short media cycle. Anyway it sure beats communism and all that waste of life. But then, fear is a motivator used to fulfill social and political ends.. Oh what fun it is to waste other's financial assets in a new faith replacing feeding frenzy. kind reflections..
Brute 
21 January 2008 at 13:03
Mr. Martin, 
Let’s just say that on the political spectrum regarding my personal political leanings, I’m slightly to the Right of Attila the Hun. (That was a joke). 
As far as what and who should “do” something about Global Warming, we are back to the beginning; Dr. Whitehouse’s original article stated that the temperature has leveled off; not his opinion, a fact published by your government’s meteorological bureau. I don’t think that anyone has done anything meaningful on a large scale to reduce carbon emissions (unless you consider a few people purchasing Hybrid cars meaningful), so it may be that this “perceived” problem has been resolved naturally which returns to Stargazer’s correct assertion that the sun is driving climate, not humanity. 
You haven’t addressed my question regarding schoolchildren being forced to view a motion picture that is obvious propaganda; so I must assume that you feel that it is acceptable for children to be politically indoctrinated as long as you agree with the message. 
As far as “who” should be responsible for addressing this “issue”, I’d like to return to a post several weeks ago. Private industry should and will ultimately be the driving force behind developing more efficient technology if it turns out that it is profitable/marketable. The trouble is government wants a piece of the action; hence my assertion that this is a CON, DODGE, FLIM-FLAM, PONZI SCHEME….you choose the description. Who are the most vocal cheerleaders pushing the Global Warming ruse? Rich, White, Liberals; and they stand to gain the most by promoting these doomsday scenarios and are the most prolific energy consumers. 
Didn’t the European Union adopt energy policies to curtail carbon emissions in 1997? Haven’t carbon emissions increased in Europe since that time? (So much for treaties curtailing carbon emissions). Hasn’t the cost of energy increased by 50% in Europe since that time? Weren’t there energy shortages in Europe last winter due to Russia shutting off the gas supply? I wouldn’t want to be solely dependent on another nation for my citizens energy needs. 
Mr. Guenier, 
Mussolini was a fascist wasn’t he? Weren’t his programs/policies leftist? Stalin? Absolute fascist? 
These individuals/groups scream loudly that if another teaspoon of carbon is released into the atmosphere were doomed. You make the call: 
The Greenest Hypocrites of 2007 
Green has traditionally been the color of the deadly sin of envy. But this year, a trendy upstart mounted a serious challenge to envy’s claim. 
Here are green hypocrisy’s top 10 poster children for 2007. 
1. Al Gore’s Inconvenient Lifestyle. While the former veep and nouveau-$100 millionaire jets around the world squawking about the “planet having a fever” and demanding that we all lower our standard of living, his own personal electricity use is 20 times the national average, including an indoor pool costing $500/month to heat. 
While Gore deflected criticism of his inconvenient electric bill during March congressional testimony by saying he purchased “green” electricity, the truth is, he didn’t start doing so until 2007. 
2. Google’s Sky Pig. A photo-op of Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin plugging-in a hybrid car was part of the search engine giant’s June announcement promising carbon neutrality by 2008. But how this PR-fluff squares with the so-called “Google party jet” — Page and Brin’s gargantuan personal Boeing 767, which burns about 1,550 gallons/hour — is any one’s guess. 
3. RFK Jr. Tilts at Windmills. Outspoken global warming activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently railed against coal-produced electricity because “climate change is the most urgent threat to our collective survival.” 
Meanwhile, Kennedy vigorously campaigns against a proposed Cape Cod wind farm that would generate CO2-free electricity because it would “impoverish the experience of millions of tourists and residents and fishing families who rely on the sound's unspoiled bounties.” Unmentioned in Kennedy’s tirades, however, is the windmill’s unfortunate proximity to his family’s famed Hyannis Port compound. Kennedy also owns Arctic Oil (Arctic Royalty Limited Partnership). You’d think he could afford to let a few barrels loose wouldn’t you? 
4. The U.N.’s ‘Bali High’. Early December will witness 10,000 climateers descending upon the paradisiacal island resort of Bali for the 13th annual U.N. global warming meeting. The reason for much jet and limo travel — and other prodigious greenhouse gas generating activity associated with such a mega-conference — is relatively modest: setting the agenda and timeframe for a post-Kyoto treaty. Sure seems like something that could have been handled in a less carbon-intensive way — either by Internet and video conferencing or, if meeting is necessary, somewhere in North America or Europe where most key attendees are based. 
5. Nancy Nukes Nukes. Supposedly concerned that “global warming and energy independence…have profound implications for our nation’s economic competitiveness, national security, environmental quality and public health,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to take the congressional lead on those issues. 
So who did Speaker Pelosi pick to chair the committee? None other than long-time nuclear power opponent Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who appeared with anti-nuke celebrities Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne at an October Capitol Hill press conference to denounce legislation promoting the development of ultra-green nuclear power. 
6. Every home a Superfund site? “Mercury is highly toxic to everyone, but particularly to children and developing fetuses,” says the activist group Environmental Defense, a long-time campaigner against mercury from power plant emissions and in automobile convenience lighting. 
So it came as quite a surprise when the group began advocating that consumers bring the “highly toxic” mercury into their homes in the form of compact fluorescent light bulbs in order to reduce power plant CO2 emissions. CFLs are so hazardous, according to public health officials however, that special safety precautions must be taken for disposal or if the bulbs break. 
7. Doesn’t everyone own a NASA scientist? In March 2007, NASA’s climate alarmist-in-chief James Hansen criticized “special interests” campaigning against climate regulation. 
“By larding the campaign coffers of numerous politicians, the fossil fuel industry has succeeded in subverting the democratic principle…Until the public indicates sufficient interest, and puts pressure on political systems, special interests will continue to rule.” 
Though Hansen poses as a humble civil servant, it recently came to light that his alarmist efforts have been bankrolled by leftist billionaire and MoveOn.org sugar-daddy George Soros. Doesn’t Soros qualify as a “special interest,” Dr. Hansen? 
8. Like a Virgin’s Carbon Footprint. London’s Daily Mail reported (“What planet are they on?, July 7) on the climate consciousness of Madonna and other Live Earth performers. 
“[T]he pop stars headlining the concerts are the absolute antithesis of the message they promote with Madonna leading the pack of the worst individual rock star polluters in the world… Madonna alone has an annual carbon footprint of 1,018 tons… the average Briton produces just 10 tons… [her] Confessions tour last year produced 440 tons of carbon pollution in just four months, simply in flights between venues.” 
That’s one small footprint for the average Brit, but one giant footprint for celebrity-kind. 
9. The NBC Poppycock. NBC-Universal kicked-off of its “Green is Universal” initiative by dimming the studio lights — but not two giant video screens and advertisements — during a break in the Nov. 4 Cowboys-Eagles game. 
Candle-lit host Bob Costas then cut to video of Today show personalities Matt Lauer, Al Roker and Ann Curry reporting about climate change from the Arctic, Amazon and Antarctic, respectively. None gave even a nod to the energy-hogging effort required to send them and crews to do such pointless broadcasts from exotic locales. 
10. California’s Hypocritenator. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared in June 2005 that, “California will be a leader in the fight against global warming…the time for action is now.” 
But just two years later, the Los Angeles Times reported that state efforts had been derailed by the governor’s mismanagement and deceit. Schwarzenegger even fired the state’s chief regulator for refusing to limit the number of greenhouse gas regulations. Columnist Debra Saunders noted that, “Schwarzenegger boasts that he is a world leader in the fight against global warming — but his advocacy shouldn't keep him from flying in private jets or driving a Hummer.” 
The one thing these honorees all have in common is that their real-life actions belie their carefully crafted green public images. If they don’t take their commitment seriously, why should you?
Matilda1234 
21 January 2008 at 13:25
As one of the contributors to the posts in response to the first article I was interested to see the follow up - but disappointed to find that once again the discussion has quickly become dominated by the same small number of respondents who managed to hijack the first discussion with a combination of selective quotation and rhetorical chest beating. 
Unfortunately, it represents the problem with this whole debate that some others have already noted, and that is the matter of how we manage uncertainty. But even if we acknowledge that uncertainty about climate change exists, surely it makes sense to find out more about our wonderful planet and what the effect of human society and technology is on it even at the microscopic level. It also makes sense to make that a priority and investing resources in it. The long term economic and social benefits from obtaining greater certainty make it a useful exercise, even if climate change is eventually shown to be caused by solar winds or something else. If we err on the side of caution and also invest in the development of technology which is more energy efficient, less polluting and more likely to have a smaller effect on the world, where is the harm done? If the critics on this site are so brilliant and informed perhaps they could make a valuable contribution by writing papers for peer reviewed scientfic journals to increase the certainty one way or the other. Meanwhile, I am completely perplexed by the belligerent "do nothing till you hear from me" stance by climate change skeptics, who otherwise have a role in ensuring we get the science right. They actually appear to be defending the practices of the past 150 years of industrialisation, which while having brought many benefits that I am grateful for and do not want to relinquish, are often dirty, dangerous and inefficient. So, it seems that beneath the bluster they are in fact opposed to technological progress, in much the same way as many people in previous generations were opposed to the development of countless other forms of technology. I
Robin Guenier 
21 January 2008 at 14:18
Brute: I don’t see much similarity between Lynas and Mussolini. I suspect Mussolini might have done rather more than push a custard pie into an opponent’s face. But, let it pass – it’s unimportant. 
However, we might get a better feel for the political positions of pieman and co. if they told us how they propose that the issues I referred to in my post earlier today should be tackled. Or do they want to enjoy the luxury of telling us how dreadful the world and its inhabitants are without facing up to the difficult business of spelling out practical real-world ways of overcoming the huge obstacles to a solution to the perceived problem? 
PS: I’m pleased to see you have joined us, Matilda – I have to agree that there is an element of “selective quotation and rhetorical chest beating” in some of the views expressed on both sides of these ding-dong arguments. And I wholly agree with you (and Dr Whitehouse) about the need to give priority to a better understanding of our climate and the effect of man’s interaction with it. But I think you’ve badly misjudged the sceptics here: most would also agree with that need. Moreover, I have seen no evidence whatever that any are opposed to technological progress to overcome “dirty, dangerous and inefficient” industrialisation. What, I suggest, they object to are claims of an apocalyptic fate for mankind if it doesn’t follow the green agenda.
bobclive 
21 January 2008 at 18:33
Robin Guenier 
You mention propaganda, Gore`s film is just that, an example in real life, My daughter and her husband think they have financial problems, Thy spoke endlessly of this in front of their 8 year old daughter, who became tearful and depressed, she believed they were all about to loose their home, the little girl in her mind had blown what she had heard in the home out of all proportion, 
It is scandalous that this biased Gore film full of exaggerated unproven science and (scary to immature young minds which are easily influenced) is forced into schools. It is one thing to show the film in cinemas where there is a choice of whether to view or not, but to insist it is shown in schools where it`s sole purpose is to indoctrinate children at an early age is criminal. Remember the Hitler youth movement.
Brute 
21 January 2008 at 18:50
Mr. Guenier/Mr. Clive, 
My only observation was that politically left leaning individuals characterize people on the opposite end, (the Right), as fascists when historically fascist leaders generally follow Socialist ideology; a mischaracterization attributed to a post a couple of days ago. Heinrich Himmler’s Schutzstaffel (SS), the epitome of “Jack Booted Thugs” were a creation of the National Socialist Party; obviously extreme left; the same with Stalin and Mussolini. I wasn’t attempting to equate Lynas with Mussolini. However, I agree; in the end it isn’t important. 
Yes, the Alarmists are long on criticism, offer zero solutions. 
I respect your opinions and would like you to comment regarding my assertion that the Global Warming “situation” is simply a fad or craze that will subside with time. The Alarmists are generally left leaning politically with the leftist politicians supporting this agenda. These people have had a “cause” to support taken away from them with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. They are politically anti [insert "ism" here]; primarily anti-“establishment”. Would you agree? 
Here is another “inconvenient” detail left out of the argument by Global Warming Alarmists. It seems Mr. Hansen has a credibility problem…..Hansen also received money from the Heinz Foundation, (John Kerry’s wife). Didn’t Mr. Soros almost wreck the British economy single handedly a few years ago? Mr. Soros is a major contributor to the Democratic Party, (Al Gore, John Kerry and Bill Clinton’s wife): 
The Soros Threat To Democracy 
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 24, 2007 
Democracy: George Soros is known for funding groups such as MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire's backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency. 
How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"? 
That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program. 
That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda. 
Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different. 
That's not the only case. Didn't the mainstream media report that 2006's vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer? 
Turns out that wasn't what happened, either. Soros' OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases. 
So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI's glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI's 2006 annual report. 
Meanwhile, OSI cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too. 
Do people know last year's Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project? OSI gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld — for the terrorists. 
OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured the Transportation Security Administration to scrap a program called "Secure Flight," which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names. It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists. 
They trumpeted this as a victory for civil liberties. Feel safer? 
It's all part of the $74 million OSI spent on "U.S. Programs" in 2006 to "shape policy." Who knows what revelations 2007's report will bring around events now in the news? 
OSI isn't the only secretive organization that Soros funds. OSI partners with the Tides Foundation, which funnels cash from wealthy donors who may not want it known that their cash goes to fringe groups engaged in "direct action" — also known as eco-terrorism. 
On the political front, Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called "Democracy Alliance" whose idea of democracy seems to be government controlled solely of Democrats. 
"As with everything about the Democracy Alliance, the strangest aspect of this entire process was the incessant secrecy. Among the alliance's stated values was a commitment to political transparency — as long as it didn't apply to the alliance," wrote Matt Bai, describing how the alliance was formed in 2005, in his book "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics." 
Soros' "shaping public policies," as OSI calls it, is not illegal. But it's a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets the public know about it after it's old news. 
That means the public makes decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups behind them. 
Without more transparency, it amounts to political manipulation. This leads to cynicism. As word of these short-term covert ops gets out, the public grows to distrust what it hears and tunes out. 
The irony here is that Soros claims to be an advocate of an "open society." His OSI does just the legal minimum to disclose its activities. The public shouldn't have to wait until an annual report is out before the light is flipped on about the Open Society's political action.
bobclive 
21 January 2008 at 19:26
stargazer 
I consider your last post was superb, of course it`s the sun, some of these posters should consider Ockham's razor and also read The Chilling Stars by Hendrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder. 
It`s odd this field of research has always struggled for funds. 
You would have thought that research which may show CO2 is not the culprit of global warming thus saving the global economy trillions of dollars would be encouraged without question. There must be a hidden motive as to why this has not occurred.
bobclive 
21 January 2008 at 19:58
I believe the names that will stand above all others in the AGW crisis will be Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick , there are many other good folk doing a sterling job in the public domain, the late John Daly had one of the first sites on the net but Steve made the sh*t fly by destroying Mann`s and the IPCC`s standard, the Hockey Stick Graph, without Steve opening peoples eyes to the IPCC`s flawed science and propaganda I do not believe we would be discussing this subject at this time.
Robin Guenier 
21 January 2008 at 22:22
Brute/bobclive: of course I agree that obliging anyone especially children to view any movie – let alone a polemic for a particular viewpoint (and one that has serious flaws) – is wholly deplorable. I’ve read quite a lot about the rise of Mussolini and Hitler and fully understand your point. However I just don’t think the use of an emotive term such as “fascist” is particularly helpful in this context. 
The point of my earlier post was to show that, although the “Alarmists” are great at drawing vivid attention to the problem as they see it, it’s not so much that they offer zero solutions but that their “solutions” are hopelessly inadequate: they depend (a) on a non-existent “we” to implement them (“we must do this” “we must do that”) and (b) don’t even begin to address the huge real-world obstacles, some of which I listed. For example, who exactly is going to tell Putin, Ahmadinajad, Chavez, and King Abdullah that they must curtail their oil production to save the planet? 
My view incidentally is that practically none of these obstacles can be overcome (just look at my list) – at least not in any relevant timescale. Therefore, there’s simply no point in the “Alarmists” continuing to alarm us. That’s over. They’d be far better employed proposing ways of mitigating and protecting ourselves against the inevitable (if their viewpoint is accepted) challenges ahead. At the same time, they should earnestly hope that the likes of Dr Whitehouse (and not least stargazer) could possibly be right after all, treating their views with rather more respect. 
Brute – you ask if I think it is a fad that will subside with time. Well, there are signs of a subtle change already: although (at least in the UK) the AGW view has largely captured the media, I sense that alternative thinking is gaining respectability. An excellent example is how the New Statesman, a left leaning periodical, has enabled this discussion. All credit to it for that. And, as I have pointed out a few times, the AGWers are falling out amongst themselves – both on tactics and about, for example, nuclear energy.
bobclive 
21 January 2008 at 23:14
Had to posts this one, 
"Written declaration on greenhouse gas emissions by the livestock sector" has been prepared by members of European Parliament. [pdf file] 
Noting that 
* the livestock sector presents the greatest threat to the planet as it generates 18% of all greenhouse gases, which is MORE than the transport sector, 
* the livestock sector produces 65% of the emission of nitrous dioxide, which has 296 TIMES the global warming potential of CO2, 
* global production of meat an dairy products will more than double by 2050, 
* livestock is a major cause of deforestation, soil degradation (overgrazing, compaction and erosion) and negative effects on ground water. 
Get rid of cows and save the planet.
Ecoeng 
21 January 2008 at 23:47
Mark Lynas wrote: 'This time the author was someone called David Whitehouse, who I’d not heard of, but who seemed to have some credentials as a science writer.' 
It is noted Mark Lynas is referring to the well known BBC News Online Science Editor Dr. David Whitehouse, author of a number of popular science books e.g. 'The Sun, A Biography' ('Whitehouse appears to have explored every possible avenue, and I can only guess at the enormous amount of research this must have required' NEW SCIENTIST') 
Personally I think this statement by Mark Lynas in this day and age age of an Internet saturated with debate about AGW is very poor form. It simply reveals Lynas to be a 'cheap shot' debater operating at school boy level. 
Shame, Mark, shame! 
I am a PhD scientist myself (geochemistry) with over 30 years of hard research and applied experience who has read much material published both by the well known BBC News Online Science Editor Dr. David Whitehouse and by Mark Lynas. 
Sorry, but I agree with the views of the chap with the doctorate in physics not the post-modernist 'new boy' with the 1st Class honours degree in .... (wait for it)...history and politics! 
PSsst: Atmospheric methane levels have also been in decline since 1998.
Brute 
22 January 2008 at 01:22
Mr. Guenier, 
Thank you for taking the time. I am beginning to see a change regarding attitudes on this side of the Atlantic among reasonable people, although there is still the lunatic fringe hanging onto the failed notions of mankind causing global warming and that it is possible to control the weather. “Lucy in the sky with diamonds” if you will…. Peace, Love, Dope! I’m reminded of the Hippies at Woodstock chanting, No Rain! No Rain! In a vain attempt to ward off an approaching thunderstorm…..Yes, they were soaked in the deluge. What a load of bunk; but this is the mentality of these people. 
I am seeing commercialization of the topic.....typical of any corporation's Public Relations Department…… Insincerity. 
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” Climate Alarmist Stephen Schneider, Discover Magazine, October 1989 
I submit that the reason we are not seeing any suggestions from the Alarmists is due to the fact that they themselves realize how outlandish and draconian the measures are; all the while knowing that the general public would flatly reject them if they found out what the true agenda is. Paul Ehrlich comes to mind; another failed prognosticator. 
Quotes From Fundamentally Unhappy People: 
Paul Ehrlich 
Author of the The Population Bomb (1968) 
Stanford University Biologist and Advisor to Al Gore 
"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer" 
"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." 
"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." (1970) 
"We already have too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure." 
When DDT was banned, Charles Wursta, Chief Scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund said, “This is as good a way to get rid of them as any.” (referring to the little brown people in Third World countries) 
John Davis 
editor of Earth First! Journal 
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." 
"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." 
Dave Forman 
Founder of Earth First! 
"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight." 
"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental." 
Pentti Linkola 
"Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed." 
David R. Brower 
"All I know about thermal pollution is that if we continue our present rate of growth in electrical energy consumption it will simply take, by the year 2000, all our freshwater streams to cool the generators and reactors." 
Dr. Reed F. Noss 
The Wildlands Project 
"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." 
Lyall Watson 
The Financial Times, 15 July 1995 
Cannibalism is a "radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation." 
Lamont Cole 
"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem." 
Carl Amery 
"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." 
Kenneth E.F. Watt 
Earth Day (1970) 
"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." 
Lowell Ponte 
"The Cooling" (1976) 
"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000." 
Judi Barri 
Earth First 
"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism." 
Richard Benedict 
an employee for the State Department working on assignment for the Conservation Foundation 
"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." 
David Brower 
Friends of the Earth 
"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." 
Keith Boulding 
originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept 
"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state." 
Christine Stewart, Canada’s environment minister 
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits” to global warming policies….”Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world” 
Kyoto is “the first component of authentic global governance”. French President Jaqes Chirac, Opening remarks, Sixth Conference of Parties to Kyoto (COP-6), The Hague, November 2000 
May I suggest Christopher Horner: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. 
http://www.cei.org/dyn/view_Expert.cfm?Expert=148
Peter Martin 
22 January 2008 at 05:55
The guys at Nasa have just reported the figures for 2007. 
David Whitehouse's article was based on the last seven data points from the Uni of East Anglia/UK Met offices data set : http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2006.csv 
The Nasa group are reprorting that 2007 was equal in temperature to 1998. Or joint second. The UK group have 1998 as the hottest year. 
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth_temp.html 
The contrarians will no doubt try to make the most of these small disagreements in the US and UK data sets but, as both are independent, and subject to the same experimental error, there is really nothing to be surprised about. 
So, sorry but the guys at Nasa aren't reporting any let up in global warming.
nightgear 
22 January 2008 at 07:01
OK- Can any Scientist prove to anyone that temperatures have not at any time in the past -Millions of years-been this high or higher and or colder much colder. As well as Glaciation and climate change happening with out any undue coercion by man. The answer IS an Unequivical NO!! Do I really have to go into it? No you know we learn from kindergarten about the ages of earth, So get a clue. Yes Global warming is happening. As well the GHG's measured were near kilauaha, what part of duh do you think any thinking person might not get. It actually had it listed as the area the samples were taken. LOL. Increase plankton, green plants and get the other country's to join the band wagon. But unitl then stop pushing the panic button. Though, I agree eliminating our petrol addiction and increasing our individual independence from any ones energy umbilical cord.
Ecoeng 
22 January 2008 at 08:07
'So, sorry but the guys at Nasa aren't reporting any let up in global warming.' 
Hang on a minute, that is just what they ARE reporting. 
Putting aside issues/arguments about data set quality both the NASA and UK Met Office Data indeed show that there has been no further global warming since 1998. 
If 2007 was not significantly warmer than 1998 and the intervening years in between were also no warmer then this means that the pre-1998 rate of warming has NOT been sustained over the last 9 years. 
To my understanding (and anyone with a modicum of scientific training) that is precisely a significant and sustained 'let up' in the pre-1998 rate of warming.
Peter Martin 
22 January 2008 at 08:24
Night gear, 
Yes, you raise an important point. Millions of years ago temperatures were indeed much warmer, polar ice caps did not exist and sea levels were much higher. Interestingly enough the sun, according to solar physicists, who use the term 'weak sun paradox' 
( http://www.webref.org/chemistry/w/weak_sun_paradox.htm) 
was considerably less hot than it is currently. The reason for the high temperatures is of course the greenhouse effect which shows that it is nothing new. Its not altogether a bad thing either - take away the greenhouse effect and we'd all freeze. So, like Goldilocks and her porridge, we'd like our Greenhouse effect to be just right, not too hot and not too cold. 
Humans, and all the other inhabitants of the world, have evolved to live happily in the wo. rld as it has been in the last million years or so. Since the age of the dinosaurs CO2 levels have fallen as plants and animals have removed it from the atmosphere. The carbon from ancient CO2 can be found in coal, oil, and limestone deposits. 
So we do have to ask ourselves the question of whether we want the climate that we, or the dinosaurs, have evolved to live in. 
Personally I'm voting for try to keep the earth as cool as possible. Its hot enough in Brisbane as it is and I'd have to leave if got much hotter.
Peter Martin 
22 January 2008 at 10:40
Ecoeng, 
Well if you look at the rolling 5 year average of the NASA graph 
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/208422main_global_temp_ch... 
there's no real sign of a downturn. The scientists there who, I would suggest, have a little more that the 'modicum' of training that you feel is sufficient, certainly don't share your interpretation of the data. 
There has been some suggestion that changes in solar activity may be responsible for some of the observed variation in global temperatures. There is a solar cycle which last approximately 11 years and you might expect 5 or 6 years of cooling to follow 5 or 6 years of warming. If you look at the years before 1995 there are periods of cooling as well as periods of warming and it could be that the solar cycle was driving this change. 
Since 2000 we've been in the downcycle of solar irradiance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle and should be in a period of cooling. This may explain some of the flattening in the UK Met office data. Solar irradiance is starting to rise and this all ties in well with scientific forecasts of record global warming in the years from 2009 onwards.
Ecoeng 
22 January 2008 at 11:30
Ah Peter Martin 
Why bother with a rolling average when the warming trend up until 1998 was so consistent through the period post 1950? A 5 year rolling average only causes the vestiges of that warming trend to appear to roll on until 2003. A crude device at best in this context, of little meaningfulness. 
Next you take recourse in pseudo-learning based on 'changes of solar activity'. 
To which type of 'solar activity' do you refer, dear sir? 
Changes in solar irradiance (W/m^2)? 
If so then you should be aware that it has been well demonstrated such an effect is negligible by comparison with other forcing mechanism such as CO2 , reflective particulates etc - especially in heat balances assembled by the AGW proponents of GCMs! 
If however you mean changes in the cosmic ray flux induced by variation of the sun's magnetic field then, you should also be aware that this is very controversial, and rejected by proponents of AGW. 
However, this mechanism may well have a key forcing effect on upper atmosphere cloud nucleation, thereby profoundly affecting albedo - as some Danish AGW sceptics researchers contend! 
If this is the 'solar activity' you are referring to then you are marching squarely into the AGW sceptic camp! 
In a nutshell, you just now took recourse to: 
1) a largely meaningless (in this context) data smoothing technique; and 
2) 'solar activity'-related effects proposed by AGW sceptics which have been comprehensively dismissed by Hansen and the rest of the AGW bandwagon. 
If only you had the wit and education to appreciate the barrel full of seething ironies you just generated!
Robin Guenier 
22 January 2008 at 11:58
Ecoeng: perhaps you would clarify something for me? My understanding had been that the warming period that culminated in 1998 started in the early 1970s, not "post 1950" as you say. One result of what I understood to be the 1940s to 1970s cooling (I certainly remember very cold winters in the UK) was a warning that we might be reverting to the little ice age that prevailed before 1900. Have I misunderstood?
stargazer 
22 January 2008 at 12:01
Perer Martin said 
"and this all ties in well with scientific forecasts of record global warming in the years from 2009 onwards." 
No.... 'they' HOPE that the warming will continue based on Co2 only......IF solar cycles 24 and 25 are 'low' as a lot of solar scientists research indicates the world temp will fall ...by 'swamping the measly 1deg f. that humans have said to have caused. I EXPECT the temp to rise as solar cycle 24 progresses but in six years or so (on the 'downward' slope... it will go down again, and likely stay down for decades. 
See this from the last link you posted 
"Such reconstructions indicate that the overall level of solar activity since the middle of the twentieth century stands amongst the highest of the past 10,000 years, and that Maunder minimum-like epochs of suppressed activity, of varying durations have occurred repeatedly over that time span."
Nelson 
22 January 2008 at 12:05
Brute, it might be worth reading more about Hansen's supposed funding by Soros. 
Sometimes it's worth following these things up. The whole story stinks: 
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/the_exxon_funded_swi... 
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/investors_business_d...
Robin Guenier 
22 January 2008 at 12:39
I am still awaiting an answer regarding what I have described as “the real-world” obstacles facing those who, like Mark Lynas, are sure that global warming (or climate change if you prefer it) is to a significant extent the result of human activity and that we face catastrophe unless most urgent action is taken, particularly regarding carbon emissions. My question is – how do you think these obstacles should be overcome? 
Several of the problems are listed in the second paragraph of my post (early yesterday), which begins, “Climate change is the epitome of a political problem”. 
Presumably some people who share Mark’s view are reading this thread: surely you’re not really in denial (as I suggested in my final paragraph)? I see this as a reality check: what’s the point of the dire warnings if you haven’t got practical solutions to these problems?
Brute 
22 January 2008 at 14:56
You know what Nelson, you’re right. The ENTIRE argument stinks on ice. We have government paid scientists allegedly taking kickbacks from foreign nationals to falsify and manipulate data in an effort to forward a political agenda. We have big business allegedly manipulating data in an effort to push their agenda. We now have over 800 comments regarding a possible change in global mean temperature of +/- 1 degree Fahrenheit. We are collectively spending BILLIONS of dollars on a problem that may or may not exist with the majority of the money being wasted on projects and programs that have nothing to do with the subject. We have Hucksters and failed former Vice Presidents winging their way around the world in their private jets condemning me because I need to drive a car to get to work to feed my family, commingled aluminum and plastic or because I want to stay warm in my own home. Hollywood elitists promoting worthless Indulgences while they provide air conditioned barns for their horses. We have Presidential candidates outright lying about the subject and frightening children. Government officials indoctrinating children, forcing them to watch movies based on their personal religious beliefs and environmentalist scare-tactics. We have people of above average intelligence, wasting their time, complaining and arguing about a subject and not offering any concrete solutions….. Scientist with egos as big as one of Al Gore’s mansions pontificating and profiting from federal grants to research something that is going to happen anyway. I thought the topic was closed? The world had reached a “consensus”? Why do we need to fund research anymore? Subject closed, consensus reached, but we’ll still take the money from the taxpayers. In the meantime, people are struggling to keep warm in my town; it’s NINE DEGREES, (Fahrenheit) today. Yes, you’re right. The story does stink.
Brute 
22 January 2008 at 15:17
Also, Nelson; Isn't Soros a majority shareholder with Halliburton? Isn't Halliburton one of the evil capitalist corporations that Soros condemns? 
http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/5332-George-...
crustacean 
22 January 2008 at 19:09
Right. A single year or seven or eight years do not qualify as a trend and do nothing to prove or even suggest global warming has quit, paused or reversed. But every hurricane or tornado or week-long, day-long or hour-long adverse weather event adds to the incontrovertible evidence that it's running out of control.
Ecoeng 
22 January 2008 at 20:51
Robin - you are correct. I meant to type in post 1970 not post 1950. 
Interestingly, paper has just appeared in Geophysical Research Letters entitled “A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850.” The article is by scientists with the British Antarctic Survey and the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada; the work was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council and the U.S. National Science Foundation. 
Another little hard fact (out of the thousands that get studiously ignored on a daily basis by the AGW Alarmist bandwagon) is this: 
Studies which have now checked pretty much the entire shoreline of Antarctica have turned up tens of thousand of skeletons of the southern elephant seal. This seal has not been observed living or breeding on continental Antarctica since the advent of modern exploration and its modern territory is restricted to warmer sub-Antarctic islands such as Kerguelen, Macquarie etc. However, carbon-14 dating of the above mentioned skeletal material shows that the southern elephant seal was living and breeding prolifically around the coast of Antarctica for millenia up to about 1100 - 1200 years ago.
mmorabito67 
22 January 2008 at 21:30
The idea that by taking action on CO2 emissions we will just do "some unnecessary efforts to shift away from fossil fuels" is too simplistic. Google "Bufo Marinus" for an example of what good intentions can lead to.
Peter Martin 
22 January 2008 at 21:43
Ecoeng, 
There are alternative smoothing techniques based on the generation of high order polynomials which, had Nasa used them, I might have thought have more justified your scepticism. But the N (five) year rolling average is a standard, very useful, statistical technique which is easy to understand. For more reading see: 
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MovingAverage.html 
If you had been involved in the debate in 1990 you could really have suggested that it was 'game over' as world temperatures , including the five year average, fell. So, both yourself and David Whitehouse might like to take a lesson from recent history, and which would help you to avoid jumping to premature conclusions. 
Yes, there is some uncertainty about the degree to which the annual temperature anomaly figures are affected by solar events. I think the IPCC have suggested a figure of 20% but I don't think anyone discounts it completely. James Hansen discusses the effect on page 2 of this link: 
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080114_GISTEMP.pdf
bobclive 
22 January 2008 at 23:51
This is a reply to a posting by an AGW proponent. 
The real tragedy is, that Real Climate doesn’t want any money spend in further investigation of the influences of cosmic ray on climate. They were very upset when CERN announced that they would finally go ahead with the CLOUD experiment, which will probably broaden and deepen the knowledge already obtained from the SKY experiment. Real Climate stated that they saw no reason to spend money on a theory not supported by any empirical evidence. That the cosmic ray theory lack empirical evidence is of course a lie, as Real Climate should be aware of the SKY experiment as well as Harrison & Stephenson 2005, which clearly demonstrates empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds. Please note the word ‘empirical’ and ‘nonlinear’. There are other papers as well. Furthermore: does Real Climate really think that CERN would conduct an experiment they thought would constitute no scientific relevance at all. Of course not. 
That aside, you should really stop promoting the whack job by Damon & Laut as anything but a sad example of going after the man and not the ball. The paper was so poorly composed, that it was not really any match for a rebuttal [1] (see also [2] for another point). 
Your sad notion that only Shaviv, Veizer and Svensmark promote the cosmic ray link probably shows how fragmented you knowledge is. I could name you 60 top-notch scientists prescribing to the cosmic ray link as a important diver of celestial climate, and the numbers are growing not shrinking. 
There are lots of others issues in your posting, but maybe others will take over. 
WHY I WONDER ARE THE PEOPLE AT REALCLIMATE SO CONCERNED ABOUT SVENSMARK GETTING FUNDS FOR HIS STUDY, COULD IT BE THAT HE MAY UNDERMINE THEIR POSITION. 
[1] http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20... 
[2] http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V7/...
Peter Martin 
23 January 2008 at 02:07
So the theory is that Cosmic rays produce nucleation points in the upper atmosphere which in turn leads to cloud formation? OK It sounds plausible enough. 
So, the first thing is to look up the records of cosmic rays since 1975, since when there has been 0.6deg C rise in global temperatures, and see if they have steadily increased in the same way. 
Has anyone done this?
Peter Martin 
23 January 2008 at 03:26
mmorabito67 
Yes it wasn't such a good idea to introduce the cane toad into Australia was it? Actually hardly anyone calls them by their Latin scientific name here. But that's us Aussies for you! 
I've got to give you credit for a original argument. There's not many people who have managed to make the connection between cane toads and global warming! 
But now that you've spotted it, I guess the game is up, now, for us dreadful climate change alarmists. We just have to yield to a superior intellect :-)
Robin Guenier 
23 January 2008 at 06:40
There are now over 900 comments on this and the Whitehouse article, exceeding those for the Times “most read” climate change story: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
taghioff.info 
23 January 2008 at 06:55
Mark makes a simple statistical point backed up by an explanatory graphic, that the variability of the climate means that every now and again you will get what look like flat periods. 
So periodically it will be possible to write an article like Dr Whithouse's, and have it based on "fact." 
Dr Whitehouse's claim of a flattened graph, given an 8 year trend up to present, is based on a treatment of the statistics, but his claim that this means that global warming has stopped is based on drawing a bad inference from that treatment. 
To be precise, Mark is claiming that the link drawn between the 8 year trend and the whole of Global Warming as a phenomenon is false. 
It is exactly the same argument used by climate deniers early on to deny the emerging warming trend, something they are strangely silent on now. The argument is simple: In a chaotic system like the climate, it is hard to infer long-term trends. 
Mark is being strident because he, like many others, is petrified of the consequences of dallying at this point. The risks of underestimating climate change are huge, and far outweigh the risks of overestimating it.
Brute 
23 January 2008 at 17:50
Hurricane Center: Global Warming Equals Fewer Storms 
Environmentalists who claim global warming has caused an increase in U.S. hurricane activity obviously haven't checked with the National Hurricane Center, which has kept statistics on major storms over the last 150 years. 
That's probably because those statistics yield one inescapable conclusion: If global warming has had any impact at all on hurricane activity, it's lessened - not increased - the frequency of major hurricanes. 
From 1901 until 1950 - when the U.S. economy was a fraction of its current size and fossil fuel consumption was next to nil - there were 34 hurricanes rated at Catagory 3, 4 or 5 in size on the Saffir Simpson scale. 
In the latter half of the twentieth century - when U.S. manufacturing exploded, automobile use skyrocketed and rampant consumerism was the order of the day, hurricane activity actually decreased by nearly 20 percent, declining to 28 Catagory 3-5 hurricanes from 1951 to 2000. 
That's almost as low as the last five decades of the 19th century - when the overwhelming majority of Americans lived on farms, manual power was generated by watermills and cars had yet to be invented. From 1851 to 1900 there were 27 major hurricanes in the U.S. 
The stunning numbers didn't faze ABC "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos, who attempted to counter panelist George Will when Will raised the Hurricane Center's findings during Sunday's broadcast. 
"We're only half way through this decade, barely, and we've already got six very intense hurricanes," Stephanopoulos argued, as if to suggest that global warming's impact began in 2001.
Brute 
23 January 2008 at 18:57
It seems the predictions of increased hurricane activity due to global warming have not proven correct. I suppose the Alarmists will change the theory to fit the facts......(after the fact). 
Global Warming Saps Hurricane Strength 
Reduce emissions, save the ‘canes! 
By David Freddoso 
In June, as the 2007 hurricane season began, the predictions were dire. There were to be 16 named storms. Nine hurricanes. Five “intense hurricanes.” A 74 percent-chance of a storm hitting the U.S. coastline — all above the historical average. And numerous news stories cited Global Warming as the culprit for what was about to happen. 
Hurricane season just ended over the weekend. The results? There have been six hurricanes (the historic average), two of them “intense hurricanes” (below average). Not one hit the United States (below average). Floridian business owners are so upset over the inaccurate forecasts that they are considering a lawsuit. Not only has “hurricane hype” cut back on their tourism industry, it has also sent their insurance rates skyrocketing. 
Although there were 14 named storms this year, there is some doubt over whether six of them should ever have been named. This discrepancy in naming storms isn’t just a random complaint, it actually shows up in the more objective statistics. 
The most wildly incorrect predictions of the season were the number of “Named Storm Days” (NSDs) and “Hurricane Days” (HDs). Forecasters expected 85 NSDs and got just 33.5. They predicted 40 hurricane days and instead got just 11.25. In each case, the observed number is far lower than the historical average between 1950 and 2000 — 49.1 NSDs and 24.5 HDs. This indicates that many of the storms were extremely short-lived or relatively weak. 
And sure enough, this year’s Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) — the measure of the square of the wind-strength of all the year’s storms over the time they lasted — was just 68, far below the historic average of 96.2 or the prediction of 170. 
So this year’s storm season was an incredible bust. We had fewer serious storms, less wind strength, and more “borderline” storms that just barely and briefly flirted with “named status” before dissipating. The previous year’s hurricane season was a little better — just ten storms, five hurricanes, and an ACE of 78.5. Many of the numbers are falling so far below the historical average, one might conclude that something is radically different from the past. 
Normally, when we reach that point, we ask a big, important question like this one: Is global warming sapping the world’s supply of Accumulated Cyclone Energy? 
We know the possible consequences of tinkering with our environment, causing unprecedented changes. This is how we approach the subject of man-made global warming. Wherever there is change, we turn immediately to global warming to explain it. Heat and cold, drought and downpour, famine and plenty — all can be caused by global warming. It can cause more foliage and less foliage; a slower-spinning earth and a faster one; more snow and less snow; a sun-scarred desert world, or a new ice age. Climate change makes mountains grow and it makes mountains shrink. 
It is not impossible that all (or at least most) of these theories are simultaneously true. But they also have the advantage of making global warming an unfalsifiable theory. Not only can no possible event disprove it, but it can actually serve as an explanation for any natural event worthy of note. 
Back to the weak hurricane season, then. According to a new study, this year’s drop in Accumulated Cyclone Energy may be caused by global warming. Higher temperatures cause more evaporation. Water conducts heat more efficiently than air, and so higher levels of atmospheric moisture cause a relative evening out of global air temperatures by region. This results in fewer and weaker cyclones, because wind is the result of variations in air temperature. 
Am I making this last bit up? Hard to tell, isn’t it? 
But yes, I am. And if some scientist comes along and debunks my shameless, ad hoc abuse of basic scientific concepts, then at least we will have discovered one weather event — perhaps the first in thirty years — that global warming definitely did not cause.
Pat T 
23 January 2008 at 20:02
"Look at the 8 year average" - if a stock broker calls you up and says to look at Toll Brothers' 8 year average profit or return, not the last 3 quarters, would you hang up on him? Hopefully you would. 
The stall is real. And while the front line continues to deny it, headquarters is readying excuses. They've already tried variations of "warming causes near term cooling" or "regional cooling" but that didn't fly (we're not that stupid). 
The excuse they're cooking up now is "global dimming" - that human-generated pollution also darkens clouds, thus reflecting solar energy back out from the earth. Put aside for a moment that that isn't showing up in any satellite data, it's a perfect theory. It explains why Hansen's annual prediction that "this is the year" the temps spike past 2007 is consistently wrong. It explains the stall - which at some point they'll have to admit. And it explains every eventuality going forward - if it warms, it's global warming; if it cools, it's global dimming; if it just stays the same, it's both warming and dimming fighting it out like alien vs predator, and it's all bad and evil free market production and consumption are to blame. And buried in there if it does cool will be the admission that global warming is, in fact, over. 
Why are they working on it? Because the stall concerns them. The stall is the real reason they've instituted to "big hurry" campaign - you know, "we can't afford to wait" - THEY can't afford to wait because a few more years without warming and people will jump off their agenda's bandwagon in droves. "The debate is over" because they don't want to talk about such things. "We have only ten years left" - but then, that's what they said ten years ago. 
The second half of 2007 saw pronounced cooling and if this continues into 2008, I am telling you here and now that you're going to see this "global dimming" thing brought front and center to explain away the stall in global warming. 
Don't fall for it.
Brute 
23 January 2008 at 20:20
Mr. Pat, 
Really, I'm sitting here laughing. I had never heard of "Global Dimming". What will these "Scientist "come up with next? 
I predict they will say that there is a global shortage of dirt......Whoops! too late. 
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/348200_dirt22.html
Peter Martin 
23 January 2008 at 21:23
I notice that George Soros came in for a bit of criticism earlier in the thread and before that it was left extremists, left wing ideologists, peaceniks and radical environmentalists who were somehow responsible for the the AGW problem maybe due to their "ego in constant need of fuel". 
Brute managed to spot an interesting connection " If you use the acronym IPCC, reverse the order of the letters, remove the “I” and add a “C” at the beginning, it spells CCCP". And there was I, hoping that no-one would notice that! 
I think that someone should keep going with these theories and really get to the heart of the matter. Now I think Mr Soros is Jewish. Could it be that there is an international conspiracy between Jewish financiers and Bolshevism to corrupt and destroy western and european civilisation? 
No. Wait. Maybe not a good idea! That's not a new theory and we don't want a re-run of 20th century history!
Pat T 
23 January 2008 at 21:42
Brute - you need to understand that it's not "the scientists" or "science" - rather it is the politicization of science. The setting of the political cart before the scientific horse. The warmers are NOT just out with magnifying glasses trying to uncover facts where they lie and then follow where they lead - they have an agenda FIRST and then they need a theory to support that agenda. The agenda is to reduce production and consumption. The latest theory is man-made global warming. But the warming has started to stall - so while it stalls they're denying it and pushing the "we can't afford to wait any longer" argument but they're also developing a fall-back - global dimming. 
Trust me, if the warming doesn't resume in 2008 you'll hear about "global dimming" soon - these people never admit they're wrong about X until they've come up with excuse Y.
Brute 
23 January 2008 at 21:42
Mr. Martin, 
You saw the connection and I saw it; great minds think alike? 
Sorry to hear about the loss of one of your countrymen. You are from "Down Under", correct?
Pat T 
23 January 2008 at 21:43
And this "noise versus signal" thing is just the initial denial - all it means is, the data that supports them is "signal" and the data that doesn't is "noise."
Brute 
23 January 2008 at 22:00
Mr. Pat, 
I'm on your side; I agree with you completely; absolutely political. I also agree that I've heard the ratcheting up of the “immediacy” lately; the desperation as the Alarmist “Chicken Littles” are losing ground. I believe you are correct when you state that people are starting to catch on; we’ve pulled away the curtain and exposed the fraud. Mother Nature is also cooperating and temperatures have crested as Dr. Whitehouse has stated. The politicians are trying to implement their taxes and laws while no one is looking; before the avalanche. 
I was laughing because first they claimed Global Cooling then Global Warming; now Global Dimming; it seems that they've covered everything! First they said that Global Warming would cause intense and more prevalent Hurricanes. When that didn't happen they are now saying that Global Warming decreases Hurricane strength and frequency. Typical double talk. 
Please, continue to add your comments; I love it.
Pat T 
23 January 2008 at 23:11
I've seen the doublespeak on hurricanes too - but see, anyone can go online and look up their former, contradictory, arguments, because of Mr. Gore's OTHER invention.....
Pat T 
23 January 2008 at 23:57
For those who are unaware of the doublespeak on hurricanes, click below - 
When hurricanes were more frequent and stronger, global warming was alleged to cause more frequent and stronger hurricanes: 
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hurricanes-and-... 
http://zfacts.com/p/120.html 
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ap_050731_hurricanes_... 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181 
Now that the last two hurricane seasons have been duds, they're saying almost the opposite: 
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/na... 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/2... 
If X happens, American industry did it, via global warming. 
If the opposite of X happens, American industry did it, via global warming. 
People are starting to catch on, and so they're adding a new wrinkle, if the opposite of X happens, American industry did it, via global dimming. 
But it's no less hocus pocus than it ever was.
Peter Martin 
24 January 2008 at 00:46
I'll remove the tongue from my cheek for this posting. 
From the data I've seen there is no real correlation between hurricane intensity, or frequency, and global warming. As regards floods and droughts; its possible but harder to prove. For instance, the western part of Australia has been 30-40% dryer in the last 20 years and GW is often cited as the reason but it's not conclusive. 
Global dimming, caused by the partial reflection of the sun's rays from the upper atmosphere, can occur from atmospheric pollution such as sulphur dioxide emissions either from volcanic eruptions or artificial sources such as power stations. Global dimming can offset the warming of CO2 emissions but has been diminishing as an effect in recent years as power stations worldwide have taken relatively effective measures to remove SO2 which was largely responsible for the phenomena of "acid rain". 
Unless there is a large volcanic eruption, this is unlikley to be a reason for any drop in temperatures in the next 5 or 6 years. For the last 5 or 6 yeras we have been on the downslope of the 11 year solar cycle and currently the effect of La Nina is cooling global temperatures slightly. All the forecasts are that GW will kick off again in earnest in 2009 onwards and if that does not happen there will have to be some re-thinking. Scientists themselves are the greatest sceptics and if there any holes in the AGW theories and/or climate models then they will be discussed publicly. No excuses. No cover ups. Lets see who's right. 
Incidentally, it has been suggested that we inject S02 into the upper atmoshere to increase global dimming and reduce the effect of CO2 induced warming. It doesn't sound too healthy an idea but even so it is probably better to do this than allow the temperature to run away and out of control. 
Finally can we just get straight that the last period of global cooling ocurred in the early 90's . If there is a slight temperature levelling off currently, it is nothing by comparison to what happened fifteen or sixteen years ago. People suggested then that global warming was a flawed theory or overstated and they were wrong. There is even less evidence this time so why rush to make the same mistake?
Pat T 
24 January 2008 at 01:19
So 2009, that's when it's going to kick off again? What about the hurricanes? Supposedly 2006 was going to be worse than 2005, and then 2007 was going to be worse than 2005..... 
It's always "wait 'til next year." 
I often wondered why even people who believed William Miller the first time believed him the second and third times around. I think I'm starting to understand now. 
No Peter, the warming has stalled. That's why they're in such a hurry to "act now" - because another year or two without warming and people will start jumping off the bandwagon as quickly as they jumped on it. "Global dimming" is the excuse they're going to fall back on to explain the continued stall if the temperature increase doesn't resume - mark my words, that will be the next set of talking points. 
And it WILL be a backtracking, a complete 180 from what they've said all along, just like the 180 they're pulling with hurricanes. Hurricanes follow cycles, which they've known all along. They thought there were a few more difficult years left in the cycle and they "predicted" that global warming would cause them - but they were wrong, the cycle turned on them, and because hurricanes follow cycles, it'll likely be several years before the hurricane seasons pick up again - so now they're saying global warming actually reduces hurricane severity. 
The agenda comes first, the science comes second with environmental issues. Every now and then they're right about something - like acid rain - but it's a happy accident, like a stopped watch being right twice a day. For every acid rain there are five or six urban legends like the Monsanto butterflies - and detracting further from their credibility are those who still maintain their belief in the urban legends (Greenpeace still sticks to the Monsanto butterfly story). 
This isn't like acid rain - this is more like the Monsanto butterflies. 
It's one or the other - the warming hasn't stalled or it's stalled and global dimming is the excuse. You can't simultaneously advance both arguments, because they can't both be true, just like global warming can't both make hurricanes stronger and weaker. 
What you're doing is laying out a plausible denial - no matter what happens you'll be able to say "that's what I said would happen and pollution caused it." 
But you have no idea what will happen, so you've tried to cover all your bases.
Pat T 
24 January 2008 at 01:22
So what's it going to be? 
(A) Global warming hasn't stalled. 
(B) OK it's stalled but warming causes cooling. 
(C) OK it's stalled but that's only because the effects are masked by global dimming? 
Pick ONE.
Peter Martin 
24 January 2008 at 01:47
(A) Global warming hasn't stalled.
Pat T 
24 January 2008 at 02:11
Fair enough. While we're getting you on record, how about this one - does global warming (man-made or not) make hurricanes (A) stronger and more severe or (B) weaker and less severe? 
Because they're changing their story on that one too. 
I think that one is particularly troubling - hurricane seasons come in multi-year cycles, they know that, they've always known that, and I honestly believe that they thought there were a few bad years left in the cycle and that that's why they said global warming makes hurricanes worse and so we should expect a worse hurricane season in '06 and '07. 
Now that a few years have passed and the hurricane seasons have been duds, they know the cycle has shifted, they know that the hurricane seasons will remain duds for some time, so now they're claiming the exact opposite of their prior claim. 
This one really is shameless - with no stall vs dimming they don't know what's going on and they're covering every eventuality. With hurricanes they know exactly what's going on, they know it has nothing to do with global warming whether man-made or not, but they tried to get cute. 
I'm glad even that backfired on them. 
Bottom line, my commute has no relationship to droughts half the world away, the case that it does bear such relationship becomes weaker by the day, and I don't owe anyone half the world away any obligation to change my daily routine.
Pat T 
24 January 2008 at 02:52
So Brute, I guess you were right - they ARE changing the theory to fit the facts, after the fact. 
The facts change, and so does the joke, but the punchline never changes "it's all bad and American consumers and producers are the cause of it." 
It's an old joke, it's complete BS and it's not funny anymore.
Peter Martin 
24 January 2008 at 02:56
Because higher temperatures do mean that the atmosphere contains more energy you might expect that storm activity would increase with increasing temperatures. The rise in temperatures has been 0.6deg C since 1975. As I said previously I don't think there is much real evidence that any changes are significant. I'd prefer to read what the Royal Society ( The UK National Academy of Science) have to say on the subject than Al Gore. 
http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278. 
To answer your question I would have to say: 
(C) No Measurable Difference Yet. 
Just to explain my last posting I wuld refer you to this graph (again) from Nasa 
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/208422main_global_temp_ch... 
David Whitehouse has made much of recent data points but , if you look at the previous of points, they are nothing out of the ordinary. The green error bars are smaller than they used to be which could partially explain why they are less scattered. The cooling that occurred in the early 90's is clear both in the running five year average and the anuual averages. There were more climate change sceptics around then, certainly in the scientific mainstream, and they were slightly too quick to use the temperature downturn to dismiss the problem of AGW. The rapid warming of the late 90's convinced nearly everyone that it should be taken seriously after all. 
I would be interested to see any forecasts from Nasa or the UK Met office which you would say turned out to be spectacularly incorrect. They are normally quite cautious and I'd be surprised if they were far out in their predictions.
Pat T 
24 January 2008 at 03:00
Hey we agree on something - I'd say "no measurable difference yet" as well - - - - unfortunately most of the people on the warming side of the debate don't give that answer.
Peter Martin 
24 January 2008 at 03:25
Now don't go misrepresenting what I said! :-) 
You know I was discussing storms in the atmosphere, and so there is no measurable difference in Hurricanes, Typhoons, Cyclones, Tornadoes etc.
Brute 
24 January 2008 at 03:32
Pat T, 
Honestly, I really thought that you made up the "Global Dimming" thing. I guess I need a refresher course in preposterous notions. You would think that the Alarmist Marketing Director could have come up with a more plausible/credible moniker. That sounds like something a 6th grade kid dreamed up. 
"It isn’t warming, it isn’t cooling, it’s neutral". Maybe it does work..…..I can see a group of scientists sitting in an auditorium nodding their heads, stroking their beards, mumbling; "Of course! Global Dimming!"
Peter Martin 
24 January 2008 at 03:43
Brute, 
You are the child at the back of the classroom who giggles with his mates, making rather poor jokes, rather than paying attention to what's really going on. 
There are and have been a number of different atmospheric anthropogenic pollutants , some of which produce a cooling rather than a warming effect. Global dimming is the scientific term used to describe these. 
Maybe we should keep you in at playtime and ask you to read through this :-) 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Pat T 
24 January 2008 at 12:54
No Peter, if that were true then when it was still warming, when global dimming was inconvenient for the warmers, they'd have bought into it, but they rejected it and are only rediscovering the theory now that it suits their agenda. Yes, some people said "global dimming" before it became convenient - the warmers didn't "invent" it - but, any theory you can think of, SOMEBODY out there is advancing it - the point is the warmers didn't pick up that ball and prepare to run with it until it became convenient for them to do so - which is starting to happen now because the warming has stalled. What global dimming represents, then, for the warmers, is plausible denial - a way to concede the stall in global warming while still arguing with a straight face that human pollution causes it all. 
Seriously Peter, do you honestly doubt that, had we all signed and ratified Kyoto and passed and lived up to its restrictions back in the late 1990s, Al Gore and the UN would not only be conceding the warming stall but would also be taking credit for it?
Brute 
24 January 2008 at 13:30
Mr. Martin, 
You wrote: You are the child at the back of the classroom who giggles with his mates, making rather poor jokes, 
Alright, Alright, I apologize. I was out of line. Please write a couple of deprecating Engineer jokes and we'll be square. But you must recognize that these excuses are becoming larger and larger pills to swallow for the general public. First, we were warned about an impending ice age, and then the Ozone was disappearing, then cataclysmic hurricanes, sea levels rising 20 meters, and glaciers melting due to Global Warming. As time wears on these predictions are being proven wrong; however, we are continuously being told that the disaster is just over the horizon? How do you tell a truck driver or housewife that they have to pay more for a loaf of bread or their insurance rates are doubling because catastrophic weather events will happen next year; then it doesn't happen? The credibility is gone…… The boy who cried wolf. The average citizen doesn't dig into this as many here have; they read headlines; what are they supposed to think? 
Can you apreciate what I'm saying here?
Pat T 
24 January 2008 at 15:13
Actually the ozone still is disappearing despite the fact that the chemicals the disappearance was blamed on were banned 20 years ago. 
There's still some ozone production but it's way, way down, CFCs do take time to break down but they are breaking down. 
Moreover we started taking significant satellite data on the subject in the late 1970s - there aren't ice cores in the atmosphere, we have no idea what the composition was before the late 1970s, we're really just guessing that the way it was when we started measuring it is a true baseline - we have no way to know that the composition doesn't routinely change significantly. 
But we send satellites up, take measurements, see a change from X to Y and we attribute the change to something we're doing, based on extremely limited data samples that appear to show contemporaneous patterns but don't necessarily imply cause and effect. 
Honestly this is how ancient central American cultures came to believe that sacrificing virgins helped the corn crop. 
And with respect to global warming, now that the corn crop yield has leveled off despite the fact that we haven't sacrificed any virgins, they're still standing around the jaguar statue questioning US for not joining them. 
Brute has this exactly right - this IS the boy who cried wolf phenomenon. These people are wrong more often than they are right. And that is because the agenda is always put before the process - the conclusion is pre-decided and they come up with a theory to support the conclusion. And the conclusion is always that some evil is being caused by basic production and consumption, the agenda is always that individual lifestyles need to be reined in despite increasing levels of per capita wealth worldwide. 
There has to be some accountability for consistently being wrong - Brute hits the nail right on the head, the credibility IS gone. When do we get to say, hey UCS, you were dead wrong about nuclear power, hey Greenpeace you were dead wrong about Monsanto corn pollen and highly misleading about non-stick cookware, hey Al Gore those frogs were inflicted with a common parasite and those sheep had pinkeye, enough is enough we're not listening to anything you have to say anymore? 
If Bill Clinton claimed he didn't have sex with some new woman, or George W. Bush claimed some other country had WMDs, you'd assume they were full of it, because they'd proven to be full of it on those issues in the past. 
Why do you not apply the same standards to the self-styled green movement? When do we get to say hey wait a minute, first you said global warming makes hurricanes worse, now you're saying it makes them less severe, because they've actually been less severe when you'd predicted they'd get worse, we're done listening to you? 
If the warming doesn't resume and they fall back to this "global dimming" position will that be enough for you?
Peter Martin 
24 January 2008 at 21:26
Brutus and Pat T, 
I think you are probably right in that there are some who have latched on to the AGW problem for their own political reasons but equally there are many who are objecting to the notion, again, for their own but different political reasons. 
I don't think anyone is saying that science is perfect and that we know all the answers. We know quite a lot in fact. The first thing that we can say with absolute certainty is that whatever effect CO2 emissions cause, they will be totally independent of our political and religious opinions. On that basis I would have thought that everyone could at least agree to stick to the science and put aside everything else. What's the alternative to a scientific approach as advocated by groups such as the UK's Royal Society or the American AAAS? If your credibility in science has gone you might like to look for some alternatives. However, we probably don't have enough virgins left these days for sacrifices so you might need to think of something different. 
As far as I know, and I repeat, there is no conclusive proof about any correlation between Hurricanes, in either frequency or intensity, and global warming. They aren't the main danger anyway, That, I would say, is melting ice caps, particularly where the ice is on land such as Antarctica and Greenland and where it has the potential to raise sea levels catastrophically. 
There was never the scientific consensus in the 60's about the return to an ice age. That idea was based on a mixture of faulty data, a general idea that ice ages occur periodically and we were due for another one, and the need for some scientific journalists to create a story. That market is pretty much saturated for the consensus these days. However, as David Whitehouse knows, there is still room for an opposite point of view in the marketplace. There is nothing wrong with that , of course, if it is done honestly but he is sufficiently well qualified and trained to know that using a cherry picked set of seven data points is far from being honest. 
I repeat my question about the cooling that was observed in the early nineties. The case for the sceptics of AGW was much stronger then than it is now. Many scientists who had advocated that CO2 emissions may be a problem wavered. Many sceptics claimed they had won the argument and proclaimed the end to global warming. Why make the same mistake as them on the flimsiest of evidence?
Robin Guenier 
24 January 2008 at 22:30
Peter Martin, Brute and Pat T: can I persuade you that your interesting debate is, in practical terms, completely pointless? It seems to me that, to use an over-worn cliché, the elephant in the room is that, although much of the media and (seemingly) most politicians in the western world have accepted the AGW theory, there is not (to quote John Gray in Sunday’s Observer) “the remotest prospect that the world will renounce the use of fossil fuels”. Hence the rise in carbon emissions will not be halted. Why? 
Well, apologies for this but it’s easier to quote from my 21st January post where I referred to the relationship between AGW and “the real world”: 
“The real world, that is: the world where, despite media entreaties, the bulk of voters in the western democracies are not interested or think it’s all a hoax, tax raising scam or left-wing conspiracy; the world where western politicians pay lip service to the issue but, giving priority to economic growth, defer real action for years; the world where the US Senate (under a Democratic President and chaired by Al Gore) voted 95 – 0 against the Kyoto treaty; the world where the rich expect more and bigger airports, more investment in roads, etc. – and get them; the world where the poor are desperate for basics such as drinking water and food, basic healthcare, freedom from continual violence etc. – all of which require increased economic growth; the world where China and India are demanding more and more resource to drive their economic growth and are understandably not interested in moderating that demand; the world where the ambitions of increasingly powerful nations such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran depend almost entirely on continued demand for fossil fuels; the world where renewable energy may be proving to be rather less eco-friendly and efficient than had been hoped; the world where the profits to be made by destroying rainforests are overcoming governments’ expressed intentions; the world where the potential for GM crops to overcome the destructive industrialisation of agriculture is ignored or demonised; the world where the views of sceptics such as stargazer are getting increasing attention; the world where the environmentalists are falling out amongst themselves – e.g. about biofuels and nuclear energy; the world where the Bali conference achieved hardly anything except an agreement to hold more conferences; the world where human populations just go on expanding, perhaps to 10 billion people in 50 years time. And so on.” 
So, Brute and Pat T, despite understandable irritation at being preached at by the AGWers and equally understandable enjoyment of a good and (with Peter Martin at least) civilised debate, you’ve really won – the restrictions you seem to fear won’t happen. Or to put it another way, if the dire consequences the AGWers warn us about are real, we’re all doomed. 
Peter M has already described this view as defeatist. Bad adjective – it’s realistic. But I do have a view of a better way to proceed. More on this – if anyone’s interested that is.
Brute 
24 January 2008 at 23:44
I’m interested. Sure Mr Guenier, post away; I’d love to hear what your thoughts are. This argument is getting stale. 
I just think that any sovereign nation should keep well away from the United Nations. Can’t think of any government body as corrupt, (possibly the Democrat Congress), or mismanaged. I could fill up the rest of the page with examples of UN failures, malfeasance and corruption; you get the picture. 
UN ALLOWS 45,000 DEATHS PER MONTH IN CONGO 
From the Associated Press: “Some 45,000 people die every month in Congo as the world’s deadliest humanitarian crisis has failed to improve despite five years of relative peace. An estimated 5.4 million Congolese died between ‘98 and 2007 because of conflict, most from the rampant disease and food shortages stemming from fighting. The study found that life is still alarmingly precarious for Congolese despite the end of the war in 2002. When war ended in Congo, there was same level of dysfunction without the violence.” Now, who’s running the Congo? Who’s there to make sure this doesn’t happen? 
It’s the United Nations, folks, in little blue hats, the peacekeepers and so forth. The UN! They’re not doing their job. Maybe they are doing their job. Who knows what their intentions are? Well, the United Nations could be one of the most racist and anti-Semitic organizations on the planet as well. But whatever they’re doing or not doing, it is taking years to get Congo in shape after the fighting stopped. Now, isn’t it amazing you don’t read about this stuff in Iraq — and who’s taking care of things in Iraq? It’s the United States of America, particularly the United States military. 45,000 people a month are dying in Congo, and the UN is there to ensure that it doesn’t happen. 
And this……………… 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7206144.stm
Peter Martin 
25 January 2008 at 00:24
Of course its much too defeatist. The real world could well have a much shorter coastline, with a much reduced land area and be much hotter, if opinions like yours prevail and nothing is done. 
Oil is running out anyway so we need to look at alternatives for that. I do agree that there will have to be debate about the need about nuclear energy . Some countries will decide to go down that route and some will decide to develop renewable sources. Already, Denmark does have a 70% capability from renewables but its mainly from wind which is unreliable. Some extra reliance can be gained if there is more international trade in energy but my guess is that countries like Denmark will use the wind when it blows but buy in electricity from countries like France, who generate 75% of their energy from nuclear power, when it doesn't. Incidentally the French have done the right thing for the wrong reasons. Having no large energy reserves of their own, and wanting to develop nuclear weapons, they went down the nuclear road long before the dangers of global warming were appreciated. 
The idea that we all have to live in the cold and dark with a poor standard of living is just nonsense. The last time I was in France everything looked Ok to me. If they can generate 75% of their energy needs from nuclear then so can the USA, Australia, Brazil, China, India, and maybe even Iran too , one day! That would be a good start. 
It is the European countries who are leading the way on awareness of the AGW problem. There is majority support for tackling the problem seriously , not just from the left, but from all sides of the political spectrum. Even including Mrs Thatcher! They haven't done enough, as they'll admit, but at least there is a general appreciation of a problem and nowhere as much denial, in the face of all the evidence, as there is elsewhere. 
There was some defeatistism at the start of WW2 too. There is a story that Ford thought that there wasn't any point in them switching from civilian to military production. Fortunately the US government had other ideas and took the matter out of the company's hands. If private industry wants to help fix the problem this time, that is well and good. However, it will need governments, preferably democratically elected, to set the ground rules. 
So even if the Greenland ice sheet melts leading to sea levels rising by 5 or 6 metres we shouldn't just give up. Life can still go on. The next objective would be to stop the Antarctic ice going the same way which could raise sea levels by ten or more times more.
Peter Martin 
25 January 2008 at 00:34
Brute, 
Your last post was way off topic. I'm sure that there are many more suitable forums for you to indulge in a spot of "Democratic Controlled Congress" or UN bashing.
Brute 
25 January 2008 at 01:15
Mr. Martin, 
Right; the posts on this site have strictly adhered to staying on topic. Pointing out failed programs and corruption isn't bashing, it exposing fraud in an attempt to eradicate it. 
By the way; you mentioned that the European Union is taking the lead on cutting emissions….It doesn’t seem to be working…. 
In reality, the market-driven scheme, carbon trading, promoted by the European Union has so far failed to make any reduction in emissions. Because it does not make even the slightest inroads into the huge profits of the energy, oil and related industries—in fact, most of these companies support it—it completely fails to meet the challenge of climate change. 
Despite all the favourable publicity being given to carbon trading, the European Commission reported that emissions from the major industrial users throughout the European Union actually rose by 1 to 1.5 percent in 2006. The “commitment” made by the EU leaders to cut emissions by 20 percent by 2020 is empty rhetoric. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/apr/03/carbonemissio... 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6311603.stm 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101201618.ht... 
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/carb-j11.shtml
Peter Martin 
25 January 2008 at 02:30
What you are saying about the European Union is true. There are several steps involved to achieving successful emission reductions. 
1) Raising Awareness of the Problem. 
2) Winning the Scientific Debate. 
3) Achieving majority public support for a mitigation program 
4) A reduction in the rate of growth of emissions 
5) A leveling off of emissions 
6) A prolonged and continued reduction in emissions. 
I would say that the Europeans are up to step 4. In other words they still have a fair way to go, as they will admit. I'd say Australia was a step behind - the last election showed that there was majority support but not much else has happened yet. There is no real public support for the nuclear option either which is going to make things more difficult.
taghioff.info 
25 January 2008 at 08:23
It is possible to fight global warming, it is technically feasible, even for poor countries. 
The point you are making is that it is unlikely to happen under the present political set-up. 
This implies a change in the political set-up. Realism is realistic until things change.
Robin Guenier 
25 January 2008 at 09:37
No, Peter, it’s you who is in denial. I’m not being defeatist nor am I advocating that we should “just give up”. In all aspects of life, the way to get things done is first to face reality and then to determine the way ahead based on that. Planning on the basis of how you wish things were inevitably leads to failure. Yet that’s exactly what you’re suggesting. 
Take Europe. The things you mention are theoretically possible, I agree. But there’s not the slightest prospect of their happening in the timescale the environmentalists insist is required. For example, a comprehensive nuclear programme would take years to bring on stream – yet you say, “there will have to be debate about the need about nuclear energy”. How long will that take? It’ll be decades before anything substantial happens. And the environmentalists are at war about it anyway – look at Lynas’s blog. Yet, in the meantime, airports are being expanded (the UK government is committed to the largest expansion of airport traffic in history), there is massive investment in roads, coal-fired power stations are being planned, huge container ships clog our seaways – etc. etc. And even the activists in the European Union can only get individual governments to agree to targets for emission reductions that are, in green terms, inadequate and don’t have to be met (unlikely anyway on past experience) for years into the future. You talk about “majority support”. Sure that’s true of the media and most politicians pay lip service to the issue. But polls in the UK show that most people either don’t care or think it’s a hoax. And of those who agree it’s important few put it high on their priority list. 
And that’s just Europe – which, as you correctly say is “leading the way on awareness of the AGW problem.” How much worse is the (massively bigger) rest of the world? I’ll spare you the list of what you must see as horrors – but I’ll ask again the question I put a couple of days ago. Would you like to tell Presidents Putin, Ahmadinajad and Chavez that they must curtail their oil production to save the planet? Or perhaps you’d prefer to advise a Chinese peasant that he must keep to his dirt-poor existence so that Brute can continue to drive his Hummer? 
Come on, Peter, face up to it: the rise in carbon emissions will not be halted. 
Accept that and we can move on to considering what to do about it. 
PS: taghioff - please grow up.
stargazer 
25 January 2008 at 11:06
This wes presented to the EU parliment very recently by a MEP... 
"I am sure that nobody would disagree with the need to explore new means of providing energy. Oil and gas reserves are finite and will eventually run out (probably sooner rather than later). 
Hybrid cars would appear to be a good start. But hydrogen powered cars could be the way forward. 
Solar and tidal power for energy should be thoroughly investigated, but wind turbines and bio-mass sources have serious critics. 
Of course pollution control is important - we only have one precious atmosphere on which we all have to survive. But this means controlling carbon MONOXIDE, which is highly toxic, not carbon DIOXIDE, which isn't. 
But let us look at the "Climate" part of the title. 
Nowadays, when the subject of "Climate Change" crops up it is usually described as "Global Warming". Is this deliberate? 
The only solution being put forward is to cut greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. carbon dioxide) dramatically because it is claimed that a 30% reduction will reduce the average temperature of the Earth by two degrees by 2020. Such an assertion is quite amazing, when no reference to the effect the Sun will have over that period is taken into account. 
But, for the sake of this exercise, let us suppose that the so-called taxpayer-funded experts are right. 
"Climate Change" is precisely that! Climate changes - ALL THE TIME! 
So what if Earth's climate decides to cool down instead of warm up? 
Will the "experts" then suggest that we must produce much more carbon dioxide to try and offset the cooling? Of course not - they are so committed to their present "Global Warming" prediction that that would NOT be an option. 
But, sadly, it looks as if that is what IS happening. 
The Sun has just passed through a Solar Grand Maximum - an event of exceptional rarity, during which, for 70 years, it has been more active than during almost any previous similar period throughout the past 11,400 years. That is probably why the space probe to Mars has established that Mars, like Earth, is experiencing global warming - apparently the polar "icecaps" of frozen CO2 have receded for three Martian summers in a row. 
For the last nine years - since 1998 - global temperature on Earth has remained the same. For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global Warming has stopped. It's not a viewpoint or a sceptic's inaccuracy - it's an observational fact. 
Unsurprisingly, no evidence is offered for the notion that warmer weather will make people sicker. In fact, it is settled science that the reverse is true. We are warm-blooded creatures and we thrive in warmer weather, dying in far larger numbers through cold than through warmth. 
To illustrate this, let us take an example: the 2003 European heatwave killed fewer than 10,000 people, whereas in the winter of 2002 there were 25,000 excess deaths from an intense cold snap in the UK alone. 
So to sum up, IF Global Warming has been just a temporary blip and we are now heading relentlessly for the next (inevitable) Ice Age, any reductions in CO2 emissions will have precisely the OPPOSITE asserted effect to that which is intended. 
And all the fancy calculations of Carbon Trading, the "benefits" of which are highly doubtful anyway, will be completely pointless. 
What we need to do, whichever way our future goes, is to spend all of the money that is being poured into "Carbon Emission Control" and which will be wasted on lost production and the associated unemployment costs, on preparing ourselves for a slight rise or reduction in the Earth's average temperature. 
The animal world has survived Ice Ages throughout our history - with proper preparation we can do it again. 
In the billions of years of Earth's existence, a very brief pause to check the facts is surely not too much to ask."
Brute 
25 January 2008 at 15:48
Mr. Martin, 
I'd say that Europe is at # 1 on your assessment chart. They are losing the "consensus" and the policies that they have implemented are penalizing low (and high) income people, and benefiting big business and big government. Emission levels are increasing and the cost of energy has risen by 50% in the cases I’ve seen. 
So, here we have yet another case of leadership telling us that if we do “A” than the result will be “B”, and it hasn’t happened….. Starting to get the picture?
Brute 
25 January 2008 at 15:55
taghioff.info 
What type of political change are you advocating? 
I think I already know your answer.
Brute 
25 January 2008 at 15:59
Mr. Guenier. 
I don't really own a Hummer; I was making a joke; but you certainly have a good memory. That was posted on a different thread almost a month ago!
Pat T 
25 January 2008 at 18:19
Robin, the elephant has left the room: 
link 
Global warming has stalled. 
And there is no doubt that if we'd all signed and ratified Kyoto, passed restrictions to meet its targets and lived up to them, that you and the IPCC and Al Gore not only would concede that the temperatures have leveled off, but that you'd be taking credit for it. 
There can also be no doubt that your denial of the stall is becoming ever less tenable and that at some point - I predict within calendar year 2008 - you will abandon the "it hasn't stalled" argument for a fall-back argument that it stalled because of some other force also caused by man. 
And when you do, it is because of us skeptics that people will see it for what it is.
Pat T 
25 January 2008 at 18:21
By the way, speaking of elephants in the room: 
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm
Pat T 
25 January 2008 at 18:33
Robin you do have most people but your support has reached its zenith unless the temperature increase starts up again - the longer it goes with 1998 still the "warmest year" on record - as 8 years becomes 10 becomes 12 after a roughly quarter century warming, people are goign to start jumping off the bandwagon as quickly as they jumped on it. You can't fool them - they go outside, they know that the winters are cold again. You folks know that and that's why you're in such a hurry, it's why we got the big declaration that "the debate is over" and "we have to act now" - because if "we" don't "act now" support for your agenda will wane. 
Unless you can come up with a theory by which we also cause cooling. 
Then no matter what happens, you have a theory that says it's bad and that it's caused by us. 
Greenhouse causes both warming and cooling, it's "really called climate change" didn't work, so you've got global dimming. 
I know you didn't INVENT global dimming - but then you could come up with any theory and I guaranty you it's been thought of, just go on the internet - the point is you folks did pick the ball up only quite recently and will start to run with it only now and only because it's convenient, only because you need plausible denial on the stalled warming. 
If people buy that then you're in - no matter what happens, you can blame the industries you've had it in for for decades. If it warms, it's us (global warming), if it cools, it's us (global dimming), if it stays the same, it's us (both), and no matter what, it's bad. 
If we can prevent you from recharacterizing this as the perfect fallback position, the plausible denial, that it is, then people will see this whole debate for what it is. 
That is why we're pointing out this change of position before it occurs. 
When they start saying OK, it's not warming like we thought it would, but that's only because of man-made global dimming, people will have already been forewarned, they'll just shake their heads and say "fooled me once, shame on you, you won't fool me twice." 
Some of us were never fooled at all.
Brute 
25 January 2008 at 19:04
Mr. Pat T, 
I don't presume to speak for Robin but I think that he is somewhat of a skeptic, (realist).
Pat T 
25 January 2008 at 19:46
My apologies if that is the case. 
I just want people to see how monolithic this is - the AGW side of the debate are not just a bunch of scientists who start with the facts and work upward - the UN and other organizations that have long-opposed the industries they now seek to curtail start with an agenda to do just that and THEN they come up with a theory to support that agenda, and conclusions to support the theory, and then they try to find facts to support the theory and bury or revise the ones that don't. 
And that is why when the facts don't let them do that - or we skeptics don't let them abuse the facts to do that, as with the MWP/Hockey Stick, polar bear populations, the effect of warming on hurricanes, and, I predict, the stall in the warming itself, they just re-write their thesis to tell a new story that incorporates the new facts but always still concludes that it's all due to mankind. 
The facts appear to be X, their theory is "it's mankind because of X." 
It later turns out to be that the facts are Y, their theory is changed almost overnight to "it's mankind because of Y." 
And some of it is so deceptive, so blatant, that it's really questioable whether THEY honestly believe it themselves.
Brute 
25 January 2008 at 20:03
Green Desperation Time.................... 
http://westernfrontamerica.com/2008/01/23/green-desperation-...
Pat T 
25 January 2008 at 21:15
Green is just the new Red - it's long-discredited Malthusian ideas that they're trying to bring in through the back door.
Pat T 
25 January 2008 at 22:06
Ok that was an overstatement - the PRESENT green is just the new red. 
Basically Al Gore is to environmentalism what Al Sharpton is to civil rights - in the 1970s the Cuyahoga River was burning, literally. We had real problems. And Nixon started the EPA and we've solved the real problems. Just like we passed the Civil Rights Act and a generation later things aren't perfect but for the most part we don't have any real civil rights problems. 
Now I think a lot of people who want to feel part of the passion from those times and re-live those great battles try to re-create them now, like Don Quixote, but they don't see that forcing people to sort their trash and requiring clear trash bags so the state can check, and going after people for throwing out an expended Energizer battery or 3 PCs, one thermometer and 10 near-empty paint cans over the course of their lives is going overboard and isn't the same thing as our parents' generation going after chemical firms who a generation ago dumped billions of tons of hazmats into rivers or storm drains. What they're doing now is just being busybodies or worse. 
And there's a real holier than thou attitude to them the way some of the right wing fundamentalists have - they've chosen their lifestyles and it makes them happy but then they have to insist that their type of home is "sustainable" and yours isn't, that they're "stewards of the planet" and you aren't - and for the most part it's baloney - where you live, where you work and how you travel from the one place to the other is a personal choice and the fate of the world just does not hang in the balance. 
And there is a "red" element to it that has co-opted this passion and directed it toward a general distaste for the western lifestyle. 
And the agenda does lead and the process does follow. I don't mean to sound like a "conspiracy theorist" but it is NOT just that the Monsanto Bt corn pollen story was totally false, it WAS dreamt up by people who had it in for so-called "Frankenfoods" from the get-go - and many of them, like Greenpeace, haven't even admitted that it was BS even though that has been proven in experiments conducted by the USDA and the EPA (under Clinton) and now borne out through all empirical evidence. 
I believe it is much the same with man-made global warming. 
And the way that they've gone about it strongly suggests that. Most scientific debates have involved various teams of university scientists with grants to study this or that issue - each team might start out with a pet theory to prove or disprove, but there is competition among those theories and scientists and the questions they seek to answer don't completely overlap. With global warming, the UN, governments and non-profits, and to a far lesser degree, energy companies - - fund studies on a single narrow question, on which there is a yes or no answer, and all of the funding comes from sources with a vested interest. The decision to consider this or that sub-issue is driven by whether the findings promise to add or detract from support for a specific answer to that single yes-or-no question. 
Am I a "conspiracy theorist" because I suspect that that skews the process and thereby the results? 
And the type of problems that emerge like the flip-flop on hurricanes, the problems with Mann's models, Mann's incredible attempts to explain away one of the tangible indicia of past warmer climes are characteristic of disciplines where the ideological cart has long been put before the scientific horse. 
Just as a single example, how can any educated person with critical thinking skills consider Mann's vineyard thesis and not raise an eyebrow?
Peter Martin 
26 January 2008 at 02:17
If the contrarians don't like the idea of listening to what is happening in Europe, and to some extent the criticisms of the way that big business manipulate the argumenst in their favour is justified the maybe they'd like to read what some American scientists have to say on the subject: 
http://www.ucsusa.org/ 
I thought you guys prided yourself on a "can do" mentality. It would be good if you could set out to do what needs to be done in a positive manner. Really take the lead and show those Europeans how to really do it! 
But what you are saying now is "you had better hope that the world temps do not increase further" and we have to be "realistic" and accept that no reductions in CO2 are even possible. Its just a big joke that the world may warm by 4 degrees in the next 50 years. 
To get the thread back to its original title of "has global warming really stopped? " I'd like to ask again about the cooling that was observed in the early nineties. The case for the sceptics of AGW was much stronger then than it is now. Many scientists who had advocated that CO2 emissions may be a problem wavered. Many sceptics claimed they had won the argument and prematurely proclaimed the end to global warming. Aren't you making the same mistake?
Brute 
26 January 2008 at 03:02
Mr. Martin, 
Regarding US Carbon Emissions: 
US Greenhouse Gas Emissions Fell in 2006 
By Associated Press November 28, 2007 
Total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell nearly 1.5 percent in 2006, according to a government report released Wednesday. 
President Bush lauded the progress, but environmental groups said more needs to be done. 
The U.S. produced about 7.08 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent last year, compared with more than 7.18 billion metric tons in 2005, according to the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration. Emissions have grown at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent since 1990, and the 2006 annual decrease is only the third since then. 
The emissions drop, coupled with 2.9 percent overall economic growth during the same period, means greenhouse gas intensity, or the amount emitted per unit of economic activity, fell by 4.2 percent last year. That was the largest improvement since 1985. 
"This puts us well ahead of the goal I set in 2002 to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent by 2012," Bush said in a statement. 
Last year's drop is a welcome surprise, but remains a "small blip against a backdrop of ever-increasing emissions," said Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for Environmental Defense, an advocacy group pushing for policy changes that would reduce carbon-based emissions, 
Carbon dioxide, the primary gas blamed for climate change, comprised about 84 percent of total U.S. emissions last year. But carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption and industrial processes fell by 1.8 percent last year after rising at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent between 1990 and 2005. 
The drop was attributed to slight decline in overall energy demand, due to mild weather and higher energy prices, and a decrease in the carbon intensity of electricity generation driven by increased use of natural gas and other non-fossil fuel energy sources, according to the EIA report. 
"There is evidence here that we can get carbon out of the economy and still have growth," Kreindler said, adding that a mandatory cap on emissions is needed for continued progress. 
Clarence P. Cazalot Jr., president and chief executive of Marathon Oil Corp., last month said he prefers a direct tax on carbon emissions as opposed to cap-and-trade programs that allow a company with reduced emissions to sell a credit to another business that needs to exceed the emissions limit to operate. But he said Congress appeared headed toward a cap-and-trade policy.
Peter Martin 
26 January 2008 at 05:09
Brute, 
The last one was welcome change from your usual posts. I'd like to see everyone get away from the 'blame game'. The Europeans blaming the Americans. The Americans blaming the Chinese and Indians. The right accusing the left for beating up an imaginary issue and claiming that AGW isn't true. The left berating capitalism for creating the problem. There is no evidence that it would be any less under socialism, indeed many would argue that pollution is generally worse. 
We will all be affected by the problem if we do nothing. I'd say we should forget the politics as much as possible and take the lead from science which is , or at least should be , politically neutral. There are plenty of other issues on which a political corner can be argued and there will still be a left and right spectrum of views. 
As the Union of Concerned Scientists (an American organistaion) say: 
Reducing our impact on the global climate does not have to hurt the world's economies. The answer depends much on the "how" and "when."
stargazer 
26 January 2008 at 09:17
Well the thing is that the 'sunspots cycles' fit the observed temperature changes better than Co2 . Any astronomer can see this. Even if the mechanism for the correlation has not been found . It is evident that there must be one. 
The Solar cycle/cosmic rays/cloud cover is the best bet so far. But as I say even if this does not pan out THERE has to be a connection waiting to be found. 
William Herschel (astronomer, and discoverer of Planet Uranus) noted in 1801 that "when there are few spots on the Sun the price of wheat went up". 
The fact that this was noted in 1801 implies that you don't need to look too deep to find a Solar connection, as he did .... I look at solar data and I see it TOO. 
In fact It just occurred to me to look at the current price of wheat... and guess what ,,, http://www.investmentmarkets.co.uk/20070912-841.html
Brute 
26 January 2008 at 10:58
Mr. Martin, 
I suppose it has to do with the way people look at things; attitude. The glass is half full/empty. The article I posted reports good news, (I think), the environmentalist says that "its a small blip" and "nowhere near enough". 
As Pat T wrote, the Pittsburg River used to regularly catch on fire, I used to pour motor oil into the storm sewer years ago. I think significant progress has been made; but somehow I don't feel the Eco-Zealouts will be satisfied; they detest human-kind to their core and its a shame.
stargazer 
26 January 2008 at 12:03
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/warming-tren...
Peter Martin 
27 January 2008 at 00:10
Brute, 
I'd say that you should forget about eco-zealots. In some ways I rather they stayed out of it. I can tell that you don't like them but that's not a good basis for deciding whether or the not the scientific consensus is accurate. But, equally the contrarians who totally ignore and are determined to disagree with the best scientific advice are living in a fool's paradise. 
But ot course, there can be an effective course of action, and the details and the extent almost certainly will attract criticism from both sides.
Houfek 
27 January 2008 at 12:31
The Anglican church has been replaced by a new religion...Global Warming - now repackaged as "Climate Change" because record cold snaps were awkward facts of daily life that made converting the unfaithful more difficult. The religious historians can point to several scientists that were punished, imprisoned, or "burned at the stake" for preposterous ideas such as "the sun is at the center of our solar system", "the earth is round", "the stratosphere is not a shell holding back a galactic "sea"", and on, and on. Congratulations Whitehouse - the Statesman has become your friendly neighborhood Inquisitor. As the Frankenstein monster tried to say "Fire Bad!!!". Taken to the conclusion that mankind is destroying the planet offered by the Statesman, it is high time that those amongst us who "know" global warming climate changing is caused by humans stop screwing around with pig-tailed light bulbs, battery operated cars, and bankrupting the middle income families and, in grand marxist/nazis style, start removing this troublesome "human element". Enough.
mgregson 
27 January 2008 at 16:44
Scientists on both sides of the argument can throw graphs and statistics at each other until the cows come home. But whether you are using a selection of data stretching back a decade or a century, it is simply too small a sample to accurately extrapolate what might happen in the future. It would be much more honest and helpful to say we just don't know, but as we have only the one planet it would be wise to limit all types of pollution and sensible not to waste finite resources. That said, it could perhaps be argued that a little bit of global warming is to the good if it helps stave off another ice age for a century or two. Now that would have a serious impact on consumers ...
Peter Martin 
27 January 2008 at 21:41
"Scientists on both sides of the argument " 
If you really want to know what science , and its nothing to do with religion, are saying, take a look at these websites: 
http://www.realclimate.org/ 
http://royalsociety.org/ http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html 
http://www.aaas.org/ 
There is some debate at the edges but a general consensus has emerged over the past ten years that the problem needs to be taken very seriously. 
It would be quite dishonest to that that "we just don't know". We know quite a lot and are continually learning more. For a start we do know that short of an asteroid striking the earth or a nuclear war , there's not the remotest chance of a new ice age in the next couple of centuries. We've already got "a little bit of global warming" its the 4-6 degrees that we are likely to get in the next 50 years, if we do nothing, that could be catasprohic.
Peter Martin 
27 January 2008 at 23:22
Houfek, 
You raise an interesting point about the change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" but have given the wrong explanation. 
President Bush used the term Global warming in his speeches until 2001 but in the years following dropped the term on the advice of a consultant Mt Frank Luntz. The feeling at the time was that the term 'climate change' was less threatening and part of a more natural long term process. 
More worryingly, Mr Luntz also advised "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue" and that the President should use the term "scientific debate" when in fact scientists were coming to a consensus on the issue. Scientists, at least the good ones, aren't like politicians. They are receptive to the evidence and arguments. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.cli...
Brute 
28 January 2008 at 03:43
Mr. Martin, 
I think that the difference is that my personal religious beliefs are just that, my personal beliefs…..I keep them to myself. The Eco-Socialists “religious beliefs” are woven into legislation which does effect me……and as much as these people claim that this isn’t their “religion”, it is. All mankind needs a doctrine or philosophy to guide them; even Atheists subscribe to a religion or doctrine of sorts, Atheism……which is a doctrine. 
Global Warming as Religion and not Science 
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal 
It was Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion. That was in a speech in 2003, but the world has moved on apace since then and adherents of the creed now have a firm grip on the world at large. 
Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man. 
The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages: 
1. It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones. 
2. The climate is always changing, so they must be right. 
Only the relatively elderly can remember the cynical haste with which the scaremongers dropped the “coming ice age” and embraced exactly the opposite prediction, but aimed at the same culprit – industry. This was in Britain, which was the cradle of the new belief and was a response to the derision resulting from the searing summer of 1976. The father of the new religion was Sir Crispin Tickell, and because he had the ear of Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who was engaged in a battle with the coal miners and the oil sheiks, it was introduced into international politics with the authority of the only major political leader holding a qualification in science. The introduction was timely yet ironic since, in the wake of the world’s political upheavals, a powerful new grouping of left-wing interests was coalescing around environmental issues. The result was a new form of godless religion. The global warming cult has the characteristics of religion and not science for the following reasons. 
Read more at this link. 
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
Peter Martin 
28 January 2008 at 05:41
Brute, 
You've just copied and pasted most ,or all, that last posting! You may as well have just as well given us the link at the bottom of the page. 
I must say all this science bashing and misrepresentation of scientific arguments has been a bit of an eye opener and quite unexpected. I guess it does go to show that the ancient practice of shooting the messenger of bad news, is as alive and well as ever. All that we scientists ( Physics and Electronics but not climate science in my case) can do is to keep plugging away to be as truthful and informative as possible and hope that opinions like yours will remain in a minority.
Peter Martin 
28 January 2008 at 06:22
I'd like to bring in the idea of the Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy. 
This goes as follows: 
Person A makes claim X 
There is something objectionable about Person A 
Therefore claim X is false. 
Put like this, it is clear that anyone following this pseudo-logic is not the sharpest of knives in the drawer. Yet, arguments containing this fallacy are quite common in this thread.
Robin Guenier 
28 January 2008 at 10:38
The purpose of my posts on 24 and 25 January was to persuade all who are arguing over this well trodden ground that your dispute is pointless: neither side will convert the other and (far more important) the reality is that, for the many reasons I have detailed (I won’t bore you with them again), the rise in carbon emissions is not going to be halted. Therefore, I was hoping to move the debate away from sterile argument onto the possibility of finding agreement about alternative and more practical action that might address the “real world” issues as I see them. For what it’s worth, I am becoming interested in the idea that, instead of countries endangering their economies by spending huge sums on essentially futile (and possibly unnecessary) emission reduction, they should spend it on defending against possible climate damage and on alleviating global water shortage, disease etc., i.e. essentially the position of Bjorn Lomborg, Mr Lynas’s custard pie victim. 
I was disappointed that no one has responded to my challenge. I have decided, therefore, that this will be my final contribution. My thanks to Dr David Whitehouse for getting this started, to Mark Lynas for giving it fresh impetus, to the New Statesman for hosting such an interesting happening (over 1,000 comments now on the two articles - remarkable), to various contributors and especially to the indefatigable Brute (I’m sorry you don’t really have a Hummer – that’s taken the shine off your image, but perhaps we’ll have that beer one day), to Peter Martin for maintaining your position with logic and patience, to Mr Fnortner (if he’s still around) for forcing me weeks ago to sharpen up my thinking, to JZ Smith and Maz for their supportive comments and to stargazer for giving me a vastly wider perspective on all this. 
Best wishes to you all.
stargazer 
28 January 2008 at 10:42
PLEASE SEE THIS 
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/27/best-statistical-scienti...
Brute 
28 January 2008 at 15:41
Mr. Martin, 
Did you read the article in its entirety? The point is that many people, (including scientists), follow the global warming doomsday scenario as their religion. Nothing wrong with that, as long as it doesn’t impact me and my family. This is unfortunately their intent; all the more reason to challenge their anti-humanity theology. 
Mr. Guenier, 
I do own a Full Size Extra Cab General Motors 4 Wheel Drive pick-up truck; does that enhance my image as a greedy, pollution spewing, environmental raping and pillaging, capitalist pig? I was really trying to achieve that coveted status.....A Hummer is just not utilitarian, (for my personal purposes); however, I would support the freedom for anyone to purchase one, or the freedom to own a Prius if desired. Aside from that, I couldn’t afford a Hummer on an Engineering salary. 
As usual, your comments are thoughtful and measured. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to the debate.
stargazer 
28 January 2008 at 16:32
Robin Guenier 
I was a pleasure reading your posts. 
I am afraid I did not engage in your "alternative and more practical action that might address the “real world” issues"... As aside from advocating nuclear power electric cars etc.there is little I can do to solve world pollution 'problems' as I have said before I personally do my bit to cut 'pollution' ! And I have low energy bulbs in every room in my house. 
However I don't regard C02 as a 'pollutant'... 
Indeed also as I have said, from my own 'research' I have come to the conclusion that it is COLD we have to fear ...And I am sure that that is what we are going to get.. 
Brute It was great to read you too ( and the other 'realists' here) . 
Peter ... think on this... In the future IF the temp does indeed go cold. will you think scorn on the 'top few' AGW'ers for helping put us there....as we 'deniers' undoubtedly will. 
This is my final post here too. 
Stargazer
Pat T 
28 January 2008 at 20:49
Well I agree with Mr. Martin's thinking: 
"Person A makes claim X 
There is something objectionable about Person A 
Therefore claim X is false." 
That is indeed a fallacy - unfortunately the "something objectionable" has been that someone ever had a study partially funded by an energy company.
Pat T 
28 January 2008 at 21:07
And it's not a misrepresentation of scientific arguments. What we have is an agenda to curtail or eliminate certain otherwise free activities and a constant supply of theories that those activities cause this or that harm. 
And countless times those assertions have proven to be greatly exaggerated (teflon birds), completely false (Monsanto butterflies) or just unproven and still not fully understood but definitely not working the way it was asserted (the ozone hole was blamed on certain chemicals but is getting worse even though those chemicals were banned 21 years ago). 
Your side seems to think it's OK to just dismiss any argument that comes from anyone who ever performed research for an organization that ever received any grants from an energy company, even if nothing was ever found to be at fault with the research or its conclusions. 
Yet your side expects a pass on all the past falsehoods and exaggerations, and doesn't even acknowledge that it too has an agenda. 
And which agenda is worse, the agenda of wanting to continue to engage in production of things that people willingly purchase, or the agenda of wanting to shut all that down? 
The skeptics have much more reason to just dismiss your side out of hand for its agenda than vice versa, yet we don't. 
The skeptics could easily take the "boy who cried wolf" angle and just dismiss your side out of hand based on the falsehoods, yet we don't. 
Instead we just ask you to prove your case. 
And you can't. 
After tens of billions of dollars have been spent not in an open ended search for truth but specifically to prove a single, narrow theory, it remains unproven. 
And what do we get in the absence of proof? 
Warnings that "we can't afford to wait" for proof, complete revision of the climate history to eliminate known past warm periods, statements that glacial retreat (which happens to be revealing archaeological finds) is "unprecedented," attempts to twist the inability to prove other causes to mean having proven that the warming couldn't have resulted from those causes, and ever-changing sub-theories as to what, in turn, is caused by global warming: 
(1) during and after a bad hurricane season we hear that global warming makes hurricanes worse and more frequent, and then after a few mild hurricane seasons, which since hurricane seasons follow a cycle means we're in for 10-12 more mild seasons, we hear that global warming makes hurricanes milder and less likely to hit land (not sure if that means they're holding out for the option of saying that offshore hurricanes, since nobody but they will see them, are worse than they actually are). 
(2) we hear that global warming is an immediate threat to the polar bear; then polar bear populations increase; then we hear that global warming will temporarily enable polar bear populations to increase but THEN will cause their populations to dwindle. 
(3) after several mild winters we hear that Boston and other northern cities will have the "climate of Atlanta;" then after a few cold winters we hear that global warming can actually cause cooling; then after a few mild summers in most locations and global average temperatures leveling off and potentially starting to decline, and almost a decade after the "warmest year on record," we're starting to hear the rebirth of "global dimming" despite, as Whitehouse points out, the decline in concentration of the chemicals that supposedly caused "global dimming" before it was called that. 
What we now have is a series of contradictory arguments that, while no two of them can be accurate, together can explain every and any eventuality. No matter what happens in the future, somebody has predicted that mankind would cause that. And whatever does happen, you can be sure that that prediction will be brought up. 
And we skeptics will remind everyone that they also predicted the opposite, and everything in between - that there was a prediction made to counter every eventuality. 
You can resent us for that all you want, but we consider ourselves to be a truth squad, and in the long run that is how we will come to be seen.
Peter Martin 
28 January 2008 at 21:28
Pat T 
I'd say that the last example comes under the category of "ad hominem circumstantial". Which would be : 
or Person X makes claim Y 
Person X has vested interest in making claim Y 
Therefore claim Y is false. 
It is false logic to draw an inference of falsehood about claim Y. It is perfectly possible that claim Y is true , although it is reasonable to be sceptical. 
Which is why I do keep going back to organisations like the AAAS and the Royal Society. I do believe that science is neutral and objective. 
As evidence for this, I would point out that they don't please everyone. The green movement like what they say about global warming but object strongly when they defend GM foods.
Peter Martin 
28 January 2008 at 21:38
Your example of a curtailment of freedom, "Nothing wrong with that, as long as it doesn’t impact me and my family" is a logical fallacy too. 
Person X makes claim Y 
Person X suggests unacceptable measures (relating to claim Y) 
Therefore claim Y is false 
If Global warming is to be tackled sooner rather than later the number of inconveniences experienced by all will be minimised.
Pat T 
29 January 2008 at 00:05
All I suggest is that your model: 
"Person X makes claim Y 
Person X has vested interest in making claim Y 
Therefore claim Y is false" applies equally to your side as to mine. I am not suggesting that we adopt that standard at all - I am simply pointing out that it is your side that uses it. Most multi-nationals give grants to science groups, universities, etc... to promote their image and sometimes because they're interested in what the studies will show. Many multi-nationals are energy companies or are engaged in the energy field. That's kind of the nature of energy, it is central to the economy. There really aren't many private sector or independent scientists for whom it is untrue that they at one time worked for a group that at one time received a grant from a company with "ties to the energy sector." So if you don't like the findings of a particular study you can just go back and research the prior work done by any of the six or seven scientists involved and find that at least one of them has such an indirect "tie" - and then use that to argue that "the study is inherently false because of its inherent bias, it was bought and paid for by Big Oil" - and that is how legitimate skepticism is responded to by many on your side. 
I also suggest that it is reasonable to argue that 
"Person X makes claim Y. 
Person X has made claims A through W of which 3 were accurate, 3 were dramatic exaggerations and the rest were disproven entirely. 
Person X at the very least should not get any benefit of the doubt as to claim Y." 
Lastly, I suggest that in a free society the burden of proof has to lie with the people making the claim, seeking to restrict the otherwise free activity. 
Otherwise it is not a free society if you have to disprove any and every possible allegation put forth by people who don't approve of an activity before being allowed to engage in it. In that scenario, even if you can prove a negative, the cost and time required to do that will limit the activity and the people making the claim will have, even though proven wrong, gotten their way. 
And if we were to make exceptions on the basis of the severity of the harm alleged then that would simply create an incentive to allege more dire harm - which some might argue is what has happened with global warming: they keep increasing the predicted sea level rise - because a half millimeter per year didn't scare anyone.
Pat T 
29 January 2008 at 00:12
This IS about freedom, and it is nonsensical to require that one disprove every allegation by those who disapprove of an activity before he is allowed to engage in it. 
If you were to honestly apply that standard you'd have to apply it equally - can you imagine homosexuals having to disprove Pat Robertson's claims about their activities before being allowed to engage in them? Jews having to disprove Achmedinejad's claims before being allowed to celebrate Shabbat on Friday evenings? 
Well people commuting to and from work and turning on the lights when they get home should not have to justify their freedom to engage in these activities, should not have to disprove Al Gore before being allowed to engage in them. 
Rather those who seek to curtail these activities should have to prove that they cause the harm alleged. 
And they have not done that. They should a very rough (and getting rougher every year) temporal correlation between the most recent of several warming periods and the 1/11,000th of the atmosphere that has become CO2 since Jefferson took the Oath of Office. They point to their inability to prove that something else is causing it (but then, we don't know what caused many of the last warming periods either). They attempt to rewrite the climate history to downplay or eliminate the last few warm periods. They say anyone who disputes their claims is just a "shill for Big Oil." And they have an ever-changing (with the weather) set of sub-theories as to what in turn global warming will cause. And if the warming doesn't resume soon, there will be more substantial changes to the basic theory, and we'll see, despite reduced aerosols, the global dimming argument - a theory to cover every eventuality. 
I don't know how many people are going to buy it but I would guess it would be fewer people than presently buy man-made global warming.
Brute 
29 January 2008 at 00:16
Mr. Martin, 
You wrote: If Global warming is to be tackled sooner rather than later the number of inconveniences experienced by all will be minimized. 
Below are listed the forms of government you are advocating by that statement. 
Collectivism: A school of thought which maintains that the factors of production and the means of distribution should be owned by all and not by individuals who might pursue their self-interest. It advocates public control, which is not necessarily brought about by state ownership. 
Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. 
Communism as a political goal is a form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism". 
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.
Peter Martin 
29 January 2008 at 03:05
Pat T 
Yes of course the same logic should apply equally to both sides. No-one is disputing that. 
On the question of freedom: Consider the following: 
The freedom of the individual is paramount. 
Road speed limits curtail the freedom of the individual. 
Therefore no speed limits should be allowed. 
or Compulsory catalytic exhaust converters add unecessary expense to a car purchase, and is a constraint on the freedom of the individual. 
Therefore catalytic exhaust converters should be optional. 
I think that these two arguments are quite logical and stem from the postulate of the paramount individual freedom. 
So you are in favour of no speed limists and no compulsory emission controls on vehicles? 
Your reference to communism is yet another logical fallacy: 
Communist countries have constraints on individual freedom. 
The right to pollute the atmosphere is an individual freedom. 
By advocating clean air controls you are advocating communism!
bobclive 
29 January 2008 at 14:54
Are the AGWers giving the full facts, is the antarctic actually warming or is it gaining ice. The link below gives the Antarctic sea ice extent and concentration in December 2007: 
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.48 
If this is correct it would appear there never has been AGW just a small natural warming.
Pat T 
29 January 2008 at 16:08
If the freedom of the individual is paramount then the only legitimate limit on such freedom is that it may not be used to limit another's similar freedom. 
Road speed limits, at least on highways, curtail the freedom of the individual to limit the freedom of other individuals - there are countless crash-tests that show that if you drive faster than 65 mph on interstate 93 you cannot control your vehicle, you cannot possibly safely stop in time to avoid crashing into the car in front of you. 
It's not based on an unproven hypothesis advocated by people who constantly change their story on many aspects of their thesis.
Peter Martin 
30 January 2008 at 04:26
There was as study published in 2002 which reported some measurements which indicated that the Antarctic may have shown some recent cooling. 
link 
Naturally the climate contrarians believed this report in a way that they didn't believe any of the other reports which reported the opposite. You can't have it both ways guys! Either you accept all the scientific data or you accept none of it. Either claim its all a hoax, as the link on Bob Clives last posting, would indicate or accept that its all very serious and you have to consider all the evidence. You can't just the cherry pick the papers that support your preconceptions. 
The lead author of this report gave his views on the way that his data had been deliberately misrepresented by the contrarians in this link: 
link 2 
He does not accept that the teams results in Antarctica disprove other results in the rest of the world. There is a lack of reliable long term temperature data in Antarctica which needs to be taken into consideration when weighing this evidence. 
Of course if AGW was a big hoax there would be no way that this sort of paper would have been allowed to be published in a mainstream journal like Nature. But scientists are basically very honest folk and, providing the science is done properly, scientific publications are not censored to ensure that the party line is toed.
Pat T 
30 January 2008 at 16:36
"scientific publications are not censored to ensure that the party line is toed" 
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Brute 
30 January 2008 at 16:53
Must be a regional anomaly........ Global Warming must be causing frigidly cold temperatures. 
Come on, who are you guys trying to fool. 
Chicago Weather Today.............. 
3°F 
Feels like: -16°F 
The system also dragged frigid air across the northern Plains. The Weather Service reported midday temperature Tuesday of minus-24 degrees at Glasgow, Mont. North Dakota registered wind chill factors of minus-54 degrees at Garrison, while Williston hit a low of minus-24 degrees. 
Most of Minnesota was under wind chill warnings until noon Wednesday due to indexes that fell into the minus-30 degree level. It was as low as 50 degrees below freezing in Hibbing. 
Though only light snow fell in western, central and eastern Iowa on Tuesday, winds snapping as fast as 60 mph caused visibility problems, and temperatures dropped into single digits. 
"It's a little worse than your average snowstorm," said Rod Donovan, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Des Moines, Iowa. 
Some 1,500 workers went home early from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., while critical medical staff were put up in hotels so they could stay close to serve patients. The blustery winds also put flight operations on ice at the Rochester airport. 
In Cape Girardeau County, Mo., winds were as strong as 70 mph and dime-size hail fell. Two unconfirmed funnel clouds were reported, said Dick Knaup, the county's emergency management director. 
The weather week began with heavy snow pummeling mountain areas from Washington state to northern Arizona as two storms converged, one from hard-hit California and another from the Gulf of Alaska, meteorologists said. 
The storms were followed Tuesday by a third that threatened to leave up to 20 inches of snow in Idaho's mountains, said Jay Breidenbach of the Weather Service office in Boise, Idaho. 
A fourth storm was on the way to the interior West: "By Thursday, the next storm will be right on our doorstep. This is quite a storm system," Breidenbach said. 
In the snow farther west, avalanche danger forced officials to close Interstate 90 at Snoqualmie Pass, Washington state's main east-west artery across the Cascade Mountains. The pass was to remain closed until Wednesday morning, Meagan McFadden of the state Department of Transportation said. 
More than 200 trucks were backed up at North Bend, waiting to move freight across the pass. On a typical weekday, as many as 7,000 trucks travel I-90 over Snoqualmie Pass, she said. 
Snow also closed highways in Minnesota, Colorado and Wyoming. 
Two of three snowmobilers lost in the mountains west of Denver were found late Tuesday, said Summit County sheriff's spokeswoman Paulette Horr. The third was still missing. 
In Oregon, two snowmobilers were rescued Monday after spending two nights in the Wallowa Mountains, where they were trapped by storms. Authorities said the two were dressed warmly and equipped with survival gear, matches and an avalanche beacon.
Peter Martin 
30 January 2008 at 21:40
Pat T , 
I'm not quite sure of Prof Lindzen's motives, the author in the Wall St Journal Article you've linked to, but I do wonder why he says that there has been a one degree warming since the start of the last century but then fails to say that this has occured since 1975 . 
Prof Lindzen is one of the most prominent climate change sceptics and has links with Exxon-Mobil and other energy corporations, reportedly charging high fees for his consultancy services. 
see: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17 
I would suggest that anyone in the field of climate research is compromising their scientific credibility if they cannot show financial independence from the vested interests involved. 
It would be interesting to know if the Wall St Journal has allowed a right of reply, or has ever allowed any space in their columns, to the any of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who disagree with him.
Peter Martin 
30 January 2008 at 21:46
Brute, 
You're running out of things to say. A collection of newspaper reports doesn't prove a thing! If you'd like to write about record hot temperatures maybe you'd like to Google the Aussie press.
Brute 
30 January 2008 at 22:22
Mr. Martin, 
Sorry, on vacation. The wife and I are on a Northern New England ski trip; frigid cold here and 24 FEET of snow so far this season. The locals are reporting the best season in 10 years. Must be due to all of the Global Warming.
Brute 
31 January 2008 at 00:08
The Global Warming hysteria is nothing more than a confidence scheme, a dodge, a flim flam, a fraud. 
As stated in previous posts; global weather patterns are cyclical, influenced by solar activity and other natural occurrences. Scientists are currently promoting and taking advantage of natural weather fluctuations to further their platforms and garner more lucrative research grants…….nothing more than shameful opportunists. “Global Warming” is nothing more than an excuse for research facilities to waste more money studying natural climate fluctuations and promote themselves; advancing their careers/prestige in their respective communities; the more imminent and dire the situation, the more intense the need for more government handouts. Politicians hype and promote the situation, preying on normal human fears to raise taxes, collect more votes and increase their power over the populations that they govern. 
Everyone would love to believe that these scientists and politicians are pure as the driven snow, that their motives are complexly altruistic; but common sense and past behavior have indicated otherwise. 
The bottom line is that climate patterns have alternated between warmer and cooler trends, but have always stayed within the extreme parameters since records have been kept. Looking back through archival news, (even as far back as prehistoric texts), people have been predicting global catastrophes for a variety of purposes. Nothing has changed…… 
For anyone to presume that mankind can influence the temperature by simply adjusting the earth’s temperature thermostat, (adjusting carbon output); is woefully uneducated, hopelessly unrealistic, in self denial, or lying. 
Mr. Martin, 
You and others seem to have a very high opinion of human achievement; that human beings can actually change/influence the temperature of the planet? Wow! High praise for a species that has just achieved the ability to walk erect in the recent past comparative to the age of the Earth’s existence. Also, throughout these two threads there are numerous instances of past warming proven through a variety of sources, (yes, the Canadian Northwest Passage was open and navigatible as recently as the 1940s, the Canadian Navy had patrol boats stationed there). There were cold blooded reptiles thriving in Northern latitudes in past history. The Earth has been warmer in past history due to natural cycles as opposed to people driving SUVs or leaving their lights on when they aren’t home. Link after link of information disproving the IPCC and Al Gore and you refuse to acknowledge it. You ignore all of this evidence to latch onto a theory promoted by a failed, corrupt, political organization that has proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted and will do anything and everything possible to steal money from wealthy nations as opposed to encouaging nations from earning it themselves. Syria & China on the U.N Human Rights Commission? Are you blind????? 
(That was a rhetorical question……) My true feeling is that you are closed minded in your hatred for anything that advances human achievement; you’ve followed the Jim Jones, David Koresh and cultist philosophy of the Global Warming “Hysterians” and will continue until industry is severely curtailed or eliminated. You listen to the claptrap of Hollywood and New York Liberal elitists prophesying the demise of humanity if we do not all use mercury filled fluorescent light bulbs and drive golf carts while they live in Penthouse apartments, drive around in chauffeured limousines and fly in private jets to environmental conferences in Bali because it’s chic. Get a clue, wake up, buy a vowel.
Peter Martin 
31 January 2008 at 04:06
Brute, 
There are over 6 billion of us living here on earth and we are all causing emissions and changes to the climate. The ones of us who are lucky enough to be able to afford air travel and automobiles are probably contributing more than most to the change. 
I've heard the argument before that humans are incapable of changing the climate, but this study of the effect on the daily temperature range in the US, from having no planes in the sky, in the three days following 9-11 would indicate otherwise. 
http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/jetcontrailsrecentresear... 
In America you have some of the world's best engineers and scientists working at organisations like NASA who, no doubt, you would have considered to be national heroes when they were involved in putting men on the moon and surveying the planets of our solar system. And rightly so, their achievements were truly marvellous. 
And yet, when they apply those same talents to a study of the earth's atmosphere, coming to conclusions that you may consider to be uncomfortable, they suddenly become " woefully uneducated, hopelessly unrealistic, in self denial, or lying". This is really is quite a disgraceful slur on their integrity. 
I think I have already explained how the IPCC have been required to work under the banner of the UN. If you don't like the UN and want anyone to blame for that then look no further than the Reagan administration. In doesn't make any difference to the science. Look directly at the Nasa website or maybe the AAAS. Both are truly independent and US organisations, highly respected worldwide, and with no UN control. 
In previous centuries there has been a well documented struggle between the forces of science and reason and a church dominated establishment. If you are interested in this you could take a look at what happened to Galileo when he suggested that the earth was not located at the centre of the universe. The establishment is no longer dominated by the church but, all the same, science is presenting it with equally difficult concepts which many are finding it difficult to adjust to. Just as the medievally minded church lashed out at Galileo so, too, is the present day establishment, or rather sections of it, lashing out at anyone who tries to raise a warning of environmental damage caused by the prevailing economic system. 
There are, I do believe, enough people in all sections of society, including what might be termed the establishment, who are not defeatist and who do see a way to introduce different technology to keep us all in the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed. There is quite a bit of money to be made in so called 'green' technologies and, in the end, this will probably be the driving force which will take us away from polluting 19th and 20th century technologies and into a cleaner and greener 21st century.
bobclive 
31 January 2008 at 12:28
Contrails lower ground temps. 
In spite of the official denials, however, thousands of Americans insist that chemtrails do exist, and that they are part of a vast government experiment to combat global warming. 
The theory runs like this: The U.S. government (or the United Nations) has embarked on a secret campaign to reverse global warming (or to alter the weather) by adding particles to jet fuel. Unfortunately, the spraying has resulted in international epidemics of flu-like illness, asthma, bronchitis and Alzheimer's, in addition to freakish drought and floods.
Brute 
31 January 2008 at 14:06
Science is dominated by the Church of Environmentalism.
Brute 
31 January 2008 at 14:43
By the way, it snowed in Jerusalem yesterday. Again, the weather doesn't seem to be cooperating with the global warming theory. 
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201523782656&pag...
Brute 
31 January 2008 at 23:04
Mr. Martin, 
You would think that any person "concerned" about global warming would be hopeful and optimistic regarding news stories that the planet is getting cooler or that "global warming has stopped"; that the Alarmists would be cheerful that the planet is cooling or appears to be cooling. You seem to be disappointed and despondent when confronted with news that seems to point out that global warming has stopped or slowed. Are you really concerned about the welfare of the planet or do you have another agenda? 
Chinese army deployed to combat record snow levels 
Wednesday, 30 Jan 2008 12:05 
Half a million troops deployed to combat effects of heavy snow in China 
Almost half a million Chinese soldiers have been dispatched to counteract the country's worst snowfalls in 50 years. 
The state-run China Daily newspaper said authorities were declaring "all-out war" on the snow, which has killed at least 50 people and affected about 78 million more. 
"The People's Liberation Army has ordered its troops to go all out to help those battling the heavy snow in the southern part of the country," the paper, which said 460,000 troops were being deployed, explained. 
"The troops were ordered to give whatever assistance local governments required." 
The heaviest snowfalls for half a century come as millions of workers return home to their families for lunar new year, the most important annual public holiday in China. 
Many major roads in the country's central, south and eastern areas have been gridlocked for weeks, while hundreds of thousands have been stranded in the south by closures to rail lines. 
Speaking at Guangzhou station, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao promised travellers the government was doing all it could to resolve the situation. 
"This has been very hard on everyone," he said. "Currently every level of government is working on getting electricity restored; after that transport will resume." 
But an editorial in China Daily conceded the extreme weather would itself pose a problem to relief efforts. 
"With much of the transport web disrupted, it will be difficult to have relief materials delivered where they are most needed," the paper said. 
"We will have to prepare for a worst case scenario." 
As well as Hunan and Hubei, the provinces of Anhui, Guizhou and Jiangxi are among the worst affected by the snowfalls, which the government estimates has cost the country $18.2 billion (£9.2 billion). 
Power stations are reportedly also running low on coal, China's principal fuel source, in the country's south. 
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/autocodes/countries/china/ch...$1194688.htm
Peter Martin 
01 February 2008 at 00:42
Brute, 
Just because we have, currently, a small amout of Global warming doesn't mean that we won't have any snow. At present the amount of warming, on average, is quite small. About 0.6deg C (1deg F) since 1975. 
Averages don't tell the whole story. The Arctic regions have warmed considerably more than the rest of the world with temperature increases up to 4 deg C (7 deg F) 
See: link 
The graph even shows the much discussed cooling in Antarctica. I guess that must have slipped past the science censors :-) 
So, crudely speaking, I guess you could say that if the temperature in the Chinese provinces, which were recently affected by snow, was typically -5deg C, it would have been -5.6deg C without any global warming. You still get snow, rather than rain, at either temperature of course. 
Mark Lynas has written an interesting book called 6 degrees. In it he devotes a chapter to each degree of warming. That's 6 degees of Celcius. If he'd been American I guess he would have had to write another 4 chapters. So, we're still part way through the first chapter. In the last 30 years the global temperatures have been rising by 0.2 deg C per decade on average, and so you could argue that each chapter may represent 50 years. However that may reduce in future. So far, the earth's forests and oceons have absorbed approximately 50% of all human produced CO2 emissions but as we produce more CO2 that % will fall and so we can expect global warming to accelerate. We'll see. 
If we can avoid going past chapter two then things may not be so bad. If we finish the book then civilisation is also finished! We all like good news, we can be "hopeful and optimistic" but only if we are working to fix the problem rather than pretending it doesn't exist.
Brute 
01 February 2008 at 01:22
Again....... unfortunately, the FACTS are getting in the way of Mr. Lynas' fantasies, hopes and dreams. This article highlights the FACT that the Southern Hemisphere, (including Australia and New Zealand), had a record cold year also. He and the rest of the "sky is falling" Chicken Littles should have come up with a better doomsday dream; something a little harder to prove. Now that the FACTS are proving them to be the lunatics that they are, they are back peddling and making statements such as global warming causes global cooling. Pesky thing, FACTS. 
January 7, 2008 
Global Warming Farce Deflated by Facts 
Even the Boston Globe is starting to notice that Emperor Albert's new clothes consist of his birthday suit: 
In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock. 
It wasn't just South America. As geophysicist David Deming observed, "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Australia and New Zealand experienced record lows. 
The Northern Hemisphere hasn't escaped the chill. My backyard in Phoenix is still in ruins as a result of the extreme cold that wreaked havoc last winter. In the other corner of the country, New Hampshire set a new record with 44.5 inches of snow last month. The Canadian government is now forecasting the coldest winter in nearly 15 years. 
Think how cold it would have been without the hot air generated by Gore's acolytes at the BBC, who a year ago were screeching that 2007 would be the "warmest year on record." 
Maybe the cold weather, like all weather, is caused by global warming, in accordance with the scriptures of the Goracle. But it's more likely that the slight warming trend of the 1990s is over, and we are headed for some unpleasant cold, as predicted by Oleg Sorokhtin, who bases his warnings not on moonbat ideology, but on cycles in solar activity. 
There has been no global warming for nearly a decade now. It will be interesting to see if looney-left outfits like the BBC drop the whole farce in favor of some still more urgent crisis in time to salvage even a shred of credibility. 
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/01/global_warming_4...
Peter Martin 
01 February 2008 at 03:28
Brute, 
Look , not to put too fine a point on it , that's just a rubbish argument. We need to look at the science of what has happened globally not one particular backyard in Phoenix. Ok. You don't like the BBC , or Mark Lynas, or the UN, or the IPCC, or the Syrians, etc etc so forget them and just concentrate on what your fellow Americans are telling you. 
Nasa are telling you that 2005 was the warmest year on record. They are telling you that 1998 and 2007 were joint second. They are also telling you that Global warming has not finished. They are telling you that the problem needs to be taken seriously. What do you say to them? Are you accusing them of lying to you as well?
Peter Martin 
01 February 2008 at 05:23
Brute, Incidentally, I live in Australia and your posting is the first time I've heard of any record lows in the year 2007. It wouldn't prove anything either way of course, what matters are the overall Global temperatures, but having made the claim I think it might be reasonable to ask you to provide a Met office reference.
Sven 
01 February 2008 at 12:21
How good are our predictions? 
Met Office global forecast for 2007 (January 4, 2007): 
Global temperature for 2007 is expected to be 0.54 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C; 
There is a 60% probability that 2007 will be as warm or warmer than the current warmest year (1998 was +0.52 °C above the long-term 1961-1990 average). 
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr200... 
Reality for 2007: +0.40 °C above average (the same data set, by the way, that made Dr. Whitehouse wonder): 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual 
And what is also interesting - without fanfairs metoffice puts the final data on to its homepage and does not make any fuzz about the fact that 2007 was even not 0,41, as preliminary data indicated in december, but 0,40 degrees above average. Making it exactly even with 2001. No press release, nothing. One can only imagine what would have happened if the actual outcome would have been higher than prediction.
Nelson 
01 February 2008 at 12:28
'Scientists are currently promoting and taking advantage of natural weather fluctuations to further their platforms and garner more lucrative research grants…….nothing more than shameful opportunists. ' 
Offensive and disappointing rubbish Brute.
Sven 
01 February 2008 at 12:30
I'll try to post the second link again. The comment does not seem to consider the whole link as one. If it doesn't work you'll have to copy-paste: 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
Nelson 
01 February 2008 at 12:30
Sven, that doesn't disprove the prediction that 2007 was '60% likely to be as warm or warmer than the warmest year' now, does it? 
In fact, given current weakish solar activity and El Nina it's unsettling that 2007 was so warm...
Nelson 
01 February 2008 at 12:31
Bah. La Nina.
Sven 
01 February 2008 at 12:58
Nelson. Just look at the monthly figures for 2007: 
link 1 
and metoffice nina(o) graph: 
link 2 
and it's obvious that 2007 had at least as much el nino influence as la nina
Peter Martin 
01 February 2008 at 21:47
The Aussie Met office are attributing recent high rainfall to a current La Nina: 
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#current 
The other factor to consider might be the solar irradiance, which is currently at the minimum of its 11 year cycle. Nevertheless NOAA/NCDC stil report record land temperatures for the year of 2007: 
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/apr/global...#Temp
Brute 
02 February 2008 at 15:15
EASTERN PACIFIC COOLER THAN AVERAGE 
http://globalhoaxing.blogspot.com/2007/06/eastern-pacific-co... 
Proponents of the Global Warming theory like to trumpet on about the heating up of the World’s Oceans. But are the Worlds Oceans really heating up or is this just one more fantasy in a theory that the more you look at it just gets more and more ridiculous? 
The reality is that in an extremely influential part of the Pacific Ocean - temperatures have shown below average readings since the turn of the year. 
Now that’s something you don’t hear blazoned in feet high banner headlines in the press, and nor has it been mentioned much on TV. 
I wonder why? 
Seems to me that every shred of evidence - however tenuous in support of Global Warming gets acres of coverage - the complete opposite to anything that would tend to deny that most hallowed of New World religions - Climate Change Hysteria. 
Anyway it turns out that whole areas of the Eastern Pacific have been cooler than normal since the beginning of the year. But hey this isn’t anything we haven’t seen before. It’s just a regular La Nina effect. Remember that from another by gone age? 
For those who may be too young or just let it slip them by, El Nino is when areas of the Pacific Ocean gets warmer, and La Nina is when it gets colder. Turns out its an entirely natural effect. Nothing to do with the Human Race, and routinely decides the weather outlook for large swathes of the planet. And if you’re thinking that maybe this hoo-hah about so called global warming is really no more than our old friends La Nina and El Nino in action then you would be entirely right. 
For more on the cooling in the Pacific Ocean please turn to the following link 
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#basics 
Below shows the temperature cooling in graphic form with the top bar showing the mean readings , and the bottom bar the current cooling effect.
Brute 
02 February 2008 at 15:20
SIBERIA AND CHINA FORGET GLOBAL WARMING. 
http://globalhoaxing.blogspot.com/2008/01/siberia-and-china-... 
Last week the temperature in Siberia was reported have dropped to minus 58C (-72F), which by anyone's reckoning is pretty cold. But this was supposed to be a world gripped by Global Warming? So how come that Siberia has yet to latch on to this idea? 
Oh but wait!! If this isn't Global warming then ... you guessed it!! It has to be good old Climate Change. Except... and its a pretty big except - this is Siberia we're talking about and although the temperature has been pretty cold it's only just a couple of degrees below normal for this time of the year, in a part of the world that has always been renowned for its winter cold. In other words nothing terribly unusual. 
But Siberia was not the only place on Earth to forget to adhere to the universally accepted idea of Global Warming. Areas of China for example experienced their worst winter snowfalls for over a decade and it seemed that whatever else was happening the image of a world enshrouded by heat trapping clouds of carbon dioxide was a long way from the stark reality of the actual situation. 
Once again it showed that despite the politically hyped rhetoric nature has its own agenda to maintain, and one that we humans interpret or misinterpret to our own interest or ignore at our peril.
Brute 
02 February 2008 at 18:41
Mr. Martin, 
Can't you see that the world is laughing at your Alarmists assertions? Have you given any thought that the manipulated data from the politicians is skewed? Have you given any thought to the possibility that the cause and effect relationship that the Alarmists and the media are trumpeting is flawed? AGAIN; first you say that it will become warmer globally, then that doesn't happen and you change the story to say that it will become colder because the Earth is getting warmer. Maybe your "scientists" should rework their hypothesis……. 
GLOBAL WARMING PROTEST FROSTED WITH SNOW 
link 
US News 
SNOW CAUSES HAVOC IN LOS ANGELES AREA 
link 2 
Peter Martin 
02 February 2008 at 21:43
Brute, 
This is more anecdotal rubbish. They aren't "my scientists" as you put it. They are yours. Your taxes, not mine, help pay their salaries ! 
Why don't you get your moeny's worth and actually listen to what they have to say ? 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415...
Brute 
02 February 2008 at 23:34
Mr. Martin, 
Hansen is/was wrong. CBS 60 Minutes: Mouthpiece for the Democrat Party and knuckleheads such as Lynas. 60 Minutes/CBS News credible? Didn't they release the phony story regarding President Bush and his military service record? Forged documents? Shameful……. Didn't that story end Dan Rather's career? Is Mr. Rather selling used cars now? 
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cl... 
Excerpts from the text: 
Today, the GISS admitted that McIntyre was correct, and has started to republish its data with the bug fixed. And the numbers are changing a lot. Before today, GISS would have said 1998 was the hottest year on record (Mann, remember, said with up to 99% certainty it was the hottest year in 1000 years) and that 2006 was the second hottest. Well, no more. Here are the new rankings for the 10 hottest years in the US, starting with #1: 
1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939 
One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is that they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each station. Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the GISS apply many layers of adjustments, which I discussed here. One of the purposes of Watt's project is to help educate climate scientists that many of the adjustments they make to the data back in the office does not necessarily represent the true condition of the temperature stations. In particular, GISS adjustments imply instrument sitings are in more natural settings than they were in say 1905, an outrageous assumption on its face that is totally in conflict to the condition of the stations in Watt's data base. Basically, surface temperature measurements have a low signal to noise ratio, and climate scientists have been overly casual about how they try to tease out the signal.
Brute 
03 February 2008 at 00:04
Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry 
By Marc Morano 
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer 
March 23, 2006 
(CNSNews.com) - The scientist touted by CBS News' "60 Minutes" as arguably the "world's leading researcher on global warming" and spotlighted as a victim of the Bush administration's censorship on the issue, publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by Kerry's wife. 
Entire Story Here: 
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Ca... 
July 21, 2006 
Jim Hansen's Refusal to Testify 
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change 
According to E&E Daily, James Hansen who was invited to appear at yesterday's House Government Reform Committee, but did not appear, would have attended had John Christy not attended. According to E&E Daily (link, but a subscription site): 
In the message Hansen sent to reporters to explain his absence from yesterday’s hearing, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies said he had a conflicting doctor appointment to deal with a cold that interacts with his asthma to create a drip in his lungs. But he also indicated he would have adjusted his schedule if the witness list did not also include skeptical points of view. 
The only person on the witness list who's views could be characterized as skeptical was John Christy. John is widely acknowledged by his peers as a highly qualified and accomplished climate scientist. He was, for example, on the CCSP Temperature Trends Committtee as well as the recent NRC Hockey Stick Committee, and particpates in the IPCC. So I am baffled why Jim Hansen would only appear if other legitimate perspectives are excluded. He might disagree with Christy's views, but they are certainly appropriate to include on a Congressional panel. 
Coming from someone who complained about being censored, it sounds like he'd like to do a bit censoring of his own. It also seems a bit odd for a high ranking government employee to refuse to offer testimony when called upon by Congress to do so. This helps to explain Chairman's Davis' obvious pique when mentioning Hansen in his opening comments yesterday.
Brute 
03 February 2008 at 00:23
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/10/28/blowi... 
October 28, 2004 
Blowing Your Own Whistle 
Filed under: Climate Politics — 
Prominent scientist James Hansen criticizes President Bush’s climate change policy, despite the fact that the policy is in part based on Hansen’s own findings. 
This is unheard of: A prominent scientist in the pay of the federal government attacks the President in a crucial state (Iowa) one week before the election. Not just any prominent scientist, either, but James Hansen, recipient of $250,000 in pocket change from the Heinz Foundation, run by Mrs. John Kerry. Don’t worry, though, he said he was speaking as a private citizen because he paid his own way. With Mrs. Kerry’s money, we might add, in his family nest egg. 
According to the October 27 New York Times, Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that “fit predetermined, inflexible positions” on global warming. 
Huh? Hansen was invited twice to the White House to brief Vice President Cheney. They wanted to hear him. 
And although we weren’t there, we can only assume he summarized the results of his research on global warming, which were very succinctly stated in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2001: 
Future global warming can be predicted much more accurately than is generally realized…we predict additional warming in the next 50 years of ¾ +/- 1/4ºC, a warming rate of 0.15ºC +/- 0.05ºC per decade. 
That is precisely the same low figure that the so-called “skeptics”—the writers of these alerts and our apparently few friends—have been touting for years (readers will note that the White House never asked us!). Hansen’s figure sits at the bottom limit of projections made by the teeming horde of scientists and bureaucrats from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 
So, what’s the problem with the Administration? They accept Hansen’s argument that warming is likely to be modest. 
Well, Hansen, a NASA scientist, is unhappy with Bush’s policy. Meanwhile, the White House is perfectly happy with Hansen’s science because it informs their policy. 
Hansen is also upset that NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe interrupted him when he spoke of “dangerous interference” in the climate system. Hansen told the Times that “he told me that I should not talk about dangerous anthropogenic interference, because we do not know enough or have enough evidence for what would constitute dangerous anthropogenic interference.” 
O’Keefe is precisely correct. There is certainly no convincing evidence that the sum-total of all climate change to date has been either a net cost or a net benefit to society. In fact, many would argue it’s pretty much been a net nothing. After all, in the last 100 years, as the planet warmed three-quarters of a degree Celsius (the same amount it will warm in the next 50), life expectancy in developed nations doubled, some crop yields quintupled, and today’s average citizen enjoys an affluence simply undreamt of in 1900. If global warming were so gosh-awful bad that it is, as Hansen says, “a colossal risk” if we don’t cut our emissions immediately, then why was it so darned inconsequential in the last 100 years? 
Truth be told, Hansen doesn’t have a clue as to what the “best” temperature for the earth’s surface is. Today’s? That of 150 years ago, before the Industrial Revolution that presumably warmed the planet? We were at the end of the Little Ice Age and it was darned chilly. Two degrees warmer, which was the temperature that accompanied the rise of civilization? 
The fact is that no one knows what the best temperature is, and we are going to have to decide that in this century, because the technology will likely evolve that will permit us to set that temperature where we want it. And, given that we can’t stop emissions enough now to even slow warming down a measurable amount (without totally different and unforeseen technology), that is the course that we will have to take. 
All of this makes Hansen look pretty unsophisticated and ham-handed. According to the Times, “Dr. Hansen, 63, acknowledged that he imperiled his credibility and perhaps his job by criticizing Mr. Bush’s policies in the final days of a tight presidential campaign.” 
There’s no way he’s going to get fired for this. That’s not the point. It’s just bad form, going to a critical state where the candidates are deadlocked and bad-mouthing your boss in an attempt to influence the election. 
And it’s even worse form to criticize the Boss for accepting your science and, as is his responsibility, forming his own policy in light of that science—after having cashed a $250,000 check signed by the wife of his opponent in the Presidential election.
Peter Martin 
03 February 2008 at 02:29
Brute, 
Well I seem to have touched a nerve there! I really don't want to intrude into any internal US politics. That's your business. This isn't even an American website. You should realise though that the rest of the world aren't divided up into Democrats and Republicans! Or even conservatives and liberals. 
Also you should realise that the temperature figures for the US, interesting thought they may be to Americans, aren't particularly relevant to the global warming debate. The global figures show a steep rise from 1975 onwards. 
The point of a forum like this is write things in your own words. All you've done is copied and pasted your last post , and who knows how many others, from another website. Its OK to include short quotations if they are clearly punctuated as quotations and attributed correctly but not whole tracts. 
I suspect that you aren't capable of formulating your own your own arguments. Its interesting that you should mention that you were laughing at the concept of the global warming. ( I presume these were, maybe untypically, a few of your own words). That was exactly the response of the ignorant and uneducated, previous centuries, when informed by scientists that the earth wasn't flat!
Brute 
03 February 2008 at 03:37
Mr. Martin, 
You have it backward.................. 
If I remember my grammar school history correctly, a general "consensus of scientists" concluded that the Earth was the center of the universe and that all of the heavenly bodies orbited the Earth..... That the Earth was stationary…… Isn't that what Doctor/Professor Gore is asserting? That the debate is closed and that a "consensus" has been reached? To say or write anything that conflicts with his view regarding global warming, (or the general consensus), is heretical? 
So, using your logic, Galileo would be considered an "ignorant" and "uneducated" "skeptic" or “denier” (from previous centuries). Thank God he kept at it………. 
Do you know of any other reliable temperature data sets that encompass so large an area over so large a span of time other than U.S. figures? 
The last time I checked this isn’t an Australian Website either. 
It is also evident from your rebuttals that you do not follow links to sites. 
You claim to be a scientist? Doesn’t it bother you as a scientist that Hansen has not released his data set software to be peer reviewed? The guy has been bought and paid for by the Global Warming political machine and has a political agenda, (and is being handsomely compensated for personal opinions that he states publicly every chance he gets if the price is right). 
You have lost any semblance of objectivity. 
BREAK, BREAK, BREAK, BREAK, BREAK, BREAK 
I have added some information regarding Galileo. Perhaps it will better define my argument and clear up some misunderstandings in your mind regarding scientific criticisms and possibly a refresher course for yourself on elementary history. 
THE FOLLOWING IS A LINK TO A WEBSITE AND THE TEXT BELOW IS A SMALL PORTION OF THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED WEBSITE.............. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei 
With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts: 
Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." However, while there is no doubt that Pope Urban VIII and the vast majority of Church officials did not believe in heliocentrism, heliocentrism was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church, except insofar as it held (for instance, in the formal condemnation of Galileo) that "The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures", and the converse as to the Sun's not revolving around the Earth.[61] 
He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest. 
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future. 
Tomb of Galileo Galilei, Santa Croce. According to popular legend, after recanting his theory that the Earth moved around the Sun, Galileo allegedly muttered the rebellious phrase And yet it moves, but there is no evidence that he actually said this or anything similarly impertinent.
Peter Martin 
03 February 2008 at 05:51
Brute, 
I've just looked and the flat earthers are alive and well even in the 21st century! 
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19478.0 
And guess what? They are on your side on the Great global warming argument. It must be nice to know that the supporters of one of the earth's oldest scientific theories are on your side!
taghioff.info 
03 February 2008 at 13:43
Can all the global warming skeptics on this site explain how they are willing to compensate the rest of the human race, on the distant eventuality that they have got it wrong? 
Are they willing to put their money where their mouths are and say offer £1 each for every extra mortality related to global warming and put it into a compensation fund? 
Or are their arguments merely all about avoiding any sense of responsibility?
stargazer 
03 February 2008 at 15:23
and what if it goes COLD as I think it will, because thats what the climate does.... it CHANGES... can I sue the AWG'ers. 
We are not the deniers we beleive the climate changes we know the climate changes...you guys are the deniers... by pretending that it has never changed until 'we' caused it to....what nonsence
Brute 
03 February 2008 at 15:53
Mr. taghioff.info, 
Sure, I'll spend a dollar as soon as Doctor Gore and Mr. Hansen sit down with real scientists and prove that their theory is correct. The problem is that they refuse to debate, so it's a safe bet. 
And what if your side is wrong? I'd say that Professor Gore and Mr. Hansen will sidestep and say "Oh well, we were wrong, but we raised awareness", (which is already happening), or will say that their efforts reversed global warming “just in time” when the natural cycle shifts. In the meantime they will have managed to wreck the economies of emerging nations that can ill afford it. But, at least they saved the habitat of Flying Spotted Tree Slug. 
I’ll spend a Buck when Al Gore gives up his private jet, 4 mansions and rides a bicycle to work or takes this pledge: 
As a believer: 
1• That human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival; 
2• That home energy use is a key component of overall energy use; 
3• That reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and 
4• That leaders on moral issues should lead by example; 
I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008." 
Gore refused to take the pledge.
Brute 
03 February 2008 at 16:04
Mr. taghioff.info, 
By the way; how do you get back and forth to work? How do you heat/cool your home? How do you provide light inside of your home? Do you churn your own butter and grow your own food in your backyard? Can't raise livestock either, (livestock flatulence releases methane and CO2 into the atmosphere). 
Let’s start there; you go first. Oh, and buying carbon credit indulgences permitting you to use as much energy as you want doesn't count. You'll have to return to a 16th century lifestyle. Actually, not far enough, can't burn wood, (burning wood releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere). Seems like the best thing you can do for the planet according to Professor Gore is kill yourself.
Brute 
03 February 2008 at 20:16
Amazing..............Proponents of Global Warming hysteria scream about cutting energy consumption and imposing green taxes for others…… ask them to cut back on their creature comforts and the silence is deafening. Propose wind farms in their neighborhoods and they fight tooth and nail opposing them……..”Put them somewhere else where I can’t see them”…….. Nuclear power to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions”, forget it….. Bathe in cold water and pump water by hand and they scream bloody murder. Ride a bicycle to work? Fly commercial? Not a chance. It seems that it’s very easy to criticize from a Penthouse apartment on Park Avenue, a 20 room mansion in Carthage Tennessee or Beverly Hills. Oh, but I'll pay someone else to cut back and ease my guilt through carbon credits......as long as it doesn't effect my lifestyle.....Ridiculous........... 
Typical elitist mentality……… All talk...........Let them eat cake.
Peter Martin 
04 February 2008 at 00:06
Brute, 
You're really good with logical fallacies. I presume it is a genuine Brure and not copied? I ought to collect them all. 
Your posting above can be analysed logically as: 
Persons A,B,C,D make claim Y 
Persons A,B,C, D may be hypocritical. 
Therefore claim Y is false. 
Your posting does raise an interesting point, though, of how the carbon reduction burden may be shared. Actually I have already said that if we act now, with nuclear power replacing coal etc, then we won't have to cahnge our lifestyles that much. But just lets assume that we do have to define our collective carbon 'footprint'. 
I suspect that you would prefer all our feet to be the the same size. But that might be too 'left wing' a concept for many. I suspect that it will be similar to everything else : land, radio spectrum, money, property, stocks etc . Some individuals will have very big feet indeed but most will have tiny feet. That's a political question though and I try to steer clear of politics :-)
Brute 
04 February 2008 at 01:32
Mr. Martin, 
Great, you've solved the problem. Nuclear power for everyone, no greenhouse gases and cheap power for Al Gore's mansions and Barbara Streisand’s air conditioned horse barns. Hydrogen fuel for cars via nuclear energy and John Tavolta’s fleet of personal jets; no dependence on foreign oil…….perfect! 
I don’t think anyone has thought of that yet; implement it. Take your plan to Prime Minister Howard, President Bush and Gordon Brown. 
Shop the plan to Greenpeace, The Sierra Club and all of the other kook environmental groups and let them know. I’m sure that they’ll accept your plan with open arms. 
Regarding your “logical analysis”; this is the way it will work out……. 
Persons A, B, C, and D make claim Y and have personal, political, financial and ideological interests to gain if claim Y can be marketed effectively as credible. 
Claim Y is scrutinized by persons E, F, G and H and proven to be misleading, fraudulent and caused by natural occurrences beyond anyone’s control. 
Therefore claim Y is false. (It’s called a confidence scheme). 
Taxpayers who were duped by Persons A, B, C and D reject funding claim Y. Person’s A, B, C, and D are indicted and charged with fraud and jailed for 20 years. Scientist who supported claim Y are discredited and forced to writing doomsday prose for comic books and science fiction magazines. 
Just a suggestion: you should look into typing your comments into a program that utilizes spell and grammar check then move it over into the comment box (or proof-read it first).
Peter Martin 
04 February 2008 at 02:21
Brute, 
I'm not sure where you are coming from. Are you arguing against the concept of Gloabal warming per se or as part of a vendetta against the capitalist and wealthy classes? 
There will always be people rich enough to pay carbon taxes without worrying too much and even air condition their stables etc. I am not without sympathy with your argument that executive jets and huge energy hungry mansions should be discouraged, I would suggest very heavily taxation, but I suspect that this is a bit too leftish an argument to go down well in the USA.
Brute 
04 February 2008 at 03:31
Mr. Martin, 
Very heavy taxation to pay for what? You don’t seem to understand; you are advocating punishing people for being entrepreneurial, successful and operating flourishing businesses that benefit many people. GLOBAL WARMING IS A MONEY/POWER GRAB. Heavy taxation is the reason that businesses are moving out of Europe and other countries; that’s why European economies are failing. Heavy taxation inhibits technological advances. I don't have any problem with people owning 70 personal jets or air conditioning their stables if that’s what they want to do. These people already pay enough taxes, (if they are legitimately filing). I just find it incredibly hypocritical for someone living that extravagant a lifestyle lecturing me because I own an automobile that burns gasoline and telling me that I must “sacrifice”. I especially object to anyone who owns 4 mansions lecturing me about my “carbon footprint” and dismissing his excessive energy use as “necessary” and “offset” by investing cash in a company that he owns. Meanwhile, these same people are on their soapboxes waving their fingers at us warning that if another ounce of carbon is introduced into the atmosphere the planet’s climate will spiral out of control; that we are at the precipice of a tipping point to climatic disaster because I want to fly to Florida for the weekend while they don’t change their personal habits one iota. 
I don’t discourage anyone from owning a mansion or a personal jet; fine with me; just don’t prevent me from attempting to acquire one. 
Over the past month following this thread I have had my eyes opened. I began as somewhat of a skeptic, but researching this topic since late December reinforces my belief that this is a media and politically driven guilt trip/flim flam and it pisses me off. I resent being lied to. 
• The Alarmists refuse to debate. 
• The climate is cooling (or stopped warming) as Mr. Whitehouse wrote. 
• Any information that refutes the Alarmist point of view is censored or buried. 
• Any scientist who disagrees with the global warming theory is ridiculed or accused of being funded by an oil company when the opposite is true. 
• The Alarmists are changing their theories in an attempt to coincide with the facts, after the fact. 
• Our schoolchildren are being indoctrinated systematically by environmental extremists. 
• Computer models and temperature data are being manipulated to offer a predetermined result as opposed to accurate, untainted information. 
• Much of the information that is presented as “proof” of global warming is either exaggerated or outright falsehoods offered up by the media for political reasons. 
• Green taxes are diverted from combating global warming (95%) to general funds and are not being used to reduce “greenhouse gases”. 
I could go on, but the point is that the “climate” will cool, (if it is actually warming globally), most likely due to the sun’s influence; not because people have stopped using incandescent light bulbs. Alternative energy sources will become more popular and widespread as they become efficient, reliable and less expensive than conventional energy sources; the marketplace, (consumers), will decide. There is no reason to raise taxes. Let the people keep their money; they’ve earned it.
Brute 
04 February 2008 at 03:37
Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong or disgraceful about being "rich". I have never been offered a job from a poor man. Let us keep what we've earned. If I feel I'm being exploited, I'll find a different job.
Peter Martin 
04 February 2008 at 07:10
Brute, 
"I don't have any problem with people owning 70 personal jets or air conditioning their stables if that’s what they want to do. " 
I think I'm getting to understand peoples' reasons for opposing the concept of AGW a bit better. We can argue away about the science , looking at different graphs etc all day long, but I've come to the conclusion that people like yourself have rejected the idea for political rather than scientific. 
If we have to cut down on Co2 emissions it does rather cut across your statement that I've inserted in quotes above. It can't be fair to allow to someone to air condition their stables, or fly personal jets, if it means that someone else is going suffer as a consequence. But telling someone they can't do it , except Barbara Streisand maybe, cuts right across many people's political principles. 
It is still a logical fallacy of course 
Person X makes claim Y 
Accepting claim Y and the necessary countermeasures is incompatible with my political outlook. 
Therefore claim Y is false. 
But it still needs some thinking about.
stargazer 
04 February 2008 at 09:00
"I think I'm getting to understand peoples' reasons for opposing the concept of AGW a bit better. We can argue away about the science , looking at different graphs etc all day long, but I've come to the conclusion that people like yourself have rejected the idea for political rather than scientific. " 
No thats not right.. I cant speak for Brute (but I think you miss what he says) I can speak for myself though. Look.... for me science comes first. IF I knew the AGWers were right for sure, I'd be out there fighting for the 'cause' and I would not mind paying MORE TAX if it would get us out of the mess. BUT I DONT THINK THAT Warming is ALL 'our fault' ...Some yes.. (I understand the C02 theory). But the main driver is the SUN (even if the mechanism is UNKNOWN at this time) see this thread where Leif Svalgaard (solar physicist) & folk are at least looking into What this might be... 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comments
Brute 
04 February 2008 at 11:31
Mr. Martin, 
Claim “Y” (Anthropologic Global Warming) is false because industrialization has increased along with CO2 levels and the global temperature has leveled off as Mr. Whitehouse, (and the MET Office), has stated. 
Claim “Y” (Anthropologic Global Warming) is false because global temperatures have increased and decreased naturally before industrialization. 
Maybe the key here is the attitude regarding government’s role in society. Americans do not rely on politicians to solve every problem for us. Mr. Gore, (politician) and others seem to have some bizarre ideas regarding the United States Constitution and the ability of people to think and resolve problems themselves. We don’t need government to wipe our noses or lift us up from the ground every time we fall over. Mr. Gore and others are seeking to move American political philosophy to the Left, (Socialism/Collectivism), along the lines of European governments and are attempting to use a false premise to achieve that goal.
Nelson 
04 February 2008 at 13:03
'because I own an automobile that burns gasoline and telling me that I must “sacrifice”' 
It's a simple matter of costs. Our society has developed on the assumption that fossil fuels are cheap - but we're finally beginning to comprehend just how great their external costs really are. These costs have to be paid.
Nelson 
04 February 2008 at 13:11
Brute, 
'The Alarmists refuse to debate.' - the debate is in the scientific literature. It's not hidden. You can read it if you like. 
'The climate is cooling (or stopped warming) as Mr. Whitehouse wrote.' No it's not. We've been through this. Here's a reminder since you've regressed back to playground statistics: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/ 
'Any information that refutes the Alarmist point of view is censored or buried.' Link some refutations. Please. (And I love the label Alarmist - is this for anyone who agrees that climate change is anthropogenic?) 
'Computer models and temperature data are being manipulated to offer a predetermined result as opposed to accurate, untainted information.' You're alleging scientifc fraud. Show us the evidence, or shut up and apologise.
Brute 
04 February 2008 at 14:33
On Refusing To Debate.............. 
Global Warming Skeptic Challenges Gore to Debate 
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive... 
Why Won’t Al Gore Debate? 
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20873 
Gore Refuses to Debate Global Warming Theory 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878196/posts 
Al gore Refuses to Debate CO2-levels and Temperature 
Al gore Refuses to Debate CO2-levels and Temperature 
“Until some of these scientists are dead.” 
http://www.openmarket.org/2006/09/25/until-some-of-these-sci... 
On Global Warming: Who's Censoring Now? 
http://commonsblog.org/archives/000707.php
stargazer 
04 February 2008 at 15:31
"No it's not. We've been through this" 
YES IS HAS see here 
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/Global%20Warming%20Politic...
stargazer 
04 February 2008 at 15:38
and Oh look... the arctic ice is back to where is was 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/arctic-sea-i...
Nelson 
04 February 2008 at 16:19
Stargazer, ease up on the caps lock, cowboy. 
Check the link to Tamino's blog - he proves that you cannot claim that global warming has stopped. Anyone who says it is statistically illiterate. 
That was the whole reason Whitehouse's article generated an uproar. 
Brute, there's an interesting post on why scientists decline requests to 'debate'. Look at it from their perspective: 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-i...
Brute 
04 February 2008 at 18:11
Nelson, 
Something else I've discovered in the past month is that your websites and mine are in total synchronization, (albeit at polar ends of the spectrum). Do these guys consult each other before releasing contradictory papers/opinions? You keep referring to realclimate and tamio, and I go back to climateaudit and junkscience. Were these guys separated at birth in the basement of the science building? Are there other scientific topics that create such polarization? Do astrophysicists argue this passionately Stargazer? Obviously talented, knowledgeable people…………. Do they agree on anything?
stargazer 
04 February 2008 at 18:54
Brute Well I can say this with certainty...scepticism is the norm. and discoveries are usually made by individuals or small groups (who sometimes buck the opinion)... who then work to make their theory/work, known, and it stands of falls. This works very well in the field of astronomy as least !!! 
Nelson said 
he proves that you cannot claim that global warming has stopped. Anyone who says it is statistically illiterate. 
Nelson 
Look you are missing the very obvious... I have followed this thread reading every post of both and No-One is saying that the FLAT line (that the temp is at now)...does not mean that the temp will not perhaps go up again in due course. But you don't know for sure that it will. Or as I think, it MIGHT come down and enter another 'maunder'. One thing is for sure though it will not stay flat lined. Because the climate changes.that's what it does... with or without humans. I repeat what I said earlier Its not us who deny climate change. Climate change is our point 
(couldn't resist a few capitals)
Brute 
04 February 2008 at 21:07
An Interesting Source of Man-Made Global Warming 
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/an-interesting... 
IPCC and the Dunde Variations 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2686 
The United Nations 
Environmental Sabbath Service 
http://www.earthministry.org/Congregations/UN_Sabbath.htm 
Grape Harvests Are Poor Indicators Of Summer Warmth 
http://www.informath.org/pubs/TAC06a.pdf 
The grapes of math: Global warming fraud? 
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/05/grapes-of-math-glob... 
Media Promote Global Warming Fraud 
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-promote-global-warming-f...
Brute 
04 February 2008 at 21:15
How not to measure temperature part 24 
link 
Peter Martin 
04 February 2008 at 22:28
I think that this is degenerating into an "oh no its not.....oh yes its is argument". I did start off thinking that the science should decide, but now that politics seems to be driving the argument, I'm more pessimistic. The earth doesn't care what our politics are, of course, so why not leave them aside? 
Stargazer's reference is clearly fraudulent. The graph starts at 1998. If it had started it a couple of years earlier it would have told a completely different story. 
The world's temperature was fairly flat between 1983 and 1996. In fact 1996 was slightly cooler than 1983. So why not focus on these 13 years to prove that global warming isn't real? The argument against AGW in 1996 was much stronger then than it is now! 
Over the last 30 years the trend has been +0.2 deg C of warming per decade. If we are lucky it will stay on that linear path. If we are unlucky it will accelerate and we are all in deep trouble. There will be periods of faster warming and there will be periods when the graph flattens off a bit. No doubt someone like David Whitehouse will pop up and tell us that global warming, once again has stopped. 
But you have to be a moron to think you know better than 99% of the world's climate scientists. Of the other 1% there are very few who aren't in the pay of the energy companies. If there is something to be alarmed about then why wouldn't you be an alarmist ? 
For a true contrarian, no matter what evidence is presented it won't be good enough. In the final analysis contrarians will scream 'fraud'. They ask for proof , but are incapable of saying what would constitute that proof. Debating with them is like an evolutionist debating with a creationist, or a astrophysicist debating with a member of the flat earth society. No good can come of it.
Brute 
05 February 2008 at 13:33
Nelson, 
You wrote: “It's a simple matter of costs. Our society has developed on the assumption that fossil fuels are cheap - but we're finally beginning to comprehend just how great their external costs really are. These costs have to be paid.” 
I’m writing: 
If you believe that burning fossil fuels are bad for the environment, don't use them.
JZ Smith 
05 February 2008 at 21:01
More from Mark Lynas: 
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080205144501...
Robin Guenier 
05 February 2008 at 21:39
Despite leaving this thread, having seen the Lynas story (thanks JZ Smith), I couldn't resist this: well, well - seems the pieman is getting worried that things may not be quite so bad after all & is preparing his retreat. I particularly liked his comment, “how rapidly things are changing and the positive stuff which I’m seeing every day”. Perhaps he’s been reading Brute’s comments. Hmm.
stargazer 
05 February 2008 at 21:47
"But Mark Lynas, author of “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet,” took a different approach. Lynas, who is actively campaigning for government “solutions” to combat global warming, presented what he acknowledged were unlikely scenarios in his book and movie to create a sense of climate change panic." 
Thank you for that link JZ.... 
Well that about says it all...Laugh....I dont know where to start....
Brute 
05 February 2008 at 23:28
Mr. Guenier, 
I laughed out loud when I read your comment. Thank you for the kind words; however, I don't think my comments hold much sway with the pie throwing eco-zealot. I'm just a humble Engineer, (with common sense). It is amazing how they’re backtracking though. 
Thanks for the information Mr. Smith.
JZ Smith 
05 February 2008 at 23:32
While I, too, have "left the building" on this thread, I couldn't help myself but to lurk a bit and see who's posting what. I knew you old-timers would love the link about Lynas, though!
Peter Martin 
06 February 2008 at 02:17
Well its good that the resident climate experts on this forum like to be so easily amused. 
6 degrees of warming, by the end of the century, is at the top end of the IPCC scale but it is not out of the question. Then just to give you all another giggle, I could point out that unless the world ends in the year 2100, there will be the 22nd century to consider as well. 
Like Mark Lynas, I'm optimistic too. I believe humanity has more than enough 'common sense' to avoid self destruction. It looks like even the political right are getting to grips with the concept. Good on you, James McCain!
Brute 
06 February 2008 at 02:33
Mr. Martin, 
Umm, the candidate’s name is JOHN McCain.
Peter Martin 
06 February 2008 at 03:22
Yes I beg your pardon. John McCain. I'm not too well up on American politics! 
He sounds to be pushing the nuclear option which I do agree with. We, in Australia, have just shifted to a Labour government. Partly out of ideology and partly because of the union connection to the coal industry they have rejected the nuclear option even though Australia has abundant Uranium and Thorium. 
I guess what John Mc Cain can work out for himself is that the so called massive finds " The Jack Field, some 270 miles southwest of New Orleans ..... is estimated to hold as much as 15 billion barrels of oil." aren't really that massive. 
15 billion barrels! Sounds a lot, until you calculate that the world goes through this amount every six months.
Brute 
06 February 2008 at 14:49
Mr. Martin, 
Maybe the UN should demand that China and India cut back on their energy consumption then.
Pat T 
06 February 2008 at 16:01
Nelson and Martin - the hottest year on record was nine years ago. Over the last year and a half we've seen record cold snaps in many parts of the world. 
Why can't we agree that time will tell who is right? 
Just take my bet - give me four years. If none of the next four (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) is warmer than 1998, all of you please go away and stop this crusade.
Brute 
06 February 2008 at 17:28
Gee, and I thought all of the environmentalist lunatics had been heard from. Something new.............. 
GLOBAL WARMING DISCOVERED ON THE SUN 
Global Warming, a process much discussed in the Al Gore narrated film "An Inconvenient Truth," has been discovered on the Sun. Scientists with the Atmospheric Sciences Lab (ASL) at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) have discovered that the condition exists in other places besides the imagination of some Democrats. 
"The Sun has seen it's lowest snowfall on record. This is also the shortest winter they have ever had," said Dr. Red Evans, a PhD in Astrophysics who works at ASL. "We expect that this will lead to climate changes on the Sun as it grows further and further from having another ice age." 
When asked what caused the changes in conditions on the Sun, Evans was quick to blame "the Republican party, most especially George Bush, for not listening to the warnings and for having to drive all of those gas guzzling SUVs."
Peter Martin 
06 February 2008 at 21:11
PatT 
Yes I'll take the bet. How much do you have in mind? And what data set do we agree on? 
I did plot out this graph from the Universtity of East Anglia/UK met Office. You can see that 1998 was a bit of freak. I suspect a mixture of some experimental error and combination of a very warm El Nino that year. 2008 will be relatively cool due to the the effect of La Nina and the solar irradiance cycle. But, unless we have a big volcanic eruption I'd be confident, that by 2010 or 2011, the underlying effect of CO2 warming will take the average temperature higher than 1998 once again. 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/tempavs.png
Robin Guenier 
07 February 2008 at 07:12
I got involved in another blog concerned with AGW (see blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/threelinewhip) but it deteriorated into mud slinging so I decided to leave. I thought I’d share my final post there with you: 
“A friend, noting my involvement in this, accused me of cyber-slumming. Maybe he’s right so this will be my last contribution. But I’ll leave anyone still here on a cheery note.   Mankind has always believed he can control the weather. For example, the ancient Egyptians thought they could do so by firing arrows into the air. Perhaps future generations will view current efforts to control global warming as equally laughable. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore climate change – it’s always happened and it always will. And, taking a close look at the historical record, you see a worrying pattern. As I said in an earlier post, over the past 10,000 years (a small period in man’s existence and utterly trivial in the history of life on earth), we have experienced 11 episodes of climates warmer than today. That was OK – mankind thrives in warmer weather. But between these episodes we have had to live through long episodes of a bitterly cold climate – far colder than the unpleasant winters of the 1940s and 1960s – and mankind finds that much harder to endure. It’s a long time since we’ve experienced anything like that but it is certain that the pattern will be repeated – and climate history suggests we are due for a much colder climate soon: maybe not for 200 years but maybe much less. Were it to happen now, it would – particularly with today’s huge numbers of people – have seriously unpleasant consequences.   The fact that temperature growth appears to have levelled off since 1998 may just possibly be a worrying indication. Perhaps we’re looking in completely the wrong direction.” 
(Thanks and acknowledgements to stargazer.) 
Peter Martin 
07 February 2008 at 07:49
OK. Let me get your argument straight. The Egyptians fired arrows into the air and that didn't cause climate change. No disagreement there! 
So this proves, when humans collectively release 8 billion tons of CO2 annually, ( 8,000,000,000 tons), not to mention methane and other pollutants, around 50% of which accumulates and adds on to the following years total, that this doesn't cause climate change either? 
I think the IPCC may need to be told about this.
Robin Guenier 
07 February 2008 at 08:41
Peter: you've completely missed the point.
Peter Martin 
07 February 2008 at 09:47
The point is that the science is relatively well understood and we aren't looking in the wrong direction at all. However there are very powerful vested interests who are very much trying to confuse popular opinion. The same tactics that were used by the big tobacco companies, right up until the late 90's, to deny the link between smoking and lung cancer are being employed in the anti- AGW argument. 
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming2...
Robin Guenier 
07 February 2008 at 10:16
You're still missing the point. (Also, the idea that I might be representing "vested interests" is absurd - I'm a poor old pensioner.)
Peter Martin 
07 February 2008 at 14:42
No I don't believe that anyone on this forem is 'representing' vested interests. But any denier calling themselves a climate scientist, those 1% or so, should have their financial connections scrutinised. 
Do you have a reference to your 11 warmer episodes in the last 10,00 years claim? 
It strikes me that most of the opposition to the concept of AGW is political rather than scientific. On the one hand they claim that people like David Whitehouse are correct and that global warming has stopped and on the other they try to put it down to anything, other than CO2 emissions, they can think of. Natural climate changes. Solar Activity. Cosmic rays. If you know for sure that global warming is caused by cosmic rays, or whatever, why bother to deny its existence with ultra weak arguments based on a few glaciers in the Himalayas? Or, an area of Antarctica that has , for a few years, bucked the global trend? Or a few cherry picked data points from the climatic records?
Robin Guenier 
07 February 2008 at 14:57
(It's also insulting and unworthy of your usual courtesy.) Now I've returned (BTW is this or the original thread the best to use these days?), I have an observation: 
There is understandably strong support for the view that a consensus of scientists is unlikely to be wrong. But such a consensus can be wrong: consider avian flu and the ban on DDT, not of course forgetting the experts who, 30 years ago, were issuing warnings about an imminent ice age. But a particularly interesting example is afforded by the build-up to the Iraq war. We were assured that the intelligence services, here and in the US, were sure that Saddam’s regime had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Many people, myself included, believed that the intelligence services were unlikely to have misjudged such a crucial matter. Even most critics felt that they lacked the inside knowledge and expertise to question such an authoritative view. But the intelligence services got it wrong. 
Could Weather of Mass Destruction be the new WMD?
Peter Martin 
07 February 2008 at 15:30
I'm sorry if my usual level of courtesy slipped, but I just couldn't think of a more sensible reply. We're talking about modern day science here, or at least should be, not what the ancient Egyptians thought, or what goes on in the murky world of the 'intelligence' services, nor the equally murky politics that drove the business of the Iraq war. 
I did ask for a reference to your '11 episodes' in the last 10000 years claim. I don't believe this is true. The graph labelled " Holocene temperature variations" in this link indicates both that the temperature is now warmer than it has been in the previous 10,000 years and that the current rate of change is much quicker and quite unlike any of the natural changes that have previously ocurred. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
JZ Smith 
07 February 2008 at 17:33
Great to see you back, Robin! (If I may be so informal) 
I saw this today, and thought it interesting that the alarmists now are saying that: 
"ScienceDaily (Feb. 7, 2008) — Scientists at the University of Liverpool have found that natural variability in the earth's atmosphere could be masking the overall effect of global warming in the North Atlantic Ocean." 
Interesting new strategy of countering the skeptical POV. Note that the conclusions are the result of the use of "...computer models to assess how the warming and cooling pattern was controlled."
Robin Guenier 
07 February 2008 at 18:30
OK, Peter, you’ve raised a lot of issues & I’ll try to deal with all of them: 
1. You asked for my reference for the warmer episodes over the past 10,000 years. Well, I have a reference but, for convenience, I’ll use yours – the Wikipedia graph. You seem to have completely misread it: (a) current temperatures (LH end of graph) are plainly lower than many of those between now and the end of the last glacial period (Wikipedia helpfully says, “The Holocene Climatic Optimum was generally warmer than the 20th century”), (b) the current change is obviously neither quicker nor unlike other natural changes – look at the extraordinary change around 8,000 BP as we emerged from the last glacial period (both longer and steeper than today) and (c) today’s curve starts about 500 years ago i.e. from the low point of the Little Ice Age – it’s hardly likely that CO2 had much to do with that. Henry VIII's Range Rover? 
2. I wish you wouldn’t use emotional words like “denier” (the equivalent of my calling you an “alarmist”) – it undermines your argument. 
3. Why do you keep saying that 99% of climatologists accept the AGW position? How can you possibly know? Many serious climatologists (as you know a generic term covering many disciplines) have doubts about the claim that made-made CO2 emissions are the cause of damaging global warming (“AGW”). See, for example, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.S...#report 
And please don’t say that they’re all in the pay of the oil industry. Such remarks insult science. 
Perhaps you’re thinking of the IPCC Report. But the Fourth Assessment Report was criticised by scientists because bureaucrats were selective about statements used for the summary document (the part most read by politicians and the media). One IPCC reviewer said that he was “astounded at the alterations that were imposed by government agents during the final stage of review”. So the “consensus” was political, not scientific. In any case, although thousands of scientists contributed to the Report, they covered a multitude of disciplines and by no means all were asked to confirm their assent to the AGW position (and I suspect many would have seen it as outside their speciality). I understand that only about 52 scientists were involved in preparing the summary (on which these consensus claims are based) and that they were required to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates. 
Anyway, science doesn’t proceed by consensus: they don’t say, “There is a consensus that the sun will rise tomorrow”. IMHO the fact that you keep mentioning your 99% serves to demonstrate your uncertainty. 
4. Funnily enough, you say that you think the “opposition to AGW” is political rather than scientific; yet the above suggests precisely the opposite. Then you use a whole string of straw man arguments to support your view. As a strong proponent of logic you should know better. 
5. My reference to the ancient Egyptians was to demonstrate how foolish mankind can appear when it feels it can fundamentally affect natural forces – suggesting that the same longer-term view might perhaps be taken of current attempts to stem climatic warming. King Canute demonstrated the same point – seems you missed it. A pity. 
6. My “WMD” post merely demonstrated how we can be misled by “experts” and to suggest (no more) that the same could be happening with AMG. I thought “Weather of Mass Destruction” mildly funny – but let it pass. 
Apologies for the length of this post. 
PS to JZ Smith: thanks for the welcome - please be informal. (You used "alarmist" - oh dear.) I could say a lot about the unreliability of computer models but I've said quite enough today.
Brute 
07 February 2008 at 18:35
More backtracking.............or "the facts don't fit the theory so we'll change the theory" 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103144416.ht... 
Other studies cited in the Science Express report suggest human-caused global warming may be affecting recent ocean heating trends. But Lozier and her coauthors found their data can't support that view for the North Atlantic. "It is premature to conclusively attribute these regional patterns of heat gain to greenhouse warming," they wrote. 
Given reported heat content gains in other oceans basins, and rising air temperatures, the authors surmised that other parts of the world's ocean systems may have taken up the excess heat produced by global warming. 
"But in the North Atlantic, any anthropogenic (human-caused) warming would presently be masked by such strong natural variability," they wrote.
JZ Smith 
07 February 2008 at 18:55
Robin, yes, I used "alarmist", and I apologize. It was an act of convenience, or perhaps laziness. I promise to be better behaved in the future.
JZ Smith 
07 February 2008 at 19:04
How can this be?? Oh, the HORROR! But it HAD to be global warming!!!! 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnew...
Brute 
07 February 2008 at 19:14
Mr. Smith, 
Hah. I especially like the photograph of the drop of water from the ice.....very dramatic. Almost reminds me of a teardrop. "Mother Earth is crying". Excellent marketing and imaging! They left out the obligatory fuzzy cute Polar Bear and the baby seal in that one. 
(Please excuse me while I go to get an air sickness bag).
JZ Smith 
07 February 2008 at 19:33
Please, call me "JZ". (At your service)
Robin Guenier 
07 February 2008 at 20:07
OK, JZ, I'll excuse you this time - just don't do it again!
JZ Smith 
07 February 2008 at 21:16
Yes sir.
JZ Smith 
07 February 2008 at 21:24
Sorry to again be the bearer of bad news for proponents of AGW, especially those who favor the use of biofuels as a way mitigating the effects of AGW: 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140809.ht...
Brute 
07 February 2008 at 21:33
But Mr. JZ, this is an article from the same page of the same website. Aren’t these two headlines contradictory? These eco-nuts can’t even come to a “consensus” amongst themselves. 
Biofuel Crops Double As Greenhouse-Gas Reducers 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070628063747.ht...
JZ Smith 
07 February 2008 at 21:48
Good point, Brute, although haven't we already established that AGW causes both record hot weather and record cold, as well as melting and freezing in the polar regions? Not to mention more hurricanes as well as less hurricanes. 
The contradiction seems completely logical given the above frame of reference.
Brute 
07 February 2008 at 21:57
Ahhh, shoot; I forgot. You're correct. I was doing that "common sense" thing again. 
More means Less, Hot means Cold, Black means White and On means Off in the Bizarre World of Alarmist, (sorry Robin), Global Warming Science.
Brute 
07 February 2008 at 22:02
Actually, I got that wrong also...... 
More means both More and Less, Hot means both Hot and Cold, Black means both Black and White and On means both On and Off in the Bizarre World of Global Warming Science. Whew!
Peter Martin 
07 February 2008 at 22:56
Robin Guenier, 
I suggest that you take another look at that graph. 10,000 years ago the arth was coming out of the an ice age. It shows that the warmest period, until recently, was 8000 years ago when the temperature Anomaly was +0.25deg C. 
Currently it is 0.4deg C. The very steep rise in the last few years seems to have caused the graphic artists some problem, so they have not drawn in a near vertical line, but instead marked an arrow on the left hand axis at approx the +0.45 deg point with the year 2004 in parathensis. 
I don't mind being called an alarmist. If a building is on fire then it's good that someone should raise an alarm! 
I agree with the comments about bio fuels. Thay aren't much of a solution, and have been promoted more by agri-business with an eye to potential profits than those with genuine environmental concerns.
Peter Martin 
08 February 2008 at 00:17
Robin Guenier, 
You ask how I can possibly know that 99% of climate scientists support the AGW theory. Well the link below, a paper by Oreskes, shows that this is perhaps an underestimate! 
But there is no point trying to establish the principle of consensus with you guys. You'll quickly retreat from your postion when challenged and say "ah well science doesn't progress by consensus anyway! " 
I'd just ask you to substantiate this with examples from the last century. There have been lively debates on the 'big bang' vs 'steady state universe' and some quite big rethinking of tectonic plate theory, but I can't think of any cases where a whole scientific consensus has been proved wrong. 
link 
Brute 
08 February 2008 at 00:19
UAH Satellite data for Jan08 in agreement with RSS data 
link 
Greenwatcher 
08 February 2008 at 00:48
I posted this on the main article as well. It was posted on the web and it is David Whitehouse's devastating response to Mark Lynas. 
WHEN THE DATA ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH 
A published email to Benny Peiser from David Whitehouse [david@davidwhitehouse.com]: 
My scientific training taught me to elevate data above all else. Whatever you might want the universe to do or to fit in with a cherished theory it is the data that tells you what the universe actually does. Huxley said, tongue in cheek, that it was the great tragedy of science that a beautiful hypothesis can be slain by an ugly fact. Data trumps everything...or does it? 
Recently, I wrote an article pointing out that the global average temperature for the past 7 years was statistically flat - that is no analysis of that data could say anything about it other than it was a flat line. I didn't think it was particularly controversial as I was merely stating what the data produced by the US National Climatic Data Center and the UK's Met Office was saying. I wondered why the CO2 levels have gone up and the temperature had not. I discounted aerosols reflecting sunlight as there has been no big volcanic eruptions in over a decade and the IPCC says that the atmosphere's aerosol load has declined, and doubted that decadal oceanic variations could do the trick either. You can read the article here. 
The article received a record 700 comments, mostly supportive. Several interesting points emerged (aside from the obvious fact that many who comment on such articles haven't actually read them) that might be of interest to readers. There are those who say the data does not exist and that I am lying! More puzzling are those who say that the data shows nothing of interest and that it is statistically irrelevant. 
Underneath this assertion is something very interesting. There is a vociferous body of opinion that says the data does not show the world hasn't warmed and that in reality the upward temperature gradient of the years 1980 -1998 is still being maintained -- it's just that the data does not show it! Some go on to say that in a 27 year temperature time series one would expect 7 flat years given the signal to noise ratio of the data. 
To my mind this is seeing what you want to see and the maxim should be that the data shows what the data shows - if it shows the last 7 years is flat then that's what mother nature says and no amount of arguing or statistical analysis is going to say it isn't so. It seems to me these people deny the data to suit their own perspective. 
However, could we expect a 7 year standstill just by sampling errors alone even though the rising trend is still upward? It's possible though highly unlikely, it is surely far more likely that the flat data represents flat data! Surely the important question here is: what would the data look like if the temperature has stopped rising? The answer is, of course, it would look exactly like what it does now. We should let Occam decide which explanation to choose. 
Then there is the argument that 7 years is too short a timescale to prove anything. In a sense they are right, we do not know if the 7 flat years will continue or if the temperature will start to rise or fall afterwards. But many twist that question and use it to dismiss the 7 years of measured flat data as meaningless. This is not valid. The 7 years remains what it is - 7 years of measured flat data and it is not an insignificant fraction of the 18 years of warming we saw between 1980 - 1998. What's more, the data set is not yet complete. It seems to me that many are judging those 7 flat years by different standards from that which they judge the 1980-1998 warming period and that is obviously unjustified. 
The response to my article is here. It commits many of the sins I mention and more -- and even says my article will go down as the most controversial ever in that I claim that global warming has 'stopped.' It even denies that the period 2001-2007 has been measured as statistically flat and claims I made the elementary error of confusing long term average with year on year variability (seems that 18 years is a long term climatic effect but ten years is a year on year variability!) 
It says that although CO2 levels are rising year on year no one claimed that the temperature would do otherwise! Average things out and the trend is hotter. (no one denies that this decade is hotter than previous ones so that is no response to my points). It cites as conclusive evidence a graph posted on the RealClimate website that uses trend lines covering the recent post 1980 spell to prove that no recent standstill exists. The News Statesman response then makes some dodgy comments about the way science progresses. 
The RealClimate graph is designed to prove what it wants to prove in that the statistical analysis chosen dilutes a 7 year flat spell at the end of a data series. It also includes no error bars on the annual temperature measurements and if it did the graph would tell a very different story and the trend lines would have a much greater degree of variation. 
The New Statesman reply says that similar 7 year standstills have occurred in the past so the current one is nothing special but it fails to add that those periods were statistically far more variable than the current 7 year standstill and that they were blips in an upward trend caused by El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo. There has been no similar event for the recent 7 years! All things considered the New Statesman reply to my article fails to make any counter case when you look at the facts in detail and not in a shallow way with the eye of faith. 
Finally, there is another aspect to the debate that worried me far more than an environmental 'activist' getting the science wrong. It is one of double standards and it has become rather predictable. Provide any criticism, even mild or supportive, or even suggest that we might be wrong and that we don't know everything and one's integrity is attacked. I am accused of intentionally or otherwise of misleading the public and you will note the association made in the New Statesman reply between myself and those who posted comments who might have been paid to take a contrary position. 
This idea that big energy companies are fuelling all so-called dissent has become a cliche, and is often used reprehensibly by those who cannot respond scientifically to argument. One recent book about the catastrophe that is global warming even had a lengthy section about the tobacco industry denying lung cancer so as to set a parallel with the 'climate change deniers' camp. 
On a recent TV debate that Benny Peiser and I took part in a representative from a well know environmental pressure group, who was obviously stressed and irritated by our comments, demanded that the question master make us swear we weren't being funded by the oil lobby. Benny and I said we weren't but thinking about it I should have demanded an apology for that slur before I decided whether to answer or not. 
We have reached a sad stage when such things happen. We should ensure that such debates are even handed and that both sides of any argument declare their vested interests, if any. Surely these big, campaigning groups have a stronger vested interest in global warming than most? 
Finally this, another well known saying: "Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
Brute 
08 February 2008 at 01:18
RSS Satellite data for Jan08: 2nd coldest January for the planet in 15 years 
link
Peter Martin 
08 February 2008 at 01:38
This is the real David Whitehouse. A much better article: 
link 
However his theory about sunspots is in a bit of trouble. Cycle 24 has just started. 
link 2 
Robin Guenier 
08 February 2008 at 07:42
Peter Martin: thanks for responding to two of my observations, global temperature over the last 10,000 years and the matter of consensus. You won’t be astonished to hear that I believe you’re wrong on both counts. But, as the real debate seems to have moved from this thread (the Lynas thread) back to the original thread (the Whitehouse thread), I’ll comment on your responses there.
stargazer 
08 February 2008 at 08:38
"However his theory about sunspots is in a bit of trouble. Cycle 24 has just started. " 
and sunspot cycle 23 has not finished yet. an overlap is normal...and the sun will not become 'active' until 
cycle 23 ends completely which might still take months.
JZ Smith 
08 February 2008 at 23:23
More regarding Mr Lynas: 
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2008/02/08/abc-g...
Brute 
09 February 2008 at 02:35
http://www.akdart.com/med2.html
Peter Martin 
09 February 2008 at 05:10
Speaking about "fleeing the earth" you may have time to play this: http://lincity.sourceforge.net/ 
You either have to make a go of life on the planet or build a rocket to escape from it. 
More seriously, I'd say Mark Lynas is correct. We'll not get to six degrees because we'll take action in time to stop it. It will be hard going to get much done in the next few years, but before too long we'll have the first ice free arctic sea for a million years or more. The North Pole will be just a point in the oceon. We probably cannot change this even if we act now. 
However, the melting of the Arctic ice won't cause that much rise in sea level. It is already floating on the sea itself. When this happens, and it would be better if it were to be sooner rather than later, I do believe that this will be the time that action is decisively taken. Hopefully it won't be too late.
Brute 
09 February 2008 at 16:39
Mr. Martin, 
You wrote: “before too long we'll have the first ice free arctic sea for a million years or more. The North Pole will be just a point in the oceon.” 
This is an outright lie as it has been posted on this website previously. The Northwest Passage was open to navigation as recently as 1942. 
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-reporting-about... 
http://www.vancouvermaritimemuseum.com/page216.htm
Brute 
09 February 2008 at 20:04
Saturday, February 09, 2008 
Global Warming Hits Washington With 32 Feet Of Snow And More On The Way 
By Anna on February 9, 2008 at 08:23 am 2 Comments 
For first time in 11 years, 3 top Cascade passes closed 
Snow removal already $4.6 million over budget 
Washington’s three major mountain highways all closed Friday because of foul weather and avalanche danger, the first time Snoqualmie, Stevens and White passes have been closed simultaneously in 11 years. 
White Pass closed all day. Stevens Pass closed at 10 a.m. Snoqualmie Pass was shut at midday between North Bend and Ellensburg. Snoqualmie and Stevens were not expected to reopen before Saturday. There was no estimate of when White Pass would be passable again. 
Just clearing the snow promised to be a challenge: Previously plowed snow created drifts as high as 25 feet to the side of the road. All three highways received nearly 10 inches of new snow Friday and snow was falling 2 inches per hour at one point. 
Because of heavy snow and high winds “there’s basically little or no visibility” at White Pass, said Department of Transportation spokeswoman Annie Linstrom. 
At Snoqualmie, this season’s snowfall exceeded 390 inches Thursday. 
A winter storm warning remained in effect overnight in the Cascades, with accumulations of up to 16 inches of snow expected. 
The snowstorms of the past two weeks have taxed resources and snow-removal budgets. Managers of Transportation Department crews clearing Snoqualmie and Stevens said they’re spending more money on snow and ice removal than they expected to at this point in the year. 
At Snoqualmie, the state has spent $1.9 million of its $6.1 million two-year snow-removal budget through January. But with two-dozen more people on the crew than normal, it has been spending up to $75,000 a day on the work, three times the normal amount, said regional administrator Don Whitehouse. 
[...] 
I say send this global warming expense to Al Gore to handle
Peter Martin 
10 February 2008 at 22:08
Brute, 
The NW passage has navigated several times by fortified ships but the phrase "open to naviagtion" is stretching things a bit. 
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage 
for a history. Including the 1940's passage you refer to. 
However the ice is melting fast and your phrase will be quite applicable soon. According to Mark Serreze, a senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. " "We're probably 30 years ahead of schedule in terms of the loss of the Arctic sea ice." 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070917-north...
Brute 
10 February 2008 at 23:07
Mr. Martin, 
YOU ARE ABSOLUTLY INCORRECT AND PUPOSELY ENGAGING IN PERPETUATION OF FRAUD. Not only did the WOODEN ship St Roch complete the cruise in 1942, it completed the same trip in 1944. The same route was completed in a CATAMARAN in 1988 by two amateur sailors and Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen completed the trip in 1906 as did many others throughout the 20th century. Again, you and the other Global Warming Alarmists are publicizing falsehoods to forward your imaginary apocalyptic scenario. 
YOUR STATEMENT WAS INCORRECT AND I AM NOT GOING TO LET YOU GET AWAY WITH IT. 
Text from the story link: READ IT. 
We should also look at the claim that the ice has always been so thick that the Northwest Passage has been “historically impassable”. Most attempts by explorers to find this passage happened during the Little Ice Age. I would think they would have had great difficulty making it through the Passage under ice age conditions. But are they saying that after the Little Ice Age ended that no one has made it through the Passage? 
The problem is that ships have sailed through the Northwest Passage before today and long before a police patrol did it in 2000. It has happened several times. The historically impassable route has been passed through numerous times for over a century now. 
Here is a photo of the St. Roch. It’s a wooden ship, not some massive, metallic icebreaker. According to the Vancouver Maritime Museum web site, this 104 foot wooden ship sailed through the Northwest Passage from 1940 to 1942, that was from west to east. In 1944 it did it again from from east to west. King George VI awarded Captain Henry Larsen, and the crew, the Polar Medal for making the 1944 voyage. 
The Maritime Museum also includes a little information about the Northwest Passage as well. And they specifically mention that the famed Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen “became the first person to sail the entire Passage from east to west” and that was in 1906. 
Remember that police patrol boat that went through the Passage on the other “first” time in 2000? It was actually named the St. Roch II. It sailed the same route as the first St. Roch as a fund raiser to help preserve the original ship. They were re-enacting the previous voyage from 60 years earlier. 
The USS Storis made the journey in 1957 as this US Coast Guard history of the ship mentions. They do claim, falsely, that this trip “ended a 450-year search for the Northwest Passage” neglecting to mention the St. Roch did it twice before them and Amundsen did so as well. Here is a photo of the Storis during its 1957 trip through the Northwest Passage. 
A Dutch businessman, Willy de Roos, 56, made a solo voyage through the Northwest Passage in 1977 and you can see a Canadian Broadcasting Network clip on the journey here. They have another report on the S.S. Manhattan making the trip through the Passage in 1969 
I shouldn’t neglect to mention that a couple of Canadians, Mike Beedell and Jeffrey MacInnis, sailed through the Northwest Passage using a catamaran with wind power only. That was in 1988. And in 1985 there was a diplomatic row between the US and Canada because the ship, the Polar Sea, was setting sail through the Northwest Passage and hadn’t asked Canadian permission. The US argued it was international waters and Canada said it wasn’t. 
Even tourists on the M.V. Lindblad, a Swedish ship, have traveled through the Northwest Passage. They did it with luxurious food and in comfort. The trip was a 40 day trip from Newfoundland to Japan via the Passage and cost the tourists $16,000 to $22,000 in 1984! You can even hear the captain being interviewed by Canadian radio saying that the ice is in retreat and the water is open. That was back during the time when the panic mongers were pushing the global cooling theory. The Lindblad made a second trip through the Passage in 1988. 
In 1977 another Canadian ship, with four Canadians, made the trip through the Passage as well. At one point of their trip they sailed together with the Dutch businessman who was making the solo trip. So you had two different ships traveling through the “historically impassable” Passage at the same time. I guess that is the Passage’s equivalent of a rush hour. 
With just a few minutes of research I have been able to compile twelve cases of vessels traveling through the Northwest Passage. Yet major media outlets from around the world are pretending that such trips have never been possible until this year. The BBC didn’t even check their own web site. 
Once “global warming” is mentioned all critical faculties are shut down in the media. They don’t verify facts. They just repeat the claims that are made. 
We simply don’t know if the Northwest Passage has been relatively ice free before the 1978 satellite data started being collected. But we do have two different BBC reports, in two different years, each claiming the Passage was ice free “for the first time”. Before 1978 we don’t know. It is pure guesswork. But given that the planet has been much warmer than today, in the past, it is likely the Passage has been ice free on many occasions. 
Regardless of that, the history of ships traveling through the Northwest Passage has been well documented. This is not conjecture or guessing. It is a historical fact. We’ve had small wooden ships do it, luxury tourist boats, a solo voyage, and numerous other incidents, all of which I have documented here. 
The only reason I can think of that explains why journalists, who repeated the false claims of this story, didn’t bother to do any research is because these claims have been linked to global warming. They don’t want to be called “deniers” by the warming alarmists. Global warming to the Left is what “terrorism” is to the Right. It is an issue that is meant to be so scary that one is supposed to close down their mind, repeat the slogans, and obey.
Brute 
10 February 2008 at 23:43
Mr. Martin, 
The FIRST statement from the National Geographic story that you link to reads: 
"The famed Northwest Passage—a direct shipping route from Europe to Asia across the Arctic Ocean—is ice free for the first time since satellite records began in 1978, scientists reported Friday." 
Did the writer or the National Geographic Society check the record as I did in 15 minutes? Could he have? Is this simply an innocent mistake? Could it be that the author was engaging in a bit of sensationalism? How could the editors of National Geographic overlook such salient facts and print such an erroneous statement? I also noticed that the article was written in September. 
By the way, why are you so hung up on Wikipedia; I’ve found inaccuracies on that website pertaining to my own home town. 
ALWAYS DOUBLE CHECK YOUR SOURCES.
Peter Martin 
11 February 2008 at 02:56
Brute, 
Well I'm pleased that you agree that the state of the NW passage is a good indicator of the earth's climate. The navigation of the passage by the St Roch (yes it was wooden ship but fortified to protect it against sea ice) , was certainly an remarkable piece of navigation. Wiki report that " More than once on this trip, it was touch and go as to whether the St. Roch a Royal Canadian Mounted Police "ice-fortified" schooner would survive the ravages of the sea ice." 
Isn't this the same Swedish cruise ship? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Explorer 
Specially designed to cope with sea ice? 
Yes the NW passage has been sailed before but, up until now, the passage has not been reliable enough to be classed as a commercial shipping channel used by standard oceon going vessels. That is about to change. Watch out this next northern summer for the first trips by non- ice strengthened vessels. 
PS I take your point about Wikipedia . It's not perfect. But, neither is it overtly biased one way or the other.
taghioff.info 
11 February 2008 at 14:06
Isn't Brute a de-oderant, because something smells fishy. 
Cherry picking, cherry picking, cherry picking. Brute, just because parts of the Earth's surface are concave does not imply that we live on the inside surface of a sphere. 
How do you explain the mountain of observed evidence that warming is already occurring? The main reason you can find so many exceptions to this rule is because it is such a huge data set and growing. 
And Brute, what if, just as the vaguest outside possibility, there is some tiny flaw in your reasoning, and you are, shock horror, advocating inaction in the face of impending disaster? 
Might it not be worth admitting this faint possibility, and thus acting to avoid the huge danger embodied, even if to you it seems like a tiny level of risk? 
Indeed, would you step into an aero-plane that had even a 1% chance of falling out of the sky?
taghioff.info 
11 February 2008 at 14:07
That was comment 400 by the way, don't we have something better to do?
Brute 
11 February 2008 at 15:48
Mr. taghioff.info 
The natural inclination of an airplane is to fall from the sky. Beside that, I'm adverse to flying, it pollutes the planet and adds vast amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere; how about you? 
"Cherry picking, cherry picking, cherry picking. Brute, just because parts of the Earth's surface are concave does not imply that we live on the inside surface of a sphere.” 
Conversely, so when "parts of the earth's surface" are convex it proves your theory? Seems like a stalemate. We should all alter our lifestyles “just in case”? In case of what? What if Mr. Martin is correct in his assertion that the planet was headed for an ice age and we narrowly averted disaster by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere? If that’s the case we should release more CO2 into the environment in order to inhabit areas of the planet that are uninhabitable due to extreme low temperatures. 
I see……….. When conditions and anomalies fit your theory they are considered “proof” of Global Warming. When conditions are contrary to your position they are inadmissible. 
Mr. Martin, 
If the Northwest Passage was open in 1904, 1906 and again in 1942 and 1944 is that evidence of Anthropologic Global Warming? Your reasoning falls apart. 
When it is open to navigation, (which is rare), you attribute it to Global Warming. When it is closed to navigation, (which is the majority of the time), you ignore it. 
What caused the sea ice melt in 1904-1906 and 1942-1944? What caused the temperature rise during the Medieval Warm Period and the fall in temperature during the Little Ice Age?
Brute 
11 February 2008 at 16:27
In addition, it is 17.1 Degrees (-8.3) here today. Could you two guys send us some Global Warming? 
Global Warming……complete nonsense. Sheez.
Patrick Hadley 
11 February 2008 at 18:57
The NASA global temperature average anomaly for January 2008 was 0.12 C. This is the coldest month on the planet since May 1995, and the coldest January since 1989. Temperatures dropped by more in the last 12 months than in any year since records began in 1880. 
China is one of many countries suffering greatly as a result of this global cooling. Let us hope that this is not the start of a period of sustained cooling, which would be disastrous for the world - far worse than global warming, which would be generally very beneficial.
bobclive 
11 February 2008 at 19:55
I watched a copy of Gores documentary the other night, an impressive lecture aimed at the ill informed, especially school children. The theme is that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. The lecture has very little substance and is full of exaggeration and poor science. 
The part I mention here is Gores reference to the receding glaciers and lake Chad. 
http://aycu39.webshots.com/image/42758/2004893524491921913_r... 
http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/44618/2004881440297032940_r... 
http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/44263/2004885309439382820_r... 
The first link is a print off from Gores doc, note the start date of the receding glacier. The second and third links show when the glaciers actually started to recede. 
www.cmiae.org/glacier-lichen.htm 
This relates to the link above: 
On her second visit to Glacier National Park in 1894, Mary Vaux (pronounced “vox”) was aghast at how the Illecillewaet Glacier had retreated since her previous visit seven years earlier. The lowest edge of the Great Glacier, as it was also known then, was clearly withdrawing upslope. We now know that most of the world’s glaciers were in retreat then as they are now. CO2 was I believe about 220ppm at that time. 
Obviously Gore was aware of the fact that glaciers were on the retreat before 1850, why would he omit this important fact. 
Gore mentions lake Chad, suggesting global warming is the cause of the lakes loss of water, when in fact the main cause of the loss is that water from the rivers that flow into the lake are being diverted in increasing amounts for irrigation purposes. It is estimated that about one-third of the streamflow today is diverted from the Chari River before its flow reaches Lake Chad. 
Diversion of streamflow had been at a relatively low level, until the late 1970s when Lake Chad basin countries began to sharply intensify their food and fiber (e.g., cash crop) production efforts. According to UNEP GRID, "between 1953 and 1979, irrigation had only a modest impact on the Lake Chad ecosystem. Between 1983 and 1994, however, irrigation water use increased four-fold. About 50% of the decrease in the lake's size since the 1960s is attributed to human water use, with the remainder attributed to shifting climate patterns. 
There is a long list of omissions, half truths and mistakes in this film, it is beyond me why the US and the UK governments have insisted this film should form part of the school curriculum. 
Obviously CO2 did not in 1850 cause the glaciers to start their present retreat, This retreat as can be seen from the photographs was a steady retreat from that time to the present and it was a natural recovery from the little ice age. 
The Armagh observatory shows over 200years of steady warming and NO SUDDEN INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE. 
There is to much dodgy science and not enough common sense.
bpl1960 
11 February 2008 at 21:39
The world DID warm over the past ten years. It didn't warm a statistically significant amount, but that's because the cherry-pick of time limits is too small for the significance to show up. Ten years isn't enough of a sample to get a good result. 
Here are the anomalies (NASA GISS land-ocean temperature anomalies in centikelvins) for 1998-2007: 
Anom Year 
57 1998 
33 1999 
33 2000 
48 2001 
56 2002 
55 2003 
49 2004 
62 2005 
54 2006 
57 2007 
The regression is Anom = -3517.69 + 1.782 Year, with student's t on the Year term of 1.812. The regression is significant at the 89% level, but normally for a linear regression like this you want to see at least significance at the 95% level -- and you do, if you do the regression for a longer period of time. The "global warming stopped in 1998!" people are all being either statistically ignorant or disingenuous.
bobclive 
11 February 2008 at 22:12
December 2007: 
The Antarctic is gaining ice, even at the edges, 
What this latest study by the University of Bristol has shown is that some of the ice on the western coast that is over water may be melting due to a change in ocean currents (not necessarily due to any atmospheric warming). But what they aren't telling you is that ice on the eastern, northern and southern coasts, as well as the interior are ALL GAINING ice in most areas. In fact the southern coast has GAINED SUBSTANTIAL ICE since recordings began in 1979. Where there were thousands of square miles of open water in 1979 there is now ice, some of it many meters thick. You can verify this for yourself from the satellite images at the 
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) (University of Colorado Boulder, CO). 
Total ice edge extent went from 10.5 million sq km in 1979 to 12.6 million in 2007, an increase of 20%. The sea ice concentration went from 6.0 million sq km in 1979 to 8.3 million sq km in 2007, an increase of nearly 40%! 
There is significantly less open water in the Antarctic summer of 2007 than when satellite monitoring started in 1979. Over all ice concentrations are higher on 3 of the 4 coasts. So HOW DID the University of Bristol study come up with a net loss "Over the 10 year time period of the survey, the ice sheet as a whole was certainly losing mass"? They happened to hit it just right as 2006 (2006 was compared to 1996 in this study) did show significant ice loss on the west coast of Antarctica. But by 2007 it had FULLY RECOVERED and was approaching a RECORD amount of ice (again this "record" only goes back to 1979 when satellite observations started. Hardly a record in geological terms but the climate change chicken-littles love to call refer to it as such). 
For full article see link below, 
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.48
bobclive 
11 February 2008 at 23:24
Public release date: 13-Jan-2008 
j.bamber@bristol.ac.uk 
University of Bristol 
Antarctic ice loss 
Increasing amounts of ice mass have been lost from West Antarctica 
Satellite-derived image of the surface topography of Antarctica. Shown in color are the flow speeds of glaciers draining ice into the oceans. The scale is meters per year. 
Increasing amounts of ice mass have been lost from West Antarctica and the Antarctic peninsula over the past ten years, according to research from the University of Bristol and published online this week in Nature Geoscience. 
Meanwhile the ice mass in East Antarctica has been roughly stable, with neither loss nor accumulation over the past decade. 
Professor Jonathan Bamber at the University of Bristol and colleagues estimated the flux of ice from the ice sheet into the ocean from satellite data that cover 85% of Antarctica's coastline, which they compared with simulations of snow accumulation over the same period, obtained using a regional climate model, (computers again) 
They arrived at a best estimate of a loss of 132 billion tonnes of ice in 2006 from West Antarctica – up from about 83 billion tonnes in 1996 – and a loss of about 60 billion tonnes in 2006 from the Antarctic Peninsula. 
THE STUDY ENDED IN 2006, OOPS it appears in 2007 the ice mass of Antarctica increased by 20%. 
Professor Bamber said: “To put these figures into perspective, four billion tons of ice is enough to provide drinking water for the whole of the UK population for one year." 
At December 2007 the Antarctic is gaining ice, even at the edges, Yet a recent University of Bristol study 
has shown that some of the ice on the western coast that is over water may be melting due to a change in ocean currents (not necessarily due to any atmospheric warming). But what they aren't telling you is that ice on the eastern, northern and southern coasts, as well as the interior are ALL GAINING ice in most areas. In fact the southern coast has GAINED SUBSTANTIAL ICE since recordings began in 1979. Where there were thousands of square miles of open water in 1979 there is now ice, some of it many meters thick. You can verify this for yourself from the satellite images at the 
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) (University of Colorado Boulder, CO). 
Total ice edge extent went from 10.5 million sq km in 1979 to 12.6 million in 2007, an increase of 20%. The sea ice concentration went from 6.0 million sq km in 1979 to 8.3 million sq km in 2007, an increase of nearly 40%! 
There is significantly less open water in the Antarctic summer of 2007 than when satellite monitoring started in 1979. Over all ice concentrations are higher on 3 of the 4 coasts. So HOW DID the University of Bristol study come up with a net loss "Over the 10 year time period of the survey, the ice sheet as a whole was certainly losing mass"? They happened to hit it just right as 2006 (2006 was compared to 1996 in this study) did show significant ice loss on the west coast of Antarctica. But by 2007 it had FULLY RECOVERED and was approaching a RECORD amount of ice (again this "record" only goes back to 1979 when satellite observations started. Hardly a record in geological terms but the climate change chicken-littles love to call refer to it as such). 
YOU DON`T HERE THIS FROM THE BBC. 
For full article see link below, 
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.48
Brute 
12 February 2008 at 01:29
Where did global warming go? 
link 
Peter Martin 
12 February 2008 at 01:58
"RSS Satellite data for Jan08: 2nd coldest January for the planet in 15 years" 
These daffodils don't seem to agree! 
http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2006-04-04/willhite-zonema... 
Lots of similar stories in Europe too about early flowerings. 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.htm...
Brute 
12 February 2008 at 03:44
Mr. Martin, 
Nice try. The first link was published on APRIL 4th 2006, look at the date. The snow on the ground is remnants from lingering late winter snowfalls or perhaps a springtime snowfall. 
Regarding the second article, an interesting comment..........."We lived in Cornwall for many years,years ago,and we always had mainland grown daffodils before Christmas. 
Even earlier (Nov) were those from the Scillies if you could afford them. Variety has a lot to do with the time of flowering, some narcissi varieties don't flower until the end of March even in Cornwall.Strange how the late flowering ones are the prettiest. 
- Edward Welsh, Lampeter Wales 
I’m unfamiliar with British weather and this particular dialect. I’m not a horticulturalist; isn’t it generally warmer in Wales? (The Gulf Stream). I need an Englishman to help me out here..... can’t comment further. Wait, maybe I can. 
Ahhhh, From your favorite source, Wikipedia: 
“Cornwall is noted for its wild moorland landscapes, its extensive and varied coastline and its mild climate. 
I suppose a picture is not worth a thousand words in this case................
taghioff.info 
12 February 2008 at 03:52
No Brute, the smell remains. 
I do not consider myself an expert on every topic. When 2000 of the leading scientific experts meet time and time again, and agree, despite pressure from governments not to, that we have a serious problem I tend to believe them. When eight years of peer reviewed science reveals not one climatologist disputing the existence of global warming, I tend to believe them. 
My point is that against this background, the isolated events that you build your case out of do not amount to a strong general critique of the broadly accepted position. If you had a strong argument that went to the heart of the theory of global warming i.e. something that disproved the CO2 release - warming link, then I might take you seriously. 
I am not trading in anomolies like you. For every one of your examples there are 40 counter examples that show warming, so my case rests not on picked cherries, but on a broadly established trend. 
So basically, despite the de-oderising, there is still a wiff of fish.
Brute 
12 February 2008 at 04:03
Correction; Maybe I should have written late winter snowfall and left it at that as officially the first day of Spring is March 20th. Still early for daffodils, but hardly unheard of even before we capitalist pigs ruined the planet. Nope, I’m still correct, (as well as obsessive compulsive). Early April snowfall in New York is not unusual, (the article references Manhattan), regardless, the article is not current as are Mr Hadley's RSS data references. 
“There are different views on when the season starts and finishes. 
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary[1] states that spring comprises "in the northern hemisphere usually the months of March, April, May, or as reckoned astronomically extending from the vernal equinox (March 20) to the June solstice (June 21)." 
Chambers 21st Century Dictionary states that spring is "the season between winter and summer, when most plants begin to grow, and usually thought of in the N hemisphere as consisting of the months from March to May inclusive, and in the S hemisphere as September to November". 
The UK Met Office also considers that spring consists of the months of March, April and May.
Brute 
12 February 2008 at 04:16
Mr. taghioff.info, 
I sense desperation and frustration in your last comment. Get some rest. Try again tomorrow.
Peter Martin 
12 February 2008 at 09:15
Brute, 
The whole of the British Isles, which is on the same latitude as Hudson's Bay is warmed by the Gulf Stream so has a much milder climate. The areas`in the West ( Cornwall, Ireland, West Scotland) being more affected. 
This is a report about the Gardens at Kew which is in West London. In the same location they are`reporting earlier flowering. I hadn't noticed that the Manhattan link was from last year. Have the flowers gone back to normal this year? 
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/britain-in-b... 
I'm not sure how you scientifically weigh this sort of evidence but many people do believe that plants and wild animals are better attuned to climate changes than we are. 
Its a bit of a problem for us climate hoaxers. We've got huge sums of money from the Chinese to bribe climate scientists but the daffodils aren't susceptible to temptation. What we have to do is import them early in the year, at top dollar, from the Scilly Islands or France. Then we have to replant them all in the dead`of night in places like Kew gardens and hope they last long enough to fool the press photographers the following morning. :-)
stargazer 
12 February 2008 at 11:23
Well I live right where the gulf stream hits the coast 
and It IS warmer here than anywhere else in the UK (generaly.) It is well excepted that we here have our own 'micro climate' I have not seen snow in years,and have only had to scrape ice off of my car about 5 times this winter. I say this because you said 
" I'm not sure how you scientifically weigh this sort of evidence but many people do believe that plants and wild animals are better attuned to climate changes than we are. " 
This is probably true, and you should know that the Romans grew grapes in the uk as far north as the Midlands. This is somthing that is not possible today.
Peter Martin 
12 February 2008 at 12:01
Well I think it is the other way around. This link casts doubt on stories of the Romans producing wine in Britain. 
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html 
whereas this one lists the current English Vineyards. There are quite a few in the Midlands and some, even further north, in Yorkshire. The most northerly being near York itself. 
I understand that the wine industry in the UK has grown up from the 80's onward. I would say that it is entirely due to climate change. Improved cold resistant strains of vine have no doubt been developed. 
The history of vine growing is something that Mr McKeown ought to look into if he is looking for evidence of climatic change. If he is also looking for evidence of sea level changes I would expect that he could find that out by looking at the archeology of the Mediterranean region which has very small tidal changes. The docks at Carthage and Rome for instance. 
I
Peter Martin 
12 February 2008 at 12:02
Sorry. Missed out this link: 
http://www.englishwineweek.co.uk/vineyards.htm
stargazer 
12 February 2008 at 12:21
Yep you are right... cant dispute the locations of the vineyards you link to...Guess I should have looked at the Net before quoting something I thought remembered from somewhere
Brute 
12 February 2008 at 15:44
Mr. Martin, 
These links are not reporting theory, computer model predictions, or personal opinions; THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT IS GOING ON.......TODAY. You can call it a "blip" or "anomaly" but this information supports Mr. Whitehouse’s assertions. Again, time will tell, but for Alarmists to deny what is going on RIGHT NOW or dismiss these facts as “regional” or “local” is simply wrong. Alarmists have been predicting that temperatures would rise; they are falling……record cold reported all over the globe, Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Undeniable. Hopefully it will let up. 
Highest Snowfall Season to Date For Rockford 
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/crnews/display_story.php?wfo=lot&sto... 
Snow Days and Zero Degree Days Are Running Twice the Long Term Average. 
http://blogs.trb.com/news/weather/weblog/wgnweather/ 
Record cold for northern Minn.: 40 below 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080212/ap_on_re_us/cold_weather 
Snow, ice put pinch on road salt supply 
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080212/M...
taghioff.info 
13 February 2008 at 06:58
Brute, you have not made your case. 
Please do not project your intellectual failings onto my emotions. I am not desperate, I am doing something. I sense this column is the limits of your social action. 
I am sat here in India working with an NGO to try and work out ways of mobilising government rural employment guarantees to cushion the blow of food yields, that according to a recent peer-reviewed study, are already being hit hard in South Asia due to climatic changes. 
I find it very satisfying work, and I don't care that much what you think, you are a dying breed, perhaps one of the few impending extinctions worth celebrating.
bobclive 
13 February 2008 at 13:47
Beijing says snow storms destroy one tenth of China's forests, Sun Feb 10, 2:02 AM ET 
BEIJING (AFP) - China has lost about one tenth of its forest resources to recent snow storms regarded as the most severe in half a century, state media reported Sunday. 
A total of 17.3 million hectares (43 million acres) of forest have been damaged across China as the result of three weeks of savage winter weather, the China Daily website said, citing the State Forestry Administration. 
More than half the country's provinces have been affected, and in the worst-hit regions, nearly 90 percent of forests have been destroyed. 
That is a lot of chop sticks. The climate seems intent on causing global warming by using snow and ice. 
Global warming causes global cooling says realclimate.
bobclive 
13 February 2008 at 13:59
taghioff.info 
I thought world food yields were on the rise due to the increased level of CO2, that was until the IPCC suggested we should use bio-fuel.
Brute 
13 February 2008 at 14:49
Mr. taghioff.info 
Ah, over in India tilting at windmills are you? Let us know how things turn out. Do they still have outbreaks of Bubonic plague there? Seems as if they could use more industrialization and modern sanitation more than anything else (and probably some enormous vats of DDT)…. I’m certain that the Indian people appreciate yet more Western bureaucrats lecturing them on how they need to conserve energy from Birkenstock wearing crusaders shuttled from event to event in their chauffer driven limousines……Pontificating to the poor people of India how they need to curtail their energy consumption to “save the planet from Global warming”. Good Luck. “Climate Change” has been occurring long before you arrived and will continue to occur long after you are dead. 
Also, you haven’t the faintest idea of anything that I may or may not have done as far as “Social action” is concerned. 
The burden of proof is on the Alarmists my friend; and the record cold temperatures reported from around the globe are proof that the Alarmist’s theory was incorrect. The Alarmist stated that temperatures would sharply rise; they haven't. 
I have no case to make; temperatures, winds and precipitation change, that’s the way the planet works. Global temperatures are dropping, (or have ceased to rise), while CO2 levels have increased as the MET Office and Mr. Whitehouse have stated. 
"Striving for visionary ideals, the eponymous hero imagines himself to be fighting giants when he attacks windmills. 
Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless." 
"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza. 
"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length." 
"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone." 
"The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."
Nelson 
13 February 2008 at 15:55
'Global temperatures are dropping, (or have ceased to rise)' 
So you still refuse to accept proper statistics. Back to the classroom, Brute. 1/10 for effort.
Pat T 
13 February 2008 at 16:02
Nelson you guys can try to re-write the climate history but you'll find more difficulty re-writing the climate present.
Brute 
13 February 2008 at 16:44
Nelson, 
You wrote: 
"So you still refuse to accept proper statistics." 
These are the United Kingdom's Meterological Office statistics...... which I have accepted. The temperature is flat, as Mr Whitehouse wrote about two months ago.
bobclive 
13 February 2008 at 18:54
Realclimate blog. 
David Price Says: 
27 April 2007 at 6:01 PM 
An unanswered question is that 55 millon years ago CO2 levels reached 1000ppm. According to many predictions in the media those levels of CO2 should have caused a runaway greenhouse effect. Though the climate then was considerably warmer than today this did not happen, otherwise we would not be here. Can somebody explain this? 
[Response from realclimate, 
No one seriously predicts a runaway greenhouse effect: 
If thats the case what`s the problem.
bobclive 
13 February 2008 at 22:27
Alexander Ruzmaikin a1, Joan Feynman a1 and Yuk Yung a2 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Tachnology, Pasadena, 
Does the Nile reflect solar variability? 
Abstract 
Historical records of the Nile water level provide a unique opportunity to investigate the possibility that solar variability influences the Earth's climate. Particularly important are the annual records of the water level, which are uninterrupted for the years 622–1470 A.D. These records are non-stationary, so that standard spectral analyses cannot adequately characterize them. Here the Empirical Mode Decomposition technique, which is designed to deal with non-stationary, nonlinear time series, becomes useful. It allows the identification of two characteristic time scales in the water level data that can be linked to solar variability: the 88 year period and a time scale of about 200 years. These time scales are also present in the concurrent aurora data. Auroras are driven by coronal mass ejections and the rate of auroras is an excellent proxy for solar variabiliy. Analysis of auroral data contemporaneous with the Nile data shows peaks at 88 years and about 200 years. This suggests a physical link between solar variability and the low-frequency variations of the Nile water level. The link involves the influence of solar variability on the North Annual Mode of atmospheric variability and its North Atlantic and Indian Oceans patterns that affect rainfall over Eastren Equatorial Africa where the Nile originates. 
HISTORY TELLS US IT`S THE SUN.
Brute 
14 February 2008 at 02:19
Global warming 'may cut deaths' 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7240463.stm
Pat T 
14 February 2008 at 18:46
If it resumes it may cause positive results in some places and negative results in other places. 
Just like last time...... 
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1505/features/lia.htm 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=675 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=585 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=704 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=881 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1165 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=693 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=121 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=8&paged=2 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=746 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=767 
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Seager_e... 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1231326... 
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba450/
Brute 
14 February 2008 at 19:48
Pat T, 
If this global warming doesn't stop we'll all freeze to death.
Ron McKeown 
14 February 2008 at 21:51
Mark Lynas seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place. As for me , I am just a local historian working on my own initiative and not in the pay of anyone. I have no axe to grind so my observations are based solely on the evidence I have gathered. I agree that temperatures are climbing because at 62 years of age I am old enough to remember previous winters and the guaranteed February snow falls of the nineteen-fifties. Historical records for Derby covering the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries show that on average the winters are becoming progressively less severe. Conclusion – we are entering a period of warming. The warming is from a low point, namely the Little Ice Age which was severe enough and lasted long enough to reduce sea levels by virtue of the formation of vast ice sheets. It is the severity of this event that has confused the climate scientists who have taken it to be the norm. The archaeology and geology of Derby indicates that the river levels were considerably higher when the Vikings settled in the ninth century and that this water level was higher than when the Romans built their fort at Little Chester. Throughout England the mapping evidence is that the Viking habitats were located at levels consistent with a higher floodplain than today. This evidence can also be deduced from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. Thus we have the suggestion of cyclic warming and cooling locked into our archaeology and our historic records. The scientists deal in isotopes and contrived models whereas I simply deal in the hard evidence of history. We could get the Time Team to verify the facts but even I accept it would need more than three days. It would need a set of objectives that aim to achieve verifiable dating evidence from known locations containing at least two thousand years of history, as is the case with Derby. I anticipate that we would find that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today and that the same would apply to previous warm periods. I also anticipate that the Little Ice Age will be seen as an anomaly when compare to some of the previous cool periods. It will not be unique however because a “Snow Ball Earth” scenario is built into the folk memory of the northern European People - Ragnarök
Ron McKeown 
14 February 2008 at 22:02
Peter Martin 
Regarding your comments about wine and me - how on earth did you know that I have grape vines in my garden here in Derby and that I make wine from them? Spooky or what! 
Of course I was not able to grow them thirty years ago because it was just too cold on average - not like the medieval monks who made a business of producing wine.
bobclive 
15 February 2008 at 15:26
Mark Lynas Says: 
9 March 2007 at 4:45 AM at realclimate. 
The figures showing a strong correlation between low cloudiness and GCRs was also the high-point of a television climate-denier polemic shown last night on Channel 4 here in the UK, entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle. Made [characterisation removed] Martin Durkin, whose previous anti-environmental film on genetic engineering got the broadcaster into trouble with television regulators (contributors had been edited to make their statements misleading, amongst other things - it had to make a prime-time on-air apology), it featured repeated contributions from all the usual deniers - Lindzen, Singer, Stott etc. There was no attempt at balance at all - only the climate-sceptic view was presented, and GCRs were the crux of the supposedly scientific attempt to show that CO2 is irrelevant in forcing climate change. 
Perhaps the weakest argument of all was the conspiracy theory - advanced particularly by Dick Lindzen - that pretty much all climate science nowadays is just chasing grants, and that the whole field is therefore distorted towards ‘alarmism’ by financial self-interest. That’s ironic, considering that the oil, coal and automotive industries, who one presumes have an interest in the climate denier case (hence all the well-established funding links) are hardly bit-players in the global political and economic scene… 
If you cannot rubbish the science rubbish the man, Lynus considers Gores documentary was balanced and not alarmist , that was not the view of the UK judge.
Peter Martin 
17 February 2008 at 08:10
Ron Mckeown, 
"Regarding your comments about wine and me - how on earth did you know that I have grape vines in my garden here in Derby and that I make wine from them?" 
No I didn't. I just looked up UK vineyards on the internet and noticed that grapes were grown as far North as York. York is not known for its mild climate! I can understand that the inhabitents of N Yorks would like a degree or two of GW. I spent a couple of years there in the mid 90s and remember playing cricket in light snow! I think it must have been April time. 
I would recommend that you study the behaviour of the water in the canals in the UK. Most of the time the water is still. But, when locks are in use you can see water flowing one way or another. You are quite wrong to say that you need 8 inches of height difference per mile to make water flow. The tiniest of differences will do, but the bigger the difference the faster the flow. The curvature of the Earth argument is a Furphy. 
There is just no way that the water flow in the River Derwent , near Derby, can have been affected by changes in sea levels, at least for the last 2000 years. If you can find any scientific evidence at all to suggest otherwise I'd be interested to see it.
Pat T 
18 February 2008 at 21:39
Ron the evidence of warmer MWP climate is precisely the reason why the climate history included a warmer MWP from the time it happened until 1998. 
The evidence ranges from higher tree lines in mountain ranges from the Sierra Nevadas to the Alps, to glacial retreat revealing archaeological finds, to the great droughts that ultimately, in 1270, caused the Anasazi culture to disband, to the Viking dairy farms in Greenland, to vineyards in England, to crop yields all over the globe. 
These are dismissed in favor of cherry picked "proxy" data by AGW theorists - dismissed as "regional anecdotes" - - - but what is the global climate if not the sum of the regional climates????
Pat T 
18 February 2008 at 22:00
Bottom line, global warming is over. The cycle has turned - it had to at some point. 
link 
link 2 
We can never be sure of what the weather will bring. 
But what we can be sure of is (1) the likelihood that this change in the cycle would soon occur is the entire reason why the AGW proponents spent the last few years insisting that "we have to act now, we can't afford to wait for proof," and (2) if they'd been empowered to limit our lifestyles 10 years ago, and had imposed their limits, they'd not only be admitting the stall in the warming and, now, the beginning of cooling - they'd be taking credit for it. 
Instead they are reduced to making silly statements such as that warming causes cooling: 
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/02/13/headli...
Pat T 
18 February 2008 at 23:54
I wonder if the record cold winter in China is also caused by, and proof of, global warming. 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080218/wl_asia_afp/chinaweathe... 
The global warming issue will change everything - the weather is not cooperating with the alarmists' predictions of doom and gloom, death by heat, and people are starting to jump off the bandwagon. 
And they've probably done the cause of true environmentalism more harm than good - once this global warming scare blows up in their faces, it will be at least a generation before anyone believes any environmental "crisis" real or imagined.
Peter Martin 
19 February 2008 at 01:12
Pat T, 
The temperatures in China have been as very low recently. We'd have to have 20 degrees or so of global warming to make the difference between rain and snow and no-one is suggesting that the problem is that bad or is ever likely to be. 
The evidence that the MWP period is warmer than today's temperatures is pretty thin. 
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century". 
Wiki also report " During the MWP wine grapes were grown in Europe as far north as southern Britain" . Today they are grown, commercially, near York which is much further north and is not usually classified as "Southern Britain" . Palm trees grow well in Scotland at a latitude which is the same as Hudson's Bay. 
http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/plockton/plockton/inde... 
The climate of Northern Europe, Iceland and Greenland is heavily influenced by the Atlantic current known as the Gulf Stream. The MWP and the following "little ice age" could have been caused by variations in this current. Solar activity , or lack of it in that sunspots were noted to be less common in the little ice age, is another possibility. What we can say with certainty is that they were not caused by CO2 variability.
Pat T 
19 February 2008 at 14:04
Peter no, the MWP was prior to Mann the universally accepted climate history. The evidence is direct - from higher tree lines in mountain ranges around the world to crop yields to plant and animal species growing where they don't grow today because it's still too cold to archaeological finds yielded by retreating glaciers. 
Once you pull bristlecone pine tree rings - which are bad temperature proxies for a number of reasons - out of proxy models, an MWP shows up. Some proxy models show a warmer MWP, and some show the late 20th century to be a few tenths of a degree above the MWP temperatures - even by those models we had sustained temps at 2007-2008 levels for a few centuries. 
But why the widths of tree rings in a tree that grows now where it grew during the MWP outweighs the fact that around the world, trees and other plants and animals thrived where it is too cold for them to survive today is a mystery to me.
Pat T 
19 February 2008 at 14:04
Links re: MWP: 
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1505/features/lia.htm 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=675 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=585 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=704 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=881 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1165 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=693 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=121 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=8&paged=2 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=746 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=767 
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Seager_e... 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1231326... 
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba450/
Pat T 
19 February 2008 at 14:45
You might notice the evidence is not limited in any way shape or form to the "North Atlantic." For example, higher tree lines in the Sierra Nevada and severe drought in what is now the American Southwest, forcing the Anasazi culture to disintegrate, were clearly not the function of a shift in Atlantic Ocean currents! Nor, obviously, were severe droughts in Kenya..... 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=121 
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf
Pat T 
19 February 2008 at 14:55
Problems with Hockey Stick: 
http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf 
You need to understand that pre-Mann, there was literally no debate as to the climate history - even the IPCC's TARs included the standard climate history including a warmer MWP and cooler LIA. This was the history going back to - well, back to when they occurred. 
This was neither a "mere best guess" of a scientific field in its infancy nor a grasp made after the fact by James Inhofe based on limited "Norse seafaring records" - it was the universally-accepted climate history for hundreds of years until a Ph.D. candidate came up with a model that shifted the emphasis onto certain proxy data over other proxy data to smooth out the MWP and LIA. 
The evidence for the MWP and LIA are dismissed as "regional anecdotes" but they cover almost every region on the planet and the "anecdotes" cover multi-century periods. 
What is the global climate if not the sum of the long-term weather patterns for the regions of which the globe is comprised?
Brute 
20 February 2008 at 02:39
I think the record cold temperatures need to be reported also................. 
Antarctica Ice Cap Growth Reaches Record High Levels (Photos) 
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap... 
Record Cold & Snow Blankets Acropolis in Greece 
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-record-cold-... 
TURKEY'S SNOWIEST WINTER IN DECADES CONTINUES 
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/02/turkeys-snowiest-w... 
Almost 1,000 dead from cold snap in Afghanistan: official 
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/238026.asp 
China Suffers Coldest Winter in 100 Years 
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-china-suffer... 
2007 warmest year on record? Coldest in this century 
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/2007-warmest-year-on-recor... 
HadCRUT3: Jan 2008 coldest since Feb 1994 
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/02/hadcrut3-jan-2008-coldest-... 
Near-record cold chills Interior Alaska 
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/feb/06/brrrrr-near-record... 
CO2 Levels continue to rise and yet………………………….. 
GLOBAL WARMING? IT’S THE COLDEST WINTER IN DECADES 
ICE-AGE: Frost coated much of Britain yesterday 
Monday February 18,2008 
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/35266/Global-warming-It-... 
Are We on the Brink of a 'New Little Ice Age?' 
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046
Peter Martin 
20 February 2008 at 03:50
Pat, Brute, Robin, Alex, Bob Clive, Staragazer, JZ Smith, Sven and others, 
As you are all so interested in Climate Science, have you ever thought of going into the 'Lions Den', and signing on for a course? Similar to this one maybe : 
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/env/msc/ 
If I were in charge of a big coal or energy company I'd be sponsoring bright guys to go into climate science to find the flaws in the science that you all claim are so obvious. So its always worth asking. A few thousand dollars is nothing to them. 
You're never going to get anywhere with anecdotal lists of frosts here , snowfalls there etc. If you are going to nail these 'climate change fraudsters', you are going to have to get involved in the science in a serious way to be able to establish the true situation.
Sven 
20 February 2008 at 06:55
Peter Martin, 
with a little bit of patience we can "establish the true situation" from here: 
link 
This is not a theory or a model, but hard data. It does not have an agenda. Though it does not look like that right now, but IF this stopping or cooling turns out to be just a blip and warming will continue vociferously, I'll accept that. If it will not, I'm afraid you will not! And Gore will not, and Lynas will not and Hansen will not.
stargazer 
20 February 2008 at 08:49
Peter thank you for the thought. 
But as I have said before I already know the AGW theory and I agree (mostly) with the physics of it. 
However as I have also said before... 
I started researching this subject some 20 years ago and at this time I was a fence sitter, and wanted to know 
what was going on for my own satisfaction...well it took most of those 20 years to get off the fence. Because 
though I agree that we have done our bit C02-wise just like you say. I do not agree with all the rest of the mumbo 
jumbo such as removing the MWP and LIA and the optimum, But mostly.The fact that the roll of Sun is played down by AWG. 
And I say again it does play a roll EVEN IF the linking mechanism for that roll had not been found.......
Brute 
20 February 2008 at 14:05
Mr. Martin, 
The list of people who disagree with you is getting longer and longer. Also, I do step into “The Lion’s Den” every workday. 
I believe the original "theory" went something like this: 
Increased atmospheric CO2 levels produced by mankind, (industrialization), will in turn produce higher global temperatures. Therefore……….Higher global temperatures will cause more intense hurricanes, (hasn't happened), a permanant rise in sea levels due to Artic and Antarctic ice melt, (none of which are happening), polar bears will drown, (not happening), Greenland ice sheet will melt and disappear forever, (its getting thicker and more extensive). None of these Alarmist prognostications have born fruit in spite of a rise in CO2 levels or the fact that I use incandescent light bulbs and drive a particular type of vehicle. 
What is happening is that global temperatures have leveled, (and dropped), since 1998 and record cold temperatures are being recorded in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres as would be expected by any reasonable person; (a cyclical, natural variation of global temperatures). 
Summers are generally warm; winters are generally cold. Some winters are colder than others; some summers are warmer than others; nothing “unusual” or “catastrophic” about it.
Brute 
20 February 2008 at 14:15
Bull-Headed Greens 
Global-warming foes fight global-warming cures. 
By Deroy Murdock 
If Al Gore is right and global warming is genuine, grave, and the fault of mankind, why do he and so many environmentalists oppose measures that would reduce those pesky carbon-dioxide emissions? Power sources that could cut atmospheric CO2 rarely seem good enough to satisfy the greens. 
Unlike oil and coal, nuclear power does not generate CO2. It may be the most practical, atmosphere-friendly power source now available. And yet the former vice president seems unimpressed. 
“I’m skeptical about it playing a much larger role,” he said in London’s Guardian newspaper last May 31. “I don’t think it’s going to be a silver bullet.” 
True, nuclear plants produce radioactive waste that must be stored somewhere. Despite an impressive safety record in America, where nuclear power meets 20 percent of energy demand — and even more so in France, where 75 percent of power is nuclear — the potential remains for catastrophic accidents or sabotage. But as Gore and his pals should understand, life involves trade-offs between low-risk options and clear-and-present dangers. If global warming truly is the unfolding horror show that environmentalists say it is, then why do they consider atomic energy even more dangerous? 
Indeed, Competitive Enterprise Institute scholar Chris Horner wonders why environmentalists reject alternatives to fossil fuels if they agree with Sir David King, British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s science adviser, that global warming is “the greatest threat facing mankind” and is “worse than terrorism.” 
“It is hypocritical that Kyotophile greens almost unanimously still oppose nuclear power and that [the Kyoto treaty’s] own terms exclude greenhouse-gas-free nukes from its permissible sources of gaining ‘credits,’” Horner writes in his forthcoming Regnery book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. 
Green groups are almost comically conflicted on this issue. “Climate change is the greatest threat of all,” Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth U.K. told the Guardian last March 3. But then FOE’s website declares: “Nuclear power…cannot be part of the solution to climate change.” So, apparently, some threats are greater than “the greatest threat of all.” 
Greenpeace executive director Stephen Tindale believes that global warming “will claim hundreds of thousands of lives.” Nevertheless, the group’s website says, “Greenpeace is campaigning to end nuclear power.” 
How about hydroelectric? Letting water run through dams, spin turbines, and generate juice is carbon friendly. And yet environmentalists want fewer, not more, dams. The latest ecological craze is to breach dams so fish can swim freely. PacificCorp began re-licensing hearings in San Francisco on August 21 that could prompt their demolition of power-generating dams on the Klamath River to give salmon a fin up. 
Well, what of wind power? Here, too, liberals offer double talk. A proposed 130-turbine wind farm off Cape Cod blew into a buzz saw when global-warming foe Sen. Ted Kennedy moaned that it would ruin the ocean view from his Hyannis Port compound. 
Amazingly enough, tree huggers even object to using trees to absorb CO2. Naturally, trees inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen. What could be more benign than that? 
Yet, after pondering the idea of planting tree farms to consume CO2, eco-crats balked. In November 2000, United Nations and European Union officials involved in the Kyoto treaty process said such tree farms would “destroy the environmental integrity of the agreement.” At negotiations in Milan in December 2003, Horner writes, “those expressing the greatest fear of increased carbon dioxide concentrations quirkishly demanded a limit on what kind of trees be permitted to soak up the menacing precursor of photosynthesis as part of its cruel infliction of more and more oxygen on the unsuspecting planet.” 
At the November 2002 World Environment Summit in Johannesburg, Friends of the Earth International and the World Rainforest Movement issued a news release that insisted: “Genetically modified trees must be banned from the Kyoto Protocol.” Thus, even crossbreeding trees so that they neutralize more CO2 than usual, is apparently scarier than global warming itself. 
Environmentalists seem to think conservation, ethanol, and perhaps attractive-but-costly solar power can halt global warming in its tracks. That’s dubious. If this supposed problem truly is the imminent planetary death sentence that global warmers say it is, they should grow up and fight CO2, not the tools to lasso it.
taghioff.info 
20 February 2008 at 15:45
Hi Brute 
No, you make too many assumptions. 
I am working with a local Indian NGO network looking at how they can mobilise local government funds, via advocacy work, to guarantee rural employment as food prices rise and entitlements from agriculture are damaged from unpredictable weather. 
BTW, just in case you give a damn, the FAO is reporting the lowest level of grain reserves in 25 years, and predict ongoing pressure on food prices. 
So tell us all about your social action. Does it have anything to do with personal hygiene?
Brute 
20 February 2008 at 16:36
Mr. taghioff.info 
Ironically, my Firm designs, builds and operates buildings in an effort to achieve LEEDS standards, (amongst other things)………...
Alex 
20 February 2008 at 22:24
I've only just joined this forum, and have found it both informative and at times very entertaining. I'd like to chip in with a couple of observations that appear not to have been made yet. 
Firstly, there is a source of CO2 that has so far been overlooked - people. Someone earlier mentioned that the world's population was about 6 billion (6.5 according to one Feb 2006 survey). On average we exhale CO2 every day to the tune of 450 litres. That equates to about 900 grammes which in turn gives 330 tons per year. This gives us about 2 billion tons of CO2 per year generated simply by us being alive. How does that compare with, say 100 years ago? World population then was about 1.6 billion. In 1750 it was only about 0.8 billion. In other words, over the last 250 or so years, world population has increased 8-fold and so therefore has CO2 production - by a massive 1.8 billion tons a year. If CO2 really is the problem, then perhaps there should be fewer people on the planet. Does anybody know of a quick easy way of reducing population? 
Secondly, another reason we have more CO2 in the atmosphere is because of exhaust gases from motor vehicles. Wouldn't it be great if we could fit something to our exhausts to make cars spew out something less noxious? But hold on..... didn't we fit catalytic converters to them? Wasn't that to make the air cleaner? Oh, yes, they convert certain products of combustion to that well known plant fertiliser CO2! Isn't that great! Less air pollution, less smog, relatively cleaner air, and some fertilizer to boot! Well if man-made CO2 is the greatest threat to life and indeed our whole planet, then why don't we just rip them out? How easy is that? What's more, the resultant extra filth in the exhaust fumes will go some way to positively cooling the planet too (particulates reflecting heat etc etc). So we might cough and choke a bit more - isn't that a small price to pay to save the planet, and mankind from extinction? And before anyone says I'm being ridiculous, either CO2 warming is the greatest catastrophe facing mankind, or it isn't. If you're not prepared to ditch your catalytic converter to avoid disaster, then things can't be that bad can they? 
Finally, I'd like to refer to the comment that "99% of scientists can't be wrong." Oh yes they can. I'll give you just one glaring and shameful example. Eugene Parker. In 1958 he put forward his theory of "solar wind" and was met with derision and ridicule by the entire scientific community. Every one of them - even his friends - told him he was wrong. His work life suffered, his home life suffered, his friends told him to give up his crazy notions for the sake of his family, which was suffering ridicule in turn. Everybody was laughing at him. This went on for years. Lesser men would have yielded and broken, but not Eugene Parker. He was convinced of his theory, simply because he OBSERVED, and current thinking did not match his observations or explain what he saw. Just as current man-made global warming theory does not explain or match much of anything. It took years, but eventually Parker was proved absolutely right. I like to think that at that point his former detractors were so wracked with guilt that they crawled into holes, covered themselves up and never emerged into daylight again. Just because a bunch of scientists apparently agree on something, doesn't make them right. 
As for Mark Lynas whose article kicked all this off, I bought his book today "6 degrees". He started his article by saying that "....Whitehouse made an elementary error...." Well how about this: on page xix (this is the Introduction, not even Chapter 1 page 1) he confidently tells the reader ".... concentrations of THE PRINCIPAL GREENHOUSE GAS, CO2...." Not water vapour then? "....temperatures are expected to RISE EVEN FASTER AS CO2 LEVELS RISE..." I haven't even got to chapter 1 and it's already drivel. I will work my way through it, but it might take awhile - I can't see me being able to stomach more than a page at a time. And he had the audacity to throw a pie into Bjorn Lomborg's face!? I'll stop there because I've got to go and lie down now...
bobclive 
20 February 2008 at 23:39
Alex, you should have purchased (The Chilling Stars ) 
Try these links, 
link 1 
link 2 
I have for a long time been looking for a presentation which also contains real scientific data from any climatology scientists that are advocating the established global warming catastrophic scenario. 
I have found that most information is based on spin and on claims which lack real scientific substance. 
It has now become a believe system You believe in it, you can't question the theory and you must accept it as fact. 
I was therefore pleasantly surprised when I for once found a lecture held by an anthropogenic devoted climatologist which showed real scientific data. This lecture was held by Noel Harris Ph.D. and was called "Changing Clouds in a Changing Climate". This is about one hour long. 
This lecture deals with one of the most important aspect that is needed in order to understand to which degree changes in greenhouse gases affects the climate. Water vapour and clouds are the most important players relating to the greenhouse effect. 
link 
The cloud mystery & cosmic rays, this is a documentary by Svensmark in 6 parts, all the parts are available at utube, link is 
link 
Lockwood has tried to rubbish Svensmark, here is Svensmarks reply. 
Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in ... 
link 
bobclive 
21 February 2008 at 00:14
In this weeks New Statesman it states Lynas is turning his book into a documentary, that should be a brain numbing experience. 
I didn`t buy the mag, just read it in W.H.Smiths.
taghioff.info 
21 February 2008 at 04:50
Et tu Brutus? 
This is what LEEDS standards are, in case anyone is following this: 
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19 
OK, its nice to know you care.
Peter Martin 
21 February 2008 at 07:56
Brute, 
"If global warming truly is the unfolding horror show that environmentalists say it is, then why do they consider atomic energy even more dangerous?" 
This is a very good question. One of the best you've ever asked! 
The best solution lies in having a mix of everything. Solar, wind, CO2 sequestion from coal, and other fossil fuel, burning power stations, hydroelectric, geothermal and yes, nuclear power. I have previously posted link to of 'green' groups which do support the idea of nuclear power but they are very much in the minority. 
I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'green' and 'environmental' in the political sense. It can be either a progressive or, if it holds back human development and creates poverty, then it can be considered to be very reactionary, So I would argue that any truly green solution has to be progressive in every sense of the word. 
The opposition to nuclear reactors is partly based on ignorance, but mainly because the original motivation for their construction was very much more to do with producing weapons grade Uranium and Plutonium than electricity. The Iranians are now widely disbelieved over their stated peaceful motivations for their nuclear program, and it should be understood that it is because the governments of the USSR, UK, USA and France all told the same story, somewhat untruthfully, in the in the fifties and sixties! After the Chernobyl disaster in 1982 most western countries had enough fissile material stockpiled and were happy to go along with the general mood of the times that nuclear power should be phased out or scaled down. 
This time however I do believe that more nuclear power stations will be constructed for the genuine reason of electricity production. Convincing all the doubters will be difficult but then you don't have to convince everyone in a democracy. 51% will do. Maybe Al Gore won't agree with that statement :-) 
As you rightly say, no energy source is totally risk free, or environmentally neutral. Not even wind or solar. However, you don't read stories in the paper of miners being killed in Uranium mines, and Chernobyl aside, the record of the nuclear industry, in regard to electricity production, an other peaceful purposes, is very good indeed.
stargazer 
21 February 2008 at 08:23
Alex said 
"Does anybody know of a quick easy way of reducing population? " 
Yes... just wait for the 'maunder' style LIA that I am sure is comming....
Sven 
21 February 2008 at 09:40
"...Chernobyl disaster in 1982..." 1982??? Sorry, not relevant, but could not help it...
Peter Martin 
21 February 2008 at 10:26
Yes, Sven, Sorry. I should have checked. The Chernobyl disaster was actually in 1986. 
It was a disaster in more ways that one, in that it set back the development of peaceful nuclear power and other peaceful uses of nuclear reactors in a big way giving everything with a "nuclear" prefix a bad name. 
For instance, Greenpeace recently broke into an Australian nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. 
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s443080.htm 
It was a pity that they didn't take the trouble to find out exactly went on there beforehand. The staff at the reactor are very much involved in the analysis of ice core contents which gives invaluable information of the earth's climate history. Furthermore, the protestors may, at some stage in their lives, have need of the radio-pharmaceutical products which are produced there. See: http://www.ansto.gov.au/
Brute 
21 February 2008 at 16:20
taghioff.info, 
Just for the record, my involvement with LEEDS has nothing to do with lowering CO2 emissions in an “altruistic crusade to stop global warming” or climate change; it’s about dollars and sense, (cents); although decreased CO2 emissions may be a byproduct or secondary benefit (in the kooky Eco-chondriac world). As you may have observed from my posts; I believe global warming or climate change caused by mankind in a crock. 
My business is Mechanical Engineering; squeezing every British thermal unit or Foot Candle from every watt of electricity, gallon of oil or therm of natural gas is what we do. Energy prices have sky-rocketed primarily due to excessive government, (environmentalist) over-regulation and increased taxes. Proving energy efficient climate controlled office space results in lowers operating costs and makes the product more appealing than others. I’m in it for the money, (it interests me and I'm good at it). 
People such as Mr. Lynas and Mr. Gore may use my statement to argue that increased energy taxes and over-regulation are proof that their policies are working….forcing companies to “go green”. The reality is that companies are downsizing to accommodate the higher costs of energy or relocating to countries, (moving to South America, Africa or China), where labor and energy is less expensive to offset the higher taxation and energy costs. Also, China does not have emission control policies and would not be required to adhere to them under Kyoto. 
This means fewer jobs and less reinvestment into companies for expansion, (therefore creating more jobs and on and on. You know how it works).
Brute 
21 February 2008 at 21:23
Mr. Martin, 
The article that you posted; "Greenpeace raid on Australian nuclear reactor", is terrifying! What kind of security do you guys have going on there in Australia??????These nuts (yes NUTS) dressed up in nuclear waste barrel costumes and simply walked through the front gate? Unbelievable!
climatecheck 
23 February 2008 at 22:52
Mr Whitehouse raised some very pertinent points and wrote a good article. There is an increasing number of prominent scientists that share his views that there are strong doubts that the small amount of global warming since pre-industrial times is mainly caused by man. Remember that we were told that global cooling in the 1970s was caused by man. Much more investigation is needed on the effect of solar activity which has a much better fit with global temperatures than CO2. I await with interest the results of the cloud forming experiments at CERN. 
Nigel Worthington http://www.climatecheck.org
Pat T 
24 February 2008 at 22:47
Peter, most "green" groups are against nuclear because this isn't, and never was, about CO2 for them - these are groups that have opposed so-called "consumerism" for countless reasons for decades. 
Nothing short of everyone being forced to live their proposed lifestyles will satisfy them. 
What this debate is about isn't the earth, isn't climate, isn't the air quality or sea levels - it is freedom. 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df106... 
But ho, it looks like they'll need a new excuse to limit that freedom, but pretty soon! 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/arctic-sea-i...
Peter Martin 
24 February 2008 at 23:22
Pat T, 
I can't speak for any 'green' group. I'm not sure what percentage support they have in the USA but here in Australia they get about 10% of the primary vote. I agree with much of what they say, on protection of the environment generally, but I disagree with them on the nuclear issue. 
Of course, we'll need to involve everyone else, the other 90%, in the solution. They may not be quite so opposed. However even the most anti-green person gets a bit twitchy when it is suggested that a nuclear power plant may be headed for their locality so there is still quite a bit of work to do in presenting the argument. 
Personally, I'd much prefer to live close to a nuclear power plant than a coal fired one. They don't emit quite so much radiation!
Peter Martin 
25 February 2008 at 05:40
Brute, 
I mistakenly posted to the other thread (Has Global warming Stopped?) on this one. 
"Lindzen is one of over 100 prominent scientists" Lindzen is in the pay of the energy corporations! 
Specifically Exxon-Mobile. But before you accuse me of being anti big business, I should say that BP and Shell, and I'm not saying they are perfect, are more enlightened in their approach and are trying to work with the science rather than fight against it.
Brute 
25 February 2008 at 11:03
Right.........Every scientist is "in the pay" of someone else. Governments are in the "business" of collecting and finding reasons to collect taxes. How do you feel about the "certainty" of weapons of mass distruction in Iraq prior to the invasion? 
Science is Broken 
http://www.nov55.com/index.html
Brute 
25 February 2008 at 13:54
Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back 
link 
Peter Martin 
26 February 2008 at 00:02
On the question of what is the 'ideal" world temperature, I would suggest using a figure of +/-0.25 deg C from the 1940 to 1980 mean. This means that we need to reduce world temperatures by at least 0.15 deg C. 
However, it might be argued we are setting a target over which we have insufficient control. For instance, solar irradiance does play a part in determining world temperatures and although this has been steady since 1940, it could possibly change in the future. 
So, what do we have direct, or at least better, control of? I would suggest CO2 levels. We could set these to be no higher than 330ppm. Similarly we could set levels for all other gaseous emittants such as S02 , methane etc. The democratic countries of the world could take a lead in all working together to meet these targets. 
Is this the sort of approach that the contrarians, as the good democrats, or even rupublicans :-) , they are, could accept? We wouldn't have to argue whether or not CO2 was a pollutant or caused global warming etc. We'd just work together to actually produce the sort of atmosphere people want. 
This way would be consistent with how the law has changed in many countries over issues like smoking in pubs and restaurants. In the past, the freedom of the individual, the smoker, to do as they pleased was given priority. The new thinking is that the right of everyone to have best air quality possible is paramount.
Peter Martin 
26 February 2008 at 01:01
Brute, 
Brute, 
Your last link was interesting in that it just goes to show that there are a large number of 'crackpots' out there. 
Besides not agreeing with global warming theories he takes it upon himself to disagree with Einstein too. Either the author of the website, Gary Novak, is the world's greatest genius, (I don't think so!) and a master of all branches of science (Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Medicine etc etc) or an arrogant idiot! ( I do think so) 
So, more of these sort of links, please!
Brute 
26 February 2008 at 18:02
Mr. Martin, 
You’d like a link? Here’s a link. I’ll tell you what; when Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barak O’Bama, Barbera Streisand, John Travolta and the rest of the blowhards give up their private jets, 40 room mansions, air conditioned horse barns and limousines, I’ll ride a bicycle to work as they’ve lectured for me to do to “save the planet”. Fair Enough? 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1904847/posts 
Live Earth: Hollywood hypocrisy? 
Hollywood loves to play the role of activist. Maybe one day they will stop acting. 
"The likes of Madonna and Red Hot Chili Peppers will perform at Live Earth at Wembley Stadium on July 7, yet campaigners say they are among the least "green" individuals on the planet" (DailyMail). 
Please stop. Instead, use your millions to make a difference, to build a difference. Adding a couple of hybrid cars to your collection of limos, Maybachs, and RangerRovers while buying a few carbon credits is not nearly enough for wealthy stars. And singing about global warming is definitely not enough. You need to do much more, especially much more than talk about global warming - publicity hounds! 
Al Gore has been speaking and writing about global warming for decades, yet he STILL lives in an environmentally-unfriendly mansion. If Al Gore and Hollywood care so much about the environment they could easily afford to build eco-friendly houses that exist completely off the electric grid. Instead, they choose mansions and lecture to the powerless claiming 'blame the corporations'. 
Fine. I'll blame the corporations, but I'll blame you just as well. Besides, you are the mouthpieces of corporations, right?
Cassandra 
27 February 2008 at 23:43
I could not believe that an author would so blatantly lie about another NewStateman article. Half the change of the climate happens within 10 years. So if the climate has been stable or falling for a period of 10 years it is highly significant. 
I don't know what noddy school of science this author went to but he seems to think "climb-it" is a definition.
Peter Martin 
28 February 2008 at 00:43
Cassandra, 
Maybe you could enlighten us on your scientific background but I would suggest that even Noddy would hesistate to come to any scientific conclusion on the basis of 7 data points. It was the last 7 years in David Whitehouse's article not 10 years. 
If you do go back 10 years, taking the average of the last two , 2007 and 2006 , compare them with 1997 and 1996 you do get an increase of temperature of 0.17deg. This is , as it happens, the average rate of increase per decade over the last 30 years. Two years is too short a period over which to average so I would urge you to look at NASAs 5 year averages for a truer picture. They don't show any signs of a temperature downturn either.
harmlesssky.org 
28 February 2008 at 01:24
David Whitehouse's article has attracted over 1000 comments and Mark Lynas less than 500. The vast majority are skeptical. 
I wonder what your editor is thinking about at the moment Mark?
Peter Martin 
28 February 2008 at 02:50
harmlesssky.org, 
You are probably right that the majority of the respondents to David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas articles are sceptics. 
They of the opinion that global warming is a hoax, and Al Gore lives in a mansion so its all his fault, and that if it was happening it has now stopped, or if hasn't stopped then its all due to Cosmic rays, or if it hasn't stopped and its not due to Cosmic rays then its not such a bad thing anyway, after all those dinosaurs did just fine in a warm climate for millions of years until the asteroid hit, and its definitely not caused by increased CO2 levels, but the next ice age may be coming and maybe CO2 does increase the global temperature so we've all got to burn more fossil fuels to avert that. 
The power of persuasive reasoned argument!
harmlesssky.org 
28 February 2008 at 10:02
Peter Martin 
There is no question about the distribution of sceptical comments: count a few random samples of 10. 
Not only do catastrophists seem to believe that they have acquired the gift of prophecy – foretelling the future up to the end of this century at least – but you seem to think that you can read minds as well. I hold none of the views you attribute to me. 
If you want to know what kind of evidence informs my scepticism see here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=47 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=53 
Climate science has become so contaminated by politics that it is no longer possible for anyone - whether scientist or layperson – to distinguish fact from fiction. It is reassuring that a majority of readers of this magazine seem to have retained a rational and cautious scepticism in the face of hysteria.
Peter Martin 
28 February 2008 at 12:06
Harmlesssky.org, 
You seem to be motivated by opposition to wind farms, right? As it happens I agree with you. Wind energy has its place. For example, it can be useful for small islands with low populations which are not connected to an external electricity supply but they are not the answer generally. 
However it does not follow that you need to try to deny what all the science is telling us about the problem of global warming if you wish to oppose the concept of large scale wind farms. 
Denmark can supply 70% of its energy from wind turbines. But, of course, only when the wind blows! When it stops it imports it from Germany who in turn imports it from France. 
Neither is burning coal in ever increasing quantities the answer. Coal contains many impurities. It contains very small quantities of Uranium and Thorium , both dangerously radioactive. They may be small quantities but on the other hand there is a lot of coal burnt. The world-wide use of coal is about 7 billion tonnes. When this coal is burnt, over 8 thousand tonnes of uranium and 20 thousand tonnes of thorium are released into the biosphere, every year. 
These sort of energy sources are a much better and cleaner option. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizewell_B_nuclear_power_statio...
harmlesssky.org 
28 February 2008 at 12:57
Peter: 
I don’t have a ‘motive’. And why is it that so many challenges to contrarians depend on attributing a ‘motive’ to their scepticism. You do not need a motive to be sceptical; it is a position you arrive at by considering evidence. 
Wind farms are the most visible evidence of climate change in our landscape. Like the majority of commenters on this, and the David Whitehouse tread, I am unconvinced by the evidence for anthropogenic global warming, so it follows that I think that building them is a pretty stupid thing to do. 
So far as the Danish situation is concerned, you might like to look here: 
http://www.countryguardian.net/vmason.htm 
Things are not always quite what they appear to be. The main benefit derived form wind generation by Denmark is selling turbines to other countries that have yet to discover their shortcomings or whose governments wish to use them to promote their green credentials. 
TonyN
Peter Martin 
28 February 2008 at 13:02
Who says that all environmentalists are against nuclear energy? 
http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm
Peter Martin 
28 February 2008 at 13:46
Harmless.sky, 
OK, so you've delved and read through all the scientific literature and you've found shortcomings and you've worked out where the climate experts have made their mistakes? You might like to enlighten us all sometime. The usual level of opposition is pretty woeful on this forum. Just plain wrong stuff about volcanoes emitting more CO2 than humans or simple minded arguments like polar bears increasing in numbers, 'they' predicted global cooling in the 60's, warmer weather would be a good thing etc etc 
Most of the opposition to the idea of global warming comes from those, usually with a neo-con political motivation, rather than a genuine disagreement with the science, which they don't really understand anyway. 
Of course, neither does the average non neo-con. But they tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Neo-cons defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.
harmlesssky.org 
28 February 2008 at 14:41
Peter: 
Perhaps I’m a sceptic partly because I’m not convinced by arguments that rely on sarcasm, straw men, dogma and ad hominem attacks. They make me wonder why substantive arguments are not being used instead. 
If you really want to know what I think, rather than just trying to slot me into some convenient category, try looking here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=5 
I’ve explained it as well as I can.
Brute 
28 February 2008 at 14:51
harmlesssky.org, 
Thank you for the links; well written and to the point.
harmlesssky.org 
28 February 2008 at 15:10
Brute: 
Thank you! You will be a welcome visitor any time.
Peter Martin 
29 February 2008 at 00:24
"They make me wonder why substantive arguments are not being used instead. " 
All the arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming have been substantiated. If you need anything in particular let me know and I will try substantiate it or at least give you a reference to someone who can. If you can find a genuine flaw, you might even become famous. 
The problem is that most of the opposition is political rather than scientific. The contrarians don't understand the science so they can't really disagree with it. Instead they claim it is a hoax or a "UN or new world order " conspiracy. It a waste of time trying to be be rational with these fruit-cakes and they deserve all the ridicule and sarcasm they get! 
For instance , according to them, CO2 has some rather special properties. When world temperatures are rising it does not , in any way shape or form, have any affect. It is completely incidental, or co-incidental, that CO2 levels and world temperatures rise together. Some go as far as to say that the reason CO2 levels are rising is precisely because they are being driven by rising temperatures caused by Cosmic rays. 
However, when, or if, world temperatures fall the properties of CO2 magically change. Add the possibility of a new ice age into the argument and then we've all got to do our patriotic duty to the world and burn as much oil and coal as we can afford to avert a global freeze up!
Peter Martin 
29 February 2008 at 01:59
Harmlesssky.org 
"Thank you! You will be a welcome visitor any time." 
I'm sure Brute will agree that its a very gracious comment by "mine host" 
What about us Aussies then? Or are you still sore about that 5-0 thrashing in the last cricket test ? :-)
Robin Guenier 
29 February 2008 at 09:42
Peter: I see that, despite the comments about the harm they do to your credibility, you're still reverting to your comfort zone of the straw man argument. Please name the "fruit cakes" who are contributing to these threads.
Peter Martin 
29 February 2008 at 10:18
Robin, 
Well, if it's worrying you, I should say that I wouldn't include you in the " its all a hoax and conspiracy perpetrated by a coalition of the UN, New World Order, Hollywood liberals, Democrat politicians, communists, environmental nutters, ( sorry if I've missed out anyone) in order to raise taxes and weaken the American, or maybe even British or Australian, way of life". They know who they are though ! There are still plenty of guns reached for when the word 'intellectual' is mentioned. 
I'm not sure about where you stand exactly. You did seem to be somewhere in the middle to start with but rapidly moved towards the contrarian camp. I suspect that was your true position all along. Even if you did think I was a bit unkind to poke fun at your "arrows in the air" argument you'd be silly to let that change your opinion of the science.
Robin Guenier 
29 February 2008 at 11:33
OK Peter - simply name the contributors who are, in your view, "fruit cakes". Should be easy enough. 
(PS: as usual, you missed the point of my arrows in the air illustration.)
Brute 
29 February 2008 at 21:26
China announces airport-building spree 
Saturday, January 26, 2008 
China said it would spend over 60 billion dollars to build 97 new airports by 2020 as it seeks to meet soaring demand from freight and passenger traffic. 
Mr. Martin, 
Maybe the environmentalists should chain themselves to a tree in the area of one of these proposed airports....see how much influence they have. 
-Fruitcake
Peter Martin 
01 March 2008 at 02:06
Robin, 
There is a saying of "no names-no packdrill", which I must admit, I've never fully understood, but it is usually trotted out when people do ask that names should be named. 
Brute has already volunteered, I see. I would reserve the term "fruitcake" for all those who genuinely think that there is some form of international conspiracy or hoax being perpetrated. 
All I can say is, that if there is one I'm not in on it. But, if there is someone from the conspiracy who is reading this , I'd like to ask them if I can join. If I'm accepted, can I put in a claim for backpay for time spent composing these postings?
Peter Martin 
01 March 2008 at 04:27
Brute, 
On the question of aircraft and airports building I'm not against it. And , even if I was there isn't much that I or anyone can do to stop it anyway. It's happening everywhere, not just in China. There is cuurently a dispute over the building of an extra runway in the UK for example. 
I'm sure that what you suggest is happening in China is likely to be repeated elsewhere in the world too and this underlines the importance of addressing the CO2 issue right now. So what can we do? I'd put these in order of priority and in inverse order of difficulty. Like anything else it makes sense to start with the easy tasks. 
1) We should work to make electricity generation as CO2 free as possible. Nuclear is the cleanest, safest proven method. But we'll probably have to have a bit of everything: CO2 sequestration in coal fired stations. Geothermal, solar, wind, wave and tidal powered electricity generation. 
2) Rail transport. Scrap all diesel, oil and coal powered locomotives. Replace them with electricity powered locos using electricity from low CO2 power stations. 
3) Road transport. Oil is running out, so we are going to have to address the issue of different energy sources anyway. More research is needed on the development of better batteries and the use of hydrogen for a replacement fuel for petrol. Ideally the hydrogen will be produced by electrolysis from electricity generated by nuclear powered stations. Nuclear power works best when it produces the same power continuously. One of the problems for all electricity suppliers is in meeting a variable demand. The large scale production of hydrogen from electricity can help solve this problem neatly. Hydrogen production need only use the "off peak" surplus. 
4) Water transport. I haven't read much about other energy sources for ships, except a return to sail, which isn't probably going to find too much favour among ship operators. Nuclear powered submarines and ships are nothing new of course, but we need to look at the safety implications again. Hydrogen powered ships? I'm not sure-maybe the smaller ones. That needs looking at. Coal fired turbine engines fitted with CO2 sequestration is another possibility, perhaps the most likely one. 
4) Air transport. Hydrogen powered aeroplanes are technically possible but they won't be ready any time soon. Biofuels are another option but I would suggest agriculture will be flat out meeting food requirements this century and should concentrate on that as a priority. If we keep our forests and oceons in good shape they will be able to absorb larger quantities of CO2. It is quite likely that aviation will be the primary emitter of CO2 by the end of this century but it will have to be carefully managed to ensure a balance between what is emitted and the earth's capability of absorption.
Robin Guenier 
01 March 2008 at 07:21
Name 'em Pete. I prefer the saying "put up or shut up".
Brute 
01 March 2008 at 15:06
Mr. Martin, 
All of your suggestions sound wonderful. How will all of that be financed?
Robin Guenier 
01 March 2008 at 18:33
Peter: you’re living in fantasyland. Two examples. (1) Over 90,000 increasingly powerful ships ply the oceans carrying 90 per cent of all world cargo (30,000 billion tonne-miles a year). (2) Concrete produces 900 kilos of CO2 for every tonne of the finished product, accounting for about 5% all human emissions. Trade by sea and concrete use are basic to economic growth. How, for example, would you persuade China to give up world trade and building development? What are your chances of getting them to go back to sailing ships and bamboo buildings? How long would it take? 
As I have said before: what’s your Plan B?
Peter Martin 
01 March 2008 at 21:35
No-one is saying that CO2 emissions have to be cut to zero, but it does have to be kept below a limit. 
Why should the Chinese or the Indians give up on their development? Any plan that doesn't recognise that the citizens of all countries have the same worth is doomed to failure from the start. 
Why should cost be a problem? The main obstacle to nuclear power stations, for example, isn't cost. It is public perception and the fear of radioactive pollutants. But, how many people know that coal fired power stations emit orders of magnitude more radioactivity than a nuclear powers station. If coal fired power stations had to meet the same radioactivity emission standards, let alone CO2 emission standards, as is required from nuclear, there would be none built at all. 
Neither does it all have to happen in the next 12 months. We should start at the top and work our way down the list over the next 25-50 years. The idea of a price on carbon is a good one and will be the economic driver for the necessary changes. It should be worldwide and comprehensive. It will mean that, when new power stations, ships, cars, locomotives, or whatever, are ordered, newer CO2 efficient designs will be naturally less expensive and so will be chosen instead of the older alternatives. 
Robin, 
Never mind my plan B. What's your plan A?
Robin Guenier 
01 March 2008 at 22:18
Peter: please stay with my two examples. How precisely do you think it would be possible to persuade a reluctant world to radically reduce its dependence on commercial shipping and its massive use of concrete? This isn't just about China but the whole world. Who do you suppose conceivably has the power and authority to achieve that astonishing global task within as little as fifty years, keeping in mind the need to “recognise that the citizens of all countries have the same worth” and the need to reduce all other human CO2 emissions at the same time? If the Bali conference couldn’t even agree on binding targets, why would your infinitely more ambitious proposal have even the remotest chance of success?
Brute 
01 March 2008 at 23:31
Mr. Martin, 
You wrote: 
"The idea of a price on carbon is a good one and will be the economic driver for the necessary changes." 
A carbon tax..........you can't even bring yourself to say it, (write it). That's an eloquent way of putting it I must say. 
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with Bull*#^%. 
Taxation: The cornerstone of all Liberal philosophy……..throw more of other peoples money at it! 
Are you sure that you've never been involved in politics? 
-Fruitcake
Peter Martin 
02 March 2008 at 03:57
Hi Brute, 
I didn't expect you to like the idea of a carbon tax :-). I'm not sure if tax is the right word for what is essentially a trade in emissions but we'll go with your term for now. 
The idea of a trade in emissions, of SO2 , was pioneered by the US government in the 1990 clean air act. See: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085 
It was spectacularly successful. So full marks to the US government on that one. The alternative to this sort of scheme is to have a Central Committee in some sort of Politburo, who will issue a 5 year plan for S02 reductions, and expect local plant managers to make it all happen. So you choose. Which method would you prefer? Which is more effective? 
It is interesting to speculate on what would happen if the US, and all the leading industrial nations, put a 10% carbon tax on crude oil. You might think that oil was expensive enough as it is, and you wouldn't want the price 10% higher. But would it be? 
If you taxed say , computers, at 10% then this 10% would be certainly reflected in an increased selling price. This is because the price of a computer is largely determined by its manufacturing and distribution cost. This is not the case with oil. The manufacturing cost of oil is perhaps $10 per barrel and the reason it sells for $110 per barrel is determined by the process of supply and demand. 
That supply and demand would, of course, be exactly the same with the 10% tax added and, so according to the laws of economics, the final price should be also exactly the same, but with the tax included. So instead of Mr Chavez, or the Saudi Royal family, receiving all of the $110, the US, and other governments, would at least get get $10 out of the sale of each barrel of oil. 
Would this be a bad thing?
Peter Martin 
02 March 2008 at 07:20
Robin, 
"How precisely do you think it would be possible to persuade a reluctant world to radically reduce its dependence on commercial shipping and its massive use of concrete?" 
We don't have to reduce either shipping or the use of concrete. What we do need to do is reduce the emission of CO2. 
In time, ships will be routinely fitted with CO2 sequestration systems. 
Concrete production involves heating limestone or Calcium Carbonate. Carbon Dioxide is given off and lime (Calcium Oxide remains). This Carbon Dioxide emitted can be sequestered. The heating process involves fossil fuel combustion. Again the CO2 can be sequestered from products of combustion. 
As concrete sets, and ages, it re-absorbs the CO2 that was given out in the manufacturing process. Therefore if you capture CO2 in the manufacturing stage efficiently, concrete will act as a CO2 sink over the course of its lifetime. 
Once a Global market in CO2 is established, concrete manufacturers will be able to certify their manufacturing process and sell CO2 credits in addition to selling the concrete (or cement) itself.
Brute 
03 March 2008 at 02:03
Mr. Martin, 
Oh my. Bless your heart. We already pay carbon taxes. I understand your concern, but you are tilting at windmills. Your solution is to impose a punitive fee on progress???? Counterproductive. Global warming is a canard. You are of the mindset that the problem, (anthropologic global warming), exists and that it can be solved by more taxation and bureaucracy. 
My personal household budget works like this; income vs. expenses. If my expenses outweigh my income I’m in financial trouble and I cannot continuously lobby my employer for more money to offset my fiscal irresponsibility, I must cut expenses. Government must be held to the same standard. 
State and Federal Treasuries "Profit" More from Gasoline Sales than U.S. Oil Industry 
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1139.html 
Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax, CDL license Tax, Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Excise Taxes, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel permit tax, Gasoline Tax (60 cents per gallon), Gross Receipts Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Interest expense Inventory tax, IRS Interest Charges, IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Liquor Tax, Luxury Taxes, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Personal Property Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, 
Service charge taxes, Social Security Tax, Road usage taxes, Sales Tax (6% on anything I purchase in my state), Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone federal excise tax, Telephone federal universal service fee tax, Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes, Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax, Telephone state and local tax, Telephone usage charge tax, Utility Taxes, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Vehicle Emissions Tax, Watercraft registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax……… just to name a few.
Peter Martin 
03 March 2008 at 05:35
Brute, 
This is all very political. If you think that your petrol is expensive! Its probably 30% dearer in Australia and you wouldn't want to know what it costs in the UK and the rest of Europe! I've not been there for a couple of years but I'd say UKP4.50 per gallon. 
As I'm tiring of pointing out, the Physics of the Earth's atmosphere operates quite independently of whether or not residents of the USA have to pay a tax on their fishing rods. I can't believe you feel this is relevant! 
I did point out a US success story with the SO2 emissions trading scheme. Do you disagree? Would you rather have acid rain pollution than pay slightly more for your electricity? Fish don't live too well in polluted rivers and lakes so , if you are a keen fisherman, you should see the sense of it all. 
If it can work for SO2 emissions it can also work for CO2 emissions. Or do you disagree again?
Peter Martin 
03 March 2008 at 06:03
PS Maybe your comment about fishing licences is more relevant than I've given you credit for. See this link for the possible effect of global warming on fish species. 
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/ntrout.asp 
Even the most right wing of political sympathisers must have some consideration for the environment, and a sense of collective responsibility towards it, if they are interested in fishing. 
It is very depressing to see dead fish in a river or notices besides rivers or lakes, as there are in Sydney harbour, advising that fish caught are unsafe for human consumption due to high PCB levels. No doubt the individuals and organisations who are doing the poisoning will deny any wrongdoing and suggest that if we disagree with dumping PCBs in the river then we alone should desist from doing it.
Robin Guenier 
03 March 2008 at 09:40
Peter Martin may have identified the solution to climate change: carbon sequestration. If, as he suggests, sequestration could fix the CO2 emissions of over 90,000 diesel-powered commercial ships and of mankind’s vast concrete production, presumably it’s a solution for nearly all CO2 emissions. Phew, we can forget those controversies about wind and tide power, nuclear power, biofuels etc. 
But wait – there may be a hitch. Michael Bloch (an Australian AGW activist – see carbobify.com) says, “Artificial carbon sequestration … is costly, energy intensive, relatively untested and has no other side benefits. Not enough research has been done … to determine any dangers in disposing of carbon dioxide in this way.” 
Back to the drawing board?
Peter Martin 
03 March 2008 at 10:19
Robin, 
You say " presumably it [carbon sequestration or carbon capture] is a solution for nearly all CO2 emissions" 
No. Carbon capture has its place but, generally, I'd agree with Michael Bloch. 
The big mistake that the environmental movement are making, and I'd challenge them to speak up on this, is that they are rejecting the nuclear option, out of hand, and in the most irrational of ways. If there were a level playing field and the rules were set in terms of safety, CO2 emissions, radioactivity emissions, cost and reliability of perfrmance and supply, the nuclear option would win on nearly every count. 
The perceived weakness of the nuclear option is radioactive emissions. And yet, coal contains so many impurities, including radioactive Uranium and Thorium, that it can't win on that count either. Don't just take my word for it. If you are genuinely interested, do your own research and make your own decision.
Peter Martin 
03 March 2008 at 12:21
Casual readers of this forum may be somewhat puzzled by continual references to "Lynas the Pieman" This is how wikipedia explains it: 
"In 2001, Lynas achieved some international notoriety by throwing a pie in the face of Bjørn Lomborg during a public reading from Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist, at a Borders Bookshop in Oxford. The reason for the attack, according to Lynas, was "pies for damn lies", in protest against Lomborg's assessment of the effects of global warming." 
It doesn't explain what sort of pie was thrown, or if the pie just happened to be at hand, or was brought to the meeting with 'malice aforethought'. Part of me does think that this was a bit childish, but, on the other hand, part of me knows quite well that if I'd had a pie to hand then there would have been more than one or two occasions, when confronted by smug santimonious pricks, when I'd have done exactly the same. 
So "good on him" I'd say!
Robin Guenier 
03 March 2008 at 12:27
So, as I thought, you don’t really think carbon sequestration is the solution to CO2 emission by the world’s commercial shipping. Maybe a handful of ships will experiment with nuclear power – but your green pals will put a stop to that. So this growing industry will continue to pump out more and more CO2. It’s part of the worldwide phenomenon I noted in my repeated question to you on the other thread. What would you do about it? I’m hoping to get a proper answer this time – without strawman argument or question begging. 
As to nuclear power, there’s no need to persuade me. As I’ve said before, I think that use of fossil fuels should be reduced (although not for AGW reasons) and that a substantial nuclear programme is probably the right approach. 
(PS: interesting that you think throwing pies is a good way of progressing an important debate.)
Brute 
03 March 2008 at 21:38
Mr. Martin, 
You wrote: 
As I'm tiring of pointing out, the Physics of the Earth's atmosphere operates quite independently of whether or not residents of the USA have to pay a tax on their fishing rods. I can't believe you feel this is relevant! 
My response: 
It seems that the Earth's atmosphere is operating differently than "climatologists" had predicted. Maybe the Earth's atmosphere skipped the course on Physics. 
You're absolutely correct; I think politicians should stop making this a political issue by having governments get involved. We should keep the science and politics separate; don't you think? 
This is relevant as the temperature has been trending lower for 10 years (despite rising CO2 Levels) and yet politicians are requesting higher taxes to resolve a problem that does not exist; that they've fabricated. If the UN and the Mayor of London are requesting sanctions on certain types of automobiles as well ADDITIONAL taxes on fossil fuels, doesn't that make this a political issue? Aren't they politicians? 
I agree with you; let’s get the politics out of it. I think you should write a letter to the Mayor of London and the UN Secretary General as these people have....... 
100 Scientists to the UN: Attempts to Control the Climate are Futile 
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/1521
Peter Martin 
04 March 2008 at 00:13
I think you are confusing politics with government. The politics of left or right , high taxation or low taxation, control of the means of production, distribution and exchange by the capitalist class or the working class are quite irrelevant to the issue of AGW. In principle, a sensible government of any political hue can fix the problem or an irresponsible one can make a complete hash of it. 
Governments, throughout the world, of different political persuasions will need to work together to effectively address the issue. 
I try to keep out of US politics and I feel you should do the same with the UK and London. There is no simple answer to the problem of traffic congestion is cities. Either its controlled somehow or you have a gridlock. 
"Attempts to Control the Climate are Futile" This line reminds me of the Daleks from Dr Who. They would always say that "Resistance is Futile" and that "the humans will be exterminated " ! 
It didn't ever work out that way though :-)
Brute 
04 March 2008 at 00:34
These seem like reasonable people……. So, they’ve progressed from pie-in the face antics or, "pies for damn lies", to arson. Peace, Love, Dope! (And apparently arson and anarchy). Or maybe “Big Oil” set these fires and blamed it on the environmentalists……..Hmmmmm. 
I wonder how much CO2 was released into the atmosphere from burning all of these homes? It would be the ultimate irony if these eco-kooks were charged with polluting as well as destruction of property…….Members of your group Pete? 
Luxury Homes Burn in Apparent Eco-Attack 
By ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE – 3 hours ago 
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hQlKz_UjBgvhm8rfGiTaQYS82...
Brute 
04 March 2008 at 01:03
Reminiscent of another time in history wouldn’t you say? Burning houses, destroying property, persecution of “skeptics”, demonizing entire groups of people? Is that what the environmentalist movement is about?
Peter Martin 
05 March 2008 at 00:01
Brute, 
Well of course there are nutters of all sorts around. The Green movement has moved from being nothing 30 years ago to having substantially won the argument. Apart from any other moral consideration there is just no need for any form of violent action. 
On the other side of the argument are the New World Order conspiracy nutters who have already said that this is all a plan to undermine western capitalism by the UN and the forces of Communism. We need to watch out for latter day Timothy McVeighs on this issue too. It hadn't even occurred to me that this was a possibility until you had raised the subject.
Brute 
05 March 2008 at 00:56
Are you attempting to justify this behavior by comparison to similar acts? 
I'm certain that the judge will take that into account when he passes sentence...that others have committed more serious crimes which absolves these lunatics of theirs. 
I haven’t seen any "New World Order Conspiracy Nutters" burning down houses lately. 
I have seen plenty of advocates for "peace" become violent and plenty of environmentalists destroying private property / violating other citizen’s rights, (as well as assault, i.e. “pies for lies”).
bobclive 
11 March 2008 at 13:08
Lets get back to basics, I posted this on the other tread which has now been closed 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859 
UPDATE FROM STEVE 
This comparison actually gets a little worse. 
In the figure below, I’ve calculated the average unadjusted temperature for actual cities, rather than places like Snoqualmie Falls. My criterion for inclusion in this calculation is whether the city has a major league sports franchise and includes a variety of mostly small market cities: Milwaukee, Sacramento, Orlando, San Antonio, Cincinnati, San Diego, Seattle, Salt Lake City, New Orleans, plus a couple of larger places: Detroit, Philadelphia, Dallas. To my knowledge, no sports franchises are considering re-location or expansion to Snoqualmie Falls, Hankinson, Pine Bluff or the various other supposedly “urban” sites that dilute the Peterson network. 
In this data set that supposedly shows the following: 
(Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures). 
Actual cities have a very substantial trend of over 2 deg C per century relative to the rural network - and this assumes that there are no problems with rural network - something that is obviously not true since there are undoubtedly microsite and other problems. At the very end of the graphic, the change levels off - I wonder if that might indicate increased settlement effects at rural sites. 
Figure 2. Comparison of Peterson Sites with Major League Sports Franchises to Rural Network 
Now this doesn’t prove anything one way or the other about other networks - other than there is a need to be wary. However, the notion that Peterson 2003 is a sustainable authority for the IPCC proposition that “rural station trends were almost indistinguishable from series including urban sites” seems increasingly difficult to accept. end. 
http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/48825/2003305333281076257_r... 
This shows a flat trend from 1900 to the present. 
The obvious thing that the AGWers should have done and most probably did but hid the data as did Mann with his censored bristle cone file, is to separate real rural from actual urban, Steve has done this. 
It looks like the only temperature increase is from the urban heat Island effect. 
Look at Steve`s graph , where is the link between CO2 and temperature. 
Steve has used the same raw data the AGWers use to show their temperature increase 0.8C, the only difference is that rural sites have been separated from urban, which the AGWers should have done in the first instance. 
I believe that around 1998 the majority of the weather stations especially past rural ones which had not been closed had now become urban due to development around them. They have now started to indicate the correct global temperatures , ie if there are very few actual rural sites left to effect past records the true present and future temperatures will be taken solely from urban stations, this could be the reason why the temperature has not risen since 1998 as the few rural sites that are left in the system will be swamped by the urban sites. Both rural and urban sites appear to agree with one another at around 1998 when the temps level off.
bobclive 
11 March 2008 at 15:11
The GISSTEMP anomaly is available: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt 
Their figure is 0.26 for February. That is their lowest figure for February since 1994. The moving yearly average GISSTEMP anomaly is now 0.48, down from 0.57 at the end of 2007. 
Kristen Byrnes (19:29:41) : 
Patrick Hadley, “That is their lowest figure for February since 1994.” 
1994 was still a volcano year (Pinatubo). 1984 and 1985 were also volcano years (El Chichon). So it’s probably safe to go back to February 1982. 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/feb-2008-rss...
Brute 
11 March 2008 at 23:26
Research of Hundreds More Scientists Shows the Natural 1,500-Year Climate Cycle 
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/research-of-hundreds...
Peter Martin 
12 March 2008 at 05:18
BobClive, 
OK so its all down to the Urban Heat effect is it? Well, if so, can you please explain why the Arctic, which tends to have slightly fewer urban conurbations than the global average, shows the greatest amount of global warming? 
Or are you denying that this is the case? Nasa for instance do show on various graphs that you can see in this link that the Arctic does, in fact show the highest temperature rises. 
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/earth...
bobclive 
12 March 2008 at 12:29
Peter, 
Your link says: 
2007 was tied with 1998 for Earth’s SECOND warmest year in a century, 
It also states: 
As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS.) 
NASA statement 2005: 
The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year. 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ 
There you have it Peter from the horses mouth, No temperature rise since 1998, does that leave 1934 as warmest year if 1998, 2005 and 2007 are a dead heat in second place. 
The Antarctic, DR Eric Rignot NASA. 
NASA scientist Eric Rignot reported in Nature Geoscience (Jan. 13 2008) that increased melting had been detected in the ice sheets of western Antarctica, an area where surface temperatures have remained UNCHANGED. 
As warming surface temperatures could NOT be blamed for the ice loss, Rignot hypothesized that the cause may be the flow of warmer waters from the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that circles much of the continent. “Something must be changing the ocean to trigger such changes,” Rignot told the Post. “We believe it is related to [manmade global warming]”, he added. 
There you are Peter NO surface warming over Antarctica. 
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1454 
Around 1815 whaling ships in Arctic waters reported an unprecedented break-up of sea ice off the east coast of Greenland, leading to fevered speculation that new shipping routes might become available. “A considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions,” the president of the Royal Society, London, wrote to the Admiralty in 1817. “New sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past. This incident was used by David Bellamy (Comment, October 22) to illustrate how the climate has fluctuated dramatically throughout history. 
Peter, NASA say air temps in Antarctica have NOT risen. 
What I am implying is that IF UHI is a major contributor to the temperature rise seen by the ground stations, at some point the urban stations will swamp the few remaining rural stations and the UHI effect will become irrelevant from that time on, this may have already occured in 1998, Both Steve`s graphs for Urban and Rural that I previously posted show a leveling of temperatures at or around that time. 
What is clear is that there has been massive urbanization over the past 40 years. 
There has been a massive depletion of rural weather stations also over that period. 
There has been a steady rise of CO2 up to the present time. 
The problem you have Peter is that CO2 is still rising but the temperatures are NOT.
bobclive 
12 March 2008 at 18:13
David Bellamy 
The year 1816 went down in history as the “year without a summer”, thanks to the eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia that veiled much of the world with dust, screening out the Sun. Yet in 1817, while still in the grip of the Little Ice Age, the Royal Society was so worried that 2,000 square leagues of sea ice around Greenland had disappeared within two years, and massive flooding was taking place in Germany, that its president wrote to the Admiralty advising of the necessity of an expedition to find out what was the source of this new heat. 
Perhaps, when similar things are happening 190 years later, the Royal Society should accept that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is unlikely to be the main – or only – driver of “global warming”.
bobclive 
12 March 2008 at 18:46
Oxford's Climate UK. 
Temperature 
July is usually the hottest month: average temperature 16.4°C, mean minimum 12°C, mean maximum 21.4°C/ Had you been here one day in August 1932 however, you would have sweltered in a temperature of 35.1°C - a record NOT beaten by summer 1990. 
In spite of 1990, the BEST summer on record is 1976. Although its highest temperature of 34.3°C failed to beat the 1932 value, the heat was extremely prolonged with 14 CONSECUTIVE days having maxima above 30°C, 14 DAYS AT 30* C, thank god it did not happen this year. 
A continuous record of daily temperature and rainfall has been kept at Oxford since 1815. There are also incomplete readings going back to 1740. 
http://www.dailyinfo.co.uk/guide/climate.html
Peter Martin 
12 March 2008 at 22:41
Bob, 
If you are quoting the data from Nasa, considering them to be the 'horses mouth' , you should learn to read their graphs a bit better. 1934 wasn't the hottest year. It was at least 0.5 deg C cooler that the 2005 peak. If you looking for a warm spell around then, how about the early 40s? They were still 0.4 deg C cooler than 2005 though. 
I'm not sure why contrarians keep quoting 1934. That year does keep popping up. Can none of you read Nasa's graph? 
Also if you are quoting from the Nasa webpage, how about their statement that "Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades" ? That's 0.2 deg C per decade. That's not quite consistent with your "CO2 is rising but temperatures aren't" statement. 
Again from the Nasa webpage : What about all that dark brown colour on their maps in the Arctic regions? Have you noticed that? That shows between 2.5 and 3.4 degC of warming. Are you saying that is an urban heat island effect ? Has there being a population explosion of the Innuit people of the region ? Or maybe it's too many environmental scientists setting up camps there? 
If you are trying to explain away high temperatures in Oxford , maybe your UHI effect objection would be plausible and would warrant a more detailed investigation into the validity of the measurements. But, to try to use it to explain away high Arctic temperatures is just ridiculous. 
Incidentally there are two records that are worth looking at if you are interested in the long term Uk climate. 
This one is from central England. 
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Da... 
The other is the well known Armagh one. They are both interesting but not definitive. You have to look at global figures not just at a particular country. Not even the UK or USA!
Peter Martin 
13 March 2008 at 05:34
Bob Clive, 
"Yet in 1817, while still in the grip of the Little Ice Age, the Royal Society was so worried that 2,000 square leagues of sea ice around Greenland had disappeared within two years" 
I think a league is about 3 miles. Right? So this works out to be a square of sea 135 miles x 135 miles that was reportedly free of ice, in 1817, that might have been expected to have been frozen. It's not a huge amount! 
The RS report is little more than an anecdotal tale from a bygone age when there were no weather stations and no satellite monitoring, and probably lasted a couple of seasons at most. 
"similar things are happening 190 years later" 
Oh come on you can do better than this!
Peter Martin 
13 March 2008 at 08:45
Bob, 
The area of ice that the Royal Society were worried about losing in 1817 was less that 1% of the loss of ice showed in this link: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW1JeFVCZ_Q 
"similar things are happening 190 years later" Look at the video. You can see for yourself that it's slightly more serious this time.
Brute 
13 March 2008 at 09:55
CO2 & Global Warming 
http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2008/03/12/co2-global-warming/
bobclive 
13 March 2008 at 18:53
Basic Greenhouse Equations 'Totally Wrong. 
11 March 2008 
The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates. 
Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, a former global warming activist who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, presented scientific findings at the conference refuting rising CO2 fears. Zágoni’s scientific mentor Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed "runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," but he claims NASA refused to allow him. 
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/550481/the-mammot... 
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3517432 
Name of full paper PDF file below, found in link above. 
Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"
bobclive 
13 March 2008 at 20:09
Peter. 
Lofty changes in Arctic temps, January 2008 
Researchers found that most of the Arctic warming is happening high above ground. At midsummer, the data shows that the air that has warmed the most is 2 kilometres above land. 
This, says Graversen, rules out the theory that Arctic warming is being accelerated by melting ice. Although the researchers remain unsure what is accelerating Arctic warming, they suggest it might be related to how fast energy is being transported towards the North Pole by cyclones. 
The team calculated the flow of energy into the Arctic Circle using meteorological data, and looked at how this flow has changed since the 1980s. 
I think the ice is all back now. 
They found that the amount of energy transported from the tropics into the Arctic has increased and that the increase corresponds to the rise of temperatures in the region. 
What about the Antarctic isn`t that cooling. 
Atmospheric CO2: It's the Oceans, Stupid 
A retired civil engineer and former dean of engineering at Monash University in Australia has dramatically demonstrated the close dependence of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on sea surface temperatures. 
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=120&a=5360
bobclive 
13 March 2008 at 20:22
Peter 
I am just trying to show that CO2 may not be the main driver of this present temperature increase. 
UHI is a fact, city planners are concerned about it, Google UHI London. You may argue that the UHI effect is only within a micro climate and does not effect global temps, the problem is the majority of the weather stations are within these micro climates. 
As mentioned, Steve`s graphs show clearly the large effect UHI has had over the preceding years on the temps used by NASA. You only have to feel your house wall compared to your lawn on a summers evening to appreciate how much heat has been retained during the day, solid objects like buildings and tarmac act as huge storage radiators. The highest temperature rises have been shown to occur during the evenings. Peter you can feel the UHI effect with your hand you don`t need a graph. 
We are told that the largest temperature rises have occurred during the last 30 years. 
The majority of the weather stations are sited in the developed world mainly in the West where massive urbanization has occurred since 1970. 
The temperature rise seen by these weather stations correlates well with urban development and land use compared to the rural station temps over that time. 
The temperatures have now leveled off and so I believe has the UHI effect as the majority of the weather stations are now urban. 
According to Mauna Loa CO2 in the atmosphere has risen steadily at 0.53 percent since 1958 even though the amount of man made CO2 has supposedly risen dramatically ( bearing in mind that the measuring equipment is on top of a volcano next to an active vent). In recent years the oceans have warmed and are emitting CO2 not absorbing it, China and India have come on stream, the rain Forrest is being cut down at the fastest rate ever producing even more CO2, yet Mauna Loa sees the same steady increase of 0.53 percent. In fact the rise shown at Mauna Loa in 2004 was SMALLER than in 2002/2003. 
World CO2 emissions increasing faster than expected 
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005062.html 
Where is all this extra CO2 going, it is not being absorbed by the oceans as they are emitting it. 
It is not driving temperature as this has remained level since 1998. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4395817.stm 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CO2_data_mlo.svg 
This simple graph of the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Record documents a 0.53 percent or two parts per million per year increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1958. 
Perhaps the small rise in temps after subtracting the UHI effect can be attributed to the Sun, Cosmic rays and clouds, just natural causes.
Peter Martin 
13 March 2008 at 22:05
Bob, 
Well the increase in CO2 has not quite been linear. If you look at the graph of atmosheric CO2 emissions you can see a slight upward curve. You are wrong about the oceons. Fortunately they are still in relatively good shape. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide 
As Wiki puts it "The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, having "absorbed about one-third of all human-generated CO2 emissions to date" However, as they warm, and, except for the ice loss in the Arctic Oceon, they are warming more slowly than the land, their CO2 storage capacity will decrease, and in time your statement, of the oceons being CO2 emitters, will be in danger of coming true. 
You can cling to your theories about UHI, Comic rays, natural causes, its all down to the sun, its all a left-wing conspiracy or a hoax, ete etc or you can believe the evidence of your eyes when you look at the huge changes in summer Arctic ice that have taken place in the last 30 years. 
You can lamely say " Oh, but its all frozen again this winter". But why did it thaw in the first place? We are quite lucky in a sense. Thawing sea ice does not make a significant change to sea levels, so of course we can probably live without sea-ice at the Arctic. There might even be some short term benefits in terms of shortened shipping routes. 
However, if we ignore this what is next? If it is a significant loss of Greenland ice or the oceons warming to the extent that they do become CO2 emitters, then we really are going to be in trouble.
bobclive 
14 March 2008 at 17:43
Here is an interesting discussion on CO2, go to No 39. 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2720#comment-215106 
Perhaps someone might comment, unless the bloggs got bogged down with politics.
bobclive 
14 March 2008 at 18:37
No warming for past 2 decades. 
http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2008/03/12/co2-global-warming/#comment-81585
Peter Martin 
15 March 2008 at 00:18
Bob, 
"No warming for past 2 decades." ?? 
I can understand why you contrarians are making the most of the level temperatures we've had in the 2000s but if you think that the 1990's were the same, you've become detached from reality! The rise in global temperatures in the 1990's was the highest on record. 
That is the way global warming seems to happen. The shape of the temperature rise on the graph follows a sawtooth pattern. Up to 15 years ago the graph showed distinct cooling periods too. We don't see that now , just a flattening. 
However in the next few years, unfortunately, we can expect the rise of the sawtooth again, and global warming will once more take off with a vengeance.
bobclive 
15 March 2008 at 11:15
Peter, 
From your posts it appears that you actually yearn for AGW to be true, Thankfully you were not around in the dark ages when witches were burnt at the stake, see link below, 
more evidence against AGW is accumulating every month. 
http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2008/03/12/co2-global-warming/#comment-81585 
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy/2007_Dougless_etal.pd...
bobclive 
15 March 2008 at 18:12
LAST POST, 
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=4
Peter Martin 
15 March 2008 at 22:18
Bob, 
I notice that you are happy to quote articles by Fred Singer. If we all believed him we'd all believe that ozone depletion was nothing to do with CFCs, the risks of smoking were greatly exaggerated, and that Mars had a large alien spaceship in its orbit! 
There are always cranks and scientific renegades out there which the likes of Exxon-Mobile and other energy and coal corporations are more than happy to fund. These funds are not usually provided directly, they have learned from the Tobacco industry to keep up appearances of independence. Rather they use front organisations and others to sow as many seeds of doubt as possible in the public mind. 
These front institutes, such as the Hudson Institute, the Heartland Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation and the Independent Institute and others, in turn front journals and websites such as : www.worldclimate.org, www.worldclimatereport.com, www.junkscience.com, 
giving the same contrarian message. Often you have to look quite hard to spot the connections but they are always there. 
Like previous campaigns by the likes of Philip Morris, and other big tobacco companies, their motivation is not the promotion of science itself but the discreditation, or junking, of any science that gets in the way of their activities or, more importantly , their profits.
Robin Guenier 
16 March 2008 at 15:52
ANOTHER LAST POST 
The greens have won the debate: most western politicians and media assert AGW is real and that, without radical action now, humankind’s outlook is grim, even catastrophic. As Tony Blair said yesterday, “we’re talking about a revolution”. The world, however, isn’t interested: from 1990 (the baseline for Kyoto CO2 reductions) to 2004 global fossil fuel emissions grew by 26% – a growth that continues apace (China, for example, spends 35 times as much on oil now as in 1999, with demand expected to treble by 2030), aviation and shipping are exempt from emission targets, oil producers such as Iran, Venezuela, Russia and the Gulf States have no intention of scaling back production, deforestation continues and populations still expand. Yet the UN’s Bali conference in 2007 achieved nothing and last week Britain’s “greenest budget ever” hype proved meaningless; even Europe’s resolve to define tough new targets crumbled on Friday as its leaders fought for home industries. Western governments, facing economic recession, are pushing climate change yet further down the agenda. Moreover, the greens are themselves mired in internal controversies – e.g. about nuclear power or biofuels as acceptable solutions. 
Anyone expecting all this to be reversed in time to avoid AGW’s predicted consequences lives in dreamland. The global outlook seems dire. 
Humanity’s only remaining hope, therefore, may be that the AGW hypothesis turns out to be false. And many posts on these NS threads suggest the possibility may have merit. Moreover, the first decade of 2008 seems unlikely to comply with the IPCC’s prediction that average temperatures would initially grow by 0.2° C per decade. These may seem fragile straws – but surely worth grasping? They may even prove substantial.
Brute 
16 March 2008 at 17:49
The Fact Is Global Warming Is Waning 
Arpita Mukherjee, 11 March 2008, 
Recent studies supported by satellite data show that global warming is waning. Contrary to popular belief, new researches prove that carbon dioxide is not the villain that it is made out to be. IPCC is however not acknowledging the truth. 
THE WINTER this year was unusually long and harsh. What possibly could explain the occurrence of unusual cold wave conditions this year throughout the globe when environmentalists voicing their concerns about the human-led global warming had predicted that the rise in carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere would result in shorter winters with no significant dip in the mercury? Was this winter an exception to the rule or is it simply following a trend? After all, studies conducted by a small group of ‘sceptic’ scientists reveal that global warming has been waning since 2001. Latest studies supported by satellite data cast doubt on the climate fears propounded by environmentalists supported by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 
Satellite measurements available since 1979 show no warming in the southern hemisphere and the trend in the northern hemisphere appears to have waned since 2001. In August 2007, the UK Met Office acknowledged that obvious global warming had stopped. Paleo-climate scientist Bob Carter testifying before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has noted that the accepted global average temperature statistics used by IPCC show no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. A research led by David Bromwich, Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Department of Geography at Ohio State University and researchers with the Byrd Polar Research Centre at Ohio State University shows that during the late 20th century, the temperature in Antarctica did not rise to the level predicted by many global warming models. According to UN scientist Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, the recent worldwide analysis of ocean surface temperatures shows that sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998. 
While the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is steadily rising from 280 ppm and might reach 560 ppm by 2100 as predicted by IPCC, the world’s average temperature, instead of following a steep upward gradient, is actually plunging after a period of upward trend. However, the IPCC is not coming out publicly with the truth surrounding the correlation between rise in carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere and its possible consequence on global warming, if any. A study by researchers of the Atmospheric Science Group, Department of Mathematical Science, at the University of Wisconsin, found that global warming in the last century was linked to natural causes. The Royal Meteorological Institute at Brussels in its report last year said that not carbon dioxide but the most important greenhouse gas was water vapour; it was responsible for 75 per cent of the greenhouse effect. According to Belgian climate scientist Lu Debontridder, the warm winters of the last few years in Belgium are simply due to the North-Atlantic oscillation that has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide. A study published in Science last September found that contrary to past inferences from ice core records, carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age. According to the same study, deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. USC geologist Lowell Scot, the lead author of the study, said that the climate dynamics are much more complex than simply saying that carbon dioxide rises and the temperature warms. 
The IPCC climate model is based on the assumption that increased warming would cause more rainfall that would produce more clouds on the higher reaches of the atmosphere. Since high clouds have a net warming effect this would cause more warming, more rainfall and the cycle will continue. It is this positive feedback that causes the UN climate models to predict a temperature rise in the range of 2.5 degree Celsius to 4.7 degree Celsius due to rise in the level of carbon dioxide to 560 ppm. Dr Roy Spencer along with researchers at the University of Alabama Huntsville and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, after observing the temperatures, clouds and rainfall reported that warming is actually associated with fewer high clouds. There is no data to support the theory that more rainfall will produce more high-altitude clouds. 
The mainstream media seems to be purposely ignoring the bulk of the findings by renowned researchers throughout the globe that the current global warming fear attributed solely to carbon dioxide rise is utterly unfounded. Why is the IPCC, which has been blamed for relying on climate models based on wrong assumptions, continuing with its false prophecy? Is there more to it than what meets the eye? Has the politics of carbon trade got anything to do with it? Critics say that carbon trading as propounded by IPCC, as a mean to combat global warming is a smokescreen. It will allow corporate polluters in rich countries to evade their emission reduction obligations at home by buying up and trading carbon emission quotas and credits from other countries, projects or industries. It is meant to create further global economic disparities by robbing the poor of their rights while the rich will manage to extract maximum benefit from the mechanism.
Brute 
16 March 2008 at 17:54
Poll: majority of British say they are being snookered 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/poll-majorit...
Peter Martin 
17 March 2008 at 01:07
Brute, 
"THE WINTER this year was unusually long and harsh. What possibly could explain the occurrence of unusual cold wave conditions?" 
From a Global perspective the terms "winter" and "summer" don't really mean anything. What is mid-winter in the Northern Hemisphere is actually mid-summer in the Southern Hemisphere and, of course, vice versa. 
So Global temperatures during the past 6 months should be just the same on average as they were during the previous 6 months. 
We've heard a lot about how cold its been this 'winter' but 'down-under' we can say its been pretty warm this 'summer'. For instance, Adelaide has just had its longest heat wave on record. 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/13/2188414.htm 
So, we have heat waves in the southern hemisphere and cold spells in the northern hemisphere during the months of November to March. Nothing unusual about that, and it doesn't prove anything either way about Global Warming. You need to look at the figures when they are released by NASA and NOAA to understand what is happening. And don't just look at the one month figures, or even the figures for one year. Try to be more patient and look at five year averages. There is too much natural variability in figures for shorter timescales.
Peter Martin 
17 March 2008 at 03:41
Robin, 
Wecome back yet again. You remind me of the Scottish bloke, Frazer, from Dad's Army who had the catch phrase of "we're all doomed". 
Of course we aren't, but the problem does require some clear thinking. Politicians the world over are into 'renewable energy' and trying to meet targets of 20% or whatever they have set themselves. However what about the other 80%? 
At best setting up these targets is tinkering at the edges of the problem . At worst they are a diversion from the main issue. 
To get any real results we need to look at eliminating CO2 emissions from all electricity generating stations to start with. The stark choice, for that other 80% is between coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nuclear power. 
Mind you, CCS hasn't really been developed yet so it looks like there is no choice at all. We'll have to go nuclear and we'll have to make it safe. If the French can do it so can everyone else. The sooner the Green groups recognise that the better. They are the real obstacle to fixing the problem, and much as I'd like to say otherwise, not you contrarians!
Brute 
17 March 2008 at 12:47
Mr. Martin, 
You must have somehow missed the article I posted on March 16th @ 17:49. It stated that "Global Warming" has abated since 2001, (technically since 1998). “Global Warming”, according to UK Met Office, has stopped. 
"Satellite measurements available since 1979 show no warming in the southern hemisphere and the trend in the northern hemisphere appears to have waned since 2001. In August 2007, the UK Met Office acknowledged that obvious global warming had stopped." 
Using these dates I believe satisfies your "more than 5 year" standard. 
Two points: Temperatures have not risen even though carbon dioxide levels have risen and the premise set forth by Mr. Whitehouse, the author responsible for starting this thread, is correct. The entire “Global Warming is caused by CO2” is a charade. There is no CO2 / Global Warming problem.
Peter Martin 
17 March 2008 at 13:34
Brute, 
This argument is getting tedious. You are obviously determined to believe that "there is no CO2 / Global Warming problem". If that is what you'd like to think then you just go right ahead and think it. 
For anyone who is interested in looking at the evidence, I can present this graph showing data, a rolling five year average, going back to 1940. It shows periods of alternating warming and cooling. The warming periods are get more pronounced over time. The cooling periods get less pronounced. We should be in a cooling period at present but the best you can say is that, currently, the temperatures are looking flat. 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/tmp3.png 
Has Global warming really stopped? I don't think so.
bobclive 
17 March 2008 at 17:57
Peter, 
This is from a post by Giles Chichester MEP. 
A closer look reveals that yes there was an increase of 0.7°C overall but within that a less consistent picture emerges. No change 1900 - 1920, up 0.4°C between 1920 and 1940, down 0.2°C between 1940 and 1975, up 0.5 ° between 1975 and 1998 and no change 1998 to date. 
If these figures are correct were is the catastrophic global warming,
bobclive 
17 March 2008 at 19:07
Has Global warming really started. 
Here is the temperature trend for Willis Island, site of a weather station in the Coral Sea just over 400 kms easterly from Cairns Queensland. 
Does anyone seriously think the Great Barrier Reef could be “threatened by global warming”, when the Willis island data shows no trend since WWII ? 
How do such fairy stories pass as fact and become part of national mass belief ? 
Another Rural site. 
http://aycu07.webshots.com/image/48206/2003679367032104441_r...
Peter Martin 
18 March 2008 at 01:13
Giles Chichester? Of course, I may be completely wrong but he sounds like a a chinless wonder Tory type from a very expensive Public school . (The Poms refer to their private schools as Public for reasons that are best known to themselves). But, forgive me for not pulling my forelock and deferring to his superior wisdom. 
The 'catastrophic global warming' you refer to, is what has been happening since 1975 with rates of increase of 0.2 deg C per decade. 
Nasa have been using 5 year running averages for as long as I can remember. The UK Met office smooth their graphs in a more complicated fashion using weighted polynomial functions. I prefer the Nasa method which is a lot easier to understand even if some mathematicians may want to make the case that more sophisticated methods have their advantages. 
A five year running average doesn't mean that you get a definitive result after five years of course. So, no marks for whoever said that. What it does mean is that the noise on the graph is smoothed out. The peak figure of 1998 was essentially a noise induced spike and dissapears from the 5 year rolling average figure. 
You contarians really should learn to be more patient. Monthly and even yearly figures don't mean much at all. Those of us who have been expressing concern about the dangers of global warming learned that lesson in the early 90's. We were just about written off when temperatures not only flattened, they actually fell, and fell quite significantly even with 5 year averaging applied. At the time, I began to feel that maybe AGW wasn't such a big problem after all, and I must say that I backed off making the usual arguments against CO2 emissions for quite a few years. I did think for a time that I might have been wrong which of course I would have been happy to have been. The levelling that we see now is nothing by comparison. 
At the moment we are in a sunspot minimum and also in the La Lina, or cool, phase of the Pacific Oceon oscillation cycle. So, it hardly surprising that global temperatures have flattened off. 30 years ago the same combination of factors would have produced a measurable and definite cooling. That they haven't is very significant. Inevitably, when La Nina gives way to El Nino and the sun becomes more active again in the next few years we know that, unfortunately, the global temperature figures will once again resume their steady climb.
Brute 
18 March 2008 at 13:11
Mr. Martin, 
Respectfully, it is obvious that you are biased in your assessment of this topic. Take a GOOD look around and you will see that innovative technology / industrialization has made the world a better place, not worse. People such as you view mankind as inherently evil and a plague on the face of the earth. It must be a difficult frame of mind to harbor such deep self loathing. 
Contrary to what you may believe, industrialization has a positive effect on the human condition. The purpose of the “Global Warming / Climate Change” canard is globalization of government, economies and industry……stealing from those who will and have, and giving to those who wont or haven’t. You’ll notice that I didn’t write “can’t”….the countries, institutions and societies that are promoting the global warming fraud are certainly capable of achieving parity with industrialized nations; they simply choose not to…..(It’s easier to steal than to work to achieve success) or, they are individuals such as Mr. Gore who stand to profit immensely from this charade. A different condition is Idealists who envision a Utopian Garden of Eden, (Dreamers like yourself), where everyone is of the same condition, (Socialism) which has been attempted throughout history with the result being that everyone is equally miserable. 
A very wise man once told me that you can take all of the money from the rich and give it to the poor, and within two years the formerly rich people will be rich again and the formerly poor people will be poor again, that’s human nature. There are those who do and those who choose not to……Unfortunately, the United Nations is infested with the latter. 
No matter what data or evidence is placed before them, Environmentalists and Alarmists will argue that mankind is the cause of ruinous catastrophe. No Mr. Martin, the sky is not falling.
bobclive 
18 March 2008 at 13:26
Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt, is this 2007 NO its Nov 1922. 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-...
bobclive 
18 March 2008 at 13:51
Peter here is some history, thr third link is a good read. 
By WILLIAM L. LAURENCE. 
April 28, 1935, Sunday 
WASHINGTON, April 27. -- The great glaciers of the West, last remnants of the Ice Age on continental United States, have been retreating from their strongholds in the mountains at double time since last year. This was reported before the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union by Francois E. Matthes of the United States Geological Survey, chairman of the union's committee on glaciers. [ END OF FIRST PARAGRAPH ] 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py... 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py... 
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/061/mwr-061-09-0251.pdf 
All you have to do is forget computer models and look back in history.
bobclive 
18 March 2008 at 14:09
US temps biased UP by 0.25 degrees C +UHI. 
There is an issue with regards to U.S. surface temperature trends that seems to have been overlooked, although apparently well recognized. I am referring to the HO-83 thermometers that were installed at many USHCN sites as well as first order stations. It has been well documented (Gall et.al. 1992, Jones et.al. 1995, Karl et. al. 1995) and others.that a warm bias existed, primarily in the daily maximum temperature readings reported by these instruments. The error in the Tucson data was about 2-3 deg F, but this error was apparently different with each thermometer. Karl et. al. (1995) have suggested that the average for this error over the country was on the order of 0.5 deg C on the reported maximum temperatures. Thus, if the maximum temperatures were corrected by this amount, average temperatures in the U.S, would be lowered by about 0.25 deg C, assuming the minimum readings were correct. This would probably pretty much neutralize the reported trend increase during the late 80’s and 90’s in this country. 
These thermometers have subsequently been replaced, but none of the station data have been corrected for this problem. 
Y2k + HO-83 thermometers + UHI = doggy data.
Peter Martin 
18 March 2008 at 21:35
Bob Clive, 
You need to take a closer look at some of these historical references you are giving me. 
For instance the one about the sea captain, in 1922, having to sail as far north as 81 deg before he found ice suggests that, compared to the present time, the Arctic was in relatively good shape. 
In you'd like to check on Google Earth you'll see that 81 deg N corresponds to a latitude just north of Svalbard Island. If you look at this video from Google Earth 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW1JeFVCZ_Q 
You can see that the sea was ice free in this region, in summer, as long ago as 1980, since when the area of Arctic ice, measured at the summer minimum, has almost halved. So, Captain Ingebrigtsen would have had little difficulty breaking his 1922 record last northern summer when the area of Arctic sea ice reached a record minimum. 
You can claim that the computer models aren't perfect, you can say that climate scientists are a bunch of charalatans and hoaxers, but surely you can't look at the shrinking Arctic ice cap and deny that AGW is a problem. 
If you are looking for an answer to the question of "Has Global warming really stopped" I would suggest further study of what is happening in the Arctic region.
Brute 
18 March 2008 at 23:40
Mar 18, 2008 
Correlation Last Decade and This Century Between CO2 and Global temperatures Not There 
http://icecap.us/ 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MonthlyCO2vsTemps.jpg 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SmoothedMonthlyCO2vsTemps.jp...
bobclive 
19 March 2008 at 15:46
Moors Covered in Golden Wheat 
Some 7,000 years ago, during the Bronze Age, the average temperature in Britain rose almost 4 degrees Fahrenheit above today's norms. 
Martin Carruthers, an archaeologist at Orkney College of the University of the Highlands, says he usually turns to social and cultural explanations for historical agricultural changes. But he says it's hard to deny that the balmy Bronze Age significantly altered land use, allowing ancient farmers to bring their crops to previously uncultivated areas. 
For instance, golden fields of wheat and barley flourished in the soggy, scrubby upland moors that are strewn throughout Britain's higher elevations. In today's climate, those areas are wholly unsuitable for farming. 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9961515
bobclive 
19 March 2008 at 16:19
Peter 
More ice for Arctic Feb 2008. 
The recent spell of very cold weather across far northern Canada has EXPANDED sea ice coverage by about 2 MILLION square kilometers COMPARED to the average winter coverage over the PAST THREE YEARS, according to a CBC News report. 
The key point in this report.....Arctic sea ice is about 10-20 cm THICKER in some areas, compared to last year and that is SIGNIFICANT, according to Gilles Langis, an Ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service. 
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/02/arctic_sea_ice...
bobclive 
19 March 2008 at 16:23
Peter, 
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily....
bobclive 
19 March 2008 at 17:07
The Hockey Stick fiasco 
March 2008. 
The problem is far more than bristlecones merely being antennae for world temperature. U.S. trees, analysed according to Mannian methods, are supposedly capable of reconstructing ENSO, the Chinese monsoon, the East Asian monsoon, the PDO, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Indian Ocean Dipole - did I leave anything out? 
Think of the time and effort that can be saved for paleoclimate research. Using Mann’s methodology, there’s NO NEED to collect data from REMOTE corners of the world. You can just keep adding to the U.S. TREE RING NETWORK. More Starbucks for everyone. 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2845
harmlesssky.org 
19 March 2008 at 21:59
Peter Martin: 
Here's a story on a sceptical blog that I think that you may like. It exposes a high profile political campaigner involved in the climate debate who is being funded by 'big oil'. And the evidence is beyond dispute. 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=61 
TonyN
Peter Martin 
20 March 2008 at 07:59
TonyN, 
I may not like the idea of ex -politicians being paid by big business but there isn't much anyone can do about that providing its all legal. I'm more worried by current politicians being paid especially if its all hidden and the payments have strings attached. 
I'm even more concerned with direct payments to scientists by big business. If they are working for the government they should be happy to stick to their salaries. Of course companies like Exxon like to portray themselves as good generous corporate citizens but, these payments are pretty much the same as a guy on trial, in the dock, paying members of the jury to help them reach a fair decision. 
Bob, 
The thickness of ice at the Arctic in winter is not the issue. The Arctic has pretty much no sunlight in mid-winter so there can't be any greenhouse effect then. Just keep yor eye on the summer figure. There was such a big drop in ice area in 2007 from 2006 that its quite likely that there'll be more in 2008. Of course you guys will loudly proclaim that this is well and truly the end of global warming, conveniently ignoring the zig zag nature of the graph for the last 30 years. 
Anyway I've decided to concentrate my efforts on the Green groups in future so I may leave you to your contrarian discussions. Their opposition to nuclear power is a bigger problem than your attachment to quaint notions of Cosmic rays controlloing the climate, Solar variations, Urban heat islands, the Vikings growing vines in Greenland during the MWP , and Communist infiltration of the climate science community.
harmlesssky.org 
20 March 2008 at 11:10
Robin Guenier’s Last Last Post: 
No doubt the greens have won the political debate, but is the apparent unity among the western media and politicians on AGW real or synthetic? I think you have looked at Warm Words here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=47 
This document has political expediency writ large all over it, and there is no reason to suppose that the attitude of other governments is so different. The faux-green UK budget this month, and the worldwide failure to take any effective action on emission reduction that you have noted, would seem to confirm this. The information that fuels scepticism is as readily available to policy makers as anyone. They cannot be ignorant of the uncertainties whatever their public position is. 
With a very real global economic crisis looming, we may be about to enter a period when everyone is going to be looking at the bottom line far more carefully than they have had to during the last couple of decades. Steady economic growth has given governments an easy ride, and has allowed them to indulge in high levels of taxation and spending. Energy policies that will reduce competitiveness by loading overheads, and which require immense amounts of public subsidy, are likely to come under very close scrutiny. 
Given the vast areas of ignorance and uncertainty that surround the climate debate – with a good deal of political manipulation of research thrown in – neither the warmers nor the sceptics can produce a watertight case. Is it possible that in straightened economic circumstances a reassessment of the science will become equally expedient, and that the evidence will then be interpreted differently?
harmlesssky.org 
20 March 2008 at 12:44
Peter: 
If you believe that 'he who pays the piper calls the tune' then that must apply to both sides of the climate debate equally. 
I think that your analogy with a bent jury miss-fires. Politicians and scientists play the role of advocates in the climate debate. They rarely act as a jury except in the case of the IPCC assessment process. Surely you are not suspicious that funding affects the outcome of that?
harmlesssky.org 
20 March 2008 at 17:33
Peter Martin: 
I'm genuinely sorry that you are thinking of bowing out. We obviously don't agree about a lot of things, but at least you've been prepared to stay in the ring and slug it out against massive odds and that deserves credit. 
Good luck with your campaign to make the greens glow with enthusiasm for nuclear. I fear that you may have an even bigger battle on your hands than here, but if ever you feel like dropping by Harmless Sky to say how you're getting on you'll be very welcome. The nuclear issue is obviously going to become increasingly import in the coming years - for reasons of cost and energy security if nothing else - and it interests me too. 
Incidentally, I hope you understand a pom's weird sense of humour. My last two posts would have been accompanied by a wry grin if this blog had smilies. 
TonyN
Brute 
20 March 2008 at 19:27
First Day Of Spring And We Are Still Dealing With Massive Snowfall. New England Was Socked Again Today. So Much For The Alarmist's Theories......... 
Record snowfall provokes 'snow rage' in Canada 
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article...
Pat T 
20 March 2008 at 21:23
Actually Brute the Census Bureau numbers suggest that the "income quintiles" that the left tell us mean "rich" and "poor" actually, for the most part, mean 50-somethings at the peak of their earnings years and with savings that they're about to spend on college tuition, and 20-somethings just out of college. 
As for people who are "funded in part by big oil" and advocate the freedom to consume refined products, what about people who are funded entirely by governments and anti-energy-industry non-profits who advocate growing government and curtailing that freedom? 
Indeed, if you eliminated from the debate every scientist without a "dog in the hunt" the remainder of scientists would fit in my living room (not that I'm inviting them, I just got new curtains). 
How about we judge the theory and its conclusions on the merits? In that case, we're left with what we had ten years ago - and unproven theory about an explanation for roughly the same level of global temperature. 
Since the burden of proof on that theory is undeniably yours, there is nothing to discuss.
Pat T 
20 March 2008 at 21:27
Oh and by the way Peter, the ozone hole is no smaller than it was 20 years ago when CFCs were banned. 
It may "have something to do with CFCs" but it certainly doesn't work the way they said it worked when they banned CFCs and wiped out thousands of jobs.
harmlesssky.org 
21 March 2008 at 10:15
On the 11th March the New Statesman closed comments on the Whitehouse thread and it seems likely that they will do the same here before long. If anyone wants to continue this discussion, which has accumulated nearly 2000 comments over the last three months, there may be a way of doing so. 
I’ve prepared a page on my own blog, www.harmlesssky.org , that has links to both the New Statesman articles and all the comments, where the discussion can continue. You will find it here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63 
Look for ‘New Statesman’ in the left hand sidebar. 
The comments form will not be activated until AFTER THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG CLOSES so that the thread remains consecutive. You will not be able to comment there so long as this blog is active. 
Blog stats suggest that quite a lot of people are still visiting this page.
newcguy 
21 March 2008 at 17:37
Have a look at this latest graph from the cru, which includes the latest early figures from 2008: 
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ 
I don't see how anyone can still insist that the long-term trend remains upward. Whether it is temporary or not, global warming has halted, exactly the main thrust of the original Whitehouse article.
harmlesssky.org 
21 March 2008 at 21:15
Newcguy: 
I fear that we may hear an awful lot about aerosols and Chinese coal fired power stations in the next few months.
Mr Fnortner 
21 March 2008 at 21:52
Well, the Admin closed the other badly run-on thread, but I see you fellows are still at it over here. I'm surprised your fingers aren't nubs. 
Here's a refreshing if stunningly obstinate article about no oceanic warming: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8852002... 
If you don't care to read it, here's a shorter version with your teenager explaining: Well, I know the road appears to have turned left, but I staked my reputation as a driver on the road being straight, so look over here at these hard, flat patches you see among the grassy bits, and these dark, black areas near here--these must be pavement, right? So we are certainly still on the road, and that road-like apparition over there with all the other cars on it is just data I can't account for. But I'll fix my definition of "road" really soon and all will be well, here in this ditch. 
You warmists are a piece of work.
Robin Guenier 
21 March 2008 at 22:57
OK – I know about my last “last post”. But, given Mr Fnortner’s contribution, I had to mention the article that announced the deployment of the 3,000 marine robots to which his link refers: under the headline “Oceans warming faster than predicted”, a spokesperson said the project was crucial for predicting how fast climate change is happening. "We definitely see the ocean warming … ," she said. See: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/12/2088832.htm. Hmm.
Brute 
22 March 2008 at 00:45
Mr Guenier, 
A more “balanced” assessment of the non-warming of the oceans at the link below….. It seems that the data is telling these pundits that there has been no warming of the world’s oceans in the last five years and they are trying to work the “global warming causes oceans to cool” explanation into this fact also. Freezing cold, record cold, massive snowstorms are “clear evidence" of CO2 causing temperatures to rise. I can’t believe that people are actually falling for this…….. 
http://www.icecap.us/ 
Mar 19, 2008 
The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat 
By Richard Harris, NPR 
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren’t quite understanding what their robots are telling them. 
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming. In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans. 
Read the full story here 
Icecap Note: If anyone would bother to look at the actual data instead of just pronouncements in the media from NOAA or GISS, they would not be surprised at all by these findings. Here is a plot of actual monthly temperatures and the trends from the Hadley global data set (HADCRUT3v) and University of Alabama satellite derived lower tropospheric temperatures covering the same period as the robots measured ocean heat content. Like the robots they show a downtrend (cooling). 
See full size graph here 
It is also worth noting that Roger Pielke Sr. has advocated ocean heat content as a better measure of the global changes in temperatures than surface station based trends. Work by Roger and Anthony Watts at surfacestations.org have identified major issues with the land stations. In this case the ocean heat content agrees with the land stations, so the cooling over the past 5 years is very likely real. 5 years does not a long term trend make but it does call into question claims the warming is accelerating and that immediate action is required. Indeed Roger has just posted on this on Climate Science. See his post here. He has also reposted this story ”Big Time Gambling With Multi-Decadal Global Climate Model Predictions” by Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Roger A. Pielke Jr.
jimbob37 
22 March 2008 at 03:59
Interesting article here: 
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828
Mr Fnortner 
22 March 2008 at 04:43
Mr. Guenier, our good scientist probably let her sense of urgency or motivation overtake her data, and leapt to an unwarranted conclusion. Besides, she also meant critical rather than crucial. See, fuzzy-headed thinking permeates every process once operating within a person, from forming a coherent theory to uttering a cogent sentence.
Robin Guenier 
22 March 2008 at 06:35
Yes - and see this: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-...
harmlesssky.org 
22 March 2008 at 11:41
Robin Guenier and Mr Fnortner: 
Is the data you are discussing derived form Xpendable Bathy Thermograph (XBT) instruments? If so there is an interesting post here which suggests that they are capable of producing data with both a warm and a cool bias, and are probably just not fit for purpose. 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1461 
Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit has also taken an interest in likely problems in the historic SST record resulting from the transition from data collected using buckets dipped over the side of ships to permanent sensors on the intakes of their sea water cooling systems. Use 'bucket' as a search term at ClimateAudit. 
TonyN: www.harmlesssky.org
Robin Guenier 
22 March 2008 at 12:06
TonyN: I've no idea. I'm simply amused that, when all these devices were launched (presumably at vast expense), we were told they were "crucial" for predicting ocean warming - and that now, when they indicate cooling, we are assured that the scientists must be misinterpreting the data.
Brute 
22 March 2008 at 12:45
Fellow Skeptics, 
Since there is no one left to argue with from the Alarmist side, (Mr. Martin has bowed out….last man standing wins the bout, correct?), I believe that it is most important to reassert something that I had written previously. 
Being that the vast majority of the media is skewed toward promoting this global warming nonsense it may be helpful to pass along information to friends, family and colleagues through E-mail and polite conversation telling the "other" side of the global warming story. I believe that the majority of the public do not delve into this subject as intensely as many following this site do and really do think, (because they have been repeatedly told over and over), that there is some kind of impending climate catastrophe due to burning fossils fuels. 
While I am in full agreement that mankind should use energy responsibly and continuously seek out alternate forms of energy for national security purposes, I do not adhere to the proposed “solutions” put forth by the United Nations. Energy solutions can be uncovered and promoted (more successfully than government fiat), by private industry. Capitalism and the marketplace will ultimately accomplish this task far better / efficiently than any government agency / program. I would like nothing more than to see the oil sheikdoms suddenly become insignificant due to alternative fuel products and revert back to the Medieval Bedouin states as they were before the 1920’s, but as of today, oil / coal / natural gas are the fuels of choice in the industrialized world and these commodities must be accessible and available to sustain mankind. 
It is quite obvious that “Global Warming” is and has been a completely natural state of affairs with enormous political and economic influences….a scenario exploited by politicians to further a radical agenda. The proof is contained in the information posted by many of you demonstrating that while CO2 levels are purportedly rising, global temperatures have dropped as Mr. Whitehouse wrote several months ago. The Anthropologic Global Warming theory is a myth. Hopefully people will begin to open their eyes to this subterfuge. 
While I won’t go as far to commit to writing that this is my “last”, “last”, “last”, post, I want to thank you all for helping me understand this enigma and all of it’s facets. 
Please, I encourage you to spread the word and let people know what is going on regarding this subject; people sure as hell won’t get unbiased information from the press or from Al, (buy my carbon credit indulgences and make me richer), Gore. 
Thanks again.
harmlesssky.org 
22 March 2008 at 12:49
Robin: 
Yes! And it's also another of example of the certainties mouthed by politicians, the green NGO and the media being based on massive scientific uncertainty. 
The 'Bucket Problem' is actually quite amusing. Particularly a comment from an ancient mariner who recalled that dipping a bucket over the side and then waiting the requisite time for a thermometer to register was was just about the most unpopular job in any ship; particularly in high latitudes. His considered opinion was that any researcher who took the resulting data seriously was deluded.
Brute 
22 March 2008 at 12:55
Global Warming Kills Alaskan Oil Workers in New Horror Film 
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/01/03/gl... 
Global Warming Will Force Us All To Eat Bugs 
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/02/14/gl... 
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’ 
http://newsbusters.org//blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weath... 
CNN Meteorologist: ‘Definitely Some Inaccuracies’ in Gore Film 
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/cnn-meteorologist-defin...
Mr Fnortner 
22 March 2008 at 12:58
Or perhaps even that the actual warmth increase must be going off somewhere and hiding.
Robin Guenier 
22 March 2008 at 14:26
Or maybe (shudder) “something more mysterious is going on” – what could it be?
stargazer 
22 March 2008 at 16:37
Worth reading 
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-...
stargazer 
22 March 2008 at 16:41
Whoops ,,,,Robin beat me to the above earlier
bobclive 
22 March 2008 at 16:51
Measuring the Phoenix Urban Heat Island. 
Just a lad and his dad measuring Rural and urban 
temps, Interesting results. 
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/measureing-the.html?c...#comment-107626416
newcguy 
23 March 2008 at 01:05
Did you know that 'Global Warming' is now a topic being taught in primary schools in the UK? I am a Year 4 teacher, and this year it was taught to Year 6 (that's 10/11 year-olds) for the first time as their geography unit in the autumn term. I asked their teacher if she told them AGW was only a theory and that there were scientists who disagree, and the reply was 'not really'. The children were all writing reports on polar bears with nowhere to live. It's very sad.
harmlesssky.org 
23 March 2008 at 10:56
Newcguy: 
Sad is the right word! What effect is this kind of indoctrination going to have on pupils who go on to do science seriously later? 
There are some interesting links on this page if you haven't seen them: 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2212 
These relate to the High Court challenge to the UK government's decision to show An Inconvenient Truth in all schools. Mr Justice Burton's judgment is here: 
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html 
It is a surprisingly easy read and shows how a well trained legal mind can cut to the heart of complex issues without the need for specialist knowlege. 
There is also a link from comment 2 on the ClimateAudit page to the revised teaching notes. 
TonyN: http://www.harmlesssky.org
newcguy 
23 March 2008 at 11:54
Harmlesssky: 
I think you're right - indoctrination is the word, and thank you for those links. 
In one sense, it is of course no bad thing that children are taught not to be wasteful of energy and other resources, are encouraged to recycle and to think about environmental matters. 
But there is something truly pernicious about the effect this AGW propaganda is having on young minds - a young female colleague of mine remarked the other day that she didn't want to have children because she was so convinced that the world was heading for, in her words, 'environmental catastrophe'. I'll say it again: it's very sad.
Brute 
23 March 2008 at 12:53
http://icecap.us/ 
Mar 21, 2008 
Gore’s 10 Errors: Old and New. Scientific Mistakes and Exaggerations in an Interview in India Today 
By Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley 
Al Gore no longer gives interviews to the Press except where the interviewer has been carefully pre-selected for his sycophancy and for his lack of elementary knowledge of climate science. Likewise, Gore no longer takes questions from the audience at any public meeting unless he is sure that no one in the audience knows anything of climatology. The interview from which the following list of Gore’s latest scientific errors and exaggerations was compiled appeared in India Today on 17 March 2008. 
Error 1: “‘Global warming’ is a planetary emergency. It is a crisis and we have to find ways to come to an agreement to reduce the carbon dioxide.” 
The facts: There is no “planetary emergency”. Nor is there a “crisis”. If there is an “emergency” or a “crisis”, it is certainly not caused by “global warming”. The increase in global temperatures between 1980 and 1998, when “global warming” stopped, was only half of the small increase shown in the official temperature records (McKitrick, 2006, 2007 in press). In the decade since 1998 there has been no statistically-significant increase in global temperature (HadCRUt3, 2008; US NCDC, 2008; RSS,2008; UAH MSU, 2008; etc.). In the seven years since early 2001, the trend of global temperature has been downward at a rate equivalent to more than 0.4degrees Celsius (0.75 F) per decade: 
Error 2: “Today we the people of this planet would put another 70m tons of global warmingpollution into the earth’s atmosphere.” 
The facts: “Global warming pollution” is Gore’s favorite phrase for “carbon dioxide.” However, CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally-occurring gas. Together with chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis and is, accordingly, plant food. The reconstruction of palaeoclimatological CO2 concentrations below, taken from Berner (2001), demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration today is almost at its lowest level since the Cambrian era 550 million years ago, when there was almost 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today, without any threat to animal or plant life, and without causing the “runaway greenhouse effect” that Gore likes to mention: 
See larger image here. See all ten errors here. 
Lord Christopher Monckton, UK, - Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986
Brute 
23 March 2008 at 13:06
New Guy, 
Yes, it is despicable and insidious. I wonder if they teach and dissect Mein Kampf or analyze the film Birth of a Nation also. 
Gore’s Ten Errors Old & New 
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monc...
Brute 
23 March 2008 at 13:24
New Guy, 
You should print this article and pass it to the instructor that you referenced earlier. 
What Al Gore Really Wants 
By Robert Tracinski 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/what_al_go...
bobclive 
23 March 2008 at 16:16
Lunar eclipse may shed light on climate change, says Richard Keen of the University of Colorado in Boulder, US. March 2008. 
Susan Solomon of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado, a member of the Nobel-prize-winning team that put together the 2007 IPCC report, says atmospheric haze, including haze from volcanoes, was included in computer models used for the report. 
MODELS SAY NO, but the moon shines brighter. 
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13376-lunar-eclipse-...
harmlesssky.org 
24 March 2008 at 14:06
Newcguy: 
Interesting and depressing. 
I certainly agree that children should be taught to treat their habitat with respect, and that hysteria is not the way to go about this. In the long term, surely this must be counterproductive. 
As a teacher, do you feel constrained in what you say to pupils about climate change? Is there peer pressure to conform to the received opinions? 
TonyN; www.harmlesssky.org
newcguy 
24 March 2008 at 15:42
Harmlesssky: 
I don't really feel under any pressure. My class this year are 8/9 year olds, and global warming is not part of their curriculum. The subject has come up in discussions occasionally over the years - the line I take is to outline the greenhouse gases theory, and then add that it is only a theory and that there are scientists who disagree and have alternative explanations for global warming. 
My guess is that there are lots of teachers, particularly in secondary schools, who are giving the children rather more one-sided teaching. 
Brute: 
That is a fascinating article about Al Gore - the more I hear about that man, the more I dislike him. There is something deeply unattractive about a very wealthy man promoting policies that will retard economic growth, and hinder people around the world (including the developing world) from achieving higher standards of living.
Sven 
25 March 2008 at 14:08
A really good article on the nature of the (non-existent) debate: 
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828
stargazer 
25 March 2008 at 19:42
"the IPCC has the effrontery to argue in 4AR that a decline in the sun’s activity and increased eruptions from volcanoes would “likely have produced cooling” of the planet were it not for offsetting human-caused warming. And this when there have been no recent volcanic eruptions of global import, and after 15 years during which the warming alarmists have consistently denied that solar activity is a significant cause of recent climate change. The self-serving nature of these arguments is breathtaking, and transparently the alarmists are now positioning themselves to explain away any continuation of the downturn in temperature" 
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2352
Peter Martin 
25 March 2008 at 22:44
Hello again, 
Just a quck posting to let you know that I haven't completely abandoned you guys. 
There are a few things as usual that need some correction. It is not correct to argue that emitting large quantities of carbon dioxide , (each year 27 billion tonnes to be more precise) isn't pollution simply because CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere. Ozone, hydrogen sulphide, sulphur dioxide, methane, nitrous and nitric oxides all occur naturally but those gases are still treated as a pollutants. I seem to remember one of the problems of the Apollo 13 mission was the dangerous level of CO2 build up in the cabin. As wikpedia explains it "Pollution can be in the form of chemical substances, or energy such as noise, heat, or light. Pollutants can be naturally occurring substances or energies, but are considered contaminants when in excess of natural levels." 
It is true that natural levels of CO2 have varied over millions of years with much higher levels in the past. However you should realise that humans have evolved in the past million years or so and we are naturally adapted to the atmosphere as it is , or at least, it was. We are quite a long way from seeing the 1000 ppm or so of CO2, which dinosuars happily lived in , but unlike dinosuars, this is the sort of level at which humans start to be affected with feelings of drowsiness and headaches. 
No-one has denied that solar activity variation has played its part in past climate changes. Neither does anyone now deny that the 11 year solar cycle does have a small cyclical effect. But there is no evidence of any solar variation to explain the sharp rise in temperatures of the last thirty years. 
The temperature has not risen smoothly over this time but rather in a zig zag fashion with sharp rises and sometimes sharp falls. That the temperature has been relatively flat these last eight years is nothing out of the ordinary. It is consistent with previous temperature patterns; we would be in a cooling phase but for the underlying influence of CO2 induced warming. 
What certainly has not levelled off is the depletion of Arctic summer ice. Using the summer minimum as a benchmark the area of Arctic oceon which is permanently frozen has just about halved in the past thirty years and was the lowest on record. Fortunately melting sea ice does not contribute to rising sea levels because it already floats on the oceon, but nevertheless it is a totally independent verification of what scientific temperature measurements are telling us. 
You can't put that down to 'urban heat islands' or corrupt scientists. Unless you imagine that we all take our summer holidays up in the Arctic and spend our time melting the ice with blow torches !
bobclive 
25 March 2008 at 23:43
These audio lectures are informative, see Track 4: Climate Change Economics 
Audio 
Andrei Illarionov 
Senior Fellow, Cato Institute 
Former Chief Economic Advisor 
President Vladimir Putin, Russia 
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/audio.cfm
Peter Martin 
26 March 2008 at 03:59
You might have already read about this. I'll save you the trouble of posting it up yourselves. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7313264.stm 
These right wing think tanks, such as the US Cato Institute and the Australian 'Institute of Public Affairs' are getting very pretentious. They've both got "senior fellows" ! How about that? 
I don't know Andrei Illarionov, but Aussie Jennifer Mahorasy may call herself a "senior fellow" of the IPA, who are incidentally very private and not a public body at all, but she'd be lucky to get a job tidying up the laboratory equipment in a real Australian university. 
I'm considering setting up the "International Science and Environmental Research Institute". If anyone would like to be a "senior fellow" of this, or maybe an associate professorship, or any title they'd care to dream up, maybe we could come to some arrangement ? :-)
Brute 
26 March 2008 at 10:12
Pete, 
Regading your offer to become a Senior Fellow……..I’ll have to get back to you on that one, I’ve been pretty busy lately and don’t know if I can find the time to be a weatherman. Considering the track record of the IPPC and their incorrect predictions, I would say that anyone here would have an equally good chance of flipping a coin or gazing into a crystal ball (or wetting my finger and putting it into the wind) and predicting the future weather patterns. The only other qualification seems to be formally holding a job on the public dole and access to the media, (or a rock star / washed up actor). One other thing…….I’d need the services of some television or movie producer / director with experience directing disaster or horror films with access to computer generated special effects………Maybe a Alfred Hitchcock type? 
Same story as above, different viewpoint……………………… 
http://www.icecap.us/ 
Mar 25, 2008 
Misleading Reports About Antarctica 
Last year when Antarctic set a new record for ice extent, it got no media attention. They focused on the north polar regions where the ice set record low levels. This summer when unprecedented anomalous cover continued in the Southern Hemisphere again no coverage. Then this report in the news today. You probably saw it on your favorite network or internet news site (pick one, anyone). 
Vast Antarctic Ice Shelf on Verge of Collapse - Latest Sign of Global Warming’s Impact Shocks Scientists 
Andrea Thompson Livescience 
A vast ice shelf hanging on by a thin strip looks to be the next chunk to break off from the Antarctic Peninsula, the latest sign of global warming’s impact on Earth’s southernmost continent. Scientists are shocked by the rapid change of events. Glaciologist Ted Scambos of the University of Colorado was monitoring satellite images of the Wilkins Ice Shelf and spotted a huge iceberg measuring 25 miles by 1.5 miles (37 square miles) that appeared to have broken away from the shelf. Scambos alerted colleagues at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) that it looked like the entire ice shelf - about 6,180 square miles (about the size of Northern Ireland)- was at risk of collapsing. The region where the Wilkins Ice Shelf lies has experienced unprecedented warming in the past 50 years, with several ice shelves retreating in the past 30 years. Six of these ice shelves have collapsed completely: Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and the Jones Ice Shelf. See MSNBC version of this story here. 
Icecap Note: Lets put this in perspective. The account may be misinterpreted by some as the ice cap or a significant (vast) portion is collapsing. In reality it and all the former shelves that collapsed are small and most near the Antarctic peninsula which sticks well out from Antarctica into the currents and winds of the South Atlantic and lies in a tectonically active region with surface and subsurface active volcanic activity. The vast continent has actually cooled since 1979. 
See full image here 
The full Wilkins 6,000 square mile ice shelf is just 0.39% of the current ice sheet (just 0.1% of the extent last September). Only a small portion of it between 1/10th-1/20th of Wilkins has separated so far, like an icicle falling off a snow and ice covered house. And this winter is coming on quickly. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60% ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new record. The ice extent is already approaching the second highest level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere winter and 6 months ahead of the peak. Wilkins like all the others that temporarily broke up will refreeze soon. We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear. 
See full image here 
One Icecap reader points also to a paper (Glasser et al, 2008) identifying some of the other natural processes that can lead to these ice sheet breaks, in this case Larsen B.
stargazer 
26 March 2008 at 19:34
Peter said "No-one has denied that solar activity variation has played its part in past climate changes. Neither does anyone now deny that the 11 year solar cycle does have a small cyclical effect. But there is no evidence of any solar variation to explain the sharp rise in temperatures of the last thirty years." 
Well see this link. This says what i have been saying since my first posts ot these threads. Its the sun.. 
and this 'latest piece' is 'old' news to me (and some others) who saw this a long time ago. 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/evidence-of-...
Robin Guenier 
26 March 2008 at 23:22
stargazer – thanks for your repeated attempts to get us to appreciate the likely influence of the sun in all this. The document for which you refer is complex. I suggest that those who haven’t time or inclination to read it all simply look at Figure 1 (upper chart) and consider the author’s comment, “. . . using HadCRUTv3 the rate of change during the early part of the 20th century [1910 – 1940] was almost identical to the rate of change at the end of the century [1975 – 2005] . . . since the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions was much lower in the earlier part of the century, what could possibly explain why temperatures increased for so long during that period at a rate comparable to that experienced during the recent warming?” Hmm – both 30 year periods and, if anything, the rate of increase appears to be slightly steeper for the first.
Peter Martin 
27 March 2008 at 00:38
Stargazer, 
Thanks for the link. I must have missed it the first time you posted it. 
I wouldn't disagree with the presentation of the smoothed graph in the upper chart of figure 1. What it does show straightaway is that any claim of an end to global warming is somewhat premature. 
The question arises of why there were two periods of sharply rising temperatures in the 20th century with a flat period, or even a period of slight cooling, between 1940 and 1975. 
The global warming issue is generally associated with an increase of atmospheric CO2 which is currently considered to be the biggest factor. Sceptics often suggest that because the temperature rise in the 20th century did not exactly track the rise in CO2 emissions that CO2 is not an important factor in temperature rise. 
The true situation is more complicated. There are other factors in the equation too. Methane emissions (+ve ), Other pollutant gases ( some +ve, some -ve ) , aerosols from both human and volcanic sources ( largely -ve ), and even solar variations ( slightly +ve). 
The generally accepted explanation for the levelling of temperatures in the mid 20th century is that there was a large -ve contribution from aerosols during this period as industry around the world picked up sharpley after WW2. Later clean air acts and pollution controls reduced the amount of emitted aerosols in most of the developed world. 
You may not be convinced by this explanation but the main point to make is that the temperature increase in the 20th century did not track any one particular factor, certainly not solar either, so I would suggest that Anthony Watts should broaden his analysis to include all possible factors rather than just concentrating on the solar contribution with speculation about very long term solar cycles. 
Incidentally, I did notice on a recent trip to Asia just how smoky the atmosphere was, and it did occur to me that any attempt to quantify global warming would depend on how countries such as China tackle their pollution problems in the future. Ideally, what we'd like them to do was reduce CO2 emissions but carry on emitting smoke and SO2 pollution which should have an overall cooling effect.
Sven 
27 March 2008 at 09:17
Peter Martin, 
"Ideally, what we'd like them to do was reduce CO2 emissions but carry on emitting smoke and SO2 pollution which should have an overall cooling effect." 
So, 
a) for you global warming is the ONLY environmental problem? 
b) what about the often heard argument that even IF AGW would turn out not to be true, we would all still like to have a) a cleaner environment and b) an alternative to not endless fossile fuels...??
Robin Guenier 
27 March 2008 at 10:55
As I suspect you know, Peter, the impact of aerosols is uncertain (see for example Jacobson (2001), Chen & Penner (2005), Anderson et al (2003), Schwartz et al (2005), Nakicenovic & Swart (2000), Stott (2001) and Jaenicke (2005)). Here are two observations that reflect the position: (1) “Scientists have much to learn about the way aerosols affect regional and global climate … we are even unsure whether aerosols are warming or cooling our planet.” (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Aerosols/aerosol.ht...); (2). “It will be some time before … we can be confident on the diverse aerosol impacts on global climate.” 
(“Human impacts on weather and climate”. Cotton and Pielke, Cambridge University Press, 2007.) You say the aerosol explanation (of levelling temperatures) is “generally accepted” – by whom? 
Nevertheless, I’m encouraged that you now accept that the “true situation is more complicated” – that’s precisely what many so-called sceptics, deniers and contrarians have been attacked for saying all along. The fact that greenhouse gas emission theory struggles to explain why the rate of temperature change in 1910/1940 was virtually identical to that in 1975/2005 exemplifies this complexity – as does the fact that CO2 theory cannot explain other historical warmings. 
(PS: re China, no doubt, if the present cooling continues, you’ll say that they should carry on emitting CO2 but reduce smoke and SO2 pollution: thereby warming the planet and making a useful contribution to Sven's cleaner environment. Hmm.)
bobclive 
28 March 2008 at 10:52
The most important paper since AGW began. 
I believe this new peer reviewed study (March 2008) by Dr Roy Spencer spells the end for the AGWers. 
Dr Spencer`s study shows water vapor as a NEGATIVE feedback, the AGW advocates totally rely on water vapor being a positive feedback, without water vapour being positive their cause is LOST. 
Dr Spencer`s paper was peer reviewed by the GCM modelers themselves, they say they were wrong to show water vapour as positive in their models. 
Listen to the audio at site below. 
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/audio.cfm12:00 
audio section below Dr Roy Spencer. 
12 noon - 2:00 p.m. secion 
Discussed at: 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2543
bobclive 
28 March 2008 at 11:07
The Hockey Team at RealClimate has yet to do a post on the Roy Spencer`s study. Why is that?
bobclive 
28 March 2008 at 11:45
Climate facts to warm to 
The Austrailian published a transcript of an interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril. 
Excerpt: 
Duffy: “Can you tell us about NASA’s Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we’re now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?” 
Marohasy: “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.” 
Duffy: “The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?” 
Marohasy: “That’s right … These findings actually aren’t being disputed by the meteorological community. They’re having trouble digesting the findings, they’re acknowledging the findings, they’re acknowledging that the data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they’re about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.” 
Duffy: “From what you’re saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable …” 
Marohasy: “That’s right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer’s interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point.” 
If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting. 
A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience. 
This entry was posted Saturday, March 22nd, 2008 
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/climate-facts-to-wa...
harmlesssky.org 
28 March 2008 at 12:00
Peter Martin: 
The Wilkins Ice Shelf story that you linked to is typical of the BBC’s willingness to use any press release which provides eye-catching pictures of the polar regions. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7313264.stm 
Breaking up is what ice shelves do, otherwise they would extend all the way to the equator. Comprehensive observations of their extent only date back to the beginning of the satellite era in the late 1970s. Prior to that time there are no similar records with which to make comparisons. There is no way of knowing whether large scale break-ups are anomalous or not. 
At present, all that has been detected at the Wilkins is a fracture, and this has occurred just before the on-set of the Antarctic winter. It remains to be seen whether the area that Prof. Vaughan has identified will break away during some future Antarctic summer. So even the ‘evidence’ on which the story is based is speculative. 
The Antarctic Peninsula has shown signs of warming in recent years, but it represents only about 2% of the continent’s land mass and is subject to quite different, and far more volatile, climatic influences. The northern tip of the peninsular is almost as close to the equator as the Shetland Islands off the North coast of the UK. 
Stories like this have only two purposes: to publicise research programs that require vast amounts of funding, and to persuade those who know little about the scientific evidence that ‘unprecedented changes’ are taking place. 
The influence on public opinion that publicising what, in all probability, is a quite unremarkable phenomena in historical terms, is irrelevant. Those who believe that AGW is taking place will only win the debate when they can convince well-informed sceptics that they are right. The importance attached to spurious stories like this reveal the weakness of the evidence, not its strength. 
For an example of just how unprincipled this debate has become, see here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=64 
TonyN
bobclive 
28 March 2008 at 12:41
harmlesssky.org 
Forget about ice sheets melting, discuss Spencers new paper, that`s the big one at the moment. 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-whamm...
Peter Martin 
28 March 2008 at 13:48
This biologist, Jennifer Marohasy, so called "senior fellow " of the very misnamed, very private, very right wing pseudoscience group the 'Institute of Public Affairs', has by her own admission done no real research work in more than a decade. It appears that she completed her Ph.D., maybe did a year or two at most of post-doc work, and then pursued a management/PR/advocacy career. She does not appear to have published any peer-reviewed results since her grad school. 
At any rate, why would the Australian, or anyone else for that matter, want to ask a biologist for an expert opinion on climate science? James Hansen doesn't pontificate on the finer point of cell biology and why should he? 
If you want to understand what is happening to global temperatures take a look at the graph Stargazer has posted up. The first part of figure 1. He's supposed to be on your side of the argument, but he's happy to post up a graph showing that global temperatures are still rising. 
Any predictions of a coming ice age and a rapid cooling of the climate are just so much nonsense coming , as they do, less than a year after the area of summer ice in the Arctic reached a record low. 
"The northern tip of the {Antarctic} peninsular is almost as close to the equator as the Shetland Islands off the North coast of the UK." 
I suppose it depends what you mean by "almost". A much fairer comparison, almost an exact comparison in fact, would have been Iceland rather than the Shetland islands which are more to the west of the Scottish coast rather than to the north.
Peter Martin 
28 March 2008 at 14:08
PS. Correction. 
I should have checked my Geography. The Shetlands are to the North of the UK. I should admit I was looking at the wrong islands so 'almost' is an OK word . Iceland is still closer in latitude to the most northern part of Antarctica though. It is surprising just how far north the UK is when you actually check on the map . It has a similar latitude to the Labrador and Newfoundland areas of Canada
Robin Guenier 
28 March 2008 at 14:16
Peter: you say, “global temperatures are still rising”. Not so. Here’s a plot of (1) actual monthly temperatures and the trends from the Hadley global data set (HADCRUT3v) and (2) University of Alabama satellite derived lower tropospheric temperatures – as you see, they show a downtrend (cooling): http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Temperatures_since_2003.jpg. 
Any thoughts yet about how greenhouse gas emission theory explains why the rate of temperature change in 1910/1940 was virtually identical to that in 1975/2005. Aerosols?
bobclive 
28 March 2008 at 14:42
Peter 
A typical AGwer`s response is to attack the person and not comment on the science. 
Dr Roy Spencer`s 2008 paper is at the heart of the AGW theory, is the most significant paper in a decade and you do not know how to respond because realclimate don`t know how to respond. Without water vapour as a positive feedback your position is lost. 
Dr Spencer`s paper is peer reviewed and published, his work is accepted, people are in shock at this point especially at realclimate. 
Read the paper, listen to the lecture, then lets have some constructive comments from you.
Robin Guenier 
28 March 2008 at 16:21
Peter: while you’re considering the 1910/1940 rate of temperature change perhaps you might also consider 1860/1879 where the Hadley record shows a linear decadal rate of increase of 0.196 degrees C per decade: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
vpbeerman 
28 March 2008 at 16:54
How can you have a science correspondent with a bio that starts: "Mark Lynas is a climate change writer and activist, author of the acclaimed book 'High Tide'" 
It doesn't take a genius to see that in order to be an activist, you have to have a cause. Without a climate change crisis... seems like Lynas would be out of a job, and a cause. How can you pass this man off as impartial (something I think would be a requirement of a science correspondent.)
bobclive 
28 March 2008 at 18:11
Real climate rejected invitation to the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York, they said on their blogg, 
Over the past days, many of us have received invitations to a conference called "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in New York. At first sight this may look like a scientific conference - especially to those who are not familiar with the activities of the Heartland Institute, a front group for the fossil fuel industry that is sponsoring the conference. You may remember them. They were the promoters of the Avery and Singer "Unstoppable" tour and purveyors of disinformation about numerous topics such as the demise of Kilimanjaro's ice cap. 
... 
This is very nice hotel indeed. Our recommendation to those elected officials tempted by the offer: enjoy a great weekend in Manhattan at Heartland's expense and don't waste your time on tobacco-science lectures - you are highly unlikely to hear any real science there. 
The organiser`s reply was, 
Gavin, I am disappointed, though not surprised, that you and your Real Climate fellow activists have refused our invitation to speak at the climate change conference. I can make a pretty good guess as to why. Less than a year ago, on March 14, 2007, Real Climate's Gavin Schmidt and two other global warming alarmists debated global warming against three skeptical scientists in front of the prestigious Intelligence Squared debating society in New York City. A poll of audience members prior to the debate found that the audience believed by a 2-to-1 margin (57 percent to 29 percent) that global warming is a crisis. After a lengthy debate in which all panelists had a chance to present their evidence and answer follow-up questions, the audience voted by a 46 to 42 percent margin that global warming is NOT a crisis. 
Real climate`s view on the science does not stack up when debated in the public arena, all they can do is to attack the man.
harmlesssky.org 
28 March 2008 at 20:55
Peter Martin: 
You say: 
"Any predictions of a coming ice age and a rapid cooling of the climate are just so much nonsense coming , as they do, less than a year after the area of summer ice in the Arctic reached a record low." 
I am no aware that anyone is seriously suggesting that a new ice age will begin soon although, as I'm sure you know, there were predictions that this would happen a few decades ago when temperatures had fallen for a while. So far as the so called 'record' you have cited is concerned, I have already explained to you that this is misleading here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=27#comment-26 
After all this time, do you really think that the sceptics on this blog are likely to fall for such facile arguments, and if not, then who are they aimed at?
Peter Martin 
28 March 2008 at 23:13
Tony, 
You might want to keep better track of what some of your fellow contrarians are saying about the coming ice age. See for example: 
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter... 
Are they being serious? Well yes I think so. 
The argument goes further. To stave off this disaster it is everyone's patriotic duty to create as much CO2 as possible. I seem to remember Brute using this one. 
Stargazer is another 'solar' contrarian. In fact, if I've got it wrong about temperatures rising then so has he. Take a look at the blue line of his graph (fig1 upper part) on his last posting. 26th March (19.34). 
Are you going to point out that he's wrong too? Or, is it OK to acknowledge that the world is still warming if solar forcing is the argument but not otherwise?
Brute 
28 March 2008 at 23:34
Pete, 
I'm semi-retired from the site........and since when have you ever listened to anything I've had to say. 
I don't think it was me, but if I did write that, it was probably profound and unimpeachable, (and humble). 
Mar 28, 2008 
Increased Knowledge About Global Warming Leads To Apathy, Study Shows 
ScienceDaily 
The more you know the less you care—at least that seems to be the case with global warming. A telephone survey of 1,093 Americans by two Texas A&M University political scientists and a former colleague indicates that trend, as explained in their recent article in the peer-reviewed journal Risk Analysis. 
“More informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming,” states the article, titled “Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the USA.” 
The study showed high levels of confidence in scientists among Americans led to a decreased sense of responsibility for global warming. The diminished concern and sense of responsibility flies in the face of awareness campaigns about climate change, such as in the movies An Inconvenient Truth and Ice Age: The Meltdown and in the mainstream media’s escalating emphasis on the trend. 
Kellstedt says the findings were a bit unexpected. The focus of the study, he says, was not to measure how informed or how uninformed Americans are about global warming, but to understand why some individuals who are more or less informed about it showed more or less concern. “In that sense, we didn’t really have expectations about how aware or unaware people were of global warming,” he says. But, he adds, “The findings that the more informed respondents were less concerned about global warming, and that they felt less personally responsible for it, did surprise us. We expected just the opposite.” 
Read more here. 
Icecap Note: This is why the alarmists and their cheerleaders in the media try to paint the issue as settled and suppress alternative information. The public is too smart. 
http://icecap.us/
Brute 
28 March 2008 at 23:39
The Stalinists lose another round…………… 
EPA Chief Bides Time On Court's Emissions Order 
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-gree...
Brute 
29 March 2008 at 00:09
Antarctica Isn’t Cooperating.......... 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/27/antar...
Brute 
29 March 2008 at 00:11
More on the Hurricane Hysteria 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/25/more-...#more-311
stargazer 
29 March 2008 at 08:26
Peter said "Stargazer is another 'solar' contrarian. In fact, if I've got it wrong about temperatures rising then so has he. Take a look at the blue line of his graph (fig1 upper part) on his last posting. 26th March (19.34). 
Are you going to point out that he's wrong too? Or, is it OK to acknowledge that the world is still warming if solar forcing is the argument but not otherwise?" 
Uhhh... If you take the time to read my many posts I have agreed that the worlds temp has gone up since 
~1850 and I have said that 'we' are likely responsible for some of that due to Co2. However I think Most of the warming is due to us rebounding out of thr LIA and the temp geting back to where it was before the global cooling of the LIA got in the way. This can only be the Sun, and now the sun has gone 'quiet' and the temp has gone down a bit from its maximum. Personaly i think that we are indeed entering a new solar 'grand minimum' and by say 2012 all the warming (1f) caused by us ?? will be wiped out!!!. where the real danger is though, is what will solar cycle 24 do... 
If it is low as lots of solar astronomers think it will be then we will be in real dire trouble. see i beleive in climate change (but not global warming) 
print this, and pin it to your fridge door. only time will tell who is right...but beleive me I would rather you were.
harmlesssky.org 
29 March 2008 at 10:15
Peter: 
The operative words in the sentence from my last comment that you are referring to were ‘is’ and ‘seriously’. Jaworowski does mention somewhat dated predictions made by Bryson (1993) and Broeker (1995), but conspicuously fails to endorse either of them. Reid Bryson was, of course, one of the foremost proponents of anthropogenic cooling in the 1970s. 
If you read the WattsUpWithThat post you will notice that the Hodrick-Prescott filter, represented by the blue line that you refer to, has been used in a highly speculative attempt to analyse gradients, not to assess recent trends. 
What happened to your response to the two issues that I actually raised in my comment? 
TonyN: http://www.harmlesssky.org
bobclive 
29 March 2008 at 11:24
I posted on Dr Roy Spencer`s new paper showing water vapour is negative feedback not positive, I thought some of you scientific bods might have commented on this, being as water vapour is by far the most significant greenhouse gas and that all models show water vapour as a positive feedback.
Robin Guenier 
29 March 2008 at 16:14
Peter: 
When you respond to the matters TonyH raised earlier, perhaps you would also respond to my posts - 27 March, 10:55 (1. Aerosols & 2. 1910/1940 warming); 28 March, 14:16 (Hadley/Alabama data); and 28 March, 16:21 (1860/1879 warming).
Peter Martin 
29 March 2008 at 22:37
Robin, 
(Hadley/Alabama data); 5 yrs is much too short a timescale. We've been through all this before. 
This graph shows the how various factors have played a part in 20th century temperature change. 
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png 
I would say that the behaviour of aerosols is the biggest unknown. We know from the cooling that is observed after a large volcanic eruption the effect they, particularly SO2 and the sulphuric acid droplets they induce, have in the upper atmosphere. However it seems likely that they, and other particulates, may have an effect on cloud formation at lower altitudes which may have a different effect. 
Dr Roy Spencer is a well known sceptic on climate change. I haven't read through his paper or seen any reviews but I would be surprised if his ideas gained general acceptance. He has even questioned the link between rising CO2 levels and the 27 billion tonnes of CO2 that are emitted anually from human sources. 
He's also a person of strong religious views. There should be no problem with that, as such, but when scientists allow their own religious convictions to affect their science, when they start to promote creationism or 'intelligent design' , as does Roy Spencer, eyebrows do start to be raised. 
How does this affect climate science? Well it shouldn't of course. But if scientists, or politicians, have a strong irrational belief, such as the 'end of time' and an imminent second coming of Christ, that affects their actions, questions do need to be asked. 
This is not such a big issue in Europe, or even Australia, but this is an example of one US environmentalist's concerns on the question. 
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christ...
Brute 
29 March 2008 at 23:06
Pete, 
Don't forget to turn all of the lights on tonight at your house to celebrate mankind's technological victory over darkness! 
Brute 
Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice reaches Record Maximum 
Just as we set a new record in the northern hemisphere for minimum sea ice area in September, the southern hemisphere has officially set a new record for maximum sea ice area. According to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Polar Research Group the southern hemisphere sea ice area reached 16.17 million square kilometers, narrowly breaking the old record of 16.03 million square kilometers. The record data goes back to 1979. 
Image courtesy of the NSIDC 
Keep in mind, even though this is indeed a record, it is not nearly as significant as the minimum record which was just set in the northern hemisphere, in which the sea ice extent was 23% less than the previous record set back in 2005. This new record in the southern hemisphere is not even 1% greater than the old record maximum, and it barely sticks out on the graph of southern hemispheric sea ice area since 1979. Overall, the graph seems to show little variation since 1979. One thing I will say, the maximum sea ice area has ended up higher each year for the past 5 years.
Peter Martin 
29 March 2008 at 23:26
Tony, 
If you think the reference I gave you is too old, just Google "coming (little) ice age" you'll find plenty of people out there who are currently pushing the idea. 
David Whitehouse, who is a solar astrophysicist, although not mentioning the possibility of a return to "Little Ice Age" conditions in his New Scientist article , very much did so in this article for the Independent. 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ray-of-hope-can-th... 
He's not so much denying that AGW is caused by carbon dioxde emissions, but rather he's arguing that AGW may not be such a bad thing, if there is to be a sharp solar downturn this century. This is one factor that cannot taken fully into account in climatic models. The future behaviour of the sun is just too unpredictable. 
If he turns out to be right he will have made quite a name for himself, of course. I suspect this to be his motivation for the NS article. 
On the question of the graph. Of course, an upward gradient means a warming and a downward gradient means a cooling. At the end of the blue line the gradient is upward. So Stargazer's graph shows a current warming. If you don't like the Hodrick-Prescott 100th order polynomial filter, just use some averaging to smooth out the noise. You'll get pretty much the same curve which will show a current warming. 
So its OK to apply polynomial filters for research into solar factors but not otherwise?
Peter Martin 
30 March 2008 at 02:33
Brute, 
Yes my wife reminded me to switch off all the lights. But, I tend to fall asleep when it gets dark so missed my TV program. It would have been good to be on your side of the argument for once. 
Anyway, around the Antarctic peninsula, where there is a lot of warming the ice is retreating. This is the area of the recent concern and the previous dramatic Larsen B and Ross ice shelf breakups. 
The rest of the continent has not shown the same clear warming and sea ice has increased slightly over the last decade or so. Climate models do show CO2 and other GHG forcing will have a larger effect in the north. The reason? A much larger amount of land in the northern hemisphere and the ocean's thermal inertia and ability to delay any temperature rise. The local geography also plays a role. Circular currents, around the pole, act as a buffer preventing warm water from the tropics from transporting heat to the South Pole. 
Does it all balance out? No. Sea ice in the Arctic has, in 2007, reached a recorded low. 
Peter Martin 
Senior Fellow. International Science and Environmental Research Institute
Robin Guenier 
30 March 2008 at 11:48
Peter: 
Re the Hadley/Alabama data: yes, I agree 5 years is too short a timescale to conclude that “global warming has ended” – it may start again soon. But they do show that your statement that “global temperatures are still rising” is incorrect. That’s all I was saying. 
Your graph demonstrates my point about how pre 1975 temperature changes are hard to reconcile with CO2 theory. As we’ve seen, the 1910/1940 rate of temperature increase was almost identical to the 1976/2005 rate – both over 30-year periods. The 1860/1879 change is an even more egregious example, having a linear decadal rate of 0.196 deg C – greater than the 1976/2005 0.180 deg C rate. Yet, as your graph shows, greenhouse gas emissions were much lower in the earlier part of the last century. They were lower still in the nineteenth century: see Figure SPM 1 of the IPCC Working Group 1 report: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.... Then, from 1940 to 1975, there is a marked cooling just as CO2 emissions are taking off. All this would seem to be inconsistent with the AGW hypothesis: as factors other than CO2 emission must have caused the earlier warmings, how can we be sure they are not applicable also to the late 20th century warming? At the very least, this deserves careful and detailed explanation and the IPCC report should be the place for it. Yet, despite its pivotal importance, it is barely mentioned in either the IPCC’s main SPM or its Working Group 1 SPM. 
As for aerosols, you’ve also confirmed my comment that their impact is uncertain – see my 27 March (10:55) post. 
All this confirms to me – and I suspect to others – that the science is far from settled and the hyped “consensus” uncertain.
Peter Martin 
30 March 2008 at 14:41
Robin, 
Well you, yourself, have argued that even 10 year periods are too short to judge historical climatic changes. 
We're too used to judging everything on an annual basis because that it is conveniently long time scale for us. If we're looking at company sales figures, for instance, we'd expect them to jump up and down on a monthly basis and maybe even be flat for a period of months. We wouldn't look at two months figures or even two quarters figures and pronounce whether of not sales were rising or falling. 
In climatic terms the annual temperature figures are more comparable to monthly sales figures. There is at least an order of magnitude of difference between what we, as humans, consider to be a reasonable period of time and what can be considered a reasonable period of time in climatic terms. 
So, instead of looking at annual climate data we should instead look at decadal climate data. And because this decade has been warmer than the last decade it is quite correct to say that global temperatures are still rising.
Mr Fnortner 
30 March 2008 at 15:56
It's time for a breath of fresh air: The Clean Energy Scam http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975-2,0... 
This is one more example of disaster when public policy leads knowledge and reason, rather than the other way around.
Robin Guenier 
30 March 2008 at 17:34
Peter: you’re right – but even 10 years is too short to judge historical climate change. Averaging temperatures over about 300 years (as stargazer might remind us, still miniscule in astronomical terms) is probably more helpful as earlier temperatures can be deduced only from proxies, which cannot provide the precision of modern instruments. (Of course, that means that the period we are now in includes much of the Little Ice Age – making it appreciably cooler than the 300 years of, for example, the Medieval Warm Period.) For day-to-day purposes, however, I’m content to stay with the accurate statement that temperatures appear to have declined for the past five years – without seeking to draw any conclusions from that. Except, that is, for one: as the IPCC’s projection of “a warming of about 0.2 deg C” for the first decade of this century is unlikely to be realised, there must be at least some doubt about its predictions for the rest of the century. 
I’ll be interested to see your comments on the rest of my earlier post today.
Robin Guenier 
30 March 2008 at 17:35
Mr Fnortner: here’s a quote from The Times a few days ago, “… how do we save Africa from a possible future disaster? Apparently, by creating a real disaster in the here and now: making poor Africans even poorer.” See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/mic k_hume/article3613691.ece
bill s. 
30 March 2008 at 23:01
"No-brainer" is right. Only an idealogue unwilling to use his/her brain would buy Lynas' argument. 
Boiled down, Lynas' reasoning is this: if the temperature goes up during a given period, that proves global warming. If the temperature stays steady or falls during any portion of that period, that is "interannual variation" and doesn't count. 
If the temperature goes up in lockstep with the CO2 level in the atmosphere during a given period, that proves anthropogenic global warming (AGW). If the CO2 level rises but temperature stays flat or falls during any portion of that period, that is "interannual variation" and doesn't count. If CO2 stays flat but temperature rises (as happened in the 19th and early 20th centuries), that is "interannual variation" and doesn't count. 
In a world where temperature has been gradually rising since about 1850, following the end of the Little Ice Age, no data could possibly disprove AGW under Lynas' logic. All that is needed to prove AGW is a long-term upward trend in temperature. Since global mean temperature is higher now than in 1850, and the CO2 level is also higher, AGW is proved, Q.E.D. 
No-brainer is right.
Sven 
31 March 2008 at 06:42
Peter Martin, 
so it's that simple: 1860-1979 and 1910-1940 rises are due to all kinds of complicated reasons, but a similar rise 1975-1998 is entirely due to man made CO2????
Sven 
31 March 2008 at 06:44
oh, damn, the first figures are 1860-1879 of course...
harmlesssky.org 
31 March 2008 at 11:10
Peter: 
The Little Ice Age is a catchy and rather hyperbolic name given to a minor climatic perturbation during the second millennium, as I am sure you know. It has nothing in common with a geological ice age and no one is seriously suggesting that the onset of another ice age is imminent. In his piece for the Independent, Dr Paul Whitehouse says only that, “Perhaps the lateness of cycle 24 might even be the start of another Little Ice Age”; a very tentative speculation which does not refer to a geological ice age. Your comment on 28 March 2008 at 13:48, which I responded to on 28 March 2008 at 20:55, does not mention the Little Ice Age, put it does mention “predictions of a coming ice age”. You are, therefor, arguing at cross purposes. 
Just to lay the affair of the ‘thin blue line’ that you are so keen on to rest, here is a chart on the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit website: 
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ 
You will notice that the smoothed trend is now downwards. This graph uses the same HadCRUT3 data set as the one you are referring to at WattsUpWithThis: 
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ 
The Climate Research Unit is generally referred to as CRU, as in HadCRUT3, and prepared this data set in collaboration with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre. 
It would seem unlikely that CRU has misinterpreted its own data to the extent that it shows a downward trend instead of a rising one. The upward tick on the RHS of the Watts graph is simply an artefact of a quite different exercise; a search for relationships between solar input and global average temperatures. 
For an example of the perils of cherry picking, see here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=34 
So now that we’ve got your diversionary tactics out of the way, how about answers to the questions that my original comment posed? 
“After all this time, do you really think that the sceptics on this blog are likely to fall for such facile arguments, and if not, then who are they aimed at?” 
TonyN: www.harmlesssky.org
harmlesssky.org 
31 March 2008 at 11:20
Peter: 
Correction, the second link should be: 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/evidence-of-... 
and refer to WattsUpWithThat and not WattsUpWithThis. 
Here in the UK it's Monday morning; apologies!
Peter Martin 
31 March 2008 at 12:55
Tony N, 
For once I can say that the contrarians have got it right rather than the Uni of East Anglia. I'm not sure what they Uni have done with their graph but it looks like they've asked a graphic artist, or a uni undergrad, to draw in a black line with a felt tip pen. I doubt if they'd agree global warming had ended if you asked them. 
I've plotted out graphs of the Hadcrut3 Data using both 5 year and longer averaging. I've posted them up several times and they agree with the Watts polynomial smoothed filter graph. There is nothing wrong with using polynomial filtering. It is a standard graphical technique but open to the objection that it is mathematically complex and can distort the results. NASA also use the simpler averaging method (5 years) their graph also shows a continuation of global warming. 
When one decade is cooler than the previous one, we might begin to start thinking that global warming has stopped.
Peter Martin 
31 March 2008 at 13:21
Tony N, 
Look, I'm not arguing that another ice age or even another little ice age is likely. If you want to take up the argument, you might want to start with Brute who on the 29th feb wrote: 
" Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age" 
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Another+Ice+Age/article10630.htm 
This is a common theme from the solar fraternity including David Whitehouse. The kindest thing you can say is that they are desperate to link the AGW issue to their chosen subject. And I can assure you, whether they are talking Little Ice Age or Big Ice Age, they are quite serious but equally quite wrong.
stargazer 
31 March 2008 at 14:00
Peter No-one has been talking about 'the BIG one'...A true Ice age.... 
Some of us have indeed mentioned 'Little' Ice age(s) meaning cool period(s). and the link you re-posted is about the LIA. (maunder) !!!!!!!! 
That these cool periods correspond to solar minima is unlikely to be coincidence. 
Here is a list of solar minima (that I took from another forum) 
make of it what you will... and the sentence that follows. 
Oort (1010-1050) 
Wolf (1280-1340) 
Spörer (1415-1534) 
Maunder (1645-1715) 
Dalton (1790-1840) 
A simple linear fit and extrapolation of the start dates reveals that the next “big” minimum should have started around 2005
bobclive 
31 March 2008 at 14:22
There has never been any AGW, Half the recorded ground temps have been due to the UHI effect and poorly positioned weather stations, see http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ 
the rest is just natural. 
The only reason CO2 is considered important is its link to water vapour which is the most significant greenhouse gas on the planet. 
The reason water vapour is important is that it is considered as a positive feedback in all climate models, without this positive feedback CO2 would be considered as a minor greenhouse gas (which it is ) of no consequence. 
What I cannot understand is that Realclimate do not wish to discuss or debunk the latest paper by Dr Roy Spencer showing clouds as a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. I also do not understand why Dr Spencer`s paper has received no comments on this blogg. 
If realclimate do not want to discuss this peer reviewed paper then it must be because it significantly undermines their cause, they were quick to try to rubbish Svensmarks cosmic ray`s. 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-whamm...
Robin Guenier 
31 March 2008 at 14:47
See Peter M’s 12:55 post. This is great: now the activist fraternity fear things may be turning against them, they're even insulting the widely-respected Climate Research Unit. How they love insults when they smell trouble! Then there’s his strange idea that we must wait for two decades before we can comment that temperatures are cooling. It’s as if we were climbing a mountain in the mist and, after six hours of solid climbing, started to go down. Although the descent had continued for an hour Peter wouldn’t allow us even to comment that we were going down. “No” he’d insist “you can’t say that: we’re still higher than we were two hours ago.” Peter: all we’re doing is commenting that temperatures are at present falling – why get so cross about it?
Robin Guenier 
31 March 2008 at 14:48
A comment on the CRU graph posted by TonyN: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/. As the IPCC’s SPM has 1906 to 2005 as its 100-year linear trend, it’s interesting that the warming was greater (and steeper) during the first third of that period than it was during the other two thirds – yet CO2 emissions took off as the first third ended.
Robin Guenier 
31 March 2008 at 15:27
Peter: re the graph stargazer provided that you like so much, here’s a more recent version: 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/essifigur... 
(Seems that EA undergrad has got a new pen.)
Mr Fnortner 
31 March 2008 at 17:37
Robin, thank you very much for the banana article, though the link has a break in it. 
And your mountain climbing metaphor is the most accurate, and most succinct, I've encountered. Almost poetic...well done.
harmlesssky.org 
31 March 2008 at 21:35
bobclive: 
I think that your observation about Real Climate and the Spencer article is very shred. After all Gavin Schmidt is a modeler, and he must know how serious the implications are for GCMs. 
TonyN: www.harmlesssky.org
harmlesssky.org 
31 March 2008 at 21:40
Sorry bobclive, for 'shred' please read shrewd or even astute!
harmlesssky.org 
31 March 2008 at 21:53
Robin Guenier: 
I seem to remember that other discrepancies like the time lag you identified have been 'explained' by suggesting that the relationship between co2 levels and temperature is not strictly chronological; it may be a rather a stop go affair. Whether there is any hard research to back this up I'm not sure.
harmlesssky.org 
01 April 2008 at 00:21
Peter: 
Lets just leave it at that. 
Here is something that should cheer you up. It would seem that I have had to change my mind about quite a few things. 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=67 
TonyN: www.harmlesssky.org
Brute 
01 April 2008 at 00:56
http://icecap.us/ 
Mar 31, 2008 
The Oceans Have Stopped Warming 
By Dennis T. Avery 
Something isn’t following the Greenhouse script. The oceans, which contain 80 to 90 percent of the planet’s heat, have recently stopped warming! Over the past 4-5 years, “there has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant,” Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory recently told National Public Radio. Nothing very significant-except the ocean warming trend has stopped?! This, in the midst of the biggest furor over global temperatures and climate overheating in human history? Willis monitors the data from a nifty new set of Argo ocean buoys. They not only record sea surface temperatures but periodically dive 3,000 feet under water and record sub-surface temperatures as they rise back up. These wonderful new Argo floats say the oceans have been cooling slightly for the past 4-5 years, instead of accentuating a continuing global warming trend. 
But how can the ocean warming stop? Greenhouse gases have continued to spew from Chinese factories. Even Europe’s Kyoto-bound economies are still increasing their greenhouse emissions. There should be no relief from the planet’s heating. Except that over the last 13 months, the earth’s thermometers have dropped for the first time in 30 years. Three global monitoring sites measured a decline of 0.5 to 0.7 degree C. Now we learn that the ocean warming stopped even earlier, 4-5 years ago. 
We should have been expecting this, because the sunspot index turned down nine years ago. There’s a 79 percent correlation between the sunspots and the earth’s sea-surface temperatures�with roughly a ten-year lag. Is ten years the time required for the oceans to respond to changes on the sun? 
There is nothing in the climate record that ties the earth’s temperatures to CO2 levels. Al Gore’s movie showed Antarctic ice core temperatures and CO2 moving closely together through four different Ice Ages. Gore implied that more CO2 leads to higher temperatures. But Gore reversed cause and effect. Three different Antarctic studies show the temperatures change 800-1200 years before the CO2 levels. Higher temperatures cause more CO2 in the air, not the other way around. 
It’s unthinkable, but what if there’s no “extra heat” being trapped by CO2 right now? What if CO2 levels don’t matter much? What if the earth is starting to cool in response to the sun’s declining level of activity? What an inconvenient truth. Read more here.
Robin Guenier 
01 April 2008 at 12:25
Tony: I'm glad you've come to your senses at last. Also see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/epeng001.shtml?src=ip...
harmlesssky.org 
01 April 2008 at 13:50
Robin: Many thanks for brightening my day. It was the portentous Attenborough style music combined with confiding Shukmanesque tones that set me rolling. But its good to know that deep within the furthest recesses of the BBC, a sceptical sense of humour may yet survive.
bill s. 
01 April 2008 at 19:19
Robin: As much as I agree with your views and admire your reasoning, I think that whether the long-term warming trend continues is irrelevant to the AGW debate. That trend began around 1850, ending the Little Ice Age, and may continue for some time, who knows. No sane person would contend that the CO2 buildup which began around 1940 triggered a temperature increase which began about 90 years earlier. 
Yet AGW supporters always find a way to rationalize a connection between the two. And every conceivable weather-related event is either proclaimed to support AGW (e.g., unusual heat or unusual cold) or to be "interannual variation" and therefore meaningless. 
Any apparent similarity between the pattern of CO2 buildup and the temperature record is proclaimed as proof. Any dissimilarity is explained away or dismissed as natural variation in a highly complex system. 
The only data which AGW supporters might accept as falsifying their theory is a long-term cooling trend... but since many of them insist that the long term results of CO2 increase are unpredictable, there is no reason why they couldn't embrace even a nascent ice age as proof. 
The long-term warming trend is just a red herring. The real problem with AGW theory is that it cannot be falsified because it is compatible with all conceivable data, in the eyes of its supporters at least. Consequently, while it may be a theory it is not a scientific hypothesis. In the famous words of Wolfgang Pauli, "It is not even wrong."
Peter Martin 
02 April 2008 at 01:11
I see your new recruit Bills that you tumbled to the fact that CO2 emissions did in fact begin in 1940. Prior to that of course all steam engines on trains, ships, boats, mines and factories were fitted with CO2 capture systems but I think the story goes that they had to be removed to aid the war effort. After the war the fear was that an ice age was looming so it was felt better to continue to leave them off. 
Another factor in the decision was that the previous technology did involve the use of the rare earth element aprilium. After heavy use during the war and the subsequent post war boom supplies of this metal are now even rarer and consequently the price is now too high for it to be now considered for usage in carbon capture technology, so scientists are now seeking an alternative solution. 
(I'm sorry that I'm a day late with this story) 
The long term warming trend is actually what the global warming theory is all about. If it does cool , on a decadal basis, if does turn out we scientists were all wrong, then we will stop talking about global warming. Already, we have working groups studying what our next project for destabiling western capitalism might be.
Peter Martin 
02 April 2008 at 01:29
Sorry, the first sentence is a bit garbled. It should be: 
"I see your new recruit, Bills, has tumbled...." 
"destabiling" should be "destabilising".
Brute 
02 April 2008 at 02:12
And the catch........The United Nations fabricates this nonsense and now we get to subsidize the rest of the world. What a racket................ 
Poor Nations Demand Climate Money 
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20080401/API/804010750
Brute 
02 April 2008 at 02:25
Sorry, having trouble spelling extortion...............I did find these descriptive words though.......parasites, scroungers, freeloaders, spongers, bloodsuckers. 
Mr. Martin, 
I thought this wasn't about money or politics? I thought this was about altruism and "saving the planet from impending catastrophe”?
Peter Martin 
02 April 2008 at 03:26
Brute, 
You wrote: "I thought this wasn't about money or politics?" 
And there was I, thinking that you felt precisely the opposite ;-) So its good to know , even though we disagree on the science, that your real concern is the welfare of the environment. 
Altruism? Well I suppose so in a way. I don't think that I'll live long enough to see the worst of the environmental damage that will be caused if we don't fix the problem. I guess if we were all being really selfish we could just not worry too much and leave it all to the next generations to try to solve.
Robin Guenier 
02 April 2008 at 09:08
Peter: good one – if a day late. But I’m still looking forward to your explaining the main factors responsible for the 1860-1879 and 1910-1940 warmings and showing why they were not the main factors responsible for the 1975-2002 warming. Support from peer-reviewed studies would be helpful.
Peter Martin 
02 April 2008 at 10:30
I think we have discussed these graphs before. 
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png 
We did disagree on whether they showed that the current temperature was the highest since the ice age or just in the last 2000 years or whatever. The point that I made was that, sure , the earth's temperture does vary but the variation has never been as sudden, or as much, as it has been in the 20th century and particularly the late 20th century. 
Its plausible to argue that the temperature variations of the 19th century represented a return to more normal historical temperatures after the LIA. Its even plausible to attribute some of the early 20th century warming to the same historical recovery, although I do suspect that CO2 emissions helped a bit in the process. 
It's much less plausible to argue that the sharp warming of the late 20th century taking temperatures to higher than any previously recorded levels was due solely to natural causes.
harmlesssky.org 
02 April 2008 at 10:53
Peter: 
I don't know if it's just me, but the link in your last post seems to be broken. 
TonyN: www.harmlesssky.org
Brute 
02 April 2008 at 11:34
Mr. Martin, 
Poppycock. This is nothing more than a shakedown.
Robin Guenier 
02 April 2008 at 11:39
Peter, this is important – we are not playing games. Our government is, for example, “making poor Africans even poorer” (see my post to Mr Fnortner on 30 March) – I also heard the director of the UK Soil Association assert recently that there was “no case at all for global trade in food”, thereby proposing yet further punishment of some of the poorest people in the world. All this is designed to cut CO2 emissions. If we insist on such cruelty we’d better have damn good reason for it. And I cannot see it. I say that for various reasons – just one of them is the lack of an explanation of the 1860-1879 / 1910-1940 v. 1975-2002 phenomena I refer to above. Your use of “plausible” is utterly inadequate. So I’ll repeat my request: please explain the main factors responsible for the 1860-1879 and 1910-1940 warmings and show why they were not the main factors responsible for the 1975-2002 warming; support from peer-reviewed studies is important. 
Incidentally, late 20th temperatures were so high only because they were built on the sharp 0.4 deg C increase of 1910-1940.
harmlesssky.org 
02 April 2008 at 20:12
For anyone who looked at the April Fool's post at Harmless Sky yesterday, there's a follow-up here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=68 
TonyN
Robin Guenier 
02 April 2008 at 20:59
Tony: you say on Harmless Sky that, if the Editor of the Independent changed his policy away from an AGW approach, advertisers would take their business elsewhere. Maybe – but that doesn’t seem to apply in reverse. Last Sunday week, the Observer’s Magazine was its “Climate Change Issue”. Edited by a Friends of the Earth campaigner, it took – shall we say – a strongly one-sided view of AGW. Yet the Magazine’s advertisements included double pagers for the VW GT Sport, the Chrysler 300C, the Range Rover Sport HST and the Toyota RAV4 XT-R.
Peter Martin 
02 April 2008 at 23:57
Tony and Robin, 
The NS forum seems to have a problem with links containing a colon, so sometimes you have to copy and paste the whole URL into your address bar rather than just clicking on it. Alternatively just Google the words" wiki" & "holocene temperature variations" to see the graphs on temperature changes over the past few millenia. 
The historical evidence is important. If these graphs are correct, ( Robin has disputed them) , they do show that the temperature has been relatively constant for the last few thousand years up until middle of the last century. There have been small variations, though, such as the ones you mention in the 19th century. It is impossible to explain every slight change in the record. What we do know is that these changes cannot have been caused by increases in CO2 or other pollutant gases. So, they must have been caused by a combination of other natural factors such as changes in solar activity, changes in levels of volcanic activity and changes in the pattern of ocean currents. 
What we are saying is that the temperature rises in the 20th century, particularly the last quarter of the century, have been quite different from the slower changes in previous times both in magnitude and sharpness. The world temperature now is the highest it has been for several thousand years. We don't believe it is just a coincidence that this sharp rise has occurred at exactly the same time as CO2, and other emissions, have also risen sharply. 
The next ten years will be important. If , as some solar scientists, including David Whitehouse, are saying, the sun is due for a downturn we could find that temperatures return to more normal levels quite quickly. If this happens the CO2 theory will be disproved. If the downturn of solar activity almost exactly cancels the CO2 warming effect, temperatures will stay flat, at least temporarily, and that will give us valuable extra time. 
However, if temperatures start to rise in the next few years again as ocean current patterns change, El Nino replacing La Lina, and solar cycle 24 picks up in intensity, as is generally believed, we will really have to consider phasing out all coal burning power stations at the quickest possible speed.
Brute 
03 April 2008 at 02:21
Global Warming Will Cause…Cannibalism. 
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/04/02/turner-i... 
Good Lord is Ted Turner ever a towering monument to the fact that you can get rich even though you’re a blithering idiot. Brent Baker caught part of an interview with Turner on the Charlie Rose show and here’s a bit of what he had to say on why we need to hit the big panic button on global warming: 
Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hottest in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad there’ll be no more corn grown. 
Wow. Okay. We do need to explore this. 
Let’s just say for the sake of argument that he’s right about the temperature change and in 30 or 40 years the entire globe will be warmer on average by eight degrees Celsius. That means that his home city of Atlanta, GA will go from an average temperature of about 61 degrees Fahrenheit to about 75 degrees Fahrenheit, which is the average yearly temperature of Miami, Florida where, last I checked, residents are not generally carving each other into steaks. Droughts are not raviging the land so that no food can be grown and, regardless of what you think of the Florida Democratic Primary soap opera, civilization has not broken down. 
One thing that is almost entirely lost in the global warming panic is what the temperature change actually means. One degree of average temperature equals about one degree of latitude on the earth’s surface. So if Atlanta, which sits at about 33.45 N on the globe gets 8 degrees warmer, it’ll be as warm as any city that’s sitting at 25.45 N latitude right now. That not only includes Miami, but also Dubai, UAE and Taipei, Taiwan. The total non-cannibal population of those cities is about 4.5 million, give or take a few. 
I imagine if you lived in Atlanta now and started walking, you’d be in Ted Turner Cannibal Land faster than the planet will get you there because of our horrible rape of the Earth. You could probably send back reports of the chaos to the rest of us, just in case. 
Me, I’ll be fine. I’ll be living in the balmy climes of what we now know as Jerusalem or Jacksonville, Florida waiting for the flood of cannibals to come north. 
Robert McCain has archival evidence that his gullibility isn’t a new thing. I just hope he’s ready for the cannibals to come…
Peter Martin 
03 April 2008 at 04:24
Ted Turner does have some strange ideas. Talking about cannibalism is silly but there will be other even bigger problems. Incidentally I wish people would specify their units when talking about temperature. 8 deg F or 8 deg C ? It does make a difference. However even 8 deg F of warming is way too much. There really will be a catastrophic sea level rise if the problem does get this bad. Its all very well wishing for warmer weather. If so, you should make the move south rather than expecting the warmer climate to move to you. 
The solar theory of global warming is looking ever more shaky. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm 
Accepting that AGW is a problem isn't the same thing as accepting that we have to restrict progress. Some of the developments that we will see in renewable energy sources will have their greatest application in rural areas of the developing world where there is at present no electricity supply at all. If we had cheap energy storage, better electrical batteries, then the renewables could really take off everywhere. 
In developed countries which are used to generating their electricity from coal fired powered stations I can't see any real alternative to using nuclear power. No energy source is CO2 free but nuclear power and renewables are both equally low.
stargazer 
03 April 2008 at 08:03
from Peters link 
"Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory. He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been rising, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct." 
Huh...this is backwards. rising activity would give a warmer earth. and low activity a cooling earth. this is exactly what we got.
Robin Guenier 
03 April 2008 at 09:39
Sigh … Peter: I’ll repeat my request (yet again). Please explain the main factors responsible for the sharp 1860-1879 and 1910-1940 warmings and show why they were not the main factors responsible for the 1975-2002 warming; support from peer-reviewed studies is important. (Note – again – late 20th temperatures were so high only because they were built on the sharp 0.4 deg C increase of 1910-1940.)
Peter Martin 
03 April 2008 at 10:00
Robin, 
I've already said that the 1910-1940 warming was a mixture of AGW and natural causes and the 1860-1879 warming to be almost entirely natural. You may disagree and say they are both natural. If you do disagree maybe you could give us your theory? 
There is no precedent for anthropogenic CO2 induced warming. Its never happened before. What has happened before, at least since the last ice age, are natural periods of slight warming followed by natural periods of slight cooling. If the 1910-1940 warming was natural then you'd expect the next natural change to be a cooling. 
Just look at the graphs. You might be right. It might be just a biggest of coincidences that we have a sudden temperature rise, the sharpest rise for thousands of years at precisely the same time as CO2 emissions rise equally sharply. You might be right that the climate physics which links the two may also be all wrong. You might be right in saying that its all governed by the sun. But I, and 99% of the world's climate scientists, don't think so.
Brute 
03 April 2008 at 11:00
Mr. Martin, 
You'd describe the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period slight? You would describe the last Ice Age, (when ice sheets covered most of North America) as “slight cooling”? The temperature drop during the Younger Dryas was “slight cooling”? 
Abrupt climate change 
"The Younger Dryas saw a rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12,900 – 11,500 years before present (BP)[4] in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding interstadial deglaciation. The transitions each occurred over a period of a decade or so.[5] Thermally fractionated nitrogen and argon isotope data from Greenland ice core GISP2 indicates that the summit of Greenland was ~15 °C colder during the Younger Dryas[5] than today. In the UK, coleopteran (fossil beetle) evidence suggests mean annual temperature dropped to approximately 5 °C,[6] and periglacial conditions prevailed in lowland areas, while icefields and glaciers formed in upland areas. Nothing of the size, extent, or rapidity of this period of abrupt climate change has been experienced since." 
So, everything was fine and the temperature was rock steady until I started driving a car........
Robin Guenier 
03 April 2008 at 11:25
Peter: far from being a climatologist, I’m not even a scientist. So I have no theories. I’m quite happy to accept that “the 1910-1940 warming was a mixture of AGW and natural causes and the 1860-1879 warming to be almost entirely natural” if that’s what the science (not your opinion) says – although I am requesting rather more detail. For example, what were the proportions of AGW and natural and what were the natural causes? These should be based on (referenced) peer reviewed research. Then, if that research shows that natural causes were the main (or substantial) factors in the earlier warmings, my much repeated request applies: please show why those factors were not also the main (or substantial) factors responsible for the 1975-2002 warming – again backed by peer reviewed research. 
When responding to this, I suggest you keep three things in mind: 
(1) The late 20th temperatures were so high only because they were built on the sharp 0.4 deg C increase of 1910-1940. 
(2) The warming during the first third of the IPCC’s 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) was greater and steeper than it was during the other two thirds – yet CO2 emissions took off as the first third ended. 
(3) Attempts to reduce CO2 emissions are punishing some of the poorest people in the world (see my post yesterday). As I said then, if we insist on such cruelty we’d better have damn good reason for it.
harmlesssky.org 
03 April 2008 at 11:56
Robin: re advertising. 
Point taken, but although advertising sports models alongside a plea to save the planet may seem strange, even the car manufacturers are keen to seem green these days. Here's a something I noticed the other day. 
I was reading an online Guardian AGW scare story and at the top of the window there was an animated advert telling me that if I traveled Virgin Trains, the carbon footprint of my journey would be 25% less than other means of transport. In the past a train operator would have sold tickets on the basis of price, speed, reliability, convenience, comfort etc. In each case, a passenger would have empirically tested these claims by the time that they reached their destination. It's a bit different with the co2 footprint - you only have VIrgin's word for it - and also brings into play the feelings of guilt that you have mentioned elsewhere. Given Virgin's reputation on price, reliability etc, who can blame them. 
This was an example of a news story and an advert being in perfect sympathy, and I doubt whether Virgin would place such an advert in a publication with an AGW sceptical editorial policy. In this case the news story was actively helping to sell these train tickets; had it been a sceptical story then it would have had the opposite effect. 
TonyN. www.harmlesssky.org
Robin Guenier 
03 April 2008 at 12:41
Tony: good point. But those Observer ads said nothing about CO2. On the contrary. It was quite funny really: you'd be reading some earnest stuff about saving the planet & turn the page to be confronted by a double page ad for (of all things) a Range Rover Sport. It rather undermined the Magazine's message.
harmlesssky.org 
03 April 2008 at 13:04
Robin: Two recent MORI opinion polls show that the the public are far less convinced about AGW than anyone might expect from what they find in the media. Wouldn't it be interesting to see what the car manufacture's focus groups and market research is telling them. 
TonyN: www.harmlesssky.org
stargazer 
03 April 2008 at 13:54
The BBC have altered the wording it (See my last post now says) 
“Mike Lockwood from the UK’s Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory. 
He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct.” 
So we HAVE had a drop in global temp over the past 7-10 years according to the above this makes the theory correct… 
(just saying…)
Brute 
03 April 2008 at 18:57
Mr. Martin, 
Just re-reading some previous posts from yesterday…….. you wrote: 
“I don't think that I'll live long enough to see the worst of the environmental damage that will be caused if we don't fix the problem.” 
What environmental damage has been caused by CO2? All I hear about is this or that “could” happen. So far, as has been demonstrated time and time again at this thread, CO2 doesn’t seem to have the desired, (by Alarmists), effect on temperature that was predicted by the Chicken Littles of the scientific community and the politicians at the United Nations, (the same group that “demands money” from successful economies). 
CO2 levels have risen and the temperature has dropped; how can you, (or anyone), possibly write that there is a correlation between the two? From what I’ve read, scientist were at a loss to come up with a reason for an increase, (of .5 degrees over 100 years) and have decided to point the finger of blame at the tailpipe of my car and “excessive consumerism” by greedy, gluttonous Americans. Typical class warfare…..People can’t seem to get their act together and take care of themselves so they decide to steal it from someone who has. 
Seems to me, (in this case), very easy, (and profitable) to find a scapegoat for a natural occurrence.
Brute 
04 April 2008 at 00:32
Like a Dog on a Bone 
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/hadcr...
Brute 
04 April 2008 at 03:00
Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert 
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html 
Mr. Martin, 
One of your lunatics has escaped I'm afraid............This from an Australian "expert".
Peter Martin 
04 April 2008 at 03:42
Brute, 
There is a 'baby grant' of about $5k paid to new parents in Australia. It has been suggested that some irresponsible parents do actually spend the money on plasma TVs rather the the childs welfare. So I wouldn't agree with with the professor but he might have a point. We could all have plasma TVs with an easier concience of course if we got rid of our coal fired power stations. 
I suppose we are going to have to put up with "the global warming has stopped" argument for a little while longer at least 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm 
Mind you no-one has yet taken me up on the bet I suggested that new world temperature records will be broken in the next four years. 
You should know that the temperature rise since 1900 is approximately 0.8 deg C . See stagazers graph for a confirmation on this point. 
At the risk of going slightly off-topic I did notice that the price for oil on the world market has been relatively flat, and even has fallen slightly, in the last 8 days or more. I've noticed that the petrol price hasn't risen at my usual filling up spot for a couple of weeks either. So, next time you contrarians are down at the pub with your mates, you'll be able, with complete confidence, to reassure them that " petrol( gasoline) price increases really have stopped".
stargazer 
04 April 2008 at 08:20
with complete confidence, to reassure them that " petrol( gasoline) price increases really have stopped". 
and that from your example would be true ...until it starts to rise again....just like we have been saying about the worlds temp.
Brute 
04 April 2008 at 11:34
Mr. Martin, 
I stand corrected; my apologies. I was off by 3/10TH'S OF 1 DEGREE OVER 100 YEARS! That works out to 8/1000's of on degree per year? We're DOOMED!!!!!!
Robin Guenier 
04 April 2008 at 14:38
Peter: you say “the temperature rise since 1900 is approximately 0.8 deg C”. That is commonly stated but untrue: according to the IPCC report, the 1901-2000 increase was 0.6 deg. It does, however, say that the increase from 1906 was 0.74 deg, implying that things are getting worse. But that is a false spin: the “increase” resulted entirely from a drop in temperature between 1901 and 1906. More significant is that more than half the 0.74 deg increase occurred before anthropogenic CO2 emissions really got started – see notes (1) and (2) to my 11:25 post yesterday.
JZ Smith 
04 April 2008 at 18:00
Stargazer, did you see this? 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm 
I'm not sure if you addressed this earlier, and if so I apologize for missing it.
stargazer 
04 April 2008 at 19:28
Yep I touched on it 8 posts ago... 
No prob.
JZ Smith 
04 April 2008 at 22:14
So if I understand correctly, the BBC and all the other news reports who published likewise (http://news.google.com/?ncl=1148119977&hl=en), the opposite of what they suggest in their reports is true, that the sun's recent activity DOES correlate to flat-lining of global average temp. I.E. Less solar activity = lower temps, and the converse. 
Please confirm...
Peter Martin 
05 April 2008 at 00:12
Stargazer and JZ Smith 
No-one is denying that the variation in solar activity plays a part in world temperature change. I seem to remember reading (but I can't remember the reference) that the 11 year cycle has approximately +/-0.1 degree effect on world temperature. So, going from a solar maximum to a solar minimum would cool temperatures by 0.2degC . Which is just about what you'd expect from a decade of global warming. 
At present we have two factors at work to cool the earth's temperature. We are at a solar minimum and we are also in the La Nina phase of the Pacific Ocean oscillation cycle. The reason for the ocean cycle is still largely unknown and it is possible that the two events may not be totally independent. 
Its probably best to look up directly what Mike Lockwood has said on the subject. 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aLq__5si... 
He's saying that solar activity peaked in 1985 but temperatures continued to rise sharply for another decade. This does suggest that the solar effect, though real, is small and was not responsible for the sharp rise in world temperatures ten years later. 
Robin 
Stargazers graph is plotted from Hadcrut3 data and clearly shows a 0.8deg C rise since 1900. If you take the measurement from the cooler year of 1910 it is more like 0.9 deg C 
NASA use a different data set and their figures may just be about 0.1 deg C less. 
See: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ 
for confirmation on this point. 
More worrying is the global warming that has taken place since 1975. It is approximately 0.018deg C per year. Now, to people like Brute that is nothing at all, but on a longer term historical timescale it is catastrophic.
stargazer 
05 April 2008 at 09:24
. "I.E. Less solar activity = lower temps, and the converse." 
Yes that would be the theory... 
And Peter it is NOT my graph... I think you say this to make is seem like I posted it for another reason than I did.... 
you say "At present we have two factors at work to cool the earth's temperature. We are at a solar minimum and we are also in the La Nina phase of the Pacific Ocean oscillation cycle. The reason for the ocean cycle is still largely unknown and it is possible that the two events may not be totally independent. " 
exactly... now you are getting it....
stargazer 
05 April 2008 at 09:32
Peter I just read you link..Lockwood is this same guy 
"He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct.” 
So we HAVE had a drop in global temp over the past 7-10 years according to the above this makes the theory correct…
Brute 
05 April 2008 at 11:40
Mr. Martin, 
Yes, you’re correct……..I’ll be long dead and buried before your doomsday prediction becomes “catastrophic” as will the children of this generations children’s children. I’ve also been alive long enough to recognize a confidence scheme when I see one. In the circle of global warming doomsday “science”, black is white and up is down and they actually believe that intelligent people will fall for this twaddle. As I wrote previously; If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BULL*%$#. 
Please……….you Alarmists are really too much. First you say that the earth will get colder, (it doesn’t), then you say it will get warmer, (it doesn’t). Now you say that it will get both warmer and colder, which I believe the Earth has been doing for time eternal. Whatever happened to integrity? So now we have member states of the United Nations DEMANDING payment for a non-existent problem and holding industrialized, successful economies responsible for……………THE WEATHER. 
When I am wrong about something, (perish the thought), I admit it; but the Global Warming Alarmists are so arrogant that they actually believe that people will fall for this cockamamie theory. 
This is nothing more than a fraudulent scenario concocted by a group of fear mongering, guilt ridden environmentalists and carnival barkers capitalizing on the uneducated, uniformed populous to justify extortion.
harmlesssky.org 
05 April 2008 at 12:43
Here's a post by Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit, which shines a most welcome light into some of the inner recesses of the IPCC review process: 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2960 
A link to an interesting interview with one of the Review Editors can be found here: 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2960#comment-231340 
II'm not going to elaborate on this as McIntyre has already said it all in his own inimitable way. It's a must read for anyone who is interested in how the IPCC operates. Don't miss the link from here: 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2960#comment-231466
Brute 
05 April 2008 at 15:45
Apr 05, 2008 
The Chill Is On 
Investors Business Daily 
Global warming? Don’t worry about it. It’s over. No longer does Al Gore have to fly around the world in private jets emitting greenhouse gases to save the world from - greenhouse gases. The United Nations World Meteorological Organization is reporting that global temperatures have not risen since 1998. That would be the same temperatures that models from the U.N.’s Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change said would be scorching the earth into an unlivable wasteland except for those coastal areas flooded by seas gorged with water from melting ice sheets. 
Of course the IPCC spins the news. “You should look at trends over a pretty long period,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud, “and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.” His explanation for the cool spell is the effect of the Pacific Ocean’s La Nina current, “part of what we call ‘variability.’ “ If that’s the case, then why can’t the Pacific’s El Nino current, which played a large part in the warm reading for 1998, simply been seen as a “variability” and not part of a greater warming trend? Because it doesn’t fit the agenda? Were the IPCC not dedicated to spreading fear, it would admit its climate models, on which much of the global warming madness is based, are flawed. 
This is not some gas-guzzler’s fantasy but the finding of a credible study published last year in the International Journal of Climatology. Looking at the data, four researchers concluded “the weight of the current evidence supports the conclusion” there is no agreement between the models and the observation temperatures. That means that projections of future warming are too high, that the entire global warming assumption is suspect, and that Gore should find something more productive to do with his time. 
It also proves that Howard Hayden, physics professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut, was correct in describing the machinery of the climate model-hysteria industrial complex as one that takes “garbage in” and spits “gospel out.” Read more here.
Brute 
06 April 2008 at 17:06
Apr 06, 2008 
Environmental Hysterics 
By Dr. David Deming, in the Washington Times 
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley recently warned that failure to take action on global warming could mean the extinction of the human race. Over the last few years, we’ve been repeatedly warned we are in the midst of a climate crisis that threatens our survival. Al Gore calls it a “planetary emergency.” We might take this concern more seriously if the doom-mongering wing of the environmental movement weren’t burdened by a long history of false prophecies. In the mid- to late-1960s, the leading environmental concern was overpopulation. The 1967 book “Famine 1975!” warned “by 1975 a disaster of unprecedented magnitude will face the world ... famines will ravage the undeveloped nations, this is the greatest problem facing mankind.” A sober review of the book in the scholarly journal Science characterized the prediction of mass starvation as “self-evident,” argued that technological solutions were “unrealistic,” and concluded that catastrophe was unavoidable. The reviewer concluded “all responsible investigators agree that the tragedy will occur.” 
More widely read was Paul Ehrlich’s shrill screed, “The Population Bomb” (1968). Mr. Ehrlich began with the infamous words “the battle to feed all of humanity is over,” and claimed that “in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” “We must have population control,” Mr. Ehrlich argued, because it is the “only answer.” Within 10 years, the imminent calamity of global cooling was replaced by global warming. And the mass famines predicted by Paul Ehrlich and others never happened. From 1970 through 2000, the world’s population grew from 3.7 billion to 6.1 billion. But the food supply grew faster. None of the environmental catastrophes Mr. Ehrlich predicted occurred. 
Since 1970, the six principal air pollutants tracked by the Environmental Protection Agency have fallen significantly, even while U.S. population and energy use have grown. In 1990, Mr. Ehrlich’s own ignorance was exposed when he lost a wager over the price of commodities to Cornucopian economist Julian Simon. 
And the Green Revolution was a success. It has been estimated that the father of the Green Revolution, Norman Borlaug, singlehandedly saved the lives of a billion people. Higher crop yields from improved grain varieties also helped preserve the environment by limiting the need to convert undeveloped areas to arable land. History repeats itself. So, please excuse my skepticism when you claim global warming means the end of the world is nigh. I have heard it all before.
harmlesssky.org 
06 April 2008 at 17:37
I am repeating this comment from21st March just in case the axe falls ........... 
On the 11th March the New Statesman closed comments on the Whitehouse thread and it seems likely that they will do the same here before long. If anyone wants to continue this discussion, which has accumulated nearly 2000 comments over the last three months, there may be a way of doing so. 
I’ve prepared a page on my own blog, www.harmlesssky.org , that has links to both the New Statesman articles and all the comments, where the discussion can continue. You will find it here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63 
Look for ‘New Statesman’ in the left hand sidebar. 
The comments form will not be activated until AFTER THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG CLOSES so that the thread remains consecutive. You will not be able to comment there so long as this blog is active. 
Blog stats suggest that quite a lot of people are still visiting this page.
Robin Guenier 
06 April 2008 at 18:11
harmlesssky: re your kind offer, note that another 16 posts here and the tally of both NS threads will total 2000. An opportunity for the NS to bring it all to a halt?
Brute 
06 April 2008 at 23:56
Apr 05, 2008 
Explorer’s North Pole Attempt Halted by Ice 
The Herald, Plymouth, UK 
A Plymouth-born explorer has been forced to abandon his bid to become the fastest man to walk solo and unsupported to the North Pole. Ben Saunders, 30, is to be rescued after his equipment failed in ‘appalling’ ice conditions. The main bolts which attach the binding of his boots to his skis sheared off and the damage was beyond repair. He said: “To have an expedition that is the culmination of seven years training, preparation and experience forced to a halt due to an equipment failure is incredibly disappointing, particularly as I am still in excellent physical condition. “I came here well prepared and believe that the daily distances I have achieved to date - in my first four days I covered 29.4 nautical miles - show that setting a speed record was within my reach. 
“The ice conditions I have encountered have been the worst I have ever seen, and worse than I could have imagined.” Mr Saunders, now based in London, dragged his 65kg sledge over ridges of ice and snow the same height as a two-storey building. Since he was dropped at the starting point on Ward Hunt Island on the coast of Canada on March 26 he has covered 60 miles. But he still had more than 400 miles to go. He had hoped to complete his expedition in just 30 days. Rescuers are arranging to pick him up from the ice.
Brute 
06 April 2008 at 23:57
BBC Changes 'Temperatures Decrease' Article to Incite Climate Hysteria 
By Noel Sheppard | April 6, 2008 - 11:42 ET 
On Saturday, NewsBusters shared with readers a BBC.com report that astoundingly proclaimed "Global Temperatures 'To Decrease.'" 
Some time after this was posted, the third paragraph of the original piece was changed in a fashion that radically altered the meaning of the entire article (picture courtesy AP). 
In fact, what was once a realistic portrayal of new data released by the World Meteorological Organization suddenly became another hysterical report espousing doom and gloom at the hands of manmade global warming. 
Here was how the piece began before Saturday's edits (emphasis added): 
Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said. 
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer. 
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory. 
For the record, a website called Gribbit's Word cut and pasted those three opening paragraphs exactly the same way on Friday at 12:19 PM. 
Yet, some time on Saturday after NewsBusters posted its piece at 12:22 PM, the third paragraph was mysteriously changed to this (emphasis added): 
But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases. 
Some difference, wouldn't you agree? Maybe more fascinating is that the time stamp at the top of the article doesn't reflect that any changes were made since Gribbit or I cut and pasted the version we shared with our readers: "Page last updated at 00:42 GMT, Friday, 4 April 2008 01:42 UK." 
For those unfamiliar, 00:42 GMT on Friday would be 7:42 PM EST Thursday. So, according to BBC.com, this piece was last updated our Thursday evening. 
Yet, Gribbit's cut and paste Friday afternoon, and mine on Saturday afternoon, are different than what one now sees if you click on the links we both posted for this piece. And, since mine was posted at 12:22 PM Saturday, it means this third paragraph was changed at least 40 hours after the last "official" update. 
Why? Was someone at the BBC displeased with the tenor of this piece, but didn't want folks to know it was being altered so long after it had been posted? 
*****Update: Jennifer Marohasy reports that the headline of this article was changed a couple of times as well -- 
Moving on to the strange happenings surrounding a subsequent 4th April article by the BBC's Roger Harrabin, blogged here, entitled, Global temperatures 'to decrease' , which was later changed to, Global warming 'dips this year, ' and then subsequently changed back to Global temperatures 'to decrease.' The changes in the text, however, did not revert back to the text in the original article. 
Makes sense. After all, the alarmists certainly couldn't have an article out there titled "Global Warming 'Dips This Year.'"
Peter Martin 
07 April 2008 at 15:06
Stargazer, 
You say " exactly... now you are getting it....". 
Well Ok, but I'm not sure that you are! The point about solar and ocean cycles is exactly that; they are cycles so can't have any effect beyond about 11 years or so, and cannot be responsible for the past 30 years of more of global warming. 
The 11 year solar cycle has a small effect of about +/- 0.1 deg C. The El Nino/La Lina cycle may have slightly more, but let's just say +/- 0.1 deg C, too, for this effect. These small variations are of little consequence in the longer term but in the shorter term do determine weather patterns, which may, for instance, change drought into flood as far as Australia is concerned.They can be a problem when trying to measure longer term global temperature changes. A strong El Nino can cause a positive spike in the graph, as happened in 1998. On the other hand a La Nina can produce an equal and opposite cooling effect. Add in some experimental error and the graph can look quite noisy. Currently, we are at a solar minimum and also are in the La Lina phase of the Pacific Ocean cycle. Change these to an El Nino and a solar maximum, a combination, which will inevitably occur in the next few years, and world temperatures jump by 2 x 0.2 deg C = 0.4 deg C. So you, and other contrarians, are quite wisely not taking me up on my offer of a bet that the 1998 temperature record will shortly be broken! 
Brute, 
For once I do agree with you! At least partially. I'm referring to your comments on overpopulation and depletion of natural resources etc. What you call the 'doom mongering wing' of the environmental movement can also be described as the Malthusian wing. For a background of Thomas Malthus's arguments see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus. Incidentally, I might just mention that two of Malthus's more vociferous contemporary critics were two 19th century gentlemen by the name of Marx and Engels. They certainly weren't going to allow the "poverty is caused by overpopulation" argument to go unchallenged. 
But rejection of Malthusian ideas shouldn't mean rejection of science too. You are quite right about Paul Erlich, he famously lost a bet (but at least he had the courage of his convictions to back them up financially!) on the future price of metals, which, in the 70s, were widely thought to be in danger of running out. The scientists of the time weren't saying this though. They did in fact turn out to be right. Scientific progress in geology, and other fields too, led to increased ability to find new supplies of most metal ores, meaning that the price of these actually fell as metal use increased. You are right too, that environmental standards in most developing countries improved at the same time as economic progress was achieved. 
It didn't just happen by itself. It was made to happen by popular argument, backed up by scientific reasons why it should and often in the face of strong opposition from vested interests and their political hirelings. 
The scientific advice isn't that global warming will lead to the end of the world. The world has survived worse, such as asteroid impact, in the past and will no doubt survive this. Humanity will probably survive it too, but in what form is the question. It's much better to fix the problem now rather than be overtaken by events. Fixing the problem shouldn't mean a decline in living standards, rather the reverse. For instance if electric or hydrogen powered cars replaced cars with petrol or diesel engines, which I believe they largely will in the next 20 years, the quality of air in most major cities of the world would be greatly improved. If electricity was generated by means other than burning fossil fuels, and besides emitting no CO2 in the process, the problem of acidification of lakes and rivers would be quickly eliminated. The advances that we are already starting to see in wind and solar technology will have a major impact on rural areas of the developing world which currently have no electricity supply at all. Throw in a bit of satellite and wireless technology, both now relatively inexpensive, and communities which are now isolated from the world economy can immediately become part of it.
Brute 
07 April 2008 at 16:10
Mr. Martin, 
I'm honored that I've finally written something that you can come to terms with, (I'm genuflecting at the alter of Mr. Martin). 
You wrote: 
"Fixing the problem shouldn't mean a decline in living standards..........." 
What "problem"? I don't think that you've been paying attention throughout this thread. A .6 or .8 degree rise in GLOBAL temperatures over the course of 100 years is not a "problem" no matter how you slice or dice it. You have been given example after example of natural causes that account for this rise and you continue to point to the same tired, discredited "blame game" argument of wealth redistribution, overpopulation and class warfare. The United Nations now states that global temperatures have not risen since 1998, (with caveats, i.e. La Nina; read back-peddling). Why is it when temperatures rise its due humankind and “big oil” and when the temperature drops it’s due to “natural variations”. Would the Alarmist now have us attempt to control solar output and La Ninas? Shall they blame increased solar activity on greedy industrialists and rich people? “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”! 
The only “problem” seems to be is that these “scientists” and politicians don’t have enough to do and should be concentrating on solving real problems instead of fabricating non-existent doomsday fantasies in order to resolve their economic failures and loony dreams of a global Utopia. 
By the way: I recently found out that ANYONE can edit any entry in Wikipedia and spin the site / page to reflect their personal opinion(s)…..Hardly the epitome of unbiased information.
Brute 
07 April 2008 at 16:14
By the way......I choose not to drive an electric car. If you want to, go ahead. That's called FREEDOM.
stargazer 
07 April 2008 at 16:14
"Well Ok, but I'm not sure that you are! The point about solar and ocean cycles is exactly that; they are cycles so can't have any effect beyond about 11 years or so, and cannot be responsible for the past 30 years of more of global warming." 
of course it cyclic...I an not talking mere 11 year solar cycles...Look somthing caused the warm holocene periods and the cool holocene periods.e.g the holocene optimum(s), the Roman warm period, and the modern warm period, and the cool periods in between when the sunspot cycle was low as listed here. 
Oort (1010-1050) 
Wolf (1280-1340) 
Spörer (1415-1534) 
Maunder (1645-1715) 
Dalton (1790-1840) 
A simple linear fit and extrapolation of the start dates reveals that the next “big” minimum should have started around 2005 
make of it what you will of the last sentence.
stargazer 
07 April 2008 at 16:25
If its not co2 that caused the above mentioned climate changes, (and it is not) then what else do you think it is. whatever the 'cause' the mechanism for natural climate change is still operating...it has not gone away. and as we are already near the top of 'warming' this is not called the modern warm period for nothing...then lets hope your AGW co2 can mitigate what is likely to happen next... a natural cooling cycle.
stargazer 
07 April 2008 at 17:08
From icecap 
The BBC, UK Met Office and UN IPCC had to acknowledge that global temperatures have at least for the time being decoupled from the CO2 rise and levelled off or fallen (6-7 years). They are blaming the cooling on La Nina. They are of course correct, La Ninas global cooling just as El Ninos brings global warming. It must have pained them to do so as they have previously discussed these factors as being secondary to greenhouse gases and with impacts that were mainly regional in nature. 
They promise once this event ends, their predicted warming will resume. It is likely that temperatures will bounce as the La Nina weakens but the real key as to where temperatures go over the next few years and decades is not increasing greenhouse gases but whether the multidecadal cycle in the Pacific (PDO) has transitioned back to the cold mode it was in when the earth cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s (and what happens with solar cycles 24 and 25, which many solar scientists the world over feel will revert back to the quiet modes of the so called Dalton Minimum in the early 1800s or possibly worse.) 
The PDO warm phase from 1977 to 1997 was dominated by mostly El Ninos (see why here) and since they correlate with warmer global mean temperatures, it is not surprising global temperatures rose.
Robin Guenier 
07 April 2008 at 17:14
Come on, Peter, there's no possibility that CO2 emissions will be reduced to the levels you think are needed to “fix the problem”. The world isn’t interested. From 1990 (the baseline for Kyoto CO2 reductions) to 2004, global fossil fuel emissions grew by 26% – a growth that continues apace (China, for example, spends 35 times as much on oil now as in 1999, with demand expected to treble by 2030), aviation and shipping are exempt from emission targets and oil producers such as Iran, Venezuela, Russia and the Gulf States have no intention of scaling back production. That’s why the 2007 Bali conference achieved nothing. Even the West is doing little of substance: the UK’s recent “greenest budget ever” hype proved meaningless and Europe’s “firm resolve to lead the world by defining tough new targets” for carbon emissions crumbled when its leaders fought for home industry exemptions. Western governments have no desire to upset voters and, in the face of economic recession, are pushing serious action on climate change yet further down the agenda. And even your green pals are mired in internal controversy – e.g. about whether nuclear power, biofuels or even wind power are acceptable solutions. 
As I’ve said before – if you expect all this to be reversed in time to avoid AGW’s predicted consequences, you’re living in dreamland. Are you volunteering to tell China’s poor to abandon hope of prosperity or Presidents Chavez, Putin and Ahmadinajad to give up the basis of their political power? Wake up, Peter. 
Fortunately, gloom and doom are in order only if the CO2/global warming hypothesis is valid. As this thread shows, there are excellent indications that it’s false. However, if stargazer is right (and he is, on the face of it, convincing), doom and gloom may still apply. So I trust he’s wrong too.
bobclive 
07 April 2008 at 21:10
BBC state, global temperatures going down imply temperatures will go up. 
Hadley centre 2008 states global temps have been falling for more than 6 years and is an equivalent decrease of 0.4 degrees C per decade. 
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/scar...
bobclive 
07 April 2008 at 21:52
No sun link to climate change. 
Sloan and Wolfendale don't show that there is "'No Sun link' to climate change", they say that even with their limited analysis of 20 some years, the Svensmark process on its own contributed perhaps 25% of the warming. That's not insignificant. 
They could have run the identical analysis looking at the correlation between carbon dioxide rise and temperature over the same time period. 
Vitaliy Rusov of the National Polytechnic University in Odessa, Ukraine and colleagues do not agree with the IPCC's view that man is to blame for the recent warming. To prove their point, they looked for a direct connection between cosmic ray flux and temperature. 
The team constructed a model of the Earth's climate in which the only significant inputs were variations in the Sun's power output and changes to the galactic cosmic ray flux (arxiv.org/abs/0803.2765). They found that the model's predicted evolution of the Earth's surface temperature over the last 700,000 years agrees well with proxy temperature data taken from Antarctic ice cores (arxiv.org/abs/0803.2766). 
Rusov agrees that Svensmark's cosmic ray ionization mechanism cannot fully account for the observed correlation between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover, as Sloan and Wolfendale have demonstrated. But he believes that a small but direct link between cosmic rays and clouds could itself trigger a mechanism which causes further, and greater, changes in cloud cover."
bobclive 
07 April 2008 at 21:59
By YOJNA GUSAI 2nd Apil 2008. 
New Delhi, April 2: Blaming alarmists, including the United Nations, for "propelling" global warming from a scientific curiosity to "the mother of all environmental scares in a little over 20 years", a new report released in India by Dr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, has cast serious doubts over the predictions of the Nobel Prize-winning UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its recent reports. This new report has also questioned the Kyoto Protocol, which has been blamed for costing billions of dollars. The new report has accused the UN and its member countries of blaming climate change "for problems that either they have failed to address or that they have actively caused". 
THE DEBATE IS OVER. 
http://howrah.org/india_news/8571.html
Peter Martin 
08 April 2008 at 00:28
It's good that Tony N has volunteered to host this thread when NS finally decide to close this. I do hope he keeps it going for a few years. By then we'll know who has been turned out to be right and who has turned out to be wrong. 
Robin is quite right that politicians and the general public have probably been lured into a false sense of security by the current flattish temperatures. They are at present about 0.15 deg C below the long term trend line. In the next few years they will go back to the trend line, which is higher than the 1998 record, and even above it. No doubt the panic will set in and AGW will be well and truly back on the agenda. 
There is also an element of cognitive dissonance about all this. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs. 
Because it is uncomfortable, your brain will seek out ways to resolve the contradictions. 
This is not some individual character flaw, but a strong and consistent human impulse and goes a long way toward explaining why sceptics on global warming still exist. When presented with conflicting views, such as "I am a good person" vs. "my lifestyle is destroying the planet," the brain comes up with a way to resolve them, such as, "global warming is a conspiracy cooked up by celebrities and scientists." 
PS You remember that I wrote that "global oil price rises had really stopped"? 
Well they've really started again. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7289070.stm
Peter Martin 
08 April 2008 at 05:05
Well if Brute wants to carry on spending his hard earned money on ever more expensive petrol, that's up to him. I would suspect that most people would prefer to plug their car into the mains overnight and use the much cheaper power that is available from the power grid. 
The problem up until now has been the lack of suitable batteries to store the energy. However things are moving fast on that front. This battery seems to be one of the more promising possibilities: 
http://www.solartaxi.com/technology/zebra-battery/ 
If you look at the main URL you'll see that this battery is being used on a round-the-world trip to promote the concept of CO2 free motoring. And so, you contrarians, you should see that all things are possible if we put in a bit of effort. We don't have to stuff up the environment to achieve technical progress and we don't have to retreat to a medieval low technology lifestyle either.
Srekwah 
08 April 2008 at 14:52
Why are governments (and media) treating their citizens like idiots? - Hellooo fascists, we can see you!!!!
Brute 
08 April 2008 at 15:46
Mr. Martin, 
Feel free to drive your golf cart....I like horsepower. The more people that voluntarily switch over to battery cars the better. Demand for gasoline will drop; supply will rise and the price will plunge. I can contiue to drive my beast economically.
gkl 
08 April 2008 at 19:54
Peter Martin wrote: 
"I would suspect that most people would prefer to plug their car into the mains overnight and use the much cheaper power that is available from the power grid." 
Comments such as these are incongruous. Where does the cheap grid power come from, not to mention the energy and resources required to make the 'improved' batteries? Typically from coal-fired power plants. So if we stop building new power plants and everyone plugs their clean car into the cheap grid, everything will be just fine. 
right.................. 
btw, the whole CO2 thing is a questionable argument at best and getting pretty long in the tooth. The concept of anthropogenic global warming has never been proven beyond the anecdotal and certainly has not been embraced by scientists at large so please stop claiming the mantel of "we scientists". It's insulting.
Robin Guenier 
08 April 2008 at 20:19
Wakey, wakey, Peter. China, India, Iran, Russia etc. are not interested. AGW has always been low on their agenda, whatever the temperature record.
Brute 
08 April 2008 at 22:48
From Ice Cap 
Apr 07, 2008 
BBC Changes News to Accommodate Activitist 
By Jennifer Marohasy, Jennifermarohasy.com/blog 
I have been emailed the following correspondence, purportedly between an activist, Jo Abbess, and BBC Environment reporter Roger Harrabin. It would appear that the result of the email exchange between the activist and the reporter was that the BBC changed its story (see story below). In particular instead of reporting the story as received from the World Meteorological Organisation, the BBC modified the story as demanded by the activist who was concerned that in its original form it supported ‘the skeptics’ correct observation that there has been no warming since 1998. 
From Jo, April 4, 2008 
Climate Changers, 
Remember to challenge any piece of media that seems like it’s been subject to spin or scepticism. 
Here’s my go for today. The BBC actually changed an article I requested a correction for, but I’m not really sure if the result is that much better. 
Judge for yourselves. 
See the constant barage from this activist (jo.abbess@gmail.com), and the initial pushback by the BBC author but eventually capitulation in the email exchange here. Good detective work Jennifer. 
April 07, 2008 
The BBC Changes News to Accommodate Activist 
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002906.html
Peter Martin 
08 April 2008 at 23:05
gkl, 
Maybe you'd like to take a look at the Nasa website to read what the scientists there have to say on the subject? 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ 
If you are still unconvinced there is plenty more on the subject from the UK's Royal Society, Australian CSIRO, AAAS etc. If you can find any world scientific bodies, and I don't mean Mickey Mouse organisations like the Heartland Institute, that go along with your "anecdotal" assessment of the problem please let me know. 
I would suugest that coal fired plants be scrapped and replaced with nuclear power at the quickest possible speed. However if if electric cars are charged up overnight with electricity from existing coal fired powers stations the energy doesn't cost much , if anything, in environmental terms. At times of low energy demand the efficiency of power stations drops significantly, with useful energy going to waste as heat. 
Robin, And the evidence for your " China, India ......." assertion is? 
Brute, 
You might be right that the gasoline for your V8, or whatever you drive, might one day become affordable again but I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. With a combination of a rapidly falling US$ and rising world oil prices things aren't looking too good. 
Yes electric cars do have a golf buggy image at the moment but things are changing quickly. The limitation is just the batteries which are getting better rapidly too. This isn't a golf buggy. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modec
Brute 
08 April 2008 at 23:08
Apr 07, 2008 
Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US Reserves by 10x 
Next Energy News 
America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant. 
In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel. 
The US imported about 14 million barrels of Oil per day in 2007, which means US consumers sent about $340 Billion Dollars over seas building palaces in Dubai and propping up unfriendly regimes around the World, if 200 billion barrels of oil at $90 a barrel are recovered in the high plains the added wealth to the US economy would be $18 Trillion Dollars which would go a long way in stabilizing the US trade deficit and could cut the cost of oil in half in the long run. See the full story here.
Brute 
09 April 2008 at 00:01
BBC: “Global Temperatures Going Down Imply Temperatures Will Go Up” 
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/scar...
gkl 
09 April 2008 at 03:49
Peter- 
The GISS data is suspect and appears to be a moving target: 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964#more-2964 
I'm sorry but I have dealt with the technocrats at NASA and other government labs for years. Afraid I don't buy any assertions they are any less unbiased or uninfluenced by funding desires than energy company funded "Mickey Mouse" organizations you so kindly refer to. AGW is BIG bucks to many research groups, particularly government labs (and international science organizations) so AGW sympathetic positions are certainly to be expected publicly.
gkl 
09 April 2008 at 03:57
Woops , hit the post button accidentally before I had a chance to proof. Looks like I got a double negative in there. Oh well. 
Anyway - I applaud the use of nuclear energy for power generation over coal but how likely is that to happen? Given the mindset of most activist groups it would appear we are damned if do and damned if we don't.
Brute 
09 April 2008 at 04:08
gkl, 
Go get em............
Peter Martin 
09 April 2008 at 06:53
gkl, 
You ask "I applaud the use of nuclear energy for power generation over coal but how likely is that to happen? " 
I'd say quite likely. In the Uk , for instance, there is reported to be a political push for new nuclear power stations,but even so the process needs to be speeded up. There is more support among the environmental groups than you might think for nuclear power. I posted on the Greenpeace forum and expected to be howled down: 
http://forum.greenpeace.org/int/showthread.php?t=1294 
But in fact there was much more support that I expected. The problem is that many people on the political right have an anti-science attitude on the question of AGW, while those on the left are often, but maybe not as much as is generally thought, anti-nuclear by inclination. 
There is no completely safe power options but nuclear stacks up very well against the alternatives. See: http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm I guess we just have to keep making the arguments. 
Brute, 
It will be interesting to see if the Bakken oil field amounts to anything. There are also lots of oil shale and oil sand deposits, so oil will won't run out in the sense that there won't be any. Its just going to get ever more expensive. Even if the production costs of any new oil finds, in your country, work out to be only a fifth of the world price you shouldn't think that you are going to be able to buy petrol at any less than the world price! It's just not going to happen. 
Like it or not, the world economy is international in nature, and so the idea that money spent in the one particular country stays in that country, even if that country is the USA, is somewhat economically naive , I would say.
stargazer 
09 April 2008 at 07:39
READ THIS 
Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled 
Owen McShane 
Unlike so many of the hapless victims on TVOne's daily Crimewatch (also known as One Network News) I have recently been lucky enough to be in two right places at the right time. 
In December last year, at the UN conference in Bali, I heard Viscount Monckton present a paper prepared by himself, the Australian Dr David Evans and our own Dr Vincent Gray (who were at Bali, too) that showed while the IPCC models predict that greenhouse gases would produce an extensive "hot spot" in the upper troposphere over the tropics, the satellite measurements show no such hotspots have appeared. 
Monckton and Evans found a large part of this discrepancy is the result of some basic errors in the IPCC's assessment of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. When they applied their revised factor to the effect of greenhouse gases, the temperature rise was about a third of that predicted by the IPCC. 
So by late last year we not only knew IPCC forecasts of atmospheric global warming were wrong; we were beginning to understand why they are wrong. 
The key issue in this debate is whether anthropogenic greenhouse gases or natural solar activities are the prime drivers of climate change. A closely related argument is whether the climate is highly sensitive to carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. 
Doubtful predictions 
Put together, these uncertainties raise doubts as to whether the IPCC models can accurately forecast the climate over the long term. If they cannot, then we have to wonder how much damage we should risk doing to the world's economies in attempts to manage the possibly adverse effects of these "predictions." 
The findings that the predicted "tropical hot spots" do not exist are important because the IPCC models assume these hot spots will be formed by increased evaporation from warmer oceans leading to the accumulations of higher concentrations of water vapour in the upper atmosphere, and thereby generating a positive feedback reinforcing the small amount of warming that can be caused by CO2 alone. 
Atmospheric scientists generally agree that as carbon dioxide levels increase there is a law of "diminishing returns" - or more properly "diminishing effects" - and that ongoing increases in CO2 concentration do not generate proportional increases in temperature. The common analogy is painting over window glass. The first layers of paint cut out lots of light but subsequent layers have diminishing impact. 
So, you might be asking, why the panic? Why does Al Gore talk about temperatures spiraling out of control, causing mass extinctions and catastrophic rises in sea-level, and all his other disastrous outcomes when there is no evidence to support it? 
The alarmists argue that increased CO2 leads to more water vapour - the main greenhouse gas - and this provides positive feedback and hence makes the overall climate highly sensitive to small increases in the concentration of CO2. 
Consequently, the IPCC argues that while carbon dioxide may well "run out of puff" the consequent evaporation of water vapour provides the positive feedback loop that will make anthropogenic global warming reach dangerous levels. 
This assumption that water vapour provides positive feedback lies behind the famous "tipping point," which nourishes Al Gore's dreams of destruction, and indeed all those calls for action now - "before it is too late!" But no climate models predict such a tipping point. 
However, while the absence of hot spots has refuted one important aspect of the IPCC models we lack a mechanism that fully explains these supposed outcomes. Hence the IPCC, and its supporters, have been able to ignore this "refutation." 
So by the end of last year, we were in a similar situation to the 19th century astronomers, who had figured out that the sun could not be "burning" its fuel - or it would have turned to ashes long ago - but could not explain where the energy was coming from. Then along came Einstein and E=mc2. 
Hard to explain 
Similarly, the climate sceptics have had to explain why the hotspots are not where they should be - not just challenge the theory with their observations. 
This is why I felt so lucky to be in the right place at the right time when I heard Roy Spencer speak at the New York conference on climate change in March. At first I thought this was just another paper setting out observations against the forecasts, further confirming Evans' earlier work. 
But as the argument unfolded I realised Spencer was drawing on observations and measurements from the new Aqua satellites to explain the mechanism behind this anomaly between model forecasts and observation. You may have heard that the IPCC models cannot predict clouds and rain with any accuracy. Their models assume water vapour goes up to the troposphere and hangs around to cook us all in a greenhouse future. 
However, there is a mechanism at work that "washes out" the water vapour and returns it to the oceans along with the extra CO2 and thus turns the added water vapour into a NEGATIVE feedback mechanism. 
The newly discovered mechanism is a combination of clouds and rain (Spencer's mechanism adds to the mechanism earlier identified by Professor Richard Lindzen called the Iris effect). 
The IPCC models assumed water vapour formed clouds at high altitudes that lead to further warming. The Aqua satellite observations and Spencer's analysis show water vapour actually forms clouds at low altitudes that lead to cooling. 
Furthermore, Spencer shows the extra rain that falls from these clouds cools the underlying oceans, providing a second negative feedback to negate the CO2 warming. 
Alarmists' quandary 
This has struck the alarmists like a thunderbolt, especially as the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing that he is right! 
There goes the alarmist neighbourhood! 
The climate is not highly sensitive to CO2 warming because water vapour is a damper against the warming effect of CO2. 
That is why history is full of Ice Ages - where other effects, such as increased reflection from the ice cover, do provide positive feedback - while we do not hear about Heat Ages. The Medieval Warm Period, for example, is known for being benignly warm - not dangerously hot. 
We live on a benign planet - except when it occasionally gets damned cold. 
While I have done my best to simplify these developments they remain highly technical and many people distrust their own ability to assess competing scientific claims. However, in this case the tipping point theories are based on models that do not include the effects of rain and clouds. 
The new Nasa Aqua satellite is the first to measure the effects of clouds and rainfall. Spencer's interpretation of the new data means all previous models and forecasts are obsolete. Would anyone trust long-term forecasts of farm production that were hopeless at forecasting rainfall? 
The implications of these breakthroughs in measurement and understanding are dramatic to say the least. The responses will be fun to watch. 
Alarmists, 'experts' face a new inconvenient truth 
Christopher Pearson, of The Australian newspaper (March 22), has written up a remarkable ABC television interview with Dr Jennifer Marohasy, a senior fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs, a Melbourne-based think tank. 
Dr Marohasy says the impact of the Aqua satellite and Spencer's interpretation of the data and prompts the reporter to conclude with some pungent observations of his own: 
"If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting. 
"A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience. 
"With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along. 
RAIN CHECK: Spencer's analyses based on new satellite data pour cold rain on warming theory 
"The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way toward prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon-footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months. 
"The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate 'climate refugees." 
7-Apr-2008
Brute 
09 April 2008 at 08:09
Pete, 
I'm half joking.......It just appears to me that the Alarmists, (hence the moniker), are sounding this clanging bell and yelling fire in a crowded theatre. For generation after generation there have been these wacky doomsday cults that proclaim "the sky is falling" and it doesn't. After a while people get wise to it. I see your link to the Greenpeace talk page and while these contributors sound somewhat reasonable, most aren’t, and want nothing less than everyone to consume next to nothing COLLECTIVELY….. Isn’t going to happen. 
Sincerely, everyone is willing to do their part and be good stewards with what we have all been blessed with. Maybe if the likes of Al Gore lightened up on the rhetoric the tree huggers may actually get somewhere; but the scare tactics and outright falsehoods ruined the credibility of the entire group and the general public views these extremists as……EXTREME. Letting people know that you care about the environment is fine. Everyone cares about the environment……it isn’t a contest. Just because you are more guilt ridden than I am doesn’t make you a better person or better “global citizen”. The sanctimonious attitude displayed by the atypical “Greenie” is wearing thin; enough already. 
Sweep the drive in front of your house and I’ll sweep mine. You can use a straw broom and I’ll use a two stroke leaf blower. (I’m joking again). 
Example: 
Global Warming Among Hundreds of Failed Bills in Md. 
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=598&sid=1382785 
Just like Robin wrote a few posts back………the bloom is off the rose.
stargazer 
09 April 2008 at 08:13
"when there are no spots on the sun the price of wheat goes up". William Herschel 1801 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahRifIz3...
Robin Guenier 
09 April 2008 at 09:36
Evidence, Peter? No problem. Re the oil producers, see Professor Hans-Werner Sinn’s analysis in the latest annual report of the European Economic Advisory Group of Munich’s CES-Ifo think-tank. Re China, India etc. simply look at the published data – their emissions have grown massively since Kyoto, irrespective of the temperature record. Also look at the research published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Stanford, CA). As I said before, China is spending 35 times as much on oil now as in 1999, with demand expected to treble by 2030. 
As for your attack on gsi when he questions the validity of the AGW hypothesis, consider this: even some of the scientists contributing to the 2007 IPCC report don’t buy it. So much for the much-hyped “consensus” – “99% of climatologists” was it? For example, the Working Group 1 report, analysing a wide range of “phenomena” (for example, “Warmer and more frequent hot days”), says that “Likelihood of a human contribution” to observed change is merely either “likely” or “more likely than not”. And, for most of those phenomena, even that assessment is based only “on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies”. Note in particular the weakness of “a human contribution” – that could be as little as 1%. Most of the “Mickey Mouse” scientists at the Heartland Institute would agree there was probably a human contribution.
Robin Guenier 
09 April 2008 at 09:46
This is most interesting: 
http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.2180302.0.0.php
harmlesssky.org 
09 April 2008 at 10:57
Robin: 
The Argus link is truly fascinating, given Taylor's CV. 
The perils of preparing for a warming world when we could be on the brink of an opposite trend are all too real; his plea for a period of reassessment and reflection very sensible. 
As far back as the 1990's, Lindzen published a paper warning that the greatest danger of AGW hysteria may be that main stream climate science - the attempt to understand the climate - would be starved of funding as the focus shifted to the narrow area co2 forcing. His prediction seems to have been fulfilled, with the main research effort now being directed towards proving the AGW hypothesis. 
Is the Argus your local paper, and will you be going to his lecture?
Robin Guenier 
09 April 2008 at 12:24
harmlesssky: no and (unfortunately) no.
bobclive 
09 April 2008 at 20:19
Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled. 
The IPCC models assumed water vapour formed clouds at high altitudes that lead to further warming. The Aqua satellite observations and Spencer's analysis show water vapour actually forms clouds at low altitudes that lead to cooling. 
Furthermore, Spencer shows the extra rain that falls from these clouds cools the underlying oceans, providing a second negative feedback to negate the CO2 warming. 
Alarmists' quandary 
This has struck the alarmists like a thunderbolt, especially as the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing that he is right! 
There still appears to be NO response to Roy Spencers paper at realclimate. 
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=21153&cid=39...
Brute 
09 April 2008 at 21:36
Mr. Clive, 
When confronted with evidence that refutes their ideology, (and meal ticket), they simply ignore it or spin it.
bobclive 
09 April 2008 at 21:44
Could 2008 Mauna Loa CO2 Monthly Maximum Come in Lower than 2007? 
http://www.icecap.us/
Peter Martin 
09 April 2008 at 22:32
Stargazer, 
" This is why I felt so lucky to be in the right place at the right time when I heard Roy Spencer speak at the New York conference on climate change in March" 
You're too embarrassed about the NY conference to give us its full title? And a bit of background on the organisers and sponsors? 
Roy Spencer has some very strange ideas. He's even questioned that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human CO2 emissions. I don't think I've heard that one before, even from some of the most extreme wackos on this forum. 
Robin, 
I haven't checked on your figures. But, assuming for the moment that they are correct, you still, as usual, haven't answered the question. 
Spending 35 x as much on oil ? How much oil are they, the Indians and Chinese, actually using? How does this compare, on a per capita basis, with the fossil fuel use of America and Europe? 
I agree that India and China have to be brought into the system with an equitable formula for CO2 emissions. Working out what that might be isn't going to be easy, but in the meantime it is reasonable to expect that the biggest emitters should make a start on CO2 reductions.
Peter Martin 
09 April 2008 at 22:47
Stargazer, 
Your long posting of 9th April was just a complete rip -off of a national Business review article. Why not just post the link rather than copying and pasting the whole thing? 
I hope TonyN has plenty of BW available on his web hosting server, and deep pockets, for when he takes over the forum.
Robin Guenier 
09 April 2008 at 22:54
You asked me for evidence that, for China, India, etc, AGW is low on the agenda. I provided that evidence - in abundance. But I don't suppose you bothered to read it. And, because they're poor & currently use less fossil fuel per capita than the West, I don't blame them at all. Trouble (for you) is that, because the West isn't cutting back either and the oil producers have not the remotest intention of slowing down, those emissions will just keep on rising. If you think this will change in time to avoid your predicted consequences, you're living in dreamland. Just as well than that the evidence is accumulating that you've got it wrong. 
And my IPCC "consensus" point? Seems some contributors' views were not so far from those of the (dread word) Heartland contributors. 
BTW why don't you have the guts to name those "extreme wackos"?
JZ Smith 
09 April 2008 at 23:08
Robin: The Argus post was fascinating. It is refreshing to see that someone with impeccably 'green' credentials has apparently come to the same conclusion that many of us posting here have come to: The science of AGW is NOT settled, and there is enough contrarian evidence to re-examine the entire debate. 
Those who want to use AGW for their own collectivist tendencies continue to act and will continue to push their agenda until sensible people come to their senses and stop them. To wit: 
http://www.desertdispatch.com/opinion/global_3006___article....
Brute 
09 April 2008 at 23:29
I'm an "extremist wacko". (saved Mr. Martin the typing). 
It seems that the "extremist wackos" have been correct all along; at least according to Stargazer's post citing the IPCC’s recent epiphany. So, can we now refer to the IPCC as extremist wacko's also? 
-Fruitcake
Agnostic 
09 April 2008 at 23:45
I would like to congratulate the New Statesman for publishing a conflicting view point i.e the Whitehouse article. In truth, some scientists genuinely believe in global warming, others support it to magnify the importance of their research and yet others are simply too professionally scared to dispute a mainstream theory. What scientists and journalists seem to share, however, is view that to justify themselves they must express a strong view. As human beings we crave certainty. Both Whitehouse and Lynas seem to be certain . 
My real respect is for those who express the view that in all honesty we don't know if the world is really warming and if this is caused by human activity. It may still make sense to curb carbon emissions but let the debate be informed my some objective humility. 
Agnostic
Peter Martin 
10 April 2008 at 00:37
Robin, 
What if I'm not wrong? Actually it's not just me but 99% of the worlds climate scientists and 100% of the world's scientific organisations that would be wrong too. 
If David Whitehouse is right and its all down to solar effects and the temperatures fall in the next 4 or 5 years then that will be fine. I'll be happy to be proved wrong. But, what if they shoot up by another 0.3 deg C or so, as they will, if global temperatures follow the previous pattern of rapid surges after periods of slight cooling? What then? Do we just give up because its all too hard to stop Exxon Mobil 's desire to sell more oil? 
PS Actually its not so much the oil companies as the coal companies who are likely to be more of a problem. 
Agnostic, 
"we don't know if the world is really warming" Well, yes we do. David Whitehouse has acknowledged that temperatures rose sharply during the latter part of the 20th century. He's saying, no sorry , he's asking the question of whether or not global warming has stopped on the basis of the last few years of relatively level temperatures. On the basis that we have actually had previous periods of cooling, in the early 90's for instance, we are saying that this is not unusual and that global warming has not stopped.
harmlesssky.org 
10 April 2008 at 00:43
Peter: 
Your heartfelt concern for my bandwidth and financial wellbeing brought tears to my eyes. 
TonyN: www.harmlesssky.org
Brute 
10 April 2008 at 02:23
"Your heartfelt concern for my bandwidth and financial wellbeing brought tears to my eyes." 
Hah, I really wish I could meet you guys face to face. We should plan a renuinion or something..........a really good group..........
Peter Martin 
10 April 2008 at 04:37
This Argus article is really quite odd. 
Peter Taylor says " But global temperature is not rising as predicted. In fact it fell by a whopping 0.6 degrees over the last 12 months, as much as it had gained in the previous 50 years." 
This is just unsubstantiated !*%$#%^ ! 
Then he goes to to say that global warming is no longer a problem because " ..... neither was {predicted} the loss of Arctic ice cover which reduced by 50 per cent in three years." 
Well, er, maybe someone can explain to me why this isn't an argument to suggest that AGW is actually worse than predicted?
Peter Martin 
10 April 2008 at 07:00
TonyN, 
On the question of your financial wellbeing, I'd like to remind you that there is some easy money ( you just have to be right in what you've said so far) to be made by taking up my offer of a bet on Global temperatures not breaking the 1998 record in the next four years. 
Oh come on, you contrarians. Enough of this sterile argument. Let's make it interesting!
Sven 
10 April 2008 at 07:07
"This is just unsubstantiated !*%$#%^ ! " 
?? 
Metoffice: 
January 2007 - 0.632 
January 2008 - 0.056 
GISS: 
January 2007 - 0.86 
January 2008 - 0.12 
So this statement "In fact it fell by a whopping 0.6 degrees over the last 12 months, as much as it had gained in the previous 50 years" is not unsubstantiated! 
But what is also interesting (metoffice data is not yet available), GISS data for March shows a truely unprecedented jump from 0.26 to 0.67, basically back to the beginning of 2007 in just one month?! This warming does not show up in RSS or UAH (both using satellite measuments for lower troposphere) who show only a minor warming from February to March... 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt
Sven 
10 April 2008 at 07:17
RSS data here: 
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_1.txt 
UAH here: 
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 
Up until now, as I see it, they have been quite well correlating with land station measurements of both giss and metoffice (even just looking at last 12 months...) but these March figures are like Venus and Mars...???
Robin Guenier 
10 April 2008 at 07:50
Peter: as usual you've completely missed my point. What I keep telling you is that - irrespective of whether you're right or wrong - the world isn't taking any notice and is emitting ever increasing amounts of CO2. And, if you think that will change within the timescale the greens say is necessary, you're living in dreamland. 
As for your ludicrous "99% of the worlds climate scientists" claim, you seem to have conveniently ignored my 09:36 post yesterday. Or have the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report also joined the ranks of the extreme wackos?
Robin Guenier 
10 April 2008 at 07:59
This is interesting: 
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/601511/an-emergin...
stargazer 
10 April 2008 at 08:35
Peter I figured that by pasting the whole piece including the title AND the name of the guy who wrote it 
as see here... 
"Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled Owen McShane " that no one would think that I wrote it...or did you think that I was Owen McShane ???? I pasted the whole piece because in my opinion links dont get read.....and no I was not at the conference either so have no idea as to its title unless I look it up.
Peter Martin 
10 April 2008 at 10:40
Sven, 
You're completely misrepsenting the facts by comparing the temperature for Jan 2007 which was one of the warmest, if not the warmest (depending on whose data set you are using) on record with the tempertaure for Jan 2008 which was relatively cool. 
It is just a nonsense , or total crap (replacing the symbols by letters), to suggest that temperatures have reverted to what they typically were 50 years ago on the basis of two 'noisy ' points on the graph. 
Of course these monthly figures jump around a lot. It really doesn't do to get too worked up about them. If I was playing your game, I could subtract the figure for Jan 2008 from March 2008 and get a figure of +0.55 deg C rise in temperature over two months. That works out at an annual figure of 3.3 deg C AGW. Its no wonder those Arctic ice sheets are melting! 
Robin, 
I think I may have suggested previously you go down to your local video store and take a look at those old Dad's Army sitcoms. You really are the Fraser of the AGW debate with his catchphrase of "we're all doomed!"
harmlesssky.org 
10 April 2008 at 12:21
The most visible impact that climate change is having on the UK landscape is the appearance of so called 'wind farms'. There are now nearly 2000 industrial wind turbines in the UK with almost as many either under construction or with planning permission granted. Planning permission is being sought for 3500 more. 
If you think that this pointless destruction of the beauty and tranquility of our countryside should be halted, there is a petition to the prime minster on the Downing Street website. 
For more information about the threat posed by wind generation, a link to the petition, and suggestions about how you can help by encouraging others to sign see here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=72 
TonyN
Sven 
10 April 2008 at 13:50
Peter, 
It DID drop 0.6 degrees in 12 months and yes, 0.6 degrees is exactly what the rise in 50 years was. How to interpret it, whether it's noise (what one month or month to month clearly is), wheather it's gonna stay like that (what it's obviously not) is another matter. And no such claims were made neither in the article nor by me. Just the sentence that you found crap and unsubstantiated is correct, fullstop... The rest is what it means, whether all the warming of 50 years is gone for ever and so on and I repeat - it was not mentioned or claimed
Robin Guenier 
10 April 2008 at 15:54
Look Peter - you simply don't get it do you? Wake up - the world's doing nothing about CO2 emissions (except increase them) and shows no sign of changing. So, yes, if you're right about AGW, perhaps we are all doomed. Fortunately, it increasingly seems you're quite wrong.
Robin Guenier 
10 April 2008 at 16:39
Peter: further to the above, see: 
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/money-for-india... 
If this is too long a link, google: dot earth April 9 Revkin India coal. Very relevant..
Robin Guenier 
10 April 2008 at 17:59
And I see Australia is doing its bit:http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports0607.htm
Robin Guenier 
10 April 2008 at 21:29
Peter: more coal stats here: 
http://www.peabodyenergy.com/default-netscape.asp 
(watch those tons mounting) 
No wonder the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change thinks a new climate change treaty will be “very very difficult”. See: 
http://english.mti.hu/default.asp?menu=1&theme=2&cat=25&news... 
Getting the message yet? 
Rob (aka the extreme wacko)
Peter Martin 
10 April 2008 at 22:55
Tony N, 
I agree that building ever larger and ever more numerous wind turbines is not the answer. The renewables are unlikely to ever contribute more than 20% of the energy required for a country like the UK. At best they are irrelevant and at worst they are a diversion from how the bulk, the other 80%, of energy should be generated. Like it or not, the choice is between fossil fuels and nuclear power. 
I would suggest that, tactically, you would be better joining forces with the pro-nuclear environmental groups. 
Sven, 
To substantiate an argument is to present supporting evidence or proof in support of that argument. As far as I remember Peter Taylor's article, he missed that bit out. It must have slipped his mind! Or, maybe the Argus sub-editors thought it was a load of crap too:-) 
If he isn't ashamed of himself he certainly should be. The casual reader of that column would have been left with a totally misleading impression.
stargazer 
11 April 2008 at 08:45
worth watching... 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=216v5AoQcFQ
bobclive 
11 April 2008 at 17:49
HM Treasury has posted on its website a paper about solar cycles, which says: 
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/5/7/Solar_Cycles_24_and_... 
Based on solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5°C is predicted to 2020, equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum. 
And it also concludes: 
A RURAL US temperature data set shows that recent and current temperatures remain below the average of the first half of the 20th century. 
If the Treasury thinks it is worth putting up on its website a paper forecasting global cooling, why is the British government adopting policies, including green taxes and intrusive lifestyle prescriptiveness, to deal with precisely the opposite eventuality? 
Now, you may not know about this sudden deadly chill in the MMGW atmosphere because the BBC hasn’t told you. To be more precise, it did try to report this — but then appears to have altered its report under pressure from a global warming activist. 
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/601511/an-emergin...
Brute 
11 April 2008 at 18:36
April 11th and it's still snowing...................... 
Snow creating treacherous driving conditions in ND, Minnesota 
http://www.in-forum.com/News/articles/197634 
Snow predicted today 
http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=73258&... 
Winter reappears to blast parts of Minnesota 
http://wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=8152458
harmlesssky.org 
11 April 2008 at 21:54
Peter: 
At last! After all this time there is something that we more or less agree on; but not much. 
I don't even see wind as being part of the 'the answer' to replacing fossil fuels, merely an expensive and highly destructive exercise in political manipulation. Every turbine proclaims our government's supposedly green credentials in just the same way that church spires were used in earlier times to make people aware of an ecclesiastical presence. Turbines are high, visible and symbolic in the same way. 
So far as nuclear energy is concerned, it is not a matter of being for or against it. I see its increased use in the future as inevitable; the question is when, not if. We are not about to discard a tried and tested technology that meets many concerns about energy security. 
I am very happy to leave tactics to those who feel that they need to act strategically in order to get their point of view across, like the warmists. 
Whoops! End of short but very beautiful friendship. 
TonyN: www.harmlesssky.org
Peter Martin 
11 April 2008 at 23:17
This sort of solution won't please the green lobby but if Brute wants to keep using gasoline this could be a better prospect than the Bakken oilfield: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/science/19carb.html?_r=1&o...
JZ Smith 
12 April 2008 at 01:06
As a Californian, I will soon be paying a tax to "fight global warming" by "bring[ing] together academic and private laboratories to quickly find ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions." 
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iSlEUuO5iaxv6_Md2BIu5Ttob...
Peter Martin 
12 April 2008 at 01:55
JZ Smith, 
Thank you for sharing that with us. It sounds like really good news! :-) 
If you live in Los Angeles I'm sure that you will be looking forward to breathing clean air, even in the city centre. Modern technology means that this is all possible.
stargazer 
12 April 2008 at 09:48
Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact 
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/5693436.html
bobclive 
12 April 2008 at 10:17
http://republicans.oversight.houshttp://republicans.oversight.house.gov/Media/Hearings/20070319PolSci2/SpencerTestimony.pdf
bobclive 
12 April 2008 at 10:21
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/Media/Hearings/200703...
harmlesssky.org 
12 April 2008 at 11:28
Peter: 
There is something about people's very understandable desire to breath clean air, even in urban areas, here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=75
Brute 
12 April 2008 at 12:53
Tony, 
Good post………..Hmmm. Recycling is another racket. Recycling produces more "greenhouse gases" per unit than producing a virgin container, (but it makes people feel better). The interesting thing here is that commercially, we separate our plastic, glass, aluminum, etc in separate containers only to have the collection company re-mingle them with the regular garbage and burying it in landfills; charging more for the overall program / privilege. But hey, we're saving the planet, right? (Yes, I’ve watched them do this). 
-Fruitcake
Brute 
12 April 2008 at 13:44
Calif. OKs Think Tank on Global Warming 
Sounds like welfare for scientists to me. 
In this instance, we have a Governor that believes this global warming nonsense but bans alternative forms of energy...........Taxation, regulation and resrtriction is the primary focus. 
Wind farms to be barred 
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.wind12apr12...
Peter Martin 
12 April 2008 at 14:43
Tony, 
I'm not sure why you've directed the clean air comment towards me. Of course people should expect, in fact have a right, that the air they breathe should be clean, no matter where they live. Brute would, I expect, argue that he's got an inalienable right to drive his V8 wherever he likes too and immediately these two 'rights' are in conflict. At present it isn't easy to reconcile the two, but I would expect that during the 21st century we'll move away from hyrdrocarbon fuels to a large extent, and so it should be increasingly possible in future. 
I'm not sure that recycling takes more energy than it saves. Newsprint is probably worth recycling. I can't see the sense in melting down, and then remaking, bottles rather than washing them out though. In the UK milk bottles and some beer bottles are reused this way. In France wine bottles are reused too. There isn't much of that in Australia. One exception is South Australia where there is a refundable deposit on beer bottles. If they can do it in SA I really don't understand why its not more widespread. That would be the most CO2 efficient way, I would have thought. 
Yes it is sometimes difficult to explain to people who are not scientifically minded, and that is probably most people, what does and does not matter in environmental terms. There is a lot of confusion about the depletion of the ozone layer and global warming, for instance. I'm annoyed that lighting companies deliberate play up the fact that there light bulbs are low voltage. Most people take that to mean that they are low power, and therefore low CO2, but often that's not the case. There's also a widespread myth that it switching off a piece of electrical apparatus uses more energy that it saves. That is hardly ever true. 
It is fair enough to have an argument over the problem of global warming if the aim is to get at the truth rather than cloud the issue. Both sides have been guilty of overstatement in the past but there does seem to be a concerted effort to confuse, by the anti AGW lobby at the moment. It is a lot easier to confuse than to educate. I suppose the idea is that if you do create enough confusion in the public mind, most people will stay relatively neutral on the issue, and be happy to leave the decision to the so-called experts. In practice, this means politicians, whose scientific knowledge is often not to good either, and certainly not expert. They aren't going to do anything if they feel that it might cost them a few votes and, for those making one side of the argument, and those with vested interests that back them, that is obviously the objective.
stargazer 
12 April 2008 at 15:13
The climate modelers did not see this one comeing...(or take the massive effect this would have into account) 
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Widespread_Twilight_Zone_D... 
"We found that the region affected by this cloud field 'twilight zone' extends to tens of kilometers beyond the identified cloud edge," said Koren. "This suggests that 30 to 60 percent of the atmosphere previously labeled as 'cloud-free' is actually affected by cloud-aerosol processes that reflect solar energy back into space."
Brute 
12 April 2008 at 17:18
Mr. Martin, 
You wrote: 
“Of course people should expect, in fact have a right, that the air they breathe should be clean, no matter where they live.” 
What does CO2 have to do with clean air? The last time I checked we’ve all been exhaling CO2; are we all “polluting” simply by breathing? Maybe people who exercise regularly, (higher respiration rates), should have to pay CO2 offsets for using more of their allotted Oxygen ration and expelling more CO2 than those who don’t? I’ve also poured over the United States Constitution and didn’t see anything about a “right” to breathe clean air…….seems a bit of a stretch, (more Alarmism / Sensationalism). I also, didn’t see anything referencing a “right” to medical care, a job, a house, a car or a color television set. 
Also, the article you referenced regarding removing CO2 from the atmosphere sounds very dangerous…..what is the “ideal level”? I guess it would depend upon whether you’re a plant or an animal, right? 
I’m thinking of starting a group that fights for the rights of plants….what do you think? I could be the voice of all of the persecuted plants who have no voice…..plants are people too you know. Whoops, someone has beaten me to it.
harmlesssky.org 
12 April 2008 at 21:09
Peter: 
Thanks for a thoughtful and interesting response to the post at Harmless Sky, and again we seem to agree about some things. Is there any chance that you would be willing to cross post it there so that it can be read in context? 
There were two points that I was particularly trying to make: 
The confusion that the July ’07 MORI poll identifies is not coming from sceptical arguments but is being caused by the very people who are trying to convince the UK population about the dangers of AGW. 
The urban majority are certainly concerned about air quality, and it would be wise to tackle this problem with targeted policies, rather than trying to convince them that if they embrace a whole raft of measures intended to save the planet from AGW, then they will get clean air too. In other words, if a house is dirty it makes more sense to scrub, sweep and polish until it is clean than to demolish the house and build a new one. Both methods will produce pleasanter living conditions, but one doesn’t make too much sense. 
One last thing, which perhaps I should have put this in the post. There were almost no sceptical stories in the mainstream British media from Feb. 2007 - when the IPCC began to publish their fourth assessment report - until very recently when stories appeared about falling global temperatures. I know this because I monitor the media very carefully. Wherever the scepticism is coming from, and we could probably argue about that forever, it is not the result of a programme of indoctrination by sceptics. 
Incidentally my last comment really wasn’t directed at you, I only put your name at the top because you had mentioned pollution in LA in your 01:55 comment. 
TonyN: www.harmlesssky.org
harmlesssky.org 
12 April 2008 at 22:04
Brute: 
Thanks, but I wasn't actually saying that recycling was a racket, only that if you want to reduce co2 emissions there are other ways that will give you a much bigger bang for your buck. 
On the other hand, from what I see in my area, the effort that goes into implementing and administering recycling may well nullify much of the benefit. I think that this is a great pity as I hate waste, and there is no doubt that we live in hideously wasteful times. 
I spent this afternoon collecting fallen timber for firewood using a quarter ton dumper truck that I bought for very little on Ebay. It was built in 1964 and still works fine with almost no maintenance. How long will a recently built model last before it gets recycled? 
TonyN: www.harmlesssky.org
Peter Martin 
13 April 2008 at 02:39
Brute, 
The constitution of the USA is a marvellous document. In its original form, and at the time it was written it was the most progressive constitution in the world. But, it is uniquely American and it cannot be considered to be a template for everyone else to follow. I doubt that it ever occurred to the USA founding fathers that the time might come when air quality in American cities might be of such poor standard that it would warrant even a sub clause to cover the possibility. The last amendment, #28, of your constitution, I've just taken a quick look at it, was in 1992 and covered congressional pay. So if you can include that in your constitution surely you can add any or all of the items you've listed. Its your decision. 
I was expecting that you, and/or some of the other contrarians, would have come back strongly against my assertion that the anti AGW lobby are more concerned with creating confusion rather than educating the public . But you've let it go. 
Tony, 
Yes I think that you are probably right in your assessment of the media coverage. The antis have regrouped around a set of new arguments. 
Before the AGW issue became such a 'hot topic', in the early 90s there was a similar, but much less low key, discussion when temperatures also fell. The 'official scientific line' then was that it was all down to the eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991. That was very much an over-simplification and of course many people said so at the time. Even among the mainstream scientific community there was a general scepticism and quite a strong feeling that the AGW issue wasn't much more than media inspired hype in the same way that the 60's ice age stories were. The very strong warming that occurred in the late 90's dispelled all that with the scientific community becoming near unanimous ten years later. 
We are going through exactly the same process in a much more public way at present. If the warming pattern repeats itself we'll probably see a sharp jump in temperatures of about 0.3 deg C in the next few years and a continued rapid decline in the area of summer Arctic ice. 
There is a danger than a certain panic will set in if and when it does with lots of talk of 'tipping points' and 'its already too late' etc etc. I've always argued that the problem can be tackled effectively if we think rationally. Oscillating between denial and panic isn't going to help in the slightest.
Brute 
13 April 2008 at 19:54
Mr. Martin, 
You wrote: 
“I was expecting that you, and/or some of the other contrarians, would have come back strongly against my assertion that the anti AGW lobby are more concerned with creating confusion rather than educating the public.” 
Are you kidding? All we hear about ad nauseam is article after article and news story after news story about a “planetary emergency” and “global climate catastrophe”. Al Gore’s science fiction movie is riddled with lies and half truths which is being forced fed to children for God’s sake and we had a situation last week where the BBC printed a story stating, (accurately), that global temperatures had dropped, which was edited after pressure was applied by an activist Loon to distort the truth. I would think that someone, (even someone with an Alarmist mindset and a shred of integrity), could see that for what it is….manipulation and intimidation of news outlets to steer public sentiment and distort reality…….and no, I don’t see it happening from “both sides”, at least among credible news outlets…..(if you consider the BBC credible). 
Please, you’re attempting to insult my intelligence again. What’s next, throwing a pie into someone’s face?
Brute 
13 April 2008 at 22:04
Tony, 
I wasn't attempting to write that you may think that recycling is a racket.....I KNOW that it is. Recycling programs produce more "greenhouse gases" than conventional methods of trash disposal.......All that it does is make people THINK they are "helping the environment". 40% of the people surveyed in your article stated that they believe recycling was an effective action to reduce “climate change” (whatever that means). At my home we are visited two days per week by BOTH a conventional trash truck and a recycling trash truck, (doubling the amount of fuel used / burned to simply pick up the trash / recycling). After it is picked up it is then mixed back in with the regular trash and disposed of in THE SAME LANDFILL as the rest. Even if the program was conducted properly, the energy used to break down a glass bottle or aluminum can and remanufacture it into some other form of the same base material produces far more pollution / toxins and greenhouse gases than would occur if the bottle / can were to be reproduced from raw materials. 
As usual, politicians and government agencies promote yet another fraud on the people to appease the syndicates that operate the refuse removal and disposal firms......Also another excuse to raise taxes...........Yes, recycling is a racket……….. 
Exposed: the great recycling con trick 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1875508.ece 
Recycling's myth: the "Three R's" are doing more harm than good 
The cost of conservation efforts may significantly outweigh the benefits of curbside pickups and disposal of recyclables 
"Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle." 
This simple phrase is taught every day to children all around America, instilled in them from the beginning. The act of recycling plastics, papers, glass and aluminum is widely hailed by both governments and environmental agencies in both America and Europe as a necessary step toward saving planet Earth. 
The European Union has laid down a set of rules that require citizens of the United Kingdom to double their recycling rates by 2008, while many major cities in the United States, such as New York and Seattle, have proposed vast, required, expansions of existing recycling programs. 
However, all of these rules and regulations are based in pure myth. Recycling is one of the most unimpeachable environmental movements today, but its benefits are greatly exaggerated and its costs often go completely unreported. 
One of the most pervasive myths about recycling is that America is faced with a rising tide of trash and waste, and soon we will be awash in it, completely buried in our own refuse. 
Former Vice President Al Gore, for example, once claimed in a speech that we as a nation "are running out of ways to dispose of our waste in a manner that keeps it out of either sight or mind". 
This is undeniably false. It is true that there are fewer landfills in our country today than there were ten years ago, but their capacity has increased greatly. 
According to a study by the Environmental Protection Agency done in 2001, the nation's landfills could accommodate 18 years' worth of trash, an amount 25 percent greater than in the decade preceding it. Recycling is often praised as stemming the massive flood of trash into our landfills; in reality, the total land area required to hold all trash produced by the United States for the next century would only be about ten square miles. 
Disposing of trash in the conventional way, landfills, is widely reviled. It is often thought of as harmful, toxic and carcinogenic. However, the EPA estimates that there will only be about 5.7 cancer-related deaths caused by landfills in the next 300 years. Landfills are also a reliable source of capital for our country's economy. 
Trash is often transported across state lines and traded back and forth, accruing around $4 billion dollars in capital a year. 
Proponents of recycling often claim that it "saves resources." They focus on the saving of a particular resource, like the current posters up around Drake stating that "for every ton of recycled newspaper, 17 trees are saved." 
That is true, but the long term effects of recycling are detrimental. More trucks and more resources are required to handle the massive bulk of recycling, and all of that transportation ultimately does more harm than good. According to Franklin Associates, an environmental research firm, an extensive recycling program is 35 percent more costly than conventional trash disposal. Curbside recycling pick-ups, the kind most people do, is a staggering 55 percent more costly than a conventional landfill. 
Recycling requires twice as many trucks, twice as much gas consumption, and thus twice as much atmospheric pollution. If nothing else, recycling still offers the average citizen a sense of duty and action, like they are really helping to save the world. 
"It makes me feel good to be eating at a restaurant or something and to see '100 percent recycled paper' on napkins or placemats," says RHA recycling activist Liz Pope (AS1). 
Recycling can help matters to a certain extent, but ultimately it is a counter-productive procedure. Recycling ultimately exacerbates the problems it wishes to solve in the first place.
Peter Martin 
13 April 2008 at 23:01
Brute, 
I don't want to stray too much off topic but I guess the recycling argument and the AGW argument are connected. Certainly the anti-AGW and anti-recycling fraternity are often one and the same. 
I'm not too well up on the the merits of anti-recycling arguments but a quick Google of the term quickly brought up our old foe, the Heartland Institute, which made me smile. 
This is a good presentation of the arguments in favour of recycling: http://www.edf.org/documents/611_ACF17F.htm
Peter Martin 
13 April 2008 at 23:45
Brute, 
You may not be familar with the methods of Richard Luntz. Incidentally, Richard Luntz was the guy who advised President Bush, in 2002, to drop the term 'global warming' and instead use his suggested alternative of 'climate change' because it sounded less threatening. Any yet , recently I have noticed that the anti-AGW's have taken to accusing the scientific community of changing terms precisely because it suited them. How about that for creating confusion? 
This is how things are done according to Frank Luntz . 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz 
This bit of advise was also given to President Bush in 2002: 
"The scientific debate is closing against us but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science...Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field." 
By "scientists and other experts" , of course, he didn't mean James Hansen, or other leading climate scientist at Nasa! Rather the the 1% or so of climate scientists who were still holding out against the emerging scientific consensus. In other words play up what little scientific uncertainty there was, really cloud the issue, and make sure the voters end up thinking that there are really two equally valid, and equally opposite, scientific positions on the subject. 
And you call that educating rather than creating confusion?
Brute 
14 April 2008 at 02:02
Mr. Martin, 
Oh my........where to begin.......It seems that this entire thread and the previous closed thread have been wasted. Time and time again, posted by numerous intelligent, (for the most part) people, there has been information presented to you of the fallacy of the entire global warming argument and you choose not to see it. I honestly feel that you want so much to believe that it’s true that nothing will make you see the light. 
I’ll have to come up with something to write later; its late here……………See you in the AM. 
-Fruitcake
sandywinder 
14 April 2008 at 11:37
How many times in the past two hundred years have temperatures dipped for several YEARS only to resume their relentless overall rise? 
And why do people think this time is any different? Why would anybody believe that GW had ended in 1998 just because they have resumed to more normal figures since? Who has ever argued that temperatures rise in a straight line anyway?
bobclive 
14 April 2008 at 11:56
Effects of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment on Spring Wheat Yields in a SEMI-ARID Region of China. 
Reference 
Li, W., Han, X., Zhang, Y. and Li, Z. 2007 
What was done 
The authors studied the effects of minor-to-modest CO2 concentration increases of 14.5, 40 and 54.5 ppm on leaf area index, leaf area duration, shoot biomass and yield of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum cv. Dingxi 24) grown for two years in a semi-arid region of China under (1) natural conditions, (2) with irrigation and (3) with irrigation and added fertilizer. 
What was learned 
Among other things, Li et al. report that "elevated CO2 concentration owing to CO2 application leads to remarkable increase in leaf area index and shoot biomass, and also generates the higher value of leaf area duration that can benefit the photosynthesis in the growth stage and yield increase in crop." More specifically, they report that the 40-ppm increase in CO2 concentration increased grain yield by 4.2% (0.105%/ppm) under natural conditions, while with irrigation and fertilization (treatment 3) the 14.5-, 40- and 54.5-ppm CO2 concentration increases increased grain yield by 6.3% (0.434%/ppm), 13.1% (0.328%/ppm) and 19.8% (0.363%/ppm), respectively. 
According to the BBC there is a world wide shortage of grain and the AGWers want to reduce CO2. 
The only factual evidence regarding higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere shows a benefit.
Peter Martin 
14 April 2008 at 13:41
Stargazer, 
Have we managed to convince you that AGW is a serious problem? Or maybe you didn't read your linked article properly in your last posting? 
Always read the last paragraph to get a summary: 
"If aerosols are offsetting warming more than we thought, it's possible that warming could increase more than expected in the future if aerosols continue to decline, as has been reported recently."
Brute 
14 April 2008 at 13:44
sandywinder, 
You Wrote: 
"How many times in the past two hundred years have temperatures dipped for several YEARS only to resume their relentless overall rise?" 
I'm writing: 
Are you asserting that manmade CO2 emmissions began effecting the global climate in 1808? Or could it have been that the global climate temperature was increasing due to the easing of the Little Ice Age? 
By the way, relentless is a good Alarmist word. Is that one of the recommended inflamatory words suggested in the global warming scaremongering dictionary? 
You wrote: 
Who has ever argued that temperatures rise in a straight line anyway? 
I'm writing: 
The United Nations, (the IPCC) Al Gore and the rest of the global warming kooks have said and written this. CO2 levels have risen 23% since 1998 and global temperatures have dropped. 
The theory that increased CO2 causes increased global temperatures has been proven to be false.
stargazer 
14 April 2008 at 14:51
"If aerosols are offsetting warming more than we thought, it's possible that warming could increase more than expected in the future if aerosols continue to decline, as has been reported recently." 
Peter 
see its the words 'if', possible, expected,and could' that I have a problem with..... 
sandywinder 
the way to look at it is that temp over the past 10,000 years (interglacial period) have, lets agree, been about the same as 'now', that is the Holocene optimum, the roman,medieval and modern. 
in fact lets call these periods 'normal' or at least better to live in. then in between we get cold periods (not so good to live in,,,,but not once has the world gotten hotter that 'normal...but it gets a lot colder than 'normal' 
and as Brute said AGW is just us bouncing back out of the LIA back up to 'normal' again.
stargazer 
14 April 2008 at 15:08
Peter I think it worth mentioning that the article in question was of interest to me because of the solar/cosmic ray/ cloud connection....the people who wrote the piece may not even realize this to be an implication of their work... e.g.. low solar activity= more cosmicrays,= more aerosols (cloud)= cooler earth. and might be a missing link to those who say that there is no great correlation with CR/cloud cover..... 
well see this.... "This suggests that 30 to 60 percent of the atmosphere previously labelled as 'cloud-free' is actually affected by cloud-aerosol processes that reflect solar energy back into space." 
That's A lot !!!!!! and if true is a big piece to be missing from " the science/debate is settled" AGW crowd...don't you think
bobclive 
14 April 2008 at 17:10
Peter, 
Realclimate used Piers Forster to debunk the Schwartz et al paper ( assessing uncertainty in climate simulations), now Isaac Held and Piers Forster have reviewed Roy Spencers paper and support Spencers conclusions. 
Forster admitted in his review of Spencers paper that both he and Held had erred in this part of their analysis in their 2005 paper, and encouraged Spencer to get his paper published so that others could be made aware of the issue, too, ie negative feedback of clouds. 
It appears that realclimate are still dumbstruck regarding the Spencer paper. 
Perhaps as a scientist you can explain the reasons for the silence at realclimate and how the Forster, Schwartz, Spencer papers relate to AGW and to each other.
Brute 
14 April 2008 at 17:28
http://www.icecap.us/ 
Apr 14, 2008 
Cold Temperatures Freeze Gardening Season 
By Mark Geary, Reporter KCRG-TV, Cedar Rapids, IA 
All of this cold weather is freezing the start of the gardening season. Now, outdoor fans are eager for a warm-up. “I’m 71-years-old and I’ve never seen spring come this late,” Robert Ciesleck said. Ciesleck and his family look forward to gardening together every spring. This year, they’re not sure when they’re going to be able to get their hands dirty. “When it starts getting into mid-March and April, then things should change fast, but not this year,” he said. 
On a typical Sunday afternoon, the Culver’s greenhouse would be packed with people, but the recent cold temperatures scared away a lot of customers. “All the plants are right here. All you can do is come and look for now. I’d hate to take any home quite yet, but it’s getting really tempting,” customer Rhonda Kaczinski said. Cold temperatures aren’t the only problem. This winter’s snow and ice storms drenched the soil and left it soggy. If you can pick up a handful of soil and still wring moisture out of it, it’s too wet to plant,” Culver’s employee Sherri Baldonado said. Even though it might be too cold for flowers to take root, Culver’s employees recommend buying plants now and storing them in a warm place like a garage. Read more here. 
Icecap Note: To put in into perspective, Cedar Rapids and the surrounding Midwest has been consistently colder than normal since December. In Cedar Rapids, December averaged 3.0 F below normal, January 1.9 F below normal, February a whopping 8.3 F below normal, March 4.9 F below normal and so far in April 4.4 degrees below normal.
Brute 
14 April 2008 at 17:29
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0804/S00187.htm 
Apr 13, 2008 
Exposing the Climate Change Agenda 
By Dr Muriel Newman, NZ Centre For Political Research 
The climate change debate is forever shifting as science casts long shadows of doubt on the predictions of global catastrophe. The debate gathered a world-wide audience when climate alarmists gained control of the climate science agenda. Its popularisation has given it a political momentum that is proving difficult to halt. At first the alarmists tried to scare us with those exaggerated claims that man-made greenhouse gas emissions were causing the earth’s temperature to rise. They said there was a direct causal relationship between industrialisation (and therefore CO2 emissions) and global temperatures, and that link was so serious that mankind would bring about its own demise if immediate action were not taken. 
These prophets of doom initially ignored the fact that while concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases have continued to rise, global temperatures stopped rising ten years ago. However, with the growing weight of scientific data now indicating the globe could be cooling, not warming, the alarmists are now talking of a ‘climate change’ crisis. They have broadened their rhetoric to accommodate all forms of extreme weather change - in order to hedge their bets! 
When will these alarmists stop, you might well ask? My answer is they won’t. Those promoting the global warming cause will adapt their reasoning in whatever way is necessary to remain credible in the eyes of the public. Let’s not forget there are powerful vested interests benefiting from global warming alarmism with vast profit opportunities and political reputations at stake. They will hang on as long as a gullible public allows them to. 
And big money there is. All around the world, carbon offset schemes - any of extremely dubious quality - are growing like topsy. Companies like Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management, which makes money from investing in “sustainable” businesses, now has $5 billion in funds under management, according to the New York Times. The runaway success of his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” would have done the inflow of money into that fund no harm at all! 
Professor Bob Carter, an environmental scientist at Queensland�s James Cook University is presently in New Zealand on a lecture tour. He suggested “The roughly 50 computer experts and scientists who form the core advisory group for the IPCC�s stance must have realized for several years now that the game was up. There is indeed copious evidence that climate is changing, as it always has; and that natural biological and physico-chemical systems - again as always - are changing in response. But as to human causation - the evidential cupboard is bare. “For the last three years, satellite-measured average global temperature has been declining. Given the occurrence also of record low winter temperatures and massive snowfalls across both hemispheres this year, IPCC members have now entered panic mode, the whites of their eyes being clearly visible as they seek to defend their now unsustainable hypothesis of dangerous, human-caused global warming”. Read more here.
harmlesssky.org 
14 April 2008 at 21:53
Peter: 
Thanks for the comment at Harmless Sky. For anyone who hasn't seen it, its a good one: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=75#comment-49 
I've added a comment of my own. 
TonyN: www.harmlesssky.org
Peter Martin 
14 April 2008 at 22:47
Brute, 
You've written: "CO2 levels have risen 23% since 1998 and global temperatures have dropped. " 
You've really got to improve your arithmetical skills before you getting into quoting % figures. In 1998 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 364 ppm. In 2007 it was 382 ppm. That works out, according to my calculator, at 4.9% not 23%. 
Figures from: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ 
There is a good news on methane which though present in much lower proportions than CO2, is a more potent GHG and does also have a significant effect. The concentration of the gas looks like it is levelling off at about 1775 ppb and hasn't changed much since 1998.
Brute 
14 April 2008 at 23:51
Holy Moses, now we have to worry about Methane. Is that the "new" manmade boogeyman? 
Are we going to have to tax Mexican foods at higher rates to offset Methane emissions? Wow.......I can hear it now.......FORGET ABOUT SUV'S! LOWER YOUR METHANE FOOTPRINT! I can think of a bunch more jokes to write about this, but this is a family newspaper.....jeez 
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide 
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm 
CONCLUSIONS 
There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123). 
We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. 
As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. 
The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies. 
Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased. 
Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.
Peter Martin 
15 April 2008 at 02:45
BobClive, 
I should say that I'm not a climate scientist but as I understand the issue, global warming theory incorporates a number of positive feedbacks which amplify a slight degree of warming into a larger degree of warming. One of the accepted feedbacks is an increase in high level, heat trapping clouds. Spencer's observations in the tropics lead him to disagree (or maybe he already disagreed?) with the current theory and, instead of a positive feedback, he is suggesting a negative feedback which would indicate that the earth's temperature is more stable than climatic models predict. 
Roy Spencer has quite unusual opinions which lead him to be taken less seriously than otherwise he might . Although of course it isn't difficult to understand why he is the darling of the more right-wing media in the USA. He has suggested that the increase in CO2 is a natural occurrance and not man-made which is quite unusual, to say the least. There is also evidence that he allows his religious beliefs to influence his scientific views, which does set a few alarm bells ringing. The next step in the process will be to check that the Roy Spencer's observations can be repeated by other scientists. I guess that will take a year or two, and until his work is independently verified there is little point in realclimate.com or anyone else commenting further at this stage. 
Climatic models are only one part of the total evidence suggesting that AGW is a serious problem. If the models were saying one thing and nothing else could be measured then of course we'd all be sceptical. It must be difficult to be as sceptical as you are though, the year after Arctic ice reached an all time recorded minimum in 2007 , freeing up the NW pasage to normal shipping for the first time ever. 
Watch out for one of the Greenpeace ships making the journey in 2008.
Peter Martin 
15 April 2008 at 08:16
Brute, 
This argument about extra CO2 being good for plants does keep cropping up (sorry about the pun) 
However, it can't keep on going unchallenged. 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.ht... 
It may well be that the current level of atmosheric CO2. and world temperatures, is relatively low by pre-historic standards, and wouldn't have suited the dinosaurs or the plants that co-existed with them. But I would suggest that all modern day plants and animals, including us humans, have evolved in the last couple of million years to be ideally suited to these lower, pre-industrial levels of CO2.
Robin Guenier 
15 April 2008 at 10:58
Peter: 
I see you back on your consensus point: "the 1% or so of climate scientists who were still holding out against the emerging scientific consensus". Two questions. (1) What is your evidence that 99% of climate scientists have a united view on AGW? (2) What is the essence the united view you say they hold? 
While you're at it, perhaps you'd be kind enough to answer my 3 April (11:25) post. Thanks. 
Extreme wacko
Brute 
15 April 2008 at 14:28
I also see that Peter has neglected to mention AGAIN that the Northwest Passage has been navigatable before. 
Bad reporting about the Northwest Passage issue. 
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-reporting-about... 
Mr. Martin also wrote: 
"It must be difficult to be as skeptical as you are though, the year after Arctic ice reached an all time recorded minimum in 2007, freeing up the NW passage to normal shipping for the first time ever." 
"Ever" is a long time.....Just how long has there been accurate measurements of the extent and thickness of the northern ice cap? 1977? In addition; wouldn't a navigatable Northwest Passage be beneficial in the “critical planetary struggle” against global warming and CO2 increase? After all, it would possibly shorten the distance that ships would have to travel, wouldn’t it?
Brute 
15 April 2008 at 14:58
Apr 14, 2008 
The Icecaps are Growing 
By David J. Ameling 
There is very little precise data when it comes to climate change. Are the Ice Caps growing or are they diminishing? Accurate measurements are hard to obtain. The International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) provides very precise data that can answer this question. The IERS calculates leap seconds. Just like leap years add days to keep our calendar in sync with the actual amount of time it takes for the Earth to orbit the Sun, leap seconds are used to keep highly accurate atomic clocks in sync with clocks based on the Earth’s rotation. The Earth’s rotation has slowed down. To keep the clocks in sync leap seconds will have to be added at a constant rate. If the Earth’s rotation continues to slow down leap seconds will need to be added at an increasing rate. 
The IERS determines the rotation of the Earth. Data only exists from 1972 to the present. From 1972 thru 1998 (26 years) 21 leap seconds were added. From 1999 to the present (9 years) only 1 leap second has been added. This means since 1999 to the present the Earth’s rate of rotation has increased. There are two possible (but not mutually exclusive) causes for this. 
1. Some of the Earth’s mass has moved closer to the Earth’s axis of rotation similar to a spinning skater bringing his arms closer to his sides, and thus spinning faster. For the Earth this would occur when some of its ocean water is moved to the polar ice caps to form snow and ice. Satellite data shows the Earth’s atmosphere has been cooling since 1998. This would cause a build up of snow and ice at the polar ice caps and thus increase the Earth’s rate of rotation. The time lines for the increase in the Earth’s rotation and the atmosphere’s cooling match. The Ice Caps are growing. 
Mass could also have been moved closer to Earth’s axis of rotation by geological methods, but these would require more time. Read more here.
Pat T 
15 April 2008 at 15:07
"Give up because Exxon Mobil wants to sell more oil....." 
???? 
Exxon Mobil can't sell any more oil than people are willing to buy. 
The question isn't whether a producer should be allowed to just foist its products on the consumers - that's not what happens in the market, otherwise there'd still be a McLean DeLuxe. 
Don't put this question as rescuing consumers from producers, because that's not accurate. 
The question is whether consumers should be "rescued from themselves" - from their own decisions. The question is whether consumers' decisions should be overridden by government. 
We spent the 20th century fighting such oppression from the extremes of both Left and Right. 
Let's not just abandon the triumph of freedom on the basis of an unproven theory, shall we? 
People are indeed going to look back on this debate five, ten, fifteen, twenty years from now. 
And if at that time 1998 is still the "warmest year on record," some people are going to look pretty stupid.
bobclive 
15 April 2008 at 15:11
Peter, 
Realclimate went after Svensmark immediately his paper became availably even though they commented that Svensmark had published in a minor journal, they also tried to scupper the Cern Cloud experiment by inisting it was a waste on money. They then sent Lockwood and Froehlich after Svensmark. All this for what they called a minor paper published in a minor journal which in their opinion was wrong. 
They tried to debunk Schwartz et al whose results are similar to Roy Spencers. 
All scientists can make a mistake once in a while, an obvious example is Mann, but as he knew about the Bristle cones I doubt it really was a mistake. 
Roy Spencers paper was peer reviewed by the modelers themselves Isaac Held and Piers Forster both in the AGW camp, they have stated on record that Spencers findings are correct and that is the reason Realclimate have kept clear, they have no answer to the fact that their own side peer reviewed the paper. 
WATER VAPOUR is the main feedback and if it turns out to be negative CO2 will at last be relegated to the minor role it has always played. 
Peter we are taking about the doubling of CO2, Dutch growers rely on an enriched CO2 environment of up to 5 x normal air, their workers have no need of any special breathing equipment. The enrichment technique has successfully resulted in earlier maturity by almost 10 days and increased biomass by about 50%. 
American commercial greenhouses have used aerial carbon dioxide fertilization for tomatoes, lettuce, cucumbers, flower and foliage plants, and bedding plants for at least 30 years. The benefits of this enrichment were first discovered by nurserymen in Germany 100 years ago, and the practice is widely used in Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Germany, Australia, and Japan, as well as the United States and Canada. Carbon dioxide enrichment is economical when greenhouse vents can be closed. It is therefore used most often in winter in northern areas and in the southerly latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere. 
Demonstrations with tented fruit trees in atmospheres boosted to 700 ppm CO2 (0.070%) resulting in young trees two to three times the size of those growing in normal atmospheres have been done many times in the US, England and Europe.
Brute 
15 April 2008 at 15:49
Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoax Heats Up 
By Tim Wood 
04 Apr 2008 at 02:42 PM GMT-04:00 
NOTE: The BBC story referenced here was modified - without notification to readers - after publication to reinforce some global warming dogmas. The BBC's compliance with activist demands for the story to be recast is detailed by Marc Sheppard on American Thinker. 
St. LOUIS (ResourceInvestor.com) -- The BBC today aired a story confirming what responsible scientists have been saying for some time – that there has been no notable variation in global temperatures for the past ten years. 
This is an inconvenient truth for the vast edifice being built atop the myth that human related carbon dioxide has exceeded some imagined tipping point, turning the world into a deadly hotbox. 
The World Meteorological Organization literally blames the El Niño Pacific current for upsetting the carefully orchestrated media meme of runaway heating caused by all that nasty capitalist production. What they should be admitting is the relative ignorance of scientists about all the factors that drive climate variation. The fact that the WMO and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were incapable of reflecting El Niño’s impact on their temperature models simply underscores how politically driven and unscientific climate science has become. The “consensus” models must be considered worthless after years of failed predictions. To be fair, the IPCC models admit that they do not even take Pacific Decadal Oscillation into account. 
The correspondence between El Niño and recent climate events and trends is striking; no less striking than correlations with Sun spot activity and precipitation systems. Indeed, the WMO admits that El Niño, “has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.” Yet there are countless media stories and journal articles blaming human related carbon dioxide emissions for these events. 
Despite the facts directly contradicting the predictions of ever-hotter years unless “greenhouse gas emissions” were severely curtailed, the WMO and others continue to spin the warming myth saying we can be sure 1998’s average temperature will be exceeded at some point in the near future. 
Laughably, Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, told the BBC that La Niña is just noise amidst a larger climate change signal. Isn’t it amazing that mere noise can disrupt every major climate change model… 
It’s worth reviewing why no reasonable person subscribes to the idea that human related carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming. Some basic points: 
1. Persons and interests unknown claim to have identified with incredible precision Earth’s optimum temperature, sea level, snow cover, ice packing, crop yields, soil moisture, ocean salinity, speciation, particulate concentrations in the atmosphere, crustal movement, weather severity and forestation among thousands of other variables of life. Absurd, isn’t it? These supposedly optimum levels have been decreed permanent even though they relate to a recent period when more sophisticated measurement and data analysis became possible, and which conveniently coincides with the end of a mini ice age. The reasons for selecting this false optimum equilibrium must be political rather than scientific since the long-run climate data shows much greater volatility than the earth has recently experienced. Precession, anyone? 
2. Ideological interests antipathetic to modernism run the business of global climate change. Consider just the acquiescence of “scientists” to the United Nation’s repeated publication of climate policy recommendations before supporting scientific materials are published. In fact, the UN IPCC openly stated last year that scientific reports were being modified to fit policy recommendations, which required the delay in publication. And how else do you take this quote from Maurice Strong, one of the big bananas in the global green junta: “Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring about?” 
3. Climate “science” is pimped by big money lobbies and transglobal ideological movements. American federal funding of climate research alone runs to some $5 billion per year. Take careful note how the green movement is hysterically assertive about controlling climate change money flows via the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). The reason is obvious – it provides the best means to wrest policy making away from elected and accountable politicians. 
4. Climate science is subject to peer review rather than auditing, which is insufficient control for public policy decisions. Canadian geologists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick demonstrated this by uncovering what can only be described as the fraudulent development of Michael Mann’s “Temperature Hockey Stick” graph. The IPCC relied heavily on the graph – which was extensively “peer reviewed” – to support demands for urgent policy changes. The graph has since been abandoned after being exposed as a fabrication. 
5. One fraud is sufficient to disqualify any organization from retaining trust, respect and authority. The IPCC is guilty of more than one fraud, whilst elite agencies and academies are routinely being embarrassed by research errors. For example, see how the Hadley Center responded when cold temperatures this January and February disrupted the politically correct view of incessant warming. NASA also recently admitted a serious error with its temperature data. Also, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) does not adjust temperature data the way a sister federal agency, NASA, does. 
6. The most widely cited climate models with respect to policy impacts are scenario projects – which is how adults describe creative thinking. To quote a climate change insider: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.” – Dr. Kevin Trenberth, Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and lead author of the UN IPCC’s Scientific Assessment of Climate Change. Note his half-hearted admission that climate science is in its infancy, yet he is willing to support destructive policy changes based on his faith. 
7. Observed real climate systems behave opposite to the predictions of the leading computer models. 
8. Global temperatures have been much higher (5 degrees centigrade) in the past than they are now or are projected to be. 
9. A majority of climate data collection stations in the United States are compromised by poor location and other factors. Agencies have been “adjusting” this data with a clear upward bias for temperatures. 
10. Climate politicians have arbitrarily rejected more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961. These measurements are highly accurate and contradict the ice core data that global warming myths are built on. 
11. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is irrelevant to greenhouse effects. 
a. Water vapor constitutes 95% of the greenhouse effect. 
b. Human activity is responsible for just 3% of CO2 emissions. The other 97% comes from natural sources. 
c. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are not historically unusual, despite the IPCC’s false claim that 379ppmv is “far above” the “natural range” for the past 650,000 years. As recently as 1942, CO2 was 400ppmv. More reliable data shows that over the last 10,000 years CO2 concentrations generally exceeded 300ppmv. It is also stands to reason that even if CO2 concentrations are unusual, it is irresponsible to ascribe most of the increase to anthropogenic causes given that humans are responsible for so little of it. 
d. The assumptions of CO2 glaciology used to infer historically lower levels of CO2 are demonstrably false. 
e. The correct interpretation of CO2 ice core data reveals the gas increases following temperature increases. In other words, the consensus has cause and effect completely reversed. When the earth warms up, CO2 is traded from oceans to the atmosphere and vice versa. 
12. Climate politics has ignored astronomical impacts, such as solar activity for the past 50 years exceeding thousands of recent years. 
13. Ice measurements show no alarming net loss of ice such that you will need a kayak to get to work in Manhattan in 2015. Satellite data from NASA shows Greenland’s ice thinning at the margins, but thickening inland such that the total ice measured has increased. Antarctica has been losing ice in the west and gaining in the east, though there has been a net loss. The estimate for the impact on sea levels is an increase of half a millimeter per year! 
14. Demands for anthropogenic greenhouse gas reductions are oblivious to the costs and benefits. This is an unreasonable and irrational approach to any problem, but especially for a project that claims to be able to restore Earth to a mythical optimum climate.
bobclive 
15 April 2008 at 16:31
A team of scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S. over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and NOT to any spike in the number or intensity of hurricanes. 
A TEAM OF SCIENTISTS, I wonder how much it cost to figure that one out.
Brute 
15 April 2008 at 17:40
Bob, 
What a difference a couple of years make, yes? These people don't know whether they're coming or going...... 
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/04/mit_scientist_k.... 
April 13, 2008 
MIT Scientist Kerry Emanuel Backs Away from Global Warming Hoax 
Another top scientist is jumping off the sinking ship of global warming. 
Kerry Emanuel of MIT used to get his name in the papers by claiming that global warming caused Katrina. His opportunistic findings were eagerly seized upon by the deranged Robert Kennedy Jr., who tried to spin them as proof that George W. Bush caused the hurricane. 
In an attempt to retain some credibility, Emanuel is now backing away from his hysterical claim that global warming will cause a plague of hurricanes. Now he says there will be a reduction in the number of hurricanes over the next two centuries. 
However, no one has disproved predictions by USA Today that global warming will cause giant snakes to invade America. 
Hurricanes growing fiercer with global warming 
Elizabeth A. Thomson, News Office 
July 31, 2005 
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricanes.html
Brute 
15 April 2008 at 17:46
http://icecap.us/index.php 
Apr 13, 2008 
Hurricane Expert: ‘Models are Simply Not Faithfully Reproducing What Nature is Doing’ 
Prominent hurricane scientist (MIT’s Kerry Emanuel) has publicly reversed his view on global warming’s impact on hurricanes. (See: Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming’s impact). 
Emanuel told the NY Times: “The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us. There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet.” 
Houston Chronicle Reporter Attempts to Interpret Emanuel’s Reconsideration of hurricane views (April 11, 2008). On his SciGuy blog, Eric (Berger reporter for the Houston Chronicle) tried to downplay the significance of Emanuel’s conversion in the global warming debate. Berger wrote: “This should put to rest a lot of the nonsense about a global warming conspiracy among scientists. Emanuel, faced with new evidence, has moderated his viewpoint. That’s what responsible scientists do, and most are responsible. [Note: Yes, Mr. Berger, it is quite impressive that Emanuel looked at the hard evidence and reconsidered his views. The scientific community still awaits “responsible” reconsideration of climate views from many prominent promoters of warming fears. Paging James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, and Stephen Schneider, to name a few.] Berger wrote: “The amount of scientist-bashing when it comes to global warming is generally quite deplorable.” [Note: Agreed. Sadly, it is almost exclusively one-sided and emanates from the promoters of man-made global warming fears. See this report for full details on the well funded smear machine that the climate alarmists employ.] 
Berger wrote: “If you’re a skeptic, and you welcome these results, please remember that these are the same climate models you bash when they show global temperatures steadily rising during the next century.” [Note: Nice try Mr. Berger, but you came up way short on this point. Emanuel himself speculated that “the models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing.” Which do you believe; models which even the promoters concede are not “forecasts” or real world data? You see, Mr. Berger, evidence based data trumps the virtual world of computer models every time.] 
[Note: Emanuel’s conversion is a very important new development in the climate debate. First, 2007 turned out to be the “tipping point” for global warming fears, 2008 continued appears to be the year of vindication for skeptics as many prominent scientists reversed their climate views and more and more skeptical scientists speak out and new data debunked man-made climate fears. Now another major scientist reconsiders his views on a significant aspect of man-made climate fears. MIT’s Kerry Emanuel’s views on hurricanes and global warming have been prominently cited by Gore and other promoters of climate fear. With the new evidence based data flowing in, it is no wonder Gore is being forced to spend $300 million to attempt to once again scare the public. An Oscar, a Nobel and a compliant media all proved woeful at convincing the public to believe in Gore’s “climate crisis.” 
The Earth’s failure to continue warming has also confounded promoters of man-made climate fear. Here is a sampling of inconvenient developments for climate alarmists in 2008 alone: 1) Oceans Cooling! Scientists puzzled by ”mystery of global warming’s missing heat” 2) New Data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is showing ”greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."3) Former NASA Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer found not one peer-reviewed paper has ‘ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth’ 4) UN IPCC in ‘Panic Mode’ as Earth Fails to Warm, Scientist says 5) UN IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri ”New scientific analysis shows Sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature. 7) An International team of scientists released a March 2008 report to counter UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” 8) MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s new analysis finds the Earth has had “No statistically significant warming since 1995.”
Brute 
15 April 2008 at 19:04
Global Warming Rage Lets Global Hunger Grow 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/... 
This is what I found to be the most profound comment associated with this article…… 
“It doesn't matter that people starve to death. People are the problem. Mother Earth is the only entity that should survive; she and the peaceful, loving animals that inhabit her. Once She is rid of this pest called man, everything will be better. 
Posted by Deep Green on April 15, 2008 2:19 PM” 
This pretty much sums up the Alarmist's mindset.
bobclive 
15 April 2008 at 23:15
Brute, 
What is HHO gas, is this a money making scam from the US. 
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/
Peter Martin 
15 April 2008 at 23:19
Brute, 
There is still far too much plagiarism in this forum. If you give the link what's the point of copying and pasting all the text as well? It hard to work out where the copied text ends and where the original writing, if any, starts. 
The Northwest Passage, should include the straits between the islands of Victoria and Melyville. There is an alternative sea route to the south of Victoria Island which is more often clear of ice but is too shallow and too dangerous to be considered suitable for normal shipping. 
If you look at this very short video 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW1JeFVCZ_Q 
you can see why the claim of the NW passage being open to normal shipping for the first time is only now being made. "Normal shipping' can be taken to exclude ships such as ice-breakers, or any ship, such as the Swedish cruise ship you have previuously mentioned, which has been fortified to cope with the pressure of sea-ice. Neither is a sailing catamaran, which I would expect to have a very shallow draught, considered to be normal shipping. 
The famous St Roch, a small wooden boat which was designed to withstand sea ice, was trapped in sea ice for several months during its 1940 trip, and " it was touch and go as to whether the St. Roch ...would survive the ravages of the sea ice". 
More info: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage 
Of course the shipping companies, at least the ones whose directors' homes are not too close to sea level, like the idea of an open NW passage. But, you've got to make up your mind about global warming. Or, are you saying that global warming is a good thing even though it is not happening? 
Latest research on likely sea level rises due to global warming: 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7349236.stm
bobclive 
15 April 2008 at 23:45
A very interesting lecture late 2007 by Dr John Cristy called, 
Global Warming - what do the numbers show. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA
Brute 
16 April 2008 at 01:27
Hey Bob, 
Producing Hydrogen from water is of course possible and as you know the energy required, (to date) does not overcome the output (we all made hydrogen in test tubes in High School). This method is no different. 
Mr. Martin is correct in the sense that nuclear energy is really the way to go to accommodate both “parties” in this argument, in my opinion. I wrote on the previous thread a couple of months ago that General Electric is working on producing Hydrogen from sunlight….I’ll see if I can find the article. Until the technology improves the most efficient way to go about it is to produce Hydrogen from electricity supplied through nuclear power, (for the time being). Hydrogen produces no “greenhouse gases” and as the technology improves, (I believe) the price should decline accordingly and the infrastructure is developed. The stumbling block is the environmentalists. They oppose everything. 
We should also increase refining capacity as well as drill for oil and natural gas in Alaska and offshore and disarm, (financially) the terrorist nations of the Middle East until the Nuclear / Hydrogen technology gets going. 
However, make no mistake, there ARE oil company lobbyists, natural gas industry lobbyist as well as coal industry lobbyists who are quite powerful and oppose Nuclear energy and Hydrogen technology. I would also venture to write that EVERONE participating in the forum has vested interests in both the oil and coal industries through their retirement / pension plans, whether they know it or not. (Be careful what you wish for Mr. Martin, ha, ha). Immediately doing away with fossil fuels would cause global economic chaos. Everyone on the planet relies upon these forms of energy and they aren’t going to go away overnight without a fight. Think about how many people are employed by the fossil fuel industry…..How many people are fed from the paychecks written by Exxon / Mobil……how many people’s health insurance is covered. Exxon Mobil pays more in taxes than all of the citizens of this country combined. Nutty environmentalists demonize the likes of “Big Oil” but the global economy, (and the food on their tables), comes from these industries. 
In addition, there is a very powerful environmental lobby whose only interest is to resist development of all forms of energy and have us all return to a pre-industrialized society, (Mr. Lynas). 
I think the encouraging thing is that people are “tinkering” akin to Thomas Edison which is the cornerstone of all technology and improvements in the human condition. The problem is that too many people turn to government to resolve problems as opposed to private industry. Too many people have their hand out expecting something for nothing……………. 
This has nothing to do with “global warming”, which has already been proven to be a natural occurrence having nothing whatsoever to do with fossil fuel or energy consumption.
Brute 
16 April 2008 at 01:34
A Renegade Against Greenpeace 
Why he says they're wrong to view nuclear energy as 'evil' 
http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753?GT1=43002
bobclive 
16 April 2008 at 12:00
A remarkable new study, published in the March 2008 issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, concludes that global warming can’t be blamed for an increase in the number of hurricanes over the last 27 years. 
While the new study is consistent with findings by hurricane scientists at the National Hurricane Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that global warming has not caused any increase in hurricane activity, the new study is most remarkable because the author of the study is none other than Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 
Emanuel has been in the forefront in asserting that humans have caused an increase in hurricane activity. 
But his article, “Hurricane and global warming: results from downscaling IPCC AR4 simulations,” concludes, that “... the greater part of the large global increase in (hurricanes) over the past 27 years cannot be ascribed to global warming.” 
Emanuel writes that wide spread predictions of increased frequency and power of hurricanes “depends on rather simplistic representation” of global-warming models. 
Oops there goes another one.
Peter Martin 
16 April 2008 at 14:54
Robin, 
You might like to take a look at the 2001 IPCC report 
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm 
Fig SPM-2 on page 7 shows how the temperature record of the last 160 years can be best explained by a combination of natural and anthropogenic forcings. 
Brute, 
Yes we have found some common ground. There is plenty of energy available in various nuclear fuels. We just have to learn how to use it safely, achieve continued technical progress and at the same time protect the environment. Technically it is all possible. There is a lot more support for this line in the environmental movement than you might imagine. Take a look at the forums on the Greenpeace website. I can't say always, but I often do feel quite optimistic about the future and there is no real need to feel that we are all inevitably heading for disaster. 
Patrick Moore, in the link you supplied a couple of posts previously, made the very valid point which had not occurred to me before, that you don't need a nuclear reactor to produce a nuclear weapon. It's much easier and cheaper to enrich Uranium in a centrifuge. So, the argument that increased availability of nuclear power technology, as used for peaceful purposes, risks atomic weapons prolification, isn't anywhere near as strong as it might seem. 
I'm not sure about the statement 'Exxon Mobil pays more in taxes than all of the citizens of this country combined'. Have you got the figures on that? In any case big companies and corporations don't exist as entities in their own right and independently of the people who work in them. Their wealth doesn't just magically appear from nowhere, but rather from the work and effort of their labour forces.
bobclive 
16 April 2008 at 15:08
The scientists who collected varied evidence of past climate changes literally went to the ends of the Earth, climbed some of the higher mountains and hiked the biggest ice caps, sailed frigid seas, sat at cramped consoles in long-distance aircraft, and literally dug up evidence from archeological sites in Greenland, Argentina, South Africa, and the Antarctic, among other places. 
Mann didn`t even leave his university when collecting data for his Hocky stick study, why should he when computer models are considered by his group to be more accurate than observational science. 
There are two widely supported theories on why the Earth has warmed slightly since 1850: burning fossil fuels and variations in solar activity. For solar activity, we have the evidence of a strong sunspot correlation and new experiments that show cosmic rays and cloud formation as the linkage. For human-emitted CO2 we have only the theory and the climate models that keep telling us we’ll get more warming than we’ve gotten. When theory disagrees with observation, science tells us to believe the observations. 
Seems like common sence to me.
Brute 
16 April 2008 at 16:40
Mr. Martin, 
My earlier point is that yes companies such as Exxon / Mobil post record profits (businesses are in the business of making money), which in turn gets reinvested and also pays shareholder dividends, employee health insurance, and employee salaries which in turn also puts food on the table, braces on kid's teeth and a roof over their heads. As a shareholder, I would pay taxes on capital gains and as an employee I would pay income taxes. So, my point is that "activists" should think twice before demonizing a company such as Exxon / Mobil. Also, as a corporation, Exxon pays corporate taxes, (see link), which pays for roads, schools, etc, as well as researching and developing new supplies of oil and gas as well as alternative energy resources. 
Have to run now and spread poison on the weeds in my front yard before it rains…………… 
ExxonMobil's Record Profits -- And Record Taxes 
by Jonathan Williams 
Today, ExxonMobil reported the largest corporate profits in U.S. History. From Yahoo Finance: 
"Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. on Thursday posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company -- $39.5 billion -- even as earnings for the last quarter of 2006 declined 4 percent. The 2006 profit topped the previous record, also by Exxon Mobil, of $36.13 billion set in 2005." [Full story] 
While they were recording record profits last year, they were also writing checks to Uncle Sam to the tune of $100.7 billion -- two and a half times what they made in net profit. In fact, previous Tax Foundation research found that from 1977 to 2004, federal and state governments extracted $397 billion by taxing the profits of the largest oil companies and an additional $1.1 trillion in taxes at the pump. In today's dollars, that's $2.2 trillion. 
And no doubt there will be renewed calls to punish energy companies with windfall profits taxes and special legislation that prohibits them from tax credits that others may take. The problematic truth is that these responses will always hurt more than help because they ignore basic economics. Businesses don't pay corporate taxes any more than a plot of land pays property taxes. Ultimately, people have to pay. 
Economists across the ideological spectrum agree that individuals bear the burden of business taxes. As stakeholders, we all pay in one of three ways: The first to pay are the employees of oil companies here in the U.S. -- people who would make lower wages or perhaps even lose their jobs. Next would be the millions of Americans who have investments in the oil industry -- people who would earn lower returns on those investments. And finally, the principal group to pay would be American gasoline customers -- the millions of people who would pay more at the pump. 
News of "record oil profits" will no doubt leave some politicians and pundits looking for ways to punish the industry by increasing taxes. However, few battles have been won fighting against the laws of economics - in the end, we'll all end up paying the bill. 
ExxonMobil on Gas Prices: We Couldn't Manipulate the Price Even If We Wanted To 
http://www.nationalcenter.org/2006/05/exxonmobil-on-gas-pric...
Brute 
16 April 2008 at 17:43
Mr. Martin, 
I wrote earlier that PROFITS are used for employee salaries and health insurance which is wrong.....that's overhead, but I think you know what I meant, right?
gkl 
17 April 2008 at 01:41
Hi folks! I noticed some discussion of hydrogen production via nuclear, etc. recently. Wasn't sure if you were aware that the US DOE has been tasked with funding and coordinating a not insignificant R&D effort in this area. Main website is: 
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/index.html 
The hydrogen production link is interesting and discusses the use of nuclear power to produce hydrogen indirectly from water. Harking back to my hydrogen storage R&D days, I recall that one of the main approaches to producing hydrogen thermally was to employ sulfuric acid of all things. It is ultimately more efficient than trying to crack water directly and the SO3 is effectively recycled in the process. 
Another thing of note - many of the "Big Oil" companies such as Exxon Mobile, BP, etc are big contributers to hydrogen development both in partnership with the DOE projects and independently. Kind of flies in the face of popular conventional wisdom, I think. 
Anyway - not directly climate related but certainly relevant to the alternate energy discussions.
Brute 
17 April 2008 at 02:34
gkl, 
Welcome. Do you have anything to add regarding Bob's question about HHO gas? (April 15th 23:15)
Robin Guenier 
17 April 2008 at 08:47
Wikipedia: “The thought police at the supposedly independent site are fervently enforcing the climate orthodoxy”. See: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=44026...
Robin Guenier 
17 April 2008 at 11:36
Peter: thanks for your reference to the IPCC’s 2001 graphs (your post yesterday at 14:54). But these have well understood problems – probably the reason for their not being included in the 2007 report. First, the “natural forcings” used (volcanoes and solar variability) were not based on quantitative observation but on estimates for input to computer models. The trouble with this is that (1) before 1991 (the Pinatubo eruption), the impact of volcanoes was not well measured and (2) solar forcing is poorly understood (see many posts above). Therefore, the models of natural forcing were essentially based on guesswork. Secondly, anthropogenic forcing includes aerosols the effects of which have been shown to be largely unknown (see my post on 27 March 2008 at 10:55). Thus, for the purposes of computer modelling, both the natural and anthropogenic forcing assumptions were unreliable and essentially adjustable (“curve fitting”), undermining the credibility of these 2001 graphs. Note: even the IPCC refers to its findings as “plausible” and as not excluding “the possibility that other forcings may also have contributed”. 
BTW, I may not be a climatologist but I do have some experience and understanding of the unreliability of computer modelling: “garbage in, garbage out” is especially applicable. I wonder how many climate scientists really understand the pitfalls of computer modelling. 
So, Peter, the fundamental problem remains. The 2007 IPCC report shows: (1) that, over the past 150 years, temperatures have declined by about 0.60 deg C and grown by about 1.30 deg C; (2) that CO2 emissions took off around 1950 and soared towards the end of the century; and (3) that about 60% of the 1.30 deg C increase (0.76 deg C) took place before the CO2 takeoff. Therefore, a reliable explanation of current climate change must first set out unambiguously the reasons for the greater 0.76 deg C warming and then show why they don't also apply to the remaining and lesser 0.54 deg C warming. Hence my request for peer-reviewed explanation – I’m still waiting.
Robin Guenier 
17 April 2008 at 11:37
Peter: a few days ago I provided substantial evidence of China’s accelerating use of fossil fuels. Here’s more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7347638.stm
Robin Guenier 
17 April 2008 at 11:37
Peter: I’m still waiting for your reply to my 15 April post. I had two questions. (1) What is your evidence that 99% of climate scientists have a united view on AGW? (2) What is the essence the united view you say they hold?
Peter Martin 
17 April 2008 at 11:56
Robin 
1) see posting of 8 Feb on this forum. 
2) That AGW is a serious problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions. 
There wasn't a CO2 'take off', as you put it. Emissions have increased at a steady rate since industrialisation.
Robin Guenier 
17 April 2008 at 12:48
Peter: see my detailed reply of the same date (on the Whitehouse thread). In any case, quite apart from its being discredited, the Oreskes paper is old, referring to scientific journals published between 1993 and 2003. Even IPCC contributors to the IPCC’s 2007 report are less certain – see my post on 09 April 2008 (09:36). Perhaps you didn’t read it. 
Yes, emissions have increased since industrialisation but there was a notable upturn in about 1955 – see Figure SPM.1 in the IPCC’s 2007 WG1 report: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm... Note especially how the green line changes to red on their chart. So please substitute “notable upturn” for “take off” in my post and, in case you don’t like it either, substitute “increased markedly” for “soared”. (These changes make no difference my logic.) Then be good enough to read carefully and respond to my post, providing references to peer-reviewed explanation.
Robin Guenier 
17 April 2008 at 13:49
Peter: further to my first point above (12:48 post), it’s an interesting coincidence that my 08:47 post (re Wikipedia) refers to an Oreskes story. Re my second point, see: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/global.total.... (dataset by Marland et al. 2003 version). Hmm – maybe “take off” not such a bad description after all.
gkl 
17 April 2008 at 17:23
Brute wrote: 
"gkl, 
Welcome. Do you have anything to add regarding Bob's question about HHO gas? (April 15th 23:15)" 
HHO - had a look as this was a new one to me. I'll have to say this is definitely a little over the top. HHO as a specific molecule (as opposed to H2O) violates known laws of atomic valence bonding and molecular orbital theory, I'm afraid. 
I had to chuckle at the newly coined "magnuclear" form of bonding invoked to explain the marvelous results. 
I think you got this one right, Brute. HHO water is an amusing and clever marketing twist on simple water electrolysis. The inventors do a lot of hand waving and provide no energy balance info for the power utilized to "rearrange" the water vs the benefits achieved. Most likely the HHO is 'wet' hydrogen which helps to mitigate the occaisional violence of hydrogen combustion. The promise of perpetual (free) energy never seems to loose it's luster does it?
bobclive 
17 April 2008 at 18:02
Europe's environment chief has admitted that the EU did not foresee the problems raised by its policy to get 10% of Europe's road fuels from plants. 
This is typical of the CO2 hype, act first do the study later, or ignore the study. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7186380.stm
harmlesssky.org 
18 April 2008 at 09:59
There's a new and interesting resource for people interested in global warming here: 
http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com/ 
Describing itself as a single source for contemporary key reports, articles, papers, and Blogs referencing the latest information available on Global Warming, both sides of the debate are covered. 
It looks as though it should develop into a very useful site. 
TonyN: http://www.harmlesssky.org
bobclive 
18 April 2008 at 13:25
Urgent threat: the great food recession that is sweeping the world faster than the credit crunch. You have probably seen the figures by now: the price of rice has risen by three-quarters over the past year, that of wheat by 130%. There are food crises in 37 countries. One hundred million people, according to the World Bank, could be pushed into deeper poverty by the high prices. 
At 2.1bn tonnes, the global grain harvest broke all records last year 2006 - it beat the previous year's by almost 5%. 
The World Bank points out that "the grain required to fill the tank of a sports utility vehicle with ethanol ... could feed one person for a year. 
The production of biofuels will consume almost 100m tonnes, which suggests that they are directly responsible for the current crisis.
bobclive 
18 April 2008 at 15:46
The Torch Has Been Passed 
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, April 17, 2008 4:20 PM PT 
Global Warming: A new study will confirm China is the world's No. 1 polluter, not including the carbon emitted by carrying around the Olympic flame. So why does the U.N. want it exempted from carbon restrictions? 
Read More: Global Warming 
In a report to be published next month in the Journal of Environment Economics and Management, a University of California, Berkeley, research team will say China has overtaken the U.S. as the world's biggest polluter and that current computer models substantially underestimate future emissions growth in China. 
The report, based on provincial-level data from the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency, says China probably passed the U.S. in 2006-07. The report also says China's projected emissions growth will be several times larger than the cuts in emissions being made by the major industrial nations under the Kyoto Protocol. 
Not known is whether the figures include the 5,500 tons of carbon that ABC News reports the transporting of the Olympic torch for the 2008 Beijing Olympics will put in the atmosphere. The torch is being carried to 23 cities around the globe aboard a fossil-fuel-guzzling Air China A330 jet. 
The A330 burns 5.4 gallons of aviation fuel per mile and will use 462,400 gallons for the more than 85,000-mile trip. Each gallon of jet fuel burned generates 23.88 pounds of CO2. To put it in perspective, the A330 carrying the torch will generate the emissions equivalent of 550 SUVs. 
This report confirms findings issued last year by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. The Dutch agency reported that CO2 emissions in China rose an astounding 9% in 2006, giving that country a great leap forward over the U.S. 
The Berkeley researchers say China's emissions are now growing at an annual rate of 11%. In 2006-07, China added 186,000 megawatts of coal-fired electrical generation capacity, equivalent to two United Kingdoms. 
China is exempt from Kyoto as a "developing" nation, which is one of the reasons the U.S. Senate once voted 97-0 not to consider the protocol for ratification. China would love to see the U.S. economy handcuffed as it races to make this century a Chinese one. 
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N. climate treaty secretariat, wants to keep China, and India for that matter, exempt from Kyoto and similar agreements. 
And what about India.
stargazer 
18 April 2008 at 16:44
Bobclive posted 
'wheat by 130%.' 
I wrote this weeks ago... 
William Herschel (astronomer, and discoverer of Planet Uranus) noted in 1801 that "when there are few spots on the Sun the price of wheat went up". 
'The fact that this was noted in 1801 implies that you don't need to look too deep to find a Solar connection, as he did .... I look at solar data and I see it TOO. 
In fact It just occurred to me to look at the current price of wheat... and guess what'
bobclive 
18 April 2008 at 17:06
Bristle cone pines have multiple ring growth per year. 
This is a very interesting paper showing Bristle cones cannot be trusted a proxi for temperature or age. 
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_9...
Brute 
18 April 2008 at 19:14
Bob, 
Regarding the article posted titled "The Torch Has Been Passed"........ 
I'm wondering if the United Nations will now "demand" that China pay off the rest of the world (as they have the US and UK) to offset it's carbon output due to it's economic / industrial expansion. I'd love to be a fly on the wall during that conversation! 
I'm certain that the laughter would be heard all the way from New York to Beijing..............Don’t hold your CO2 while your waiting for that to happen! 
Maybe Al Gore could wing his way over on his private jet with some peace signs and love beads to demonstrate / protest…………. (right before he ends up in a Chinese Gulag). 
-Fruitcake
Peter Martin 
18 April 2008 at 21:57
It is generally agreed that India and China have to be brought into a general global CO2 scheme at some stage. Preferably sooner rather than later. 
The big problem of course is under what terms. The comments made so far highlight the fact that China has overtaken the USA in carbon emissions, with close to double digit growth in annual percentage terms. 
On the other side of the argument, the emission of CO2, in per capita terms, for China is around 20% of countries like the USA and Australia, and 40% of the European countries. Many of the products made in China, and which contribute to their emissions, end up in the USA, Australia and Europe. 
The devil will always be in the detail. Finding an equitable formula will not be easy. What suggestions have you guys on this?
Robin Guenier 
18 April 2008 at 22:27
Peter: don't you read anything I post here? See my posts of 7 April (17:14), 8 April (20:19), 9 April (09:36), 9 April (22:54), 10 April (07:50), 10 April (15:54), 10 April (17:59) and 17 April (11:37) - especially the abundant supporting evidence. India and China (and most other successfully developing countries and oil producers) are not interested in "a global CO2 scheme". They're either concentrating on catching up with the West, consolidating their power or don't believe the AGW hype. Probably all three. As I've recommended to you many times before: wake up to reality.
Peter Martin 
18 April 2008 at 23:25
Robin, 
I might well say the same to you, and that you need to wake up yourself . Even if what you were saying was correct, it wouldn't make the AGW problem go away. Take another look at the Stern report. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review 
Nicolas Stern, who isn't some 'tree hugging leftie' you can easily dismiss, has recently stated that he may have erred on the side of being too optimistic. 
In any case, there is ample evidence that the Chinese are as well aware as anyone of the AGW problem. 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12594011 
If the Chinese government were ideologically opposed to the idea of AGW they certainly would not allow any mention of it on their news agencies.
Brute 
19 April 2008 at 01:50
Mr. Martin, 
I DID NOT WRITE THIS. 
The global warming scam 
By Derek Kelly, PhD 
Scam, noun: a swindle, a fraudulent arrangement. 
A chronology of climate change 
During most of the last billion years the Earth did not have permanent ice sheets. Nevertheless, at times large areas of the globe were covered with vast sheets of ice. Such times are known as glaciations. In the past 2 million to 3 million years, the temperature of the Earth has changed (warmed or cooled) at least 17 times, some say 33, with glaciations that last about 100,000 years interrupted by warm periods that last about 10,000 years. 
The last glaciation began 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago. The Earth was a lot colder than it is now; snow and ice had accumulated on a lot of the land, glaciers existed on large areas and the sea levels were lower. 
15,000 years ago: The last glaciation reaches a peak, with continental glaciers that cover a lot of the sub-polar and polar areas of the land areas of Earth. In North America, all of New England and all of the Great Lakes area, most of Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota and the North Dakotas, lie under ice sheets hundreds of meters thick. More than 37 million cubic kilometers of ice was tied up in these global sheets of ice. The average temperature on the surface of the Earth is estimated to have been cooler by approximately 6 degrees Celsius than currently. The sea level was more than 90 meters lower than currently. 
15,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago: Global warming begins. The sheets of ice melt, and sea levels rise. Some heat source causes approximately 37 million cubic kilometers of ice to melt in approximately 9,000 years. Around 9,500 years ago, the last of the Northern European sheets of ice leave Scandinavia. Around 7,500 years ago, the last of the American sheets of ice leave Canada. This warming is neither stable nor the same everywhere. There are periods when mountain glaciers advance, and periods when they withdraw. These climatic changes vary extensively from place to place, with some areas affected while others are not. The tendency of warming is global and obvious, but very uneven. The causes of this period of warming are unknown. 
8,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago: About 6,000 years ago, temperatures on the surface of Earth are about 3 degrees warmer than currently. The Arctic Ocean is ice-free, and mountain glaciers have disappeared from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, and from the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. The ocean of the world is some three meters higher than currently. A lot of the present desert of the Sahara has a more humid, savannah-like climate, with giraffes and savannah fauna species. 
4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over, mountain glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown. 
AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown. 
1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown. 
1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown. 
1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown. 
1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation. 
Anyone else find something fishy about the final sentence? 
Comments 
The above chronology of recent (geologically speaking) climate changes should place global-warming catastrophists (such as those who developed the Kyoto treaty) in an awkward position. Their fundamental assumption is that Earth's climate was stable and was doing just fine before the Industrial Revolution started interfering with climate's "natural" state. It is the Industrial Revolution, and in particular the use of fossil-fuel-burning machines, that has led us to the brink of environmental catastrophe due to global warming caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. 
But it is plain to see that both warming and cooling occurred numerous times before the Industrial Revolution. Similarly, all the dire predictions of global-warming consequences - sea-level rise, for example - have happened in the past. In fact, the greatest warming period was when dinosaurs walked the land (about 70 million to 130 million years ago). There was then five to 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today, and the average temperature was 4-11 degrees Celsius warmer. Those conditions should have been very helpful to life, since they permitted those immense creatures to find an abundance of food and they survived. 
The Cretaceous was an intense "greenhouse world" with high surface temperatures. These high temperatures were due to the much higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time - four to 10 times as much as is in our air today. The biota was a mixture of the exotic and familiar - luxuriant green forests of now-extinct trees flourished within the Arctic Circle and dinosaurs roamed. The global sea level was at its highest ever during this period, peaking during the Late Cretaceous around 86 million years ago. It is certain that the global sea level was well over 200 meters higher during this time than it is today. The Earth was immensely hotter, the CO2 vastly more plentiful, and the sea levels much higher than they are today. 
The Earth has also been immensely colder, the CO2 much less plentiful, and the sea levels much lower than today. Fifteen thousand years ago, the sea level was at least 90 meters lower than it is today. The land looked bare because it was too cold for beech and oak trees to grow. There were a few fir trees here and there. No grass grew, however, just shrubs, bushes and moss grass. In the northern parts of North America, Europe and Asia there was still tundra. The animals were different from today too. Back then there were woolly mammoth, woolly rhinos, cave bears (the former three now extinct), bison, wolves, horses, and herds of reindeer like modern-day reindeer. 
The major "sin" for the global warmists is CO2. The Kyoto treaty is meant to reduce the amount of this gas so as, they say, to reduce the degree of warming and eventually return us to some stable climate system. If we look at the historical situation, however, this is cause for alarm. For one thing, there has never been a stable climate system. For another, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is near its historic low. In the long run, the greatest danger is too little rather than too much CO2. There has been a long-term reduction of CO2 throughout the 4.5-billion-year history of the Earth. If this tendency continues, eventually our planet may become as lifeless as Mars. 
Glaciation has prevailed for 90% of the last several million years. Extreme cold. Biting cold. Cold too intense for bikinis and swimming trunks. No matter what scary scenarios global-warming enthusiasts dream up, they pale in comparison with the conditions another ice age would deliver. Look to our past climate. Fifteen thousand years ago, an ice sheet a kilometer and a half thick covered all of North America north of a line stretching from somewhere around Seattle to Cleveland and New York City. 
Instead of reducing CO2, we should, perhaps, be increasing it. We should pay the smokestack industries hard dollars for every kilogram of soot they pump into the atmosphere. Instead of urging Chinese to stop using coal and turn instead to nuclear-generated electricity, we should beg them to continue using coal. Rather than bringing us to the edge of global-warming catastrophe, anthropogenic climate change may have spared us descent into what would be the most serious and far-reaching challenge facing humankind in the 21st century - dealing with a rapidly deteriorating climate that wants to plunge us into an ice age. Let's hope Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea levels rise. All life glorifies warmth. Only death prefers the icy fingers of endless winter.
Brute 
19 April 2008 at 02:10
Mr. Martin, 
As Robin has pointed out Wikipedia is heavily biased and hardly a source for "balanced" information. 
Apr 16, 2008 
Wikipedia’s Zealots - Caught Falsifying Information to Support Alarmist Position 
By Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post 
Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I—no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone’s views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out. 
By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists. But unlike government propaganda, its source is not self-evident. We don’t suspend belief when we read Wikipedia, as we do when we read literature from an organization with an agenda, because Wikipedia benefits from the Internet’s cachet of making information free and democratic. This Big Brother enforces its views with a mouse. 
While I’ve been writing this column, the Naomi Oreskes page has changed 10 times. Since I first tried to correct the distortions on the page, it has changed 28 times. If you have read a climate change article on Wikipedia—or on any controversial subject that may have its own Kim Dabelstein Petersen—beware. Wikipedia is in the hands of the zealots. 
See another example here of a Wikipedia embellished story on the west Antarctic icesheet. It has forecasts sea level impacts far greater than Gore and Hansen and way out of line with the IPCC.
Peter Martin 
19 April 2008 at 02:31
Brute, 
If you didn't write it why copy it? Just give a reference. 
If you wish for "four to ten times more" CO2 a large part of humanity will suffer extreme discomfort. The dinosaurs are long gone. The plants and animals on earth have evolved to cope with the current climate and atmosphere. 
Concentrations of CO2 higher than 1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of the population. and the discomfort will increase with increasing CO2 concentration. At 2,000 ppm a majority will feel a significant degree of discomfort, and many will develop nausea and headaches. 
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide 
The guy has got to be a nutter. Much nuttier than the average contrarian. His comment " Let's hope Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea levels rise. " Let's hope that if the sea level does rise all dickheads of his ilk are forcibly submerged under it.
Peter Martin 
19 April 2008 at 03:00
Your complaints about Wikipedia do raise an interesting question. Ask most most fair minded people about freedom of speech, and writing, and they would very likely agree that this should be the accepted norm. But then if you start pushing at the edges, you'll find people aren't so sure. There are many with fascist convictions who would like to able to alter the WW2 wiki entry to minimise Nazi war crimes and particularly the genocide of the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and others. Should this be allowed? 
There are those who would like to alter all the entries on evolution to suggest that this is a blasphemy and that God made the world, all the plant and animals etc in seven days. Should this be allowed? 
There are those who believe the world is flat, that tobacco doesn't cause disease, that AIDS is not caused by HIV, that the second coming of Christ will on the 23/11/2015. What about their right to edit Wikipedia in any way that they see fit? 
I would say that most people would say that they don't want to read this sort of rubbish in Wikipedia and that there can't be absolute freedom. 
So sorry, you contrarians, but rightly or wrongly you have been similarly categorised. That's a bit hard but perhaps you may consider joining forces with the other excluded groups to form an alternative. How about Nuttipedia ?
Brute 
19 April 2008 at 03:33
Mr. Martin, 
There is a VERY big difference between publishing facts and editorializing, which is what Wikipedia is guilty of committing under the guise of impartiality. 
This forum consists of opinion and a free exchange of information and ideas, thank God……you seem to be advocating living in a society where your very thoughts and ideas are censored to “fit” the proper mold of government ideology…… 
You wrote: 
"Let's hope that if the sea level does rise all dickheads of his ilk are forcibly submerged under it." 
Such passion! Get ahold of yourself......It isn't the end of the World, (as many Alarmists yearn for)......it's a blog on a website.
Brute 
19 April 2008 at 03:44
By the way it was almost 80 degrees here today. Must be Global Warming...........or Springtime...............
Robin Guenier 
19 April 2008 at 10:07
Peter: just for once, listen and try to understand. As I’ve shown, the evidence is overwhelming that the world, whether voters in the West or governments elsewhere, isn't interested in the AGW hypothesis. Of course, that doesn’t mean it will "go away". But that isn’t the point. You and your green colleagues see AGW as a serious threat, so I suggest it’s up to you to think carefully and objectively about why no one cares and then to determine what might done about it. Here's a hint: perhaps you might consider the possibility that your insistence on "consensus", “the science is settled” and "the debate is over", on ad hominem attacks on critics, on strawman argument and on insulting references to "deniers", "fruitcakes", "wackos" etc. might be counterproductive. Perhaps all this is simply making the sceptics more sceptical – and causing people to focus on what they see as their real concerns. Perhaps open-minded debate, showing respect to all points of view, might gradually bring about the consensus that matters – the consensus of ordinary fair-minded people. Think about it.
Brute 
19 April 2008 at 23:44
As Robin was saying………. 
http://www.icecap.us/ 
Apr 19, 2008 
“Global Warming” Scores a ZERO in the Latest ABC News Poll 
Listing posted on Tom Nelson Blogspot 
ABC and the Washington Post polled Americans about the most important issue to them in the upcoming elections. The economy ranked #1 with 41%, Iraq #2 with 18%, Health Care #3 with 7%, Terrorism/National Security #4 with 5%, Immigration and Ethics followed with 4%, Education and Morals with 2%, Environment and Global Warming continue to receive a 0%.
Peter Martin 
20 April 2008 at 00:51
"Perhaps open-minded debate, showing respect to all points of view, might gradually bring about the consensus that matters" 
I don't think so. You can't have a 'Church of England' view that all points of view are equally valid, on something so important. Climate change is a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism, the UK Government's chief scientific adviser has said. 
We have a situation where AGW is treated relatively seriously and as a matter of priority by all the developed world apart from the USA. I'd like to see it rate higher in Europe in Australia too but at least it does arise as an important election issue rather than the 0% as claimed by Brute in the USA. 
There is no denying that the world centre for climate change denial is in the USA. Why is that? Various vested interests have done a pretty good job in muddying the waters , making out that there are two equally valid sides to the scientific argument, portraying the science as a hoax, a left wing conspiracy, etc. You've read it all on this forum. 
Of course, if the voters are led to think that, as Frank Luntz suggested that they should in 2002, then of course their natural reaction will be for them to turn their attention to other matters, to say that we should wait a while longer until the science is settled. It probably will be, in the next ten years, after the Arctic ice cap disappears in summer, and we have another spurt in global temperatures, but we are losing valuable time. The longer we leave it the harder it will be to fix the problem.
bobclive 
20 April 2008 at 12:11
Peter there very few lemmings in the US and the denial is global. 
THE AQUA SATELLITE. 
What the Aqua satellite data is showing is that the widely-quoted models are wrong. Instead of positive feedback, we're seeing a limit stop where negative feedback begins. In other words, the models predict that increasing water vapor will continuously follow increasing temperatures. The Aqua data shows the opposite kicks in at the appropriate time, that the atmosphere tends to be self-regulating. Increased water vapor is produced when it is needed, and decreased water vapor occurs when the proper point is reached and no more is needed. It's almost as if our "greenhouse" is set up to provide us with a comfortable climate which automatically compensates for changing atmospheric variables. 
And what the data clearly says is the old models are dead wrong, and reality shows the opposite of what the models predict. Clearly, we need to overhaul the models, but sadly, to many (poor) modelers have their professional reputations on the line, so they continue to lie in order to save their jobs. 
Peter, there are still NO comments from realclimate on Roy Spencers paper, that should tell you something.
bobclive 
20 April 2008 at 12:39
Peter, you say, 
If you wish for "four to ten times more" CO2 a large part of humanity will suffer extreme discomfort. The dinosaurs are long gone. The plants and animals on earth have evolved to cope with the current climate and atmosphere. 
Enriched CO2 Atmospheres in Dutch Greenhouses. 
Commercial greenhouses with more than five times the carbon dioxide as in air are enriched to 0.20% CO2, 2,000 parts per million, with great success. The gas is made with propane burning carbon dioxide generators. Full systems with regulators are sold by manufacturers claiming 30% increases in plant production, but actually achieving MUCH MORE. 
NO SPECIAL BREATHING EQUIPMENT is needed by the nursery workers as carbon dioxide is NOT harmful to animal or human life until the concentration is over 15,000 parts per million, 1.5%.
bobclive 
20 April 2008 at 13:05
Glaciers Growing. 
CANADA Helm Glacier Place Glacier 
FRANCE Mt. Blanc 
ECUADOR Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier 
SWITZERLAND Silvretta Glacier 
KIRGHIZTAN Abramov 
RUSSIA Maali Glacier (This glacier is surging. 
GREENLAND Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker 
NEW ZEALANDAll 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year 
SOUTH AMERICA - Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier (the largest glacier in Patagonia) is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. 
UNITED STATES - Colorado - Washington (Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier* and Mt. Shuksan) Mt. Baker) - California (Mount Shasta - Montana - Alaska (Mt. McKinley and Hubbard). 
Antarctic ice grows to record levels 13 Sep 07 - While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting. 
A Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming. 
Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking. 
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/glaciers-and-se...
bobclive 
20 April 2008 at 13:33
World's oldest tree discovered in Sweden. 
It had been thought that this region was still in the grip of the ice age but the tree shows it was much warmer, even than today. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/...
Robin Guenier 
20 April 2008 at 17:30
Peter: you’re still in denial. The developed world is not treating AGW seriously: Governments are doing little more than pay lip service because their voters are not interested. The US poll findings reported by Brute have been confirmed several times in the UK. Hence continuing airport expansion, investment in roads etc. Developed and developing economies are all emitting more and more CO2 – way beyond the Kyoto targets (see my many posts above). If showing respect for all points of view is unacceptable, how do the greens propose to deal with this? Hint: shouting even louder won’t solve it.
Peter Martin 
20 April 2008 at 22:23
BobClive, 
On the question of carbon dioxide levels, my source was WIkipedia but it seems you guys have fallen out and don't recognise each other so I can't mention them any more. 
However, I would suggest that, given the choice, most people would vote for much lower levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Have you done any surveys to suggest that the general population would be happy with the 1000 + ppm figures you are suggesting? 
Robin, 
You don't seem to be aware of the meaning of denial. I could suggest that you read up on what it means in Wikipedia but you, or one of the other contrarians, would only say that it was yet further proof of how Wikpedia had been taken over by the forces of darkness. Anyway this is quite a good account: 
http://www.nh-dwi.com/caip-202.htm 
However, I can't prove that this website hasn't been taken over too. 
I must admit that that before I got involved in these type of dicussions I thought that the main problem was lack of education on matters scientific. Now I do realise that the it runs much deeper and that there is a deep psychological aspect to the AGW issue. I'm certainly not in denial about the extent of the problem. I doubt if you guys would admit anything even if the polar ice caps disappeared and temperatures increased another couple of degrees but your arguments would certainly be discredited. 
Have you looked at what is happening in China? One of their most successful business people has been Dr. Zhengrong Shi and his solar panel company Suntech which , incidentally started off in Australia. China's leaders recognise that climate change could devastate their society and ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002. In 2004 Beijing announced plans to generate 10% of its power from renewable sources by 2010. 
I'd like to see the Chinese government take a stronger line on the AGW issue but lets not pretend that they are any worse, or more impervious to argument, than anyone else.
Peter Martin 
20 April 2008 at 23:01
Bob Clive, 
Well I can't speak for Realclimate but I'd just like to point out that Roy Spencer is now pushing the line that: "The long-term increases in carbon dioxide concentration that have been observed at Mauna Loa since 1958 could be driven more than by the ocean than by mankind’s burning of fossil fuels." 
He does of realise that this is quite a controversial statement further saying " Most, if not all, experts in the global carbon cycle will at this point think I am totally off my rocker." 
Well I'm not sure that you have be an expert in the carbon cycle to think that. What is he actually saying? 
He's saying that the earths CO2 levels were stable for at least the last few thousand years but suddenly and coincidently they have shot up, independently, but just at the same time that that human CO2 emissions have increased to around the 8 billion tonnes per year level. 
It can be calculated, and you don't need computer simulation to do it, that human emissions are more than enough to account for the increase in observed CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact the earth's oceans and forests have done a pretty good job in removing half of it. 
But this extra CO2 isn't, according to Roy Spencer, from human sources. The earth has absorbed all that we've produced, but then its "decided' to replace approximately half of that amount from its own resources. 
And we are supposed to treat papers from this guy seriously?
Robin Guenier 
20 April 2008 at 23:04
Peter: didn't you read my post? To repeat: developed and developing economies are all emitting more and more CO2 – way beyond the Kyoto targets (see my many posts above). If you think that showing respect for all points of view is an unacceptable way of tacking this, how should the greens go about it? That hint again: shouting even louder isn't the answer.
Peter Martin 
21 April 2008 at 00:25
Robin, 
Endlessly repeating yourself isn't quite the answer either. Yes I did read your posts. They were better than your "arrows in the air " posting. You obviously still haven't forgiven me for teasing you about that but what is your point? 
Are you trying to suggest that its all too hard and that we should all take up bridge or golf to occupy our time?
Brute 
21 April 2008 at 01:04
Bridge / Golf would be more productive........
bobclive 
21 April 2008 at 12:52
UK Vehicle Excise Duty ('road tax') - April 2009 to 2011Return to top 
From 1st April next year (2009), VED will be totally restructured with 13 new bands (A to M) replacing the current 7-band (A to G) system. VED will still be based on CO2, and band A will continue to apply to all cars with CO2-emissions of up to 100 gCO2/km, but most bands will be narrower (bands B to I will only be 10 gCO2/km wide). The highest band M will apply to cars with emissions of over 255 gCO2/km (currently the highest band applies to cars with over 225 gCO2/km). 
The Government�s intention is that the link between road tax and CO2 emissions will be strengthened, so making a small change in car emissions have a greater financial impact. The scale of charges for 2009-10 has been adjusted to reduce the �standard rate� of VED for all new and existing cars with emissions up to 150 gCO2/km, and to increase the standard rate for all cars that emit over 150 gCO2/km with the most polluting cars paying £440 per year, £40 up on 2008-09 rates. 
Is CO2 a pollutant.
Robin Guenier 
21 April 2008 at 13:47
Well, Peter, thanks for reminding me about my "arrows in the air" posting – yet another you didn't understand. It’s worth repeating: 
“Mankind has always believed he can control the weather. For example, the ancient Egyptians thought they could do so by firing arrows into the air. Perhaps future generations will view current efforts to control global warming as equally laughable.” 
Read it carefully and see if you understand it this time. In case not, here’s a similar story: 
It’s said that a wise English king, Canute (Knut in Danish), tired of the sycophancy of his courtiers, faced the waves to demonstrate to them that even he, their powerful ruler, was unable to control the tide. I suspect that future generations will have learned that those who now believe that mankind can control the climate are as foolish as those fawning courtiers. 
Get it now? If you paid attention to what people actually say instead of what you think they say, you might learn something.
Robin Guenier 
21 April 2008 at 13:49
Peter: in response to my question as to how do the greens propose to tackle the fact that the world is unconcerned about AGW with the result that CO2 emissions are growing way beyond Kyoto targets, you said: “what is your point?” Sigh – I would have thought even you would find it obvious. What part of “how do the greens propose to tackle it” don’t you understand?
bobclive 
21 April 2008 at 13:51
Peter, 
Roy Spencer postulates that the oceans may be the main driver of CO2. 
As the oceans cover two thirds of the planet and are by far the largest CO2 sink and as the global temperature has been rising steadily since the mid 1800`s which has until recently been warming the oceans which in turn have been out gassing CO2, Spencer`s reasoning is correct. REALCLIMATE HAVE NOT CHALLENGED ROY SPENCER, which means Hanson, Schmitt and the Mann team are struggling to come to terms with his new PEER reviewed study. 
NOBEL for stomach ulcer discovery, the consensus was that this doctor was taking rubbish. 
Barry James Marshall, AC FRS FAA (born 30 September 1951) is an Australian physician, Nobel Prize laureate in Physiology or Medicine, and Professor of Clinical Microbiology at the University of Western Australia. Marshall is well-known for proving that bacteria Helicobacter pylori are the cause of most stomach ulcers, reversing decades of medical doctrine which held that ulcers were caused by stress, spicy foods, and too much acid. 
The H. pylori theory was RIDICULED by the establishment scientists and doctors, who did not believe that any bacteria could live in the acidic stomach. Microbiologist Martin Blaser, an infectious‑ desease expert from Vanderbilt University who attended the Marshall conference, said, "At that time, I thought the guy was a madman." 
Marshall has been quoted as saying in 1998 that "Everyone was against me, but I knew I was right". 
Peter, this is another case of the consensus being wrong.
Peter Martin 
21 April 2008 at 22:52
Bob Clive, 
Good on Prof Marshall. He had a theory and was motivated by a desire to get to the truth. In the end he succeeded and received his just reward. This all goes to show that science isn't like the medieval church and that the rational view will always prevail. 
So your candidate for the Prof Marshall role on the climate issue is Roy Spencer is it ? He'll be up for a Nobel prize sometime in the next few years? Well maybe. At the risk of being accused of playing the man rather than the ball, it is relevant to the issue to know that Roy Spencer's scientific opinions are heavily influenced by his religious beliefs. He believes in so-called 'intelligent design' for instance. There are some 'intelligent designers' who claim that the theory extends to planet earth as well. The idea in its simplest terms being that the earth would not have been created with so much coal , oil , natural gas etc if it hadn't been safe to use as humanity sees fit. Presumably the creator, sorry the designer, was astute enough to design in negative rather than positive feedback in the formation of clouds which has the effect of stabilising the earth's temperature. 
So that's great! We can do what we like and nothing bad is going to happen to us. 
As I've said I can't speak for Realclimate. But, I'll stick my neck out and say that Dr Spencer will be proved wrong. His experimental results won't be able to be independently verified. No Nobel prize for Dr Spencer. 
So the CO2 in the atmosphere is nothing to do with us? Billions of tons per year have been emitted from human sources. What has happened to it?
Peter Martin 
21 April 2008 at 23:08
"How do the greens propose to tackle it?" 
Well I've been in two minds on whether to call myself 'green'. I agree with them on most environmental issues. But disagree with them on the nuclear power issue and I certainly disagree with any idea that we can revert to a pre-industrial society to cure environmental problems. 
Maybe I should say that I'm not. So I can now suggest that you can ask them that question yourself.
Brute 
22 April 2008 at 00:49
So the CO2 in the atmosphere is nothing to do with us? Billions of tons per year have been emitted from human sources. What has happened to it? 
Mr. Martin, 
Imagine standing alone inside of a covered stadium the size of the Houston Astrodome at the 50 Yard line and lighting a match...... then exinguishing it. That's less than the amount of CO2 that mankind emits to scale. Get the picture?
Peter Martin 
22 April 2008 at 02:51
That's probably a correct analogy for when mankind first invented fire several thousand years ago but its not the picture now. 
I think that you might have just made up this comparison without doing the arithmetic to back it up!
bobclive 
22 April 2008 at 11:11
Peter, 
Here we go again, attacking the man not the science. 
Peter, Beginning around 1850, the climate began warming and the Little Ice Age ended, What ended it, could it have been the sun. 
There is a strong correlation between the variations in solar irradiance and fluctuations in the Earth's temperature. When the sun gets dimmer, the Earth gets cooler; when the sun gets brighter, the Earth gets hotter. So important is the sun in climate change that half of the 1.5° F temperature increase since 1850 is directly attributable to changes in the sun. According to NASA scientists David Lind and Judith Lean, only one-quarter of a degree can be ascribed to other causes, such as greenhouse gases, through which human activities can theoretically exert some influence. 
The correlation between major changes in the Earth's temperature and changes in solar radiance is quite compelling. A perfect example is the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1650 to 1850. Temperatures in this era fell to as much as 2° F below today's temperature, causing the glaciers to advance, the canals in Venice to freeze and major crop failures. Interestingly, this dramatic cooling happened in a period when the sun's radiance had fallen to exceptionally low levels. Between 1645 and 1715, the sun was in a stage that scientists refer to as the Maunder Minimum. In this minimum, the sun has few sunspots and low magnetism which automatically indicates a lower radiance level. When the sun began to emerge from the minimum, radiance increased and by 1850 the temperature had warmed up enough for the Little Ice Age to end. 
Even though this was written in 1998 it is still relevant today as it is based on detailed historical data not a flawed Hockey stick graph and RIRO computer models . 
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html
manacker 
23 April 2008 at 01:01
Sure the warming stopped in 1998. Or if you prefer (since 1998 was the all-time high ENSO year), it has stopped since 2001. 
David Whitehouse got it right. Mark Lynas got it wrong. Those are the facts. No interpretation needed. Denying an inconvenient fact does not make it go away. 
All four temperature records confirm this. Below is the link to one (Hadley). 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly 
Download and plot the data into Excel and draw a linear trend line. You will see a very slight cooling trend, i.e. no more warming, despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 increased by 20 ppmv over the period. 
The WMO tells us the remaining three quarters of 2008 are likely to be cooler than normal (as was the first quarter), but who knows about the future? 
But it’s not only the “flat” period since 1998 (or 2001) that does not show a correlation between temperature and CO2 
The period 1976-1998 does indeed seem to show such a correlation. This period accounts for around 30% of the warming that has occurred since records began in 1850. CO2 rose by 33 ppmv over this period. 
The immediately preceding mid-century cooling period of post WWII boom and growing CO2 does not (temperature cooled while CO2 rose by 25 ppmv). 
The early 20th century warming accounts for 40% of the warming to date, with much lower CO2 increase (14 ppmv). 
And the late 19th century period with the most rapid rate of increase, which accounts for around 30% of the total warming, occurred before there was any real CO2 (2 ppmv increase). 
CO2 is assumed to be the culprit for the late 20th century warming, since model studies show that there is no other factor that can explain it. 
This assumption is flawed unless (a) one can demonstrate what the causes were for the other two warming periods, which together represent 70% of the total warming, (b) one can rule out that these same causes (rather than CO2) were responsible for the latest warming period and (c) one can explain why warming has now stopped despite increased CO2. 
Max
Peter Martin 
23 April 2008 at 02:29
Manacker, 
Yes we've heard all these arguments before. As anyone who has followed the rise in oil prices over the past couple of years knows, you don't see a linear rise. It moves up in spurts then fall back a bit. Anyone who looks at the last 8 or so data points and proclaims the end of oil price rises, ends up looking pretty stupid when they jump up again a week or two later. 
Everything moves a lot slower with the climate and one days oil price is more comparable to one years world temperature measurement. But if you look at the trend over the past 30 years you'll see exactly the same pattern. The temperature jumps suddenly and then levels off for a few years. 
Incidentally I have offered a bet to the resident contrarians on this forum that the 1998 temperature record will be broken in the next four years but they are all too timid to back their judgement. Are you a bit braver?
manacker 
23 April 2008 at 05:30
To the discussion between Brute and Peter Martin where Brute wrote that lighting a match in the Astrodome would be less than the amount of CO2 that mankind emits to scale. 
He’s right. It is less: 
volume of Astrodome 2 million cubic meters 
1 wooden match has 100 mg of carbon 
generates 367 mg of CO2 
and burns 15 seconds (until you burn your fingers) 
so adds 183 mg of carbon dioxide per million cubic meter air 
equals 0.00018 mg of carbon dioxide per cubic meter 
volume of troposphere 5800 million cubic kilometers 
human CO2 emissions 7.4 million tons/day 
equals 1284722 mg of carbon dioxide in 15 seconds 
so adds 222 mg of carbon dioxide per cubic kilometer (in the same 15 seconds) 
or 0.0022 mg of carbon dioxide per cubic meter 
So the match generates 0.0828 times as much CO2 in the Astrodome as humanity does to the troposphere 
And it would take 12 matches to equal reach the same increase in CO2 concentration 
So yes the one match is less. It would take 12 people lighting a match at the same time (out of the 60,000 spectators there). 
Max
manacker 
23 April 2008 at 05:34
Hey Peter Martin, 
To your bet that the 1998 temperature record will be broken in the next four years , count me in. 
Let's use Hadley, OK? 
How much? 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
23 April 2008 at 05:47
Hi again, Peter, 
Until you can show what caused 70% of the warming since 1850 (which occurred in two distinct periods prior to 1940), you cannot conclude that, by default, AGW caused the other 30% of the warming (which occurred from 1976 to 1998) 
It's that simple, and IPCC has not addressed this issue. The warming periods prior to 1976 are hardly mentioned. This is a fatal weakness in the AGW hypothesis. 
As to the 1998-2008 "plateau", this is recorded fact. No fancy rationalizations or denials needed. 
Dr. Pachauri has said he would look into the reasons for this apparent plateau adding "are natural factors compensating?". 
Let's see what he has to say. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
23 April 2008 at 06:25
A thought for Peter Martin 
Hi Peter, 
Here’s something for you to think about, as you ponder about the future of mankind and our planet. 
The multi-billion dollar global warming bandwagon seems to be rolling on with strong momentum as politically motivated Oscars and Nobel Prizes are handed out, Bali boondoggles are celebrated, 1,000-page pseudo-scientific IPCC reports (groan!) are published and the media, politicians plus activists are warning us of impending disaster unless we dig deep into our pockets and “ante up” to atone for our carbon footprint. 
But is a wheel slowly coming off and is the bandwagon headed for the ditch? 
At the same time that alarmists are shouting “tipping point” and “imminent inundation from 6 meter waves”, the thermometers out there (even the ones next to asphalt parking lots and AC exhausts) are telling us something else: global warming has stopped! Ouch! 
This is true if one looks at the past 10 years (1998-2008). It is also true if one looks at the past seven years only, starting in 2001, rather than starting the trend with the arguably all-time warmest year of 1998. 
This year (2008) has started off cooler than normal and the WMO predicts it will probably continue to remain cool. 
Of course there are howls of denial and proclamations such as “we are now at a global temperature not experienced in human civilization” and “ten (or seven) ‘cherry-picked’ years do not make a new trend”, but the fact remains: global warming has stopped (for now). 
How many more years of flat (or cooling) temperature trends will it take for the bandwagon to end up in the ditch? 
Will this derail the whole multibillion dollar IPCC gravy train? 
We shall see. 
Think about it, Peter. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
23 April 2008 at 06:27
Max, 
Yes well done. It makes life more interesting. Hadley it is. How much would you like? 
There was one guy who almost took me up but he wanted provisos for El Nino and volcanoes etc. I thought it should be totally clear cut with no provisos on either side. Is that agreeable? 
2008,2009,2010, 2011 right? 
I agree that working out just what caused the warming of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is difficult. I would say that it was a mixture of natural and anthropogenic causes but just quite what the % figures were must be debatable given the absence of the sort of temperature data and other observations which are possible now but weren't then. 
If the solar guys are correct, we are due for a cooling period similar to what happened from 1940 onwards. I do hope they are right. This is one bet I'd be happy to lose. But, unless a large volcanic eruption occurs sometime soon I don't think I will.
Peter Martin 
23 April 2008 at 06:53
Max, 
I'll need to check your figures on the matches. But taking what you say as right for now, the 12 matches may only last 15 seconds but the CO2 that is released worldwide is continuous and increasing. 
It accumulates, so the next day's CO2 adds on to what was emitted the day before. The earth is currently managing to absorb about half of the CO2 that we emit and so, on that basis, you could argue that a safe level for CO2 emission is 50% less. If we emit more the concentrationof CO2 will rise indefinitely, year after year. 
The Astrodome will be well ventilated, even with the roof closed, and so that wouldn't happen there with your match analogy.
Peter Martin 
23 April 2008 at 07:05
PS It was me that said the CO2 output of the match was less , not Brute. And he hadn't even limited the human emissions to 15 secs.
stargazer 
23 April 2008 at 09:00
"If the solar guys are correct, we are due for a cooling period similar to what happened from 1940 onwards. I do hope they are right. This is one bet I'd be happy to lose. But, unless a large volcanic eruption occurs sometime soon I don't think I will." 
no I'd rather you were right millions could die if i am... 
And you did not read manacker's post properly... he did the calculation like for like....match 15 sec. 'real' output of co2 also in 15 sec. 
good posts manacker BTW
Brute 
23 April 2008 at 11:48
Peter, 
Au contraire please reread my post! 
Brute 
22 April 2008 at 00:49 
So the CO2 in the atmosphere is nothing to do with us? Billions of tons per year have been emitted from human sources. What has happened to it? 
Mr. Martin, 
Imagine standing alone inside of a covered stadium the size of the Houston Astrodome at the 50 Yard line and lighting a match...... then extinguishing it. That's less than the amount of CO2 that mankind emits to scale. Get the picture? 
Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh 
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-...
bobclive 
23 April 2008 at 13:14
Peter, 
I gave an example of team think with regards to Dr Marshall, he was ridiculed world wide because he could not produce the evidence, even though the patents he treated made a total recovery. 
Many important scientific discoveries have been made by chance and Dr Marshall`s was one of those. The normal recognised procedure for incubating samples was I believe three days, after that time if no growth occurred the sample was discarded. In Dr Marshall`s case no growth occurred in the many samples he tested. The evidence finally became available to him by LUCK in a sample he tested THREE DAYS before a bank Holiday which included a weekend making 6 days in which the sample was left in the incubator, the rest is history. Roy Spencer has the evidence its now up the others to accept or disprove it. 
Roy Spencer has used undisputed actual data which has been peer reviewed by the very people that promote AGW, you must agree Peter that you cannot get better that that, its like Mann allowing Mckintyre to peer review his Hocky stick study. Realclimate have not debunked the study as they have nothing to debunk it with. The people at realclimate have endevoured to debunk every single study opposing AGW other than the Spencer paper which undermines the very foundations of AGW, I think more than 1 wheel has come off their wagon. 
Peter, as Manacka said, Until you can show what caused 70% of the warming since 1850 (which occurred in two distinct periods prior to 1940), you cannot conclude that, by default, AGW caused the other 30% of the warming (which occurred from 1976 to 1998). 
Why do the ice cores show steady CO2 concentrations in the past even when we know temperatures varied widely (even during the interglacial warm periods)? If the ice core values are correct, then CO2 levels have NO EFFECT ON CLIMATE.
Peter Martin 
23 April 2008 at 14:51
Max and Bob, 
I'm not sure where your 30% and 70% figures came from. Going back to the world temperature graph again: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming 
The figures (temperature anomaly) for years 1850, 1975 , 2000 were -0.3 , -0.1 , +0.45 So, if anything, they should be the other way around to what you have. 
Most of the warming has occurred since 1975. Even if you take the coolest year of 1910 (at -0.5deg C) you can see clearly from NASA's graph that more warming took place between in the 25 years between 1975 and the end of the century than in the 65 years between 1910 and 1975. 
Furthermore there was quite a bit of CO2 released in these 65 years, so AGW as an effect cannot be discounted for this period, although it would be fair to say that no-one is claiming that the warming in the earlier part of the 20th century was entirely due to human induced causes. 
Neither is anyone saying that all past climate changes were caused by CO2 alone. The recent increases in atmospheric CO2 levels caused by human emissions is the first time it has happened. I can't think of how it might have been possible for CO2 levels to suddenly change independently of any other factor in a similar way before. It must be unprecedented. Just writing that CO2 levels have no effect, in uppercase too, doesn't make your statement any more correct. 
It will take a while for the Roy Spencer claim to be independently tested. But it will, and if the models need correcting they will be corrected. We aren't totally relying on computer models though. The best evidence for AGW is what is happening right now in the Arctic. The level of sea ice reached an all time recorded minimum just last year. No need for computer models. There is no need to defend the temperature data against criticism of urban heat island effects, El Nino or La Nina effects, or plain old fudging of the figures. The satellite photos are there for all to see.
Brute 
23 April 2008 at 17:24
Brrrr... The Disappearing Arctic Ice Is Back And It's Thick 
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-disappearing...
Robin Guenier 
23 April 2008 at 17:46
Peter: Max has raised a question that I have put to you several times – always without an answer. Here (from my 17 April post at 11:36) is my most recent attempt: 
“So, Peter, the fundamental problem remains. The 2007 IPCC report shows: (1) that, over the past 150 years, temperatures have declined by about 0.60 deg C and grown by about 1.30 deg C; (2) that CO2 emissions took off around 1950 and soared towards the end of the century; and (3) that about 60% of the 1.30 deg C increase (0.76 deg C) took place before the CO2 takeoff. Therefore, a reliable explanation of current climate change must first set out unambiguously the reasons for the greater 0.76 deg C warming and then show why they don't also apply to the remaining and lesser 0.54 deg C warming. Hence my request for peer-reviewed explanation – I’m still waiting.” 
Needless to say, I’m still waiting. Take a careful look at the graph to which you provided a link in your most recent post – click to enlarge the graph. You’ll see (as I have mentioned many times) that there were three periods of warming: from 1860 to 1879, from 1906 to 1940 and from 1976 to 2000. Those warmings total about 1.30 deg C. It is obvious that the first two account for considerably more warming than the third. 
Then consider CO2 emissions. I have referred you to two graphs: (1) Figure SPM.1 in the IPCC’s 2007 WG1 report: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm... (Note especially where the green line changes to red) and (2) http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/global.total.... (dataset by Marland et al. 2003 version) – where the CO2 take off around 1950 is evident. 
So I repeat my simple request: please provide the peer-reviewed scientific evidence (a) setting out unambiguously the reasons for the first two (pre 1950) periods of greater warming and (b) ruling out those reasons as the cause of the (post 1950) third period of lesser warming. Without such evidence, the claimed AGW “consensus” must be seriously flawed.
Brute 
23 April 2008 at 19:02
Consensus??????????? 
http://www.icecap.us/ 
Apr 22, 2008 
Hundreds Sign Climate Realist Declaration - “Global Warming is not a Global Crisis” 
International Climate Science Coalition 
The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) today released the names of over 500 endorsers of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change that calls on world leaders to “reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth"." All taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) should “be abandoned forthwith”, declaration signatories conclude. 
Included in the endorser list are world leading climate scientists, economists, policymakers, engineers, business leaders, medical doctors, as well as other professionals and concerned citizens from two dozen countries. The complete declaration text, endorser lists and international media contacts for expert commentary, may be viewed at here. 
Perhaps most significant among the declaration’s assertions: 
> “there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past, are now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.” 
> “attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering.” 
Just as the Manhattan Project was key to finally ending the Second World War, the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change may one day be regarded as a critical catalyst that helped end today’s climate hysteria,” said ICSC Science Advisory Board member, Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia. “Protecting the natural world is crucially important and so environmental policy must be based on our best understanding of science and technology coupled with a realistic appreciation of the relevant economics and policy options. This is not happening in the climate debate.” 
ICSC Chair, Professor Tim Patterson of Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada concludes, “Instead of wasting billions restricting emissions of CO2, a vitally important gas on which all life depends, governments must concentrate on solving known environmental problems over which we have influence - air, land and water pollution being obvious examples.” 
The ICSC is an association of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts (advisors listed here) working to promote better public understanding of climate change. ICSC provides an analysis of climate science and policy issues which, being independent of lobby groups and vested political interests, is an alternative to advice from the IPCC. ICSC thereby fosters rational, evidence-based, open discussion about all climate, and climate-related, issues. See full release and the multiple lists of endorsers here.
bobclive 
23 April 2008 at 19:14
GREENLAND GLACIER RETREAT (ILLULISAT). 
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/greenland_glacier.... 
If you look at this graph on link in detail, you can see that the retreat in the period 1929-1953 (24 years) was faster than in 1953-2003 (50 years). 
The retreat was faster around 1930-1940 than today, when Green House Gas`s were at a far lower levels. This clearly shows CO2 is not the driver and that CO2 has little influence on temperature.
bobclive 
23 April 2008 at 19:39
Peter, reference to my last post. 
You say most of warming has occurred after 1975 yet glaciers retreated at their fastest between 1929 - 1953, there seems to be a solid correlation between land development and temperature since 1975 (UHI) than there is between CO2 and temperature, Something is wrong Peter, no matter where you look historical data does not appear fit the AGW theory, and that is all you have a theory. It appears according to your numbers less warming causes glaciers to retreat.
manacker 
23 April 2008 at 19:58
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “I am not sure where your 30% and 70% figures came from.” 
They came directly from the Hadley record (not from Wikipedia’s interpretation of several records). 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly 
You can download the Hadley dataset directly into Excel. When you do, you will see that there were three periods of warming, two periods of cooling and the current “plateau” with essentially no change. You can put in the linear trend lines and equations for these periods, which gives you the trend for each period. 
Period………Trend…Years…DTemp…DCO2 
1860-1879…+0.196…20…+0.39………2 
1879-1906…-0.047…27…-0.13………5 
1906-1940…+ 0.161…35…+0.56………14 
1940-1976…-0.020…36…-0.07………25 
1976-1998…+0.175…22…+0.39………33 
1998-2008……0.000…10…0.00………20 
Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade 
DTemp is linear temperature anomaly change over period in degreesC 
DCO2 is change in atmospheric CO2 concentration in ppmv 
I did not download the data for the period 1850-1860 which showed slight cooling and essentially no change in CO2. 
CO2 values are from Mauna Loa record after 1958, IPCC prior to 1958. 
If you take the three warming periods, you will see that the earliest cycle accounts for around 30% of the total, the middle cycle for around 40% and the latest cycle for around 30% of the warming. 
Hope this helps. 
You wrote: “Most of the warming has occurred since 1975.” This is obviously not correct. Go back to the source of the data (not a Wikipedia rehash) and you will see that the numbers above are correct. 
Your other points were directed at Rob, but I believe I have answered the ones you directed at me. 
Regards, 
Max
Robin Guenier 
23 April 2008 at 20:29
Excellent stuff, Max: the lack of any temp/CO2 correlation is clear. So, Peter, yet again: please provide the peer-reviewed scientific evidence (a) setting out unambiguously the reasons for the first two (pre 1950) periods of greater warming and (b) ruling out those reasons as the cause of the (post 1950) third period of lesser warming. Rob.
Black Wallaby 
24 April 2008 at 00:45
bobclive wrote concerning Greenland glacier retreat: 
“…The retreat was faster around 1930-1940 than today, when Green House Gas`s were at a far lower levels…” 
Well that makes sense because temperature records in the early 1900’s show that there is nothing unusual about today’s T’s in Greenland. 
Here is a brief extract from a 2004 paper by Petr Chylek, Jason E. Box and Glen Lesins 
ABSTRACT: The Greenland coastal temperatures have followed the early 20th century global warming trend. Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 °C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987. This suggests that the Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend. A considerable and rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland occurred in the 1920s when the average annual surface air temperature rose between 2 and 4 °C in less than ten years (at some stations the increase in winter temperature was as high as 6 °C). This rapid warming, at a time when the change in anthropogenic production of greenhouse gases was well below the current level, suggests a high natural variability in the regional climate…” 
Funny that Box was a lead author in the relevant chapter of the IPCC report yet there was no discussion on this rather important issue etc!
Peter Martin 
24 April 2008 at 00:53
Max, 
It would be better if you posted up graphs yourself rather than these tables of data. A picture is always worth ...... 
The link that you gave us contained monthly figures which makes it very unwieldy. 
You'd be better off using either this NASA graph 
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/208422main_global_temp_ch... 
Which is exactly the same one you objected to in Wiki. I know that Wiki are the bad guys in your book but you can't object to everything! Or, are you objecting to NASA too? 
This table is better : http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2006.csv 
and has annual figures. 
You might want to check you figure of +0.39deg C for 1860 -1869. This doesn't look right at all. 
According to my data set this should be more like +0.1 deg C. 
The temperature data for the second half of the nineteenth century is inconclusive, There is some warming and then cooling of approximately 0.15deg at the most. 
The figures that I gave in the last posting are correct. Most global warming has taken place since 1975.
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 01:35
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “ The figures that I gave in the last posting are correct. Most global warming has taken place since 1975.” 
This is not correct, Peter. Just saying something is so does not make it so. 
Go back to the SOURCE DATA (the Hadley record). I’ll give you the link again. 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual 
Then do as I did. 
Download the raw Hadley global land and sea surface anomaly for the periods: 
1860-1879 
1879-1906 
1906-1940 
1940-1976 
1976-1998 
1998-2008 
Plot them into Excel and draw a linear trend line for each period. 
You will see that the 20-year period 1860-1879 has a linear warming trend of 0.196 degC per decade. The linear warming over the 20-year period was 0.39 degC. 
The period 1879 to 1906 showed a cooling trend of –0.047 degC per decade with a linear cooling over the period of –0.13 degC. 
The 35-year period 1906-1940 has a linear warming trend of 0.161 degC per decade. The linear warming over the period was 0.56 degC. 
The period 1940-1976 showed a cooling trend of –0.020 degC per decade with a linear cooling over the period of –0.07 degC. 
The 22-year period 1976 to 1998 has a linear warming trend of 0.175 degC per decade. The linear warming over the period was 0.39 degC. 
The period since 1998 is showing a flat trend so far, and the WMO predicts the next 3 quarters of 2008 will continue to be cool, but who knows what will happen? 
Those are the facts, Peter. 
There were three multidecadal cycles of warming since the record started. The earliest (1860-1879) accounted for around 30% of the total warming. The second (1906-1940) accounted for around 40% of the total warming and the latest (1976-1998) accounted for 30% of the total warming, not “most of the global warming” as you stated. 
To convince yourself, go to the actual data at the source, not a rehash by Wikipedia or anyone else. Just go to the data at source. 
It’s easy to do. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 01:39
Peter that link to Hadley is: 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 01:42
Peter, you will have to copy the Hadley link into Word. For soe reason it does not open directly. 
But it works in Word. 
Happy plotting! 
Max
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 01:49
Hi Peter, 
BTW if you prefer that I post you the graphs with trendlines, etc. I can do so, to save you the bother. 
It's just when you do it yourself you can make sure that I did not make an error. 
I am just not familiar with how to post a series of Excel charts on this site. So if you can tell me how this works, I'll be glad to send you all the charts for all the warming and cooling periods in the Hadley record. 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
24 April 2008 at 01:49
Max, 
He won't do it.......He'll just used the same graph that he's being spoon fed by Al Gore and continue to pontificate. 
The Alarmists can't think for themselves......closed minded...........brainwashed.
Peter Martin 
24 April 2008 at 02:11
Max, 
I just take a screen shot of the graph in excel, or whatever, and the edit it in Paint. PNG format is best. You just need to uplink the file to a server and post the link as normal. If you have an email account , that may include a few MB of server space for your personal webpage. Otherwise if you email me the file I can do it for you. 
peter_martin_2001@hotmail.com 
Thanks to Stargazer we have this graph , and on a contrarain website too! 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/essifigur... 
I think you've been rumbled. You've been cherry picking the noise spikes on the graph, haven't you! There is a big positive spike around 1879 and a big negative spike around 1860. 
Now that is very naughty of you! The contrarians on this forum are sticklers for scientific accuracy and they'll be annoyed at you for bringing their side of the argument into disrepute :-)
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 04:19
Hi Peter, 
First let me discuss this, before reverting to your later post. 
Back to your bet that “the 1998 temperature record will be broken in the next four years”. 
Basis: 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual 
Are you betting that one of the following years will have a temperature anomaly that is higher than 0.526 degrees C according to the Hadley record of globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly (compared to the baseline average of the years 1961-1990): 2009, 2020, 2011, 2012? 
Note: If Hadley changes the “baseline” during this period, the numbers are adjusted accordingly. 
How much do you want to bet and how do you want to set it up? 
Looking forward to hearing from you and setting this up. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 04:59
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “ The figures that I gave in the last posting are correct. Most global warming has taken place since 1975.” 
Sorry, this is not correct, Peter. In fact, it is a ludricous statement. Just saying something is correct does not make it so. The recorded facts speak against you. 
Go back to the SOURCE DATA (the Hadley record). I’ll give you the link again. 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual 
Then do as I did. 
Download the raw Hadley global land and sea surface anomaly for the periods: 
1860-1879 
1879-1906 
1906-1940 
1940-1976 
1976-1998 
1998-2008 
Plot them into Excel and draw a linear trend line for each period. 
(I would suggest that other contributors to this site do the same, in order to see what has really happened). 
You will see that the 20-year period 1860-1879 has a linear warming trend of +0.196 degC per decade. The linear warming over the 20-year period was +0.39 degC. 
The period 1879 to 1906 showed a cooling trend of -0.047 degC per decade with a linear cooling over the period of –0.13 degC. 
The 35-year period 1906-1940 has a linear warming trend of +0.161 degC per decade. The linear warming over the period was +0.56 degC. 
The period 1940-1976 showed a cooling trend of –0.020 degC per decade with a linear cooling over the period of –0.07 degC. 
The 22-year period 1976 to 1998 has a linear warming trend of +0.175 degC per decade. The linear warming over the period was +0.39 degC. 
The period since 1998 is showing a flat trend so far, and the WMO predicts the next 3 quarters of 2008 will continue to be cool, but who knows what will happen? 
Those are the facts, Peter. 
There were three multidecadal cycles of warming since the record started. The earliest (1860-1879) accounted for around 30% of the total warming. The second (1906-1940) accounted for around 40% of the total warming and the latest (1976-1998) accounted for 30% of the total warming,. 
This directly refutes your erroneous statement that “most of the global warming” came after 1975. Peter, it just did not happen that way, no matter how much you would like for this to have been true. 
To convince yourself, go to the actual data at the source. 
It’s easy to do. 
Please do this before you respond with more obfuscations . You are making yourself untrustworthy with these diversions. 
Regards, 
Max 
Hi Peter, 
Back to your bet that “the 1998 temperature record will be broken in the next four years”. 
Basis: 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual 
Are you betting that one of the following years will have a temperature anomaly that is higher than 0.526 degrees C according to the Hadley record of globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly (compared to the baseline average of the years 1961-1990): 2009, 2020, 2011, 2012? 
Note: If Hadley changes the “baseline” during this period, the numbers are adjusted accordingly. 
How much do you want to bet and how do you want to set it up? 
Looking forward to hearing from you and setting this up. 
Regards, 
Max 
Max, 
I just take a screen shot of the graph in excel, or whatever, and the edit it in Paint. PNG format is best. You just need to uplink the file to a server and post the link as normal. If you have an email account , that may include a few MB of server space for your personal webpage. Otherwise if you email me the file I can do it for you. 
peter_martin_2001@hotmail.com 
Thanks to Stargazer we have this graph , and on a contrarain website too! 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/essifigur... 
I think you've been rumbled. You've been cherry picking the noise spikes on the graph, haven't you! There is a big positive spike around 1879 and a big negative spike around 1860. 
Now that is very naughty of you! The contrarians on this forum are sticklers for scientific accuracy and they'll be annoyed at you for bringing their side of the argument into disrepute :-) 
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “ I think you’ve been rumbled. You’ve been cherry picking the noise spikes on the graph, haven’t you!” The rest of your statement is so absurd that it does not merit repetition. 
This is meaningless double-talk, intended to move away from the facts. There’s no “cherry pick”. And what does the “rumbled” statement mean? 
Peter, you are avoiding the recorded facts. Just download the recorded data from Hadley and make the charts. 
It’s so easy to do. 
If you are uncertain about how to do this in Excel, get some help. 
I downloaded all the data over the whole record. Then I saw that there were clear fluctuations from warming to cooling (with an admitted underlying warming trend over the entire 150+ year period as we are moving out of the Little Ice Age). 
I then identified where these “swings” started and ended and plotted charts for each period of warming or cooling. 
Then I drew trend lines for each of these periods. 
There is nothing “naughty” about doing this. It’s just looking at the data to figure out what is really going on, rather than relying on someone else to interpret the data. 
Try it yourself, rather than pontificating, and you will see that: 
· there have been three warming cycles since 1850 
· there have been three cooling cycles since 1850 
· the current cycle (since 1998) has been flat 
· 30% of all warming occurred from 1860 to 1879 when CO2 rose by 2 ppm 
· 40% of all warming occurred from 1906 to 1940 when CO2 rose by 14 ppm 
· 30% of all warming occurred from 1976 yo 1998 when CO2 rose by 33 ppm 
· cooling occurred from 1850 to 1860 with no real change in CO2 
· cooling occurred from 1879 to 2006 with not much increase in CO2 
· cooling occurred from 1940 to 1976 when CO2 increased by 25 ppm 
These are recorded facts, Peter, not “opinions” or “rationalizations”. 
Do not try to “fog up” the facts with a lot of side issues. 
Stick with the original data, not someone’s idea of what these data really are supposed to mean, Peter, and you will get closer to the truth. 
Download the raw data, plot the graphs, put in the linear trend lines and tell me what the raw data show you. Hey, if Lynas can do it (for the recent record only), you should be talented enough to do it as well (but this time for the whole record). If I can help you with this, please let me know. I will be more than glad to do so. 
Otherwise back off and admit that you have no idea about what the Hadley record is saying about what is really going on out there. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 05:04
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “ I think you’ve been rumbled. You’ve been cherry picking the noise spikes on the graph, haven’t you!” 
The rest of your statement is so absurd that it does not merit repetition. 
This is meaningless double-talk, intended to move away from the facts. There’s no “cherry pick”. And what does the “rumbled” statement mean? 
Peter, you are avoiding the recorded facts. Just download the recorded data from Hadley and make the charts. 
It’s so easy to do. 
If you are uncertain about how to do this in Excel, get some help. 
I downloaded all the data over the whole record. Then I saw that there were clear fluctuations from warming to cooling (with an admitted underlying warming trend over the entire 150+ year period as we are moving out of the Little Ice Age). 
I then identified where these “swings” started and ended and plotted charts for each period of warming or cooling. 
Then I drew trend lines for each of these periods. 
There is nothing “naughty” about doing this. It’s just looking at the data to figure out what is really going on, rather than relying on someone else to interpret the data. 
Try it yourself, rather than pontificating, and you will see that: 
· there have been three warming cycles since 1850 
· there have been three cooling cycles since 1850 
· the current cycle (since 1998) has been flat 
· 30% of all warming occurred from 1860 to 1879 when CO2 rose by 2 ppm 
· 40% of all warming occurred from 1906 to 1940 when CO2 rose by 14 ppm 
· 30% of all warming occurred from 1976 yo 1998 when CO2 rose by 33 ppm 
· cooling occurred from 1850 to 1860 with no real change in CO2 
· cooling occurred from 1879 to 2006 with not much increase in CO2 
· cooling occurred from 1940 to 1976 when CO2 increased by 25 ppm 
These are recorded facts, Peter, not “opinions” or “rationalizations”. 
Do not try to “fog up” the facts with a lot of side issues. 
Stick with the original data, not someone’s idea of what these data really are supposed to mean, Peter, and you will get closer to the truth. 
Download the raw data, plot the graphs, put in the linear trend lines and tell me what the raw data show you. 
Hey, if Lynas can do it (for the recent record only), you should be talented enough to do it as well (but this time for the whole record). If I can help you with this, please let me know. I will be more than glad to do so. 
Otherwise back off and admit that you have no idea about what the Hadley record is saying about what is really going on out there. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 05:12
Sorry for typo, Peter. 
Statement "cooling occurred from 1879 to 2006 with not much increase in CO2" should read "from 1879 to 1906 ", of course. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
24 April 2008 at 05:32
Max, 
Rumbled. Maybe this word isn't used much in America. It's a bit of English slang and means to be found out! Like when you have been cherry picking the noise spikes, passing them off as genuine data points and then someone has spotted what you've done. 
It is just ludicrous to suggest that there was 0.39 degrees of warming in the 19 years between 1860 and 1879. I was charitable enough, at first, to think you had made a mistake! 
As I've said, you've cherry picked the downward noise spike for 1860 and the upward noise spike for 1879. Subtracted one from the other and got 0.39 degrees. 
You seem to have gone a bit wild with your last postings. I hope you haven't gone into a frenzy. Which makes it a bit hard to refer back to the link to Stargazers graph which I'll post back again. 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/essifigur... 
I like that word 'rumbled'.
Peter Martin 
24 April 2008 at 06:46
Max, 
Right I've done as you suggested and plotted out the data on an excel spreadsheet. 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/warming.png 
The first thing to note from the graph is that your claim of 0.39deg C of warming between 1860 and 1879 is wrong. 
Secondly, it is not particularly relevant to any consideration of the amount of warming that took place before and after 1975. The temperature in 1908 was lower than in both these years. 
Thirdly, you can see from the arrows, on the right hand side of the graph, that my statement of more global warming occurring after 1975 than before it is correct. Or, at least it is correct as far as the instrumental temperature record goes. I probably need to say that otherwise someone will post in with a comment that it might have been warmer in the MWP.
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 06:47
Sorry, Peter, your "rumbled" double-talk does not change the facts. 
Instead of frambling on about "going into a frenzy", download the Hadley data and see what it actually says. 
The statement that I have "cherry picked the downward noise spike for 1860 and the upward noise spike for 1879. Subtracted one from the other and got 0.39 degrees. " is totally stupid. 
Check the actual data, Peter. It is there for one and all to see, and it says very clearly that the period 1860-1879 had the same increase in temperature as the period 1976-1998. 
Those are the recorded facts, Peter. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 06:56
Your plot is an artifact, Peter. 
You are not plotting the actual data, but are plotting a “5-year average mean” of the actual data. 
This is a very good example of “how to lie without really lying (too much). 
For shame, Peter! 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 07:10
Hi Peter, 
Your second plot (HadCrut vs. HadCrut smoothed) tells it all. 
If you "smooth" the data (by using "5-year average mean" figures or any other method) you can change what the actual figures say. 
The figures show a trend. By "jiggling" the numbers in a desired fashion, you can show another trend. 
Just stick with the actual figures, Peter, not with "smoothed" (or manipulated in any other fashion) figures. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 07:47
Hi Peter, 
Here is an excellent example of the use of “double-talk” to obfuscate an issue: 
You wrote: “The first thing to note from the graph is that your claim of 0.39deg C of warming between 1860 and 1879 is wrong. Secondly, it is not particularly relevant to any consideration of the amount of warming that took place before and after 1975. The temperature in 1908 was lower than in both those years.” 
Your first statement is flat wrong. The linear trend line of the actual data shows a warming of 0.196 degC per decade. Taken over two decades this is a linear warming of 0.39 degC. Those are the plain unvarnished facts, Peter, like them or not. 
Your second statement is totally irrelevant. There was no warming before 1975. There was cooling, as the record shows. There was no warming after 1998. Again, there was cooling or at best a flat trend. But what does that have to do with the record between 1976 and 1998? Nothing. 
Peter, it is truly amazing to me that you refuse to face actual facts in order to defend your almost religious belief that we are in a period of unprecedented and dangerous warming today. 
You refuse to accept the published record of earlier warming periods that were as rapid as the most recent period and you refuse to accept the fact that the recent warming period stopped 10 (or at least 7) years ago. 
Gotta hand it to you, Peter, you have faith in AGW, even when the facts no longer support your faith. 
But your double-talk is not very convincing to others. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
24 April 2008 at 08:42
Max, 
I suggest that you take another look the graph, Besides the rolling five year average I also show the annual figures. Yes go on take another look! 
The only way that you can show a figure of 0.39deg C for the period 1860 - 1979 is to cherry pick the noise points. Actually I think I might point out that if you had cherry picked a little bit smarter than you did you could have made it 0.5 deg C of global warming. 
In the nineteenth century, the measurements were nowhere near what they are now in terms of accuracy. The error bars are much bigger. It is absurd to reject the idea of five year smoothing to eliminate these excesses. If its a good enough method for NASA then its a good enough method for me. If you don't smooth out the results and cherry pick the noise points you can prove just about anything that your subconcious wants you to. 
Anyway enough of your meaningless chatter how about posting some of your own graphs like I showed you how to? Or maybe you need some help?
stargazer 
24 April 2008 at 09:04
copied and pasted from this thread 
[stargazer 
05 April 2008 at 09:24 
.....And Peter it is NOT my graph... I think you say this to make is seem like I posted it for another reason than I did.... ] 
And again.... 
Peter Martin 
24 April 2008 at 02:11 
Stargazers graph which I'll post back again. 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/essifigur... 
Peter 
This is the second time that you have implied that I posted the linked graph for reasons other that i intended...the whole post it came fron needs to be read..see here 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/evidence-of-... 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/essifigur...
Peter Martin 
24 April 2008 at 09:22
Stargazer, 
Well I must say I do find it hard to know why you should be so embarrassed about the graph that you posted up. Its a perfectly good graph. I thought at one time, that it might be because it showed that global warming was still happening. But, I imagine that you must have been in touch with Anthony Watts, and told him that he was giving those nasty global warming alarmists some ammunition, and he's been helpful enough to rejig it to give it a nice little downturn at the end. 
I do notice these little things, and unlike some recent contributors to this forum I can read a graph!
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 09:30
Hi Peter, 
It is clear to me that you are not going to download the Hadley info and confirm or refute the actual temperature info on past records, which I posted. To do this would apparently be too unpleasant for you, and I can understand that, since you appear to have an almost religious belief in AGW and the facts would shatter this belief. 
So let’s move on and get back to our bet 
You say that the 1998 temperature anomaly will be exceeded on an annual basis by the year 2012 at the latest. 
I have told you how I define that anomaly. Do you agree? 
I have told you that I would agree to using the Hadley record for determining what the temperature anomaly is, and that we should use the annual globally averaged land and sea surface anomaly. Do you agree? 
I also said that if Hadley changes the basis for its anomaly between now and 2012, we should correct for this. Do you agree? 
Now let’s set the amount of the debt. You are in the UK (I take it). I am in Switzerland. I would agree to U.S.$ as the currency. Are you in agreement with $1,000 as the amount of the bet? 
How do you suggest we set this up? 
Let’s do it. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 09:42
Hi Peter, 
Our posts crossed. 
Tell me how to post the graphs and I will be glad to do so. 
They are very convincing, despite your double-talk on "cherry picking the noise points". 
It's just the facts, Peter, no fancy "five year smoothing". No blah-blah about relative "accuracy of measurements" then and now, where I could play back the fact that 19th century measurements did not have the UHI distortions of the late 20th century measurements. 
No such double-talk and obfuscation, Peter. Just the facts as they have been recorded. 
Facts are facts, Peter. 
And you are having a real hard time accepting this. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 10:11
Hi Peter, 
This is the Hadley data for the 20-year period 1860-1879: 
1860 -0.521 
1861 -0.728 
1862 -0.787 
1863 -0.557 
1864 -0.594 
1865 -0.474 
1866 -0.454 
1867 -0.505 
1868 -0.324 
1869 -0.417 
1870 -0.395 
1871 -0.411 
1872 -0.401 
1873 -0.436 
1874 -0.547 
1875 -0.462 
1876 -0.467 
1877 -0.123 
1878 -0.106 
1879 -0.357 
Read it, plot it and you will see that it shows a linear trend of 0.196 degC per decade and a linear increase of 0.39 degC over the 20-year period. 
Just the facts, Peter. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
24 April 2008 at 10:15
Max, 
I'll try to be more patient, and explain it all again as simply as I can: 
This is the graph: 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/warming.png 
I can email you the raw data which is in an excel file. It should be the same as yours except that it uses annual rather than monthly data. You already have my email address, which is how we can discuss the details of the bet too. 
The BLUE dots are the ROLLING FIVE YEAR AVERAGE. If you don't like the idea of this, the PINK dots are the RAW ANNUALISED DATA. 
On the right hand side are two arrows. The upper arrow shows the warming since 1975. The lower arrow shows the previous warming. I've chosen 1909 as the base for previous warming which means that what happened before that is irrelevant. However, I can use whatever year you like as a base reference. Just give me your preferred year. 
I do hope that I'm not making it too difficult. Can I take a look at your graphs? If you don't have any server space you could probaly find something for free on the net. Or just email me the files. 
Peter
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 10:23
Hi Peter, 
More facts for you. 
Here is the record for the period 1976-1998. You will see that the trend over this period was 0.175 degC per decade. Over the 22 year period this equals a linear temperature increase of 0.39 degC. 
You cannot just take the spot difference between the first and last point, as you did in your comparison. You must use the linear trend. 
1976 -0.240 
1977 0.006 
1978 -0.059 
1979 0.046 
1980 0.071 
1981 0.110 
1982 0.016 
1983 0.171 
1984 -0.019 
1985 -0.037 
1986 0.034 
1987 0.178 
1988 0.174 
1989 0.109 
1990 0.247 
1991 0.203 
1992 0.070 
1993 0.104 
1994 0.169 
1995 0.270 
1996 0.138 
1997 0.347 
1998 0.526 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 10:28
Hi Peter, 
Here is the record for the period 1906-1940. You will see that the trend over this period was 0.161 degC per decade. Over the 35-year period this equals a linear temperature increase of 0.56 degC. 
1906 -0.421 
1907 -0.581 
1908 -0.663 
1909 -0.698 
1910 -0.544 
1911 -0.573 
1912 -0.496 
1913 -0.485 
1914 -0.318 
1915 -0.246 
1916 -0.432 
1917 -0.493 
1918 -0.387 
1919 -0.333 
1920 -0.327 
1921 -0.268 
1922 -0.376 
1923 -0.345 
1924 -0.356 
1925 -0.274 
1926 -0.179 
1927 -0.257 
1928 -0.255 
1929 -0.358 
1930 -0.171 
1931 -0.139 
1932 -0.161 
1933 -0.282 
1934 -0.161 
1935 -0.185 
1936 -0.149 
1937 -0.041 
1938 0.002 
1939 -0.003 
1940 0.008 
Just the facts, Peter. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 10:32
Hi Peter, 
I have sent you the Hadley data for the three periods of warming. 
These data confirm that the first and last period each accounted for around 30% of the overall warming, while the middle period accounted for the remaining 40%. 
This is not hard to figure out. 
It's all there in the data. 
Regards, 
Max
stargazer 
24 April 2008 at 10:49
Peter said "Well I must say I do find it hard to know why you should be so embarrassed about the graph that you posted up. 
I am not embarrassed at all... I just said it was NOT MY graph... and needs to be seen in context of the piece it was in. 
Peter said 
"Its a perfectly good graph. I thought at one time, that it might be because it showed that global warming was still happening." 
Did you not read any of the many posts I have made???? To repeat then...YES I DO 'believe in climate change..YES the temp has gone up over the past 150 years.... 
BUT it is due to mostly 'natural causes' (and the FACT that AWG ers start their graph from the end of the LIA !!!!!!!!!!) 
And not AWG.global warming... 
All this is cyclic, The temp goes up and goes down again (or more accurately) the 'warm' over the past 10000 years can be considered to be the baseline, and the temp falls from 'baseline' from time to time ...why cant you see the obvious. 
manacker.... a word of advice when solar cycle 24 starts I expect the temp to go up again...so be careful on ant bet. 
However after the solar (24) maximum, I think it will again go down again... and if solar cycle 25 is 'low' (as most solar astronomers think) will continue to go down perhaps for decades. 
Peter said 
"Its a perfectly good graph. I thought at one time, that it might be because it showed that global warming was still happening." 
Did you not read any of the many posts I have made???? to repeat YES I DO 'beleive' in climate change..YES the temp has gone up over the past 150 years.... BUT it is due to mostly 'natural causes' 
not AWG.global warming...all this is cyclic
stargazer 
24 April 2008 at 10:53
Peter said "Well I must say I do find it hard to know why you should be so embarrassed about the graph that you posted up. 
I am not embarrassed at all... I just said it was NOT MY graph... and needs to be seen in context of the piece it was in. 
Peter said 
"Its a perfectly good graph. I thought at one time, that it might be because it showed that global warming was still happening." 
Did you not read any of the many posts I have made???? To repeat then...YES I DO 'believe in climate change..YES the temp has gone up over the past 150 years.... 
BUT it is due to mostly 'natural causes' (and the FACT that AWG ers start their graph from the end of the LIA !!!!!!!!!!) 
I do not 'beleive' AWG.global warming... 
All this is cyclic, The temp goes up and goes down again (or more accurately) the 'warm' over the past 10000 years can be considered to be the baseline, and the temp falls from 'baseline' from time to time ...why cant you see the obvious. 
manacker.... a word of advice when solar cycle 24 starts I expect the temp to go up again...so be careful on any bet. 
However after the solar (24) maximum, I think it will again go down again... and if solar cycle 25 is 'low' (as most solar astronomers think) will continue to go down perhaps for decades.
Peter Martin 
24 April 2008 at 11:02
"I have sent you the Hadley data for the three periods of warming." 
OK I'll take a look. But what about the periods of cooling in-between? 
Living in Switzerland you'll no doubt have climbed many hills and mountains. On each upward journey you'll no doubt find that the path undulates and that there are short downhill sections too. You need to take account of these too when calculating the height that you've climbed. You can't just count the uphill sections.
Sven 
24 April 2008 at 11:05
Manacker, 
haven't you used a wrong column from Hadley data? 
It seems that you've used column 12. The page says that "columns 11 and 12 are the upper and lower 95% uncertainty ranges from the combined effects of all the uncertainties". I think the right one is column 2 that is "the best estimate anomaly" (where 2007 is 0.404).
Sven 
24 April 2008 at 11:07
A link as well: 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual 
and format: 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/time-series...
Peter Martin 
24 April 2008 at 11:27
Max, 
Yes I think Sven is right. Column 2 of his first link is the one to use. 
You may need to copy and paste the whole link into your browser. It doesn't work by just clicking. 
The figures that I have used are very close to the ones in column 2 but not exactly equal. I'm not sure why but I doubt it makes any difference to the point under discussion. I'll redo my graph using column 2 also and I'll repost the image. 
I haven't received any email yet.
bobclive 
24 April 2008 at 12:12
UHI. 
Trends in Peterson 2003 (Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures). 
This is another flawed study which the IPCC rely on. 
Steve Mcintyre as already mentioned did a small study to check Petersons results. He split the ground stations into two groups Rural/urban. 
He decided all urban stations should be within a city that had a major league sports franchise and he used raw data with 24 month smoothing. 
His graph shows actual cities have a very substantial trend of over 2 deg C per century relative to the rural network At the very end of the graphic, the change levels off which might, Steve says, indicate increased settlement effects at rural sites. The rural sites show a cooling from about 1955 to present, the rural sites also pick up a pronounced warming around the 1930`s. 
How can you possibly rely on data from these mixed up ground stations. There is no way Steve`s study can be criticised as he used Petersons raw data. If there is no significant difference between rural and urban you could not possibly have two graphs showing such markedly different trends. If you know the rural trend shows level, that should be taken as the NATURAL variability, by adding in the urban sites you have contaminated the data. This small study clearly shows AGWers have manufactured the present warming. 
Am I missing something here. 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859
bobclive 
24 April 2008 at 12:40
One more point relating to UHI, until the Y2K bug was discovered by Steve in the us temp data set they considered 1998 was the hottest year in the US, Steve`s rural graph shows conclusively that the 1930`s was ALWAYS the hottest year, no fiddling with figures just raw data.
bobclive 
24 April 2008 at 13:16
Dr Craig Loehle says: 
August 5th, 2007 at 11:08 am 
The graphs Steve posted here are such smoking guns that I can hardly see through the smoke. To get this 
published, however, the reviewers would require “proper” adjustments, not the raw data (I’m guessing) 
It would be very important to get this out. Hope it can be.
bobclive 
24 April 2008 at 14:08
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 
Prepare for new Ice Age, says Australian scientist 
Sunspot activity has not resumed after hitting an 11-year low in March last year, raising fears that - far from warming - the globe is about to return to an Ice Age. Geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA, said pictures from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory showed there were currently no spots on the sun. 
He said the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C. "This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Dr Chapman writes in The Australian today. "If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over." 
But scientists from the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research published a report in 2006 that showed the sun had a negligible effect on climate change. The researchers wrote in the journal Nature that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07per cent over 11-year sunspot cycles, and that that was far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. 
No sun spots, 0.7C cooling in 12 months from Jan to Jan, CO2 record increase in 2007 and the suns got nothing to do with it.
bobclive 
24 April 2008 at 17:20
Peter, look at the graph on the link provided and explain to me the relationship between CO2 and temperature. 
What fun! Carbon dioxide levels shot up in 2007 -- a slightly COOLER year. 
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 19:12
Hi Sven, 
Many thanks for input on column 2 versus column 12. 
Have re-run the Hadley data with column 2 data. Not much change in overall results or conclusion, but here are the correct linear trends and changes for the various warming/cooling cycles since 1850: 
1850-1860: -0.122C/decade; -0.12C over period 
1860-1879: +0.171C/decade; +0.34C over period 
1879-1906: -0.041C/decade; -0.11C over period 
1906-1940: +0.132C/decade; +0.45C over period 
1940-1976: -0.016C/decade; -0.05C over period 
1976-1998: +0.159C/decade; +0.35C over period 
1998-2008: -0.020C/decade; -0.02C over period 
Summarizing: 
30% of warming occurred from 1860 to 1879 
39% of warming occurred from 1906 to 1940 
31% of warming occurred from 1976 to 1998 
The remaining four periods all showed slight cooling to essentially flat trends. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 19:27
Hi bobclive, 
Your CO2 / temperature curve is interesting. 
You can also compare CO2 increase over the various warming/cooling cycles (see my earlier post to Sven). This plot would look even stranger. 
1860-1879: +0.34C warming; 2 ppmv CO2 increase 
1879-1906: -0.11C cooling; 5 ppmv CO2 increase 
1906-1940: +0.45C warming; 14 ppmv CO2 increase 
1940-1976: -0.05C cooling; 25 ppmv CO2 increase 
1976-1998: +0.35C warming; 33 ppmv CO2 increase 
1998-2008: -0.02 cooling; 20 ppmv CO2 increase 
Let’s use the period 1976 to 1998 to “prove” that CO2 causes global warming (and ignore all the other periods). 
Regards, 
Max
bobclive 
24 April 2008 at 20:06
Are El Niños related to Global Warming? 
El Niños are NOT caused by global warming. Clear evidence exists from a variety of sources (including archaeological studies) that El Niños have been present for thousands, and some indicators suggest maybe millions, of years. However, it has been hypothesized that warmer global sea surface temperatures can enhance the El Niño phenomenon, and it is also true that El Niños have been more frequent and intense in recent decades. Whether El Niño occurrence changes with climate change is a major research question. 
El Ninos have occurred at a ratio of 2 - 1 since the 1970`s ( Trenberth 1997), this being the case would you not expect a rising global temperature during that period, just a thought. The biggest being 1998.
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 21:18
Hi Peter, 
When you rerun the chart with column 2 figures, be sure to use the Hadley data as published without any "five year smoothing" or other adjustments. Please just stick with the facts. 
If you do, you will see that the latest period of warming (1976 to 1998) accounts for 31% of the total warming since 1850. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
24 April 2008 at 22:35
Max, 
I still haven't received any email with your graphs. The Hadley data did show more variability in the 19th century than the data I'd used. But the point that I'm making is unchanged. You can't look at noise spikes in the data, especially those as long ago as the 19th century when the error bars on the data are much wider and pass them off as real. The values in column 2 are not necessarily the "facts", if by fact you mean the true value. They are subjected to errors which, if you'd bothered to read the background explanation to the data, are quantified in columns 3 to 11. Running a five year running average is one recognised statistical way of reducing these errors. Another way is to apply a polynomial smoothing function to the noisy results. If you don't believe me ask Stargazer. He recently posted up a graph, a good one, which utilised Hodrick-Prescott polynomial smoothing. There are advantages to both techniques but I prefer 5 year running averages mainly because they are simpler to understand. 
In any case, even if there are three approximately equal periods of warming, you still have to consider the periods of cooling in-between to calculate the total warming. 
I'll look forward to seeing your graphs. Can one of them be for the whole period of the data range 1850 to 2007 ?
Peter Martin 
24 April 2008 at 23:49
Max, 
Just to nail this point that most global warming has indeed taken place since 1975, despite your protestations to the contrary, I'll post up another graph. 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/warming2.png 
This is essentially Stargazer's graph, ( Sorry a graph originally posted up by Stargazer) from the wattsupwiththat contrarian website so it must have impeccable credentials ! 
Also, it shows that the minimum measured instrumental world temperature was around 1910, so the discussion of what happened in the nineteenth century is quite irrelevant to the question of the % degree of warming since 1975 . But even so, you can only claim that the temperature varied by more than +/- 0.1 deg C in the 19th century by cherrypicking the noise spikes.
manacker 
24 April 2008 at 23:50
Hi Peter, 
You should have the graphs. They cover the various observed warming/cooling cycles, the whole record ant the overall period used by IPCC in 2007 SPM. 
"Unreliable data" are all the data that exist. IPCC has used these same data to make their case for AGW. 
The 0.74C warming from 1906 to 2005 is based on these data. 
Larger "error bars" in the early years, UHI distortion in the later record, etc., etc., these are he facts of life. 
These are the data that exist and they tell us the story that they tell us. 
Of course, if we do not like the story, we can start manipulating or "smoothing" the data to make them fit our desired story. 
But that would be cheating, wouldn't it? 
Please no "statistical" manipulations to "reduce the errors". Just run the data as they are, as I did, and you will see what the record shows. 
Then you can start rationalizing why you feel that the observed the record is incorrect. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
25 April 2008 at 00:49
Hi Peter, 
Checked the “smoothed” curve you sent, which “proves” that warming after 1975 was greater than warming before 1975. 
Wow! What a cool “cherry pick”! 
I also ran the 5-year smoothed data (working backward from 2008 to 1853) and plotted it. 
It also showed a “low point” (after some ups and downs) around 1913. 
Then I checked the smoothed points along the line. 
If I make the before/after break in 1943, it shows me 0.49C warming before 1943, 0.43C warming after. 
If I make the before/after break in 1973, it shows me 0.48C warming before 1943, 0.44C warming after. 
Just goes to show you how you can jiggle numbers to get any answer you want if you “smooth out” the raw data and then “cherry pick” the right before/after break point. 
Stick with the raw data, Peter, without smoothing, and don’t try to make arbitrary before/after comparisons to prove a point. 
Warming periods are warming periods. Cooling periods are cooling periods. The record shows these come in (so far) unexplained multidecadal cycles. 
Whether we are now in the beginning of a longer term cooling cycle is anyone’s guess. I sincerely hope this is not the case, because “global cooling” is something we definitely do NOT need. 
Let me know once you have reviewed the charts I sent you. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
25 April 2008 at 00:57
Hi Peter, 
There is a typo in the massage I just sent. 
The sentence comparing before/after with 1973 as the break point should read: 
"If I make the before/after break in 1973, it shows me 0.48C warming before 1973, 0.44C warming after. " 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
25 April 2008 at 04:13
Max, 
Yes I've received your Excel sheet and I've returned it with a few comments. 
I notice you've withdrawn from your original position of 70% to 30%. You are now saying 52% to 48%. That's closer to the right answer but you aren't quite there yet. 
I notice also that you've made it 1973 rather than 1975. Is that just a simple mistake on your part? I thought we were discussing the % of AGW after 1975? 
Also , as I said in an email to you, its rather premature to be including the figures for 2008. Don't you think? 
So maybe you'd like to have another go and this time use the last available full years figures and the figure for 1975 rather than 1973. 
You really should open up your mind to using other than simple linear regressions. In Excel there are other trendlines available which are much more applicable to the sort of graphs you've sent me.
manacker 
25 April 2008 at 04:49
Hi Peter, 
You sent me an e-mail saying you did not disagree with the Hadley data I sent you, which show the multidecadal warming/cooling cycles. Good. 
You also had some comments, which I feel should be covered for one and all to see, rather than just privately between you and me, so I am fresponding to them here on this site. 
You wrote: "Linear regressions are all very well if you know that the underlying function that you are seeking is truly linear. However to use them on every graph as you have done, even the one from 1850 to the present time is way too simplistic.” 
And: “You should really open up your mind to using other types [of] trendlines. The other ones available in Excel are polynomial and running average.” 
Tell it to IPCC, Peter. They use the linear regression for establishing overall warming from 1906 to 2005, as well as 1956 to 2005, to wit (IPCC 2007 SPM, p.5): 
“The updated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C to o.92°C] is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1900 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C]. The linear trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.” 
Sorry, Peter, forget that one. IPCC uses “linear trend”. This is a “waffle” to avoid facing the real issue here. 
You also wrote: “Year 2008. Its a bit early to be including this in your data set. I've removed it from the version I'm returning to you.” 
Sorry, Peter we have one quarter of data. Why “cherry pick” it out? 
You pointed out that “warming after 1975” can be shown (with “smoothed data”) to have been larger than “warming before 1975”. 
With exactly the same “smoothed data”, I showed you that “warming after 1945” can be shown to have been less than “warming prior to 1945”. So what? This is a silly argument that just points out the absurdity of “smoothing data” and “cherry picking” break points to prove a point. 
Peter, you have evaded the basic issue here, namely that the Hadley record clearly shows that we have had multidecadal fluctuations in temperature since the record started. Some of these were steeper, some less steep than the latest warming cycle, which essentially ended in 1998. 
Those are the facts, Peter. 
You have been unable to refute these facts. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
25 April 2008 at 06:10
Max, 
I did say that I didn't disagree with the raw data that you sent. Your excel graphs were OK but you need to learn how to make them a bit more intelligable. I'd only give you 5/10 for visual presentation. The graph for 1850 to 2007 was way too small and you needed to edit the text font size like I showed you in the extra page I added. 
This time next year I'll let you use the figures for 2008, But I have to mark you down for giving all your weighting for two or three months of recent data and totally ignoring the data for previous years. 
You need to learn how to incorporate error bars in your graphs and appreciate that three places of decimals doesn't mean 0.1% accuracy. 
What was most disappointing though was having set the ground rules you couldn't even manage to stick to them and do some basic arithmetic. 
So I've decided to give you the full answer which you might want to copy into your exercise book: 
I'll just list some of your figures (in deg C): 
2007 0.404 
1975 -0.134 
1909 -0.564 
1862 -0.616 
You'd have to be a little simple minded to think that the last two figures , and especially the 1862 value, were anything other than a noise spikes but as you've ruled out using any smoothing lets just stick with them for now. I have chosen the minimum values to help you with your case as much as possible. 
0.404-(-0.134) = 0.538 deg C (warming after 1975) 
-0.134 - (-0.616) = 0.482 deg C (warming before 1975) 
As I've said, the -0.616 figure is a noise spike and the true figure for warming after 1975 would be higher than the 53 % value calculated in this worked answer. 
You make a valid point that the IPCC may share your over liking for linear regressions. It is a common failing. People lose fortunes on the stock market when they simply draw the best straight line they can manage through a set of noisy data and take the results too literally. So I'll give you an extra mark for this observation. 
But overall I did think you could have done better and can only score you 4/10.
manacker 
25 April 2008 at 06:46
Hi Peter, 
Thanks for your recent doubletalk. 
With all your blah-blah you have been unable to refute the facts (as shown by the Hadley record) that: 
There have been several multidecadal cycles of warming/cooling over the past 150+ years that have nothing to do with AGW. 
Warming in the last few decades of the 20th century has not been unusually more rapid than in earlier cycles. 
Warming has essentially stopped (for now) since around 1998 despite continued increase in atmospheric CO2. 
Those are the facts, Peter, like it or not. 
So I score you a 0/3. 
Sorry, Peter. 
Game over. 
You lose. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
25 April 2008 at 07:55
Well we'll see who's wrong in the next few years. I thought that you might be emailing me about the bet. Have you gone cool (sorry about the pun) on that? 
Stargazer may be right. Maybe you should listen to him. Mind you I've read elsewhere that Solar Cycle 24 is going to be a dud , but now he's saying that it's Solar Cycle 25 which is going to be the damp squib. Maybe he'd like to tell us more. 
I just know that we are at a solar cycle minimum and in the grip of a strong La Nina. Both are cooling factors. Now sometime in the next few years the solar cycle will pick up and we'll have El Nino back. That's why I'm confident in predicting warmer temperatures to come. Not this year, though.
stargazer 
25 April 2008 at 08:47
I cant be doing with repeating what I have said about cycles 24 -25 look up my posts on both threads.... they are all consistent with each other. 
As to being in the grip of a EL Nino and a low solar cycle. I attest that these are indeed connected along with the PDO. As to how exactly they are, I don't know and no-one else does ether. It might be via cosmic rays it might be UV, it might be several other things. Something causes the to climate change between warm and cold and back again and its not C02.
Black Wallaby 
25 April 2008 at 09:34
It’s unfortunate that there does not seem to be a way of posting graphics here, because the above exchanges were reduced to a quagmire of data. 
By coincidence, I have been discussing something similar @ 
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329#comment20 
That post, (#20) refers to the first graph in the lead article. If you can find time to click the link, and check it out, maybe this helps. 
BTW, where did the 5-year smoothing come from on this thread? Does it have the same arbitrary basis as the 20-year smoothing employed by Hadley. What code was used to cover the last half-cycle of smoothing? It’s amazing what you can do with statistics and nicely coloured graphical representations!!! 
Oh, and have you noticed that after the high spike in 1998, there were two LOW years, and, when including down spikes, such spikes are typically followed by similar reversals. Could it be that the last decade is TYPICAL of the start of recovery from previous warming cycles of around 20 -30 years? Pure conjecture of course, but interesting, do you agree? 
Ain’t nature wonderful! 
Oh, and another Oh….Why the referenced graph is selected, CRU, ending in 2005, I don’t know, but it does help justify the alleged trend shown.
Black Wallaby 
25 April 2008 at 14:12
To further clarify my point above, there is a PICTURE to LOOK AT, and some explanations in my post #20, that hopefully could make the picture clearer for Peter Martin if he would actually study the wiggly black line in isolation, without preconcieved notions. 
However, a word of caution, the smoothing filter is an arbitrary selection, not described to me in this case, and different sources may make different choices. 
Nothing is simple in this game!!!!!!
Peter Martin 
25 April 2008 at 14:51
One way of posting graphics on to this forum is to sign up with flickr 
The you can upload an image and link to it in the usual way: 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2163/2440243665_63416a6212_o....
Brute 
25 April 2008 at 15:18
Apr 24, 2008 
Prophecy all washed up 
By Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun 
RAIN sure is falling this week on the parade of our global warming alarmists. Wettest of all is Tim Flannery, who was made Australian of the Year last year for wailing the world was doomed. We were making the planet heat so fast with our filthy gases, Flannery insisted, that the ice caps were vanishing and we had to “picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof”. 
No scare seemed too absurd for this Alarmist of the Year. “I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis,” he groaned. But buy his The Weather Makers before you flee. Reporters solemnly reported even this: “He (Flannery) also predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney’s dams dry in just two years.” And when did he say that? Oh, three years ago? Yet what do I read in my papers yesterday but this: “Sydney’s run of rainy days in a row - 11 - is the most in April for 77 years.” And Sydney’s dams? Above 65 per cent capacity now, and rising. How embarrassing for Flannery and others in the scary weather business. No wonder the NSW Bureau of Meteorology yesterday complained “the rain was getting people down”. 
I bet. So it was probably no surprise Flannery didn’t turn up at the Rudd Government’s ideas summit last weekend to talk more about how warming was dooming Sydney, despite being issued a gold-edged invitation. He flew to Canada instead to tell their yokels to cut gases like the ones he just blew out the back of his jet, and talked warming with British Columbia’s Premier and businessmen. But once again Flannery picked the wrong time and place to preach his warming gospel. A local paper reports: “In some regions of usually balmy British Columbia, many were caught by surprise by a storm that moved in late Friday and set snowfall records in Nanaimo, Victoria and Vancouver.” How the weather mocks Flannery. He’s flooded in Sydney, where he predicted drought, and snowed in in Canada when he predicted heat. Read more here.
Brute 
25 April 2008 at 15:20
Apr 24, 2008 
Best Skiing Ever in North America 
By Bill Steffen on WOOD-TV Blog 
Across almost all of North America, this has been the best, or one of the best seasons ever for those who love snow. Practically every ski area from Alaska across Canada in the Western U.S. - the Midwest and New England saw plenty of snow; some places reporting all-time record snow. Michael Berry, President of the National Ski Areas Assn. told the AP that “This could very well be a record year”. Pictured is the Brundage Ski Area in Idaho. They just received another 10 inches of snow and they’ll be open a THIRD bonus weekend into early May. This is the first time they have ever had lift service into May. This has been their 2nd snowiest winter ever with 422” so far. 
Alyeska, Alaska has picked up 826” of snow this winter! On the summit, they still have 198” of snow on the ground. Timberline in Oregon plans on skiing through the summer on Mt. Hood. They are taking ski camp reservations for early August! They’ve had 780” of snow this winter and still have 237” of snow on the ground at the lodge, where the AM temperature is 20 degrees F. Whistler-Blackcomb in British Columbia is offering skiing into June. They’ve had 389” of snow this winter with a base of 94”. The Alta Ski Area in Utah has had 673” of snow this season. The Snowbird Resort in Utah says they’ll be open “through Memorial Day and maybe beyond!”. 
Aspen Highlands in Colorado reports over 400” of snowfall since Nov. 30 (the state of Colorado reported over 25% more snow than average this winter. They are expecting the most runoff from snowmelt in the Colorado River Basin in at least 10 years. The Killington Ski Area in Vermont reported a whopping 282” of snow this winter. Last year and this year were the best back-to-back years for snow there since 1995-97. You may have heard that because of global warming we weren’t going to have any more snow. I can tell you as a meteorologist, first, that ain’t happenin’ now, and second that there will likely be plenty of snow in the coming years for those who want to get your skis on and enjoy winter on the slopes. Oh if you haven’t had enough winter, you might want to go here. See more here.
Brute 
25 April 2008 at 15:25
More "evidence" of Global Warming.......... 
http://www.arh.noaa.gov/wmofcst.php?wmo=SXAK49PAFG&type=publ... 
http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/vernonmornin... 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/23/...
bobclive 
25 April 2008 at 16:05
El Niño, Global Warming and Global Temperature increase since the 1970`s. 
The EL Nino phenomena was referred to as the Southern Oscillation in the past, but changes in the last couple of decades have caused the frequency of El Nino to increase (now coming every two years instead of the average rate of 7 years in the past) and the La Nina phenomena has almost DISAPPEARED, which means that the southern oscillation is no longer an oscillation. The period from the late1970s to the present time is unlike any other period in history in this regard, and is of great interest to scientists. This same time period also corresponds to a RISE in global temperatures of 0.5C in the last three decades, 
There is a degree of uncertainty about what will happen to El Niño as the planet warms. The Met Office Hadley Centre Coupled4 Model (HadCM2) has suggested than an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will indeed increase the frequency and intensity of El Niños. However, the third version of that model (HadCM3) does NOT show this; it predicts LITTLE or NO change in how El Niños occur. The models can`t do both Le Nino and El Nina together. 
My question is, if the frequency of el Nino`s since the 1970`s has increased substantially, this could be another factor in the steady rise in global temperature over that period. Cause and effect, the oceans hold vastly more heat than the land areas, more El Nino`s cause more warming, especially if they occur every 2 years instead of every 7. 
Realclimate say that these are a periodic oscillation related to the oceanic distribution of tropical heat. Although a significant natural influence on interannual weather, the temperature effects of the cycle smooth out over years and decades, I say that might have been the case when they occurred about every 7 years, but not when they occur every TWO years as there is very little time for the temperature to normalise over that short period. 
Look at the two links below one is average global temps the other El Nino events, seems a good correlation to me. 
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm 
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ 
Dr. James Baker, Administrator of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), announced that since the late 1940s, there “has been warming to a depth of nearly 10,000 feet in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.” “In each ocean basin, substantial temperature changes are occurring at much deeper depths than we previously thought. 
So the oceans warmed naturally starting in 1940. 
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html
bobclive 
25 April 2008 at 16:35
Reference to La Nino post. 
Sea-surface temperatures have had two distinct warming periods over the past century; from 1920 to 1940, then a cooling period until the second warming began in the 1970s. 
In each period of warming, an increase in the ocean’s heat content preceded the observed warming of the sea-surface temperatures. The NOAA scientists concluded that it could be the result of natural variability, or anthropogenic effects, or more likely both. 
If it is anthropogenic (CO2) induced why would the oceans cool for over 35 years when CO2 was increasing over that period, there is no correlation. 
It appears CO2 does NOT drive ocean warming.
bobclive 
25 April 2008 at 16:36
Sorry meant El Nino.
bobclive 
25 April 2008 at 19:28
Comment from kenzrw 
March 24th, 2008 at 6:11 pm 
So, La Nina and El Nino contribute to global temperatures? That seems to imply that humans do not cause all of climate change, unless we also cause the winds to shift and the El Nino-La Nina cycles, doesn’t it? I know the general trend is that the global temperatures are warming, but if you look at this chart that was in the NYTimes on March 2, if you took away the El Nino and La Nina effects, the general warming trend would be much smoother and appears to be just a natural climatic warming. The record warm year of 1998 would not have occurred, for instance. Considering this, are human’s contribution to climate change less than what’s been published? Certainly we aren’t causing ALL the changes. 
Graph referred to - http://processtrends.com/images/chart_doc_nyt_temp_enso.png
manacker 
25 April 2008 at 19:56
Hi Peter, 
In your parting shot you wrote: “Well we'll see who's wrong in the next few years. I thought that you might be emailing me about the bet. Have you gone cool (sorry about the pun) on that?” 
Yes, we will have to wait to see what will happen in the next few years and, as you say, there are a lot of variables. 
As to our bet, I sent you an e-mail several days ago. Did you not receive it? 
Regards, 
Max
bobclive 
25 April 2008 at 20:41
One last post on the subject. 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Supplement_Oceans_and_Sun_an...
manacker 
25 April 2008 at 21:05
Message to bobclive 
Thanks for link to interesting D'Aleo paper. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
26 April 2008 at 04:28
The effect of La Nina and El Nino is to affect our measurements of the Earth's temperature rather than to cause an actual temperature change. 
The difference between La Nina and El Nino is in the stratification of the temperature layers in the Pacific Ocean. La Nina is the name applied to cooler waters appearing at the surface. El Nino when the warmer waters appear at the surface. 
In principle, if we were able to have large numbers of thermometers at different depths in the Pacific Ocean it wouldn't matter if we were in an El Nino or La Lina stage of the the cycle, we would be be able to measure the overall temperature accurately. However, this is not possible, our thermometers being located at or near the surface. 
If global warming were not happening, the natural effect would be to make the earth's temperature cycle at the rate of approximately 0.1 to 0.2 degrees per decade. The rate of AGW is currently estimated to be approximately 0.17 deg C per decade. 
In addition, the solar cycle is estimated to have a similar 0.1 degree C effect on an eleven year cycle. There may be , as Stargazer says , some correlation between El Nino/La Nina and the solar cycle. Neither of these phenomena are well understood. 
Nevertheless, it is is easy to see that if the ocean cycle and the solar cycle are acting together to produce a warming, or a measured warming, this will add to the warming caused by AGW to cause a temperature jump. The last time this happened was in the late nineties. On the other hand, if the two are counteracting AGW, as they have been for most of this century , temperatures will appear to be flat or even might fall slightly. 
Of course, this does not mean that the AGW problem has gone away. We only need to look at the level of Arctic sea ice which shrank to its minimum level ever recorded, in the summer of 2007, to see that.
manacker 
26 April 2008 at 07:34
Hi Peter, 
In your rationalization of why things are cooling off today you wrote: “ Of course, this does not mean that the AGW problem has gone away. We only need to look at the level of Arctic sea ice which shrank to its minimum level ever recorded, in the summer of 2007, to see that.” 
Let’s examine this statement a bit more closely. Is Arctic sea ice at an “all time low” today? If so what does “ever recorded” really mean? Does it include the 1930s or not? What about today (2008)? Has Arctic sea ice recovered again? Why pick “summer of 2007” to prove a point? And how does all this show that “the AGW problem” has not gone away? Could this all not have been caused by other factors? What evidence is there that it was caused by AGW? 
We know from the record that northern hemisphere snow cover has not receded in the past 20 years (despite AGW). 
We also know that sea ice has grown in the Antarctic. (also despite AGW) 
But let’s look at another problem being attributed to AGW: the shrinking of non-polar mountain glaciers. 
With some notable exceptions, non-polar mountain glaciers (in the northern hemisphere, at least) are (mostly) shrinking today. IPCC makes note of this in its 2007 SPM report (p.5). 
Let’s take the example of Switzerland. 
In the Swiss Alps there is only one major glacier that is advancing. 
Records show that the rest of the glaciers have been receding since around 1850. 
What is less widely known is the following: 
· The glaciers have been much smaller than they are today during historical times 
· The two most recent periods during which they were smaller than today are the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Optimum 
· These glaciers reached their maximum extent for 10,000 years in 1850, when they again started receding 
Evidence of trees and other vegetation plus, more rarely, buried signs of earlier civilization (huts, silver mines, etc.) become exposed from time to time as the glaciers are receding today, providing physical evidence for earlier warmer periods. 
Records exist of human migrations over alpine passes during medieval times. There are also written records of mines and settlements being covered up by advancing ice and snow as the MWP came to an end and was replaced by the Little Ice Age. 
So the AGW cause for receding glaciers is anything but “robust”. 
Is it any more “robust” for the Arctic sea ice, and (if so) where is the evidence? 
Sorry, Peter, your statement of direct causation is based on pure conjecture. 
But it makes a good story. 
Regards, 
Max
Black Wallaby 
26 April 2008 at 07:50
Thankyou Peter Martin for helping with: 
“One way of posting graphics on to this forum is to sign up with flickr 
The you can upload an image and link to it in the usual way: 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2163/2440243665_63416a6212_o....” 
Yes, fine, I’ll bear that in mind, but did you actually click the link I gave you, read my post #20, and compare with the graphic in the lead article? Did this picture help you in the apparent confusion you had with Max’s tabulations etc. It was intended primarily for your benefit and to place the whole thing in perspective also for quiet observers in the background…..Who knows, maybe even Mark Lynus himself may have looked, and gone….AAAH! 
Did it work for you? 
After-all, did you not complain above somewhere, when struggling with the data: A picture is worth ...... 
I can find you other picture versions if you like
Black Wallaby 
26 April 2008 at 08:14
Peter martin, in addition to Max’s post above, concerning YOUR (?) allegation of record Arctic ice melt in 2007, I paste two posts from above that maybe you overlooked. Note that Bobclive gives you a picture to look at! No confusing tables! Do you refute this stuff? 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
[1] bobclive 
23 April 2008 at 19:14 
GREENLAND GLACIER RETREAT (ILLULISAT). 
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/greenland_glacier.... 
If you look at this graph on link in detail, you can see that the retreat in the period 1929-1953 (24 years) was faster than in 1953-2003 (50 years). 
The retreat was faster around 1930-1940 than today, when Green House Gas`s were at a far lower levels. This clearly shows CO2 is not the driver and that CO2 has little influence on temperature. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
[2] Black Wallaby 
24 April 2008 at 00:45 
bobclive wrote concerning Greenland glacier retreat: 
“…The retreat was faster around 1930-1940 than today, when Green House Gas`s were at a far lower levels…” 
Well that makes sense because temperature records in the early 1900’s show that there is nothing unusual about today’s T’s in Greenland. 
Here is a brief extract from a 2004 paper by Petr Chylek, Jason E. Box and Glen Lesins 
ABSTRACT: The Greenland coastal temperatures have followed the early 20th century global warming trend. Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 °C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987. This suggests that the Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend. A considerable and rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland occurred in the 1920s when the average annual surface air temperature rose between 2 and 4 °C in less than ten years (at some stations the increase in winter temperature was as high as 6 °C). This rapid warming, at a time when the change in anthropogenic production of greenhouse gases was well below the current level, suggests a high natural variability in the regional climate…” 
Funny that Box was a lead author in the relevant chapter of the IPCC report yet there was no discussion on this rather important issue etc! 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Caution; some of your statements appear to look a bit like those coming from RealClimate.
Black Wallaby 
26 April 2008 at 08:45
Peter Martin, 
It’s hard to know where to stop, but see if you can find a “Globe” (map) of the World, and then visualize a latitudinal line, above which is embraced the Arctic regions where all this dramatic ice melt is alleged to occur. Now estimate the percentage of global surface area that actually comprises. It is really quite small, do you agree? OK, now ask yourself, what bias does that small area have on the entire global average? 
It gets even more trivial when you consider the thermodynamics. 
Since you are not a scientist, you probably do not understand thermodynamics all that well, but because of the curvature of the earth’s surface, and atmosphere, insolation (incoming sunlight) has very much less effect in the polar regions than at more moderate latitudes, and then for only about half of the year. There are many reasons for this, but you will find that alarmist fundamentalists even make-hay in this area. For instance, they claim that when the ice melts, there will be all that water absorbing all that sunlight. What they fail to mention among other things is that water has a very high albedo relative to the sun low in the sky. (In simple terms, at low incidence angle, light bounces-off like on a mirror….take a look at sunset!) 
I’m keeping it brief, but do you get the picture? 
Do you have anything to say about the SH? (Antarctica)
Black Wallaby 
26 April 2008 at 09:01
Peter Martin, 
I've just done a quick Google on "North West Passage", and you might be interested in this brief history paste: 
2. ROALD AMUNDSEN: First Navigation by Ship 
1905: In mid August, Amundsen sailed from Gjøahaven (today: Gjoa Haven, Nunavut) in the vessel Gjøa. On August 26 they encountered a ship bearing down on them from the west, and with that they were through the passage. From Amundsen's diary: 
The North West Passage was done. My boyhood dream - at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn - it was weakness in me - but I felt tears in my eyes. 'Vessel in sight' ... Vessel in sight. 
3. ST. ROCH: First West-East Crossing 
1940-1942: The St. Roch was given the task of demonstrating Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. It was ordered to sail from Vancouver to Halifax by way of the Northwest Passage. 
The St. Roch left Vancouver in June 1940 and on October 11, 1942, it docked at Halifax - the first ship to travel from the Pacific to the Atlantic via the Northwest Passage. The journey had taken almost 28 months. 
4. ST. ROCH: Northern Deep-Water Route (East-West) 
1944: The St. Roch was the first ship to travel the Northwest Passage through the northern, deep-water route and the first to sail the Passage in both directions. 
5. FRANKLIN EXPEDITION: Attempt 
1845-48: Although Sir John Franklin was on the right track, his ships, the "Terror" and the "Erebus", became frozen in the ice near King William Island. The ships disappeared and all 129 men were lost. MORE... 
AND DONT FORGET THOSE NAUGHTY VIKINGS WHOM FARMED DAIRY CATTLE AND STUFF in East and West of South Greenland for several hundred years during the MWP.
Black Wallaby 
26 April 2008 at 12:34
Peter Martin argues that record Arctic ice-melt in 2007 proves AGW. 
However, here are some short extracts pasted from a relevant NASA release, that presumably he is unaware of, in addition to those other contradictory issues above: 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007 
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-200... 
A new NASA-led study found a 23-percent loss in the extent of the Arctic's thick, year-round sea ice cover during the past two winters. This drastic reduction of perennial winter sea ice is the primary cause of this summer's fastest-ever sea ice retreat on record and subsequent smallest-ever extent of total Arctic coverage… 
…Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. 
"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said… 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
NOTES: 
1) When it says above: “fastest-ever sea ice retreat on record”, there is no mention of when records began, but in terms of ability to make such complex measurements, temporally and spatially, it may well translate to when meaningful satellite observations first became available. 
2) This un-stated dilemma can be seen in the fact that high temperatures were noted in Greenland in the early 1900’s, but little or no importance was given to assessing the overall scope of ice-melt. (Not an issue in those days) 
3) It is interesting to note, but not necessarily a direct connection, that the shift in airflow described by Nghiem, coincides with the plateau in reported global average temperatures….Just another of those what-if things in a huge minefield to contemplate. 
Ain’t nature wonderful! 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Peter, you won’t find this stuff in RealClimate or the IPCC report!
Black Wallaby 
26 April 2008 at 12:45
HEY BOBCLIVE; YOU WROTE: 
25 April 2008 at 20:41 
One last post on the subject. 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Supplement_Oceans_and_Sun_an... 
PLEASE: Don't make that your last post, if that is what you meant!
Black Wallaby 
26 April 2008 at 13:11
Peter Martin, 
Coming back to the WHOLE of your longish post above starting with: 
26 April 2008 at 04:28 
The effect of La Nina and El Nino is to affect our measurements of the Earth's temperature rather than to cause an actual temperature change... 
[and ending with] 
... Of course, this does not mean that the AGW problem has gone away. We only need to look at the level of Arctic sea ice which shrank to its minimum level ever recorded, in the summer of 2007, to see that. 
I have only commented on the concluding paragraph, because I thought that was a substantive statement. However, if I missed something else important that you were attempting to say, please let me know, but you may need to expand on it or give some references, if you want me to better understand where you were coming from.
Brute 
26 April 2008 at 14:32
Gore Ducks Questions About Food Crisis, Ethanol and Climate Alarmism 
By Noel Sheppard | April 25, 2008 - 10:28 ET 
A remarkable thing happened Thursday: a press member wanted to ask Nobel Laureate Al Gore about the growing international food crisis and how it relates to ethanol and global warming hysteria. 
Not surprisingly, the man who cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate fourteen years ago mandating the use of ethanol wasn't available, and a spokesman for his hysteria-driving Alliance for Climate Protection declined to comment. 
Isn't that convenient? 
Regardless, the good news is that press outlets continue to recognize this unholy connection, and that someone, even at the conservative New York Sun, would deign to report it (emphasis added throughout): 
The campaign against climate change could be set back by the global food crisis, as foreign populations turn against measures to use foodstuffs as substitutes for fossil fuels. [...] 
One factor being blamed for the price hikes is the use of government subsidies to promote the use of corn for ethanol production. An estimated 30% of America’s corn crop now goes to fuel, not food. 
“I don’t think anybody knows precisely how much ethanol contributes to the run-up in food prices, but the contribution is clearly substantial,” a professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, C. Ford Runge, said. A study by a Washington think tank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, indicated that between a quarter and a third of the recent hike in commodities prices is attributable to biofuels. 
Frankly, I believe this is conservative, for I doubt it includes the speculation associated with biofuels. For instance, how much of the current daily futures volume is specifically associated with investor purchases due to ethanol? Maybe more important, how much might such speculative purchases decline if ethanol was taken out of the equation? 
But I digress: 
“It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol,” Mr. Senauer, also an applied economics professor at Minnesota, said. “It’s not going to be a very good diet but that’s roughly enough to keep an adult person alive for a year.” 
Mr. Senauer said climate change advocates, such as Vice President Gore, need to distance themselves from ethanol to avoid tarnishing the effort against global warming. “Crop-based biofuels are not part of the solution. They, in fact, add to the problem. Whether Al Gore has caught up with that, somebody ought to ask him,” the professor said. “There are lots of solutions, real solutions to climate change. We need to get to those.” 
Mr. Gore was not available for an interview yesterday on the food crisis, according to his spokeswoman. A spokesman for Mr. Gore’s public campaign to address climate change, the Alliance for Climate Protection, declined to comment for this article. 
Isn't that dandy? The person that cast the deciding vote in 1994 beginning ethanol mandates, who has been traveling the world advocating biofuels, and even admitted in March 2008 to having investments in biofuel companies, wasn't available to discuss the food crisis and its relationship to ethanol. 
Maybe this is why Gore isn't allowing press members into his speeches. 
Regardless, the pressure is mounting, and as more media outlets begin seeking his opinion concerning this matter, it seems a metaphysical certitude he won't be able to hide forever. 
Stay tuned.
manacker 
26 April 2008 at 19:55
Golly, Peter, it looks like you stepped on a hornet’s nest when you attempted to trivialize the current cooling trend (despite increased CO2) with your statement below: 
“Of course, this does not mean that the AGW problem has gone away. We only need to look at the level of Arctic sea ice which shrank to its minimum level ever recorded, in the summer of 2007, to see that.” 
You’ve gotten posts from Brute, bobclive, Black Wallaby and myself all challenging you to defend the logic of this statement, and all inundating you with an avalanche of data that contradict it. 
All of those who posted challenges to you are eagerly awaiting your response. I can fully understand that this may take some time for you. 
But let’s go a step further and look at the psychology behind your insistence that the current global cooling (a) does not really exist if data are properly manipulated, or (when you lose this argument) (b) that the cooling is trivial and AGW is sure to take over again. 
I can understand why Dr. Pachauri says the current “plateau” in temperatures should not influence people into thinking that AGW is ”hogwash”. He obviously depends on a continued AGW scare for his livelihood. 
But, Peter, I am assuming you are not on the IPCC gravy train, i.e. earning money from the AGW scare, so you do not have a “horse in the race”, as Pachauri does. 
So you should actually be happy that AGW seems to have stopped. This should be good news for you, since the computer-projected disaster that appeared to be imminent (and was apparently causing you to be afraid) seems to have gone away. 
Ten years of flat global temperatures and record cold and snows all over the world this past winter and continuing into spring paint a picture that points toward an end to warming for now. 
Do you really believe that the “good news” of no further warming is only a temporary “blip” in the curve, which is sure to reverse itself with a vengeance when AGW kicks in again? 
Or are you beginning to fear an even more disastrous future with significant global cooling if AGW does not kick in? 
Or are you just stuck in your AGW paradigm and unable to see what is going, i.e. you have more faith in the virtual reality of computer models than in the real world out there? 
I am just baffled why someone who fears a computer-generated doomsday prophesy is not happy when he sees that the facts on the ground show that this prophesy was wrong. 
Can you explain this to me? 
Thanks. 
Regards, 
Max
Hollow Scene 
26 April 2008 at 20:18
Remember 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' ? Channel 4's Science Forum took off with a vengeance after it was broadcast in March 2007. There are still many global warming threads ongoing there, to which posters to this thread may be able to add valuable contributions. Visit channel4.com/science to seek it out if interested.
Peter Martin 
26 April 2008 at 23:07
Black Wallaby, 
As it happens I am a scientist. Physics, maths and electronics degree if they counts. My hackles do rise when I hear the laws of thermodynmics being invoked. It is nearly always an 'attempt to blind with science' and the word usually prefaces a statement of dubious validity. Its nearly always the second law , for some reason, but that law only applies to a closed system. As the heat in question emanates from the sun, that closed system has to fully include the sun itself. 
If you can do a full that please email me your mathematical analysis! I, and many others, would like to know how sunspots affect the earth's climate ( yes I do agree that they do) and no doubt this would 'drop-out' from your analysis. 
Mackacker, 
The point about the Arctic ice summer minimum is, primarily, that it serves as a useful benchmark. It is there for everyone to see in satellite photographs. There can be no doubt that it is real. You'd have to be seriously into conspiracy theories to believe that the results were faked, although I'm sure that there are plenty who are pretty serious about their conspiracy theories and it wouldn't stop them. There are no computer models involved, no urban heat island effects. I hope I'm not blinding anyone with science when I say that warming ice does melt it, so I would suggest that it pretty convincing evidence. 
Of course ships have struggled through the NW passage before. I can't find any record of what might be termed a 'normal' ship of having just saied through before. Watch out for it happening this summer though.
manacker 
27 April 2008 at 00:49
More good news for Peter 
Hi Peter, 
You expressed concern for Arctic sea ice. 
Here’s a link to some “good news” (for you and the polar bears) and maybe “not so good news” (for residents of Canada and the seals). 
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.htm... 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
27 April 2008 at 04:18
Even more good news for Peter 
Hi Peter, 
Back to Arctic ice, which seemed to have caused you concern. 
You’ll be pleased to know that the report I sent you shows that the Arctic sea ice has increased in thickness by 10 to 20 cm over a surface area of 2 million square kilometers as compared to last year. 
That’s 185 to 370 gigatons (billions of tons) of more ice in one year! 
And the even better news from the report is that is was still expanding as the report was written. 
Rejoice! (If you like the cold.) 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
27 April 2008 at 04:35
A question for Peter 
We know that sea water in Arctic latitudes has only around 50 to 60% of the reflectivity or "albedo" as snow or ice. 
Will the "positive feedback" from the increased "albedo" from all this new ice in the Arctic cause a "runaway" cooling? 
Do we face the danger of freezing to death? 
Whaddaya think? 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
27 April 2008 at 04:50
Sorry about the typos on the previous post. It was done in a hurry over breakfast before I had to leave. It showed it was all my own work though not copied and pasted from the Realclimate website. 
Manacker, 
AGW used to be more commonly referred to as the Greenhouse effect. Do you have greenhouses in Switzerland? If so I suggest, as your next piece of science homework, that you measure the temperature one cold night inside and outside the greenhouse. Then measure the temperature inside and outside the greenhouse when the sun comes out next day. 
The Arctic has been in a state of permanent darkness during the winter and so you might like to use your results to expain why the Arctic winter is as cold as it always has been. And why the sea ice will reform quite quickly over the Northern winter. 
So , unless you have some powers of clairvoyence I would suggest that you aren't in a position to announce any good news about Arctic ice quite yet. 
Black Wallaby, 
I thought that you might have criticised the "longish post" , as you put it, for stating the 'bleeding obvious'. I did think that I may have erred a little in that direction. However, if there is something in particular that you didn't understand, or took a particular disagreemnt with, I'd be happy to answer you on a point by point basis. 
I seems that contrarians are the most touchy about Arctic sea ice. Your usual counter arguments look even sillier than usual when you apply them to that. The 2007 minimum was caused by 'unusual winds' ? Oh come on! You must be able do better than that. How about those cosmic rays that Svenmark keeps banging on about? Isn't it possible that these have been deflected off the ionosphere. Maybe they've got a slight magnetic component which directs them towards the Northern pole, melting the summer ice, and away from the Southern pole which would explain why that may be getting slightly cooler. I'm sure that one of you lot would be capable of spinning that up into some vaguely credible pseudoscientific theory. It would at least be a bit better than 'unusual winds'.
Peter Martin 
27 April 2008 at 07:45
Black Wallaby, 
More on unusual winds. 
It is the first time that any contrarian has cited a NASA reference on this forum so I suppose you should be congratulated on that. Does this mean that you are now accepting all that NASA has to say or just the bits you like? 
You've obviously lept on this one very strange report emanating from NASA, but I doubt that their official position: that the loss of sea-ice in the Arctic is a direct consquence of rising tempertaures is unchanged.
manacker 
27 April 2008 at 07:51
Hi Peter, 
Yes, there have been many treatises that show that “greenhouse theory” is actually a misnomer, since the mechanisms at play in a greenhouse are quite different from those in the atmosphere. As a physicist, you know this. But, good try, anyway. It’s a good explanation for 5th graders. 
As for Arctic ice, it is now at levels far exceeding where it was this time last year. This means it has grown from year to year, not only seasonally as you attempt to trivialize it. 
You cited the record low last summer (as compared to previous summers) as evidence of AGW. 
I mentioned the record high this winter (as compared to previous winters) as evidence of the opposite of warming, i.e. cooling (whether this is anthropogenic or not). 
Just stick with facts, Peter, and you’ll be better off in a discussion of what is going on out there. Has nothing to do with "contrarians" (whatever that is). 
Neither of us know where the extent of Arctic ice will be next summer (as compared to last summer), but the odds are that there will be more ice than there was the previous summer and that the receding trend will have stopped or reversed itself. Just kinda makes sense, doesn’t it? 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
27 April 2008 at 08:00
Manacker, 
It's the other way around. 'Ununual winds' or AGW ( you choose whichever you prefer) have reduced the area of summer sea ice. It doesn't matter so much in winter because the Arctic is in the dark. 
This means that, in summer, there is less sunlight reflected , a lower albedo if you like, and more absorbed. This means higher , not lower, sea temperatures. 
On the question of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere the NSDIC report: 
" In many locations in recent decades, temperatures have risen while precipitation levels have remained largely the same. Satellite data have confirmed that average snow cover has decreased, especially in the spring and summer. Where snow cover is disappearing earlier in the spring, the large amounts of energy that would have melted the snow can now directly warm the soil." 
http://nsidc.org/sotc/snow_extent.html
Black Wallaby 
27 April 2008 at 08:03
Peter Martin, 
Re your apology for your 26 April 2008 at 23:07. 
I have been retired for 13 years. During my long career mostly in middle management in a large company, in a scientific discipline, mostly applied, I had to communicate with top management, and other departments like manufacturing, service, and sales etc. One of the things I learnt was that effective written communication is a skill that cannot be overemphasized. In particular that hasty missives were risky. Whenever possible, I would draft a communication, put it in a drawer, and try not to think about it until the next day. Then I would read it as if I were a dill, and be surprised how inadequate my first draft sometimes was. Sometimes a complete restructure was made, and a further review. The rigours here on blog are less important, because after-all, it is only a debate, but do you get my drift? 
May I suggest that you should not make impulsive responses over breakfast?….Think about it whilst commuting to work or during a boring meeting….not over breakfast! 
Better still, may I suggest that you Email Tech Support or whomever on this site, and request removal of your post, for the sake of your own credibility.
manacker 
27 April 2008 at 08:03
Hi Peter, 
I'm still waiting for your thoughts on the "runaway cooling" that could result from the increased albedo effect of that major increase in ice as compared to a year ago. As a phyicist, do you see a danger for us there? 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
27 April 2008 at 08:18
Hi Peter, 
Nice bit of double-talk, but you have avoided the main issue here. 
Last summer Arctic sea ice had receded as compared to previous summers, and you cited this observed fact as evidence of AGW (without providing any evidence that AGW has anything to do with the fact of reduced ice). 
This winter Arctic ice has expanded as compared to previous winters and I cited this observed fact to question your claim of continued warming (whether AGW or not). 
No further discussion is needed on this. Those are just the facts. Your claim has been invalidated by subsequent events. 
As far as NH snow cover is concerned, the facts again show that there has been no decrease in at least the past 20 years. Again, Peter, I suggest you stick with facts rather than rationalizations. 
Regards, 
Max
Black Wallaby 
27 April 2008 at 08:23
Peter Martin, you wrote: 
“ Black Wallaby, I thought that you might have criticised the "longish post" , as you put it, for stating the 'bleeding obvious'. I did think that I may have erred a little in that direction. However, if there is something in particular that you didn't understand, or took a particular disagreemnt with, I'd be happy to answer you on a point by point basis.” 
Peter! Slow down! Relax and don’t read into things, things that are not there! 
I paste what I actually said: 
I have only commented on the concluding paragraph, because I thought that was a substantive statement. However, if I missed something else important that you were attempting to say, please let me know, but you may need to expand on it or give some references, if you want me to better understand where you were coming from. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
If you want a fuller statement, I thought what you said was irrelevant waffle; and so vacuous that I was not sure if you wanted me to respond or not. It is entirely up to YOU if you want me to say something….and about what in particular!
manacker 
27 April 2008 at 08:27
Hi Peter, 
For the latest input on northern hemisphere snow cover check: 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/jan08-northe... 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
27 April 2008 at 08:57
Manacker, 
You wrote " I mentioned the {Arctic sea ice} record high this winter" 
You are letting your side down by not checking these facts. The winter sea ice was not at a record high in 2008 or indeed any time recently. 
"March 2008 monthly maximum extent was 780,000 square kilometers (301,000 square miles) greater than the past record low, set in March 2006, but 540,000 square kilometers (208,000 square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 mean." 
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ 
I suggest you take your data from some reputable organisation like the NSIDC rather than "wattsupwiththat". 
So you don't need to worry about the coming ice age quite yet. 
Mr Black Wallaby, 
Speaking of "vacuous waffle", I was wondering if you'd had any time to expand more on your point about the application of the laws of thermodynamics to allow for a better understanding of the global warming problem? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics 
Do you think that the first three will be enough or do you propose to use the Onsager reciprocal relations ?
Black Wallaby 
27 April 2008 at 12:54
Peter Martin, 
I itemise as in [1] through [4] some recent comments from you to me. (27 April 2008 at 04:50) 
“[1] I seems that contrarians are the most touchy about Arctic sea ice. 
Your usual counter arguments look even sillier than usual when you apply them to that. [2] The 2007 minimum was caused by 'unusual winds' ? Oh come on! You must be able do better than that. [3] How about those cosmic rays that Svenmark keeps banging on about? [4] Isn't it possible that these have been deflected off the ionosphere. Maybe they've got a slight magnetic component which directs them towards the Northern pole, melting the summer ice, and away from the Southern pole which would explain why that may be getting slightly cooler. I'm sure that one of you lot would be capable of spinning that up into some vaguely credible pseudoscientific theory. It would at least be a bit better than 'unusual winds'.” 
RESPONSES: 
[1] Could you elaborate on those two sentences please? I say in total sincerity; that I have no idea what you are talking about! Thus I have no idea how I could respond to your satisfaction 
[2] It is not me that reported that unexplained changed wind circulation has been causing arctic ice to drift into warmer waters and rapidly melt, particularly in 2006 & 2007, but a NASA-led team of scientists. However, to me, it seems perfectly plausible. On what basis do you accuse that NASA team of lying? Have you made any enquiries on the matter, and if so, to whom? Do you not understand the logical physics of it? 
Has RealClimate or Tamino disputed it? How do you come to YOUR conclusions, and with such astonishing rapidity? 
[3] Actually I thought Svensmark has been very subdued and quietly ignoring all the crap from RealClimate and their ilk in recent times. One could almost say: Who? Svensmark did you say?…. (I think that‘s how you spell it, not Svenmark as you wrote.) Do you have any references where he has been “banging-on about it” ? Do you know something that I don’t? I’d be very interested to check it out. I thought he was quietly waiting for results from CERN….you know; that 5-year programme involving over 50 scientists from all over the World in a huge international experiment. 
Try a Google on CERN CLOUD probably would work if you don’t believe me. If you can’t find it ask, and I will assist. 
[4] Rubbish….or is it a silly attempt at satire? Do you really claim to be a scientist?
Black Wallaby 
27 April 2008 at 14:25
Peter Martin, 
You appear to have written as a whoopsie, the following [1] in part: 
“Black Wallaby, [1] More on unusual winds. It is the first time that any contrarian has cited a NASA reference on this forum so I suppose you should be congratulated on that…” 
I was more than surprised by your claim that I was unique in this endeavour, so by employing the magic of digital search on my browser, I searched this thread for NASA to find when it coincided with a rationalist post, or as you and your ilk describe them; contrarians, sceptics, and trolls etc. 
Far from me being unique, I found the following long list of heretical posts other than mine, that referred to NASA information: 
Brute 
17 January 2008 at 00:34 
bobclive 
18 January 2008 at 15:20 
A Sceptic 
18 January 2008 at 15:57 
bobclive 
19 January 2008 at 16:18 
Brute 
19 January 2008 at 16:55 
Ecoeng 
22 January 2008 at 08:07 
Patrick Hadley 
11 February 2008 at 18:57 
bobclive 
11 March 2008 at 15:11 
bobclive 
12 March 2008 at 12:29 
bobclive 
13 March 2008 at 18:53 
bobclive 
13 March 2008 at 20:22 
bobclive 
18 March 2008 at 13:51 
Brute 
22 March 2008 at 00:45 
Robin Guenier 
27 March 2008 at 10:55 
bobclive 
28 March 2008 at 11:45 
Brute 
01 April 2008 at 00:56 
gkl 
09 April 2008 at 03:49 
stargazer 
09 April 2008 at 07:39 
Sven 
10 April 2008 at 07:07 
Brute 
15 April 2008 at 15:49 
bobclive 
22 April 2008 at 11:11 
bobclive 
24 April 2008 at 14:08 
That does not include other “lexemes” of NASA such as GISS, GFSC, Nasa, nasa, etc etc 
TIP: Peter, you claim to be a scientist! Golly, do you ever check your facts? 
May I recommend that next time you shoot from the hip that you wear steel toe-caps, with several layers of Kevlar in over-boots 
You went on to say to me: 
“[2] Does this mean that you are now accepting all that NASA has to say or just the bits you like? You've obviously lept on this one very strange report emanating from NASA, but I doubt that their official position: that the loss of sea-ice in the Arctic is a direct consquence of rising tempertaures is unchanged.” 
Hey, I’ve just noticed it’s getting late, so I’ll come back to that….. Maybe, yawn. 
TIP: Why don’t you draft your responses in a word processor, with spelling and grammar check and paste them into the blog. That way some of the things you are trying to say may be more understandable. 
BTW: There is some stuff above that you have not responded to, whilst apparently trying to introduce NEW topics. Twice now per esempio you have prompted me on the laws of thermodynamics and something else irrelevant. WHY? What has it to do with the price of cheese? 
I will come back to the things you may be trying to evade, if necessary.
Brute 
27 April 2008 at 14:43
Apr 24, 2008 
Climate Change: Cold Comes 3 Months Early to Peru and Cold Blamed for Failed Afghan Opium Crop 
Peruvian Times and Scotsman.com 
Two stories on two continents blamed climate change and global warming for damaging cold. In this story in the Peruvian Times, climate change is said too be wrecking havoc in Peru’s southern altiplano, where the arrival of freezing temperatures since March, almost three months earlier than usual, have killed more than a dozen people. The extreme cold has claimed the lives of 16 people so far in Puno, and 5,053 others are suffering from respiratory ailments, most of them children under 5, Elsa Paredes, of Puno’s Regional Health Institute, told Enlace Nacional. In Puno, rain has destroyed harvested potatoes and freezing temperatures as low as -13.5 C (8F) have destroyed more than 50% of the quinoa crops, a staple food. 
Meanwhile in this story in the Scotsman, Jerome Starkey reports the faltering British efforts to tackle Afghanistan’s poppy crop have found an unlikely ally - in the weather. Freak winter weather linked to global warming is expected to decimate parts of the country’s opium harvest. Scientists believe freezing temperatures followed by late rains and a possible drought could slash this year’s yields. Some farmers could suffer up to 50 per cent losses. The fierce cold - which claimed hundreds of lives across Afghanistan - is thought to have stopped millions of poppy seeds from germinating, while late rains and a meagre snow melt following an unusually low snowfall have stunted many of the plants that survived. One expert said: “It was too cold in some areas for the seeds to come alive. Between 30 per cent and 50 per cent of the seeds may not have germinated.” 
So you see, no matter what extreme happens, reporters are conditioned to blame global warming and you and I for the extremes. Just remember for every record broken, it is replacing another extreme in the past, recently the more distant past long before we had SUVs (even cars) and power plants.
bobclive 
27 April 2008 at 16:55
As you are all aware I believe UHI is responcable for at least half of the present warming. There are numerous studies recent and past that indicate Jones and Petersons papers iare utter rubbish. Here is one more, 
The heat is on by Daniel Boice, Ph. D. 
Researchers obtained and compared daily temperature records from the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, for the years 1946 to 1990 for San Antonio and the small surrounding towns of New Braunfels, Boerne, and Poteet. These towns were selected because all are within 25 miles of San Antonio, surrounding the city on the northeast (New Braunfels), south (Poteet), and northwest (Boerne). Temperature differences between San Antonio and these surrounding towns were measured to cancel out the effects of any long-term climatic changes that have occurred in south central Texas over the past 45 years. The study showed minimum temperatures at the San Antonio International Airport (the location of the National Weather Station) are increasing at an average rate of about 0.5 degrees Farenheit per decade relative to the nearby towns. 
Temperature comparisons indicate that San Antonio has an increasing UHI effect.4 In other words, San Antonio is hot, and it's getting hotter! 
IT`S THE MINIMUM TEMPERATURES THAT ARE OF IMPORTANCE AS THEY SHOW THE HEAT RETENTION IN BUILDINGS, TARMAC ETC. 
http://www.swri.edu/3pubs/ttoday/fall97/heat.htm
Robin Guenier 
27 April 2008 at 17:17
Peter: the noise, heat and dust thrown up by recent disputes have obscured a key fact arising from your debate with Max: whoever got the calculation right, you agreed that the 1860/1878 and 1906/1940 (i.e. pre significant CO2 emission) warmings, taken together, are at least as great as and probably exceed the 1976/1998 (post significant CO2) warming. So I repeat my request (made most recently on 23 April): 
“Please provide peer-reviewed scientific evidence (a) setting out unambiguously the reasons for the 1860/1878 and 1906/1940 warming periods and (b) ruling out those reasons as the cause of the 1976/1998 warming period.” 
Without such evidence, the AGW hypothesis looks tenuous. I continue to await your response. 
See: http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson600.pdf (many insightful graphs). A quote: “The 6-fold increase in hydro carbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.”
bobclive 
27 April 2008 at 17:27
Peter, See, 
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn8850.html 
No El Niño 
Until recently the biggest increases in air concentrations of carbon dioxide had always occurred during El Niño years, when tropical vegetation grows less and dried-out rainforests burn uncontrollably either through natural or manmade causes. The largest ever recorded increase, at 2.7 ppm, occurred in the El Niño year of 1998. 
But none of the past three years of near-record increases have coincided with an El Niño event. And this is causing alarm. 
If you view the link below, you will see that CO2 reduced quite markedly between years 1982 to 1983 when the second largest El Nino occurred. They appear to have forgotten 1983 in their study. 
http://unep.org/geo2000/english/0034.htm 
http://www.unep.org/Geo2000/english/0039.htm 
Here is another very interesting link to PDO, scroll down and you will see two very interesting graphs, I await your comments. 
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Levi32/comment.html?entrynu...
manacker 
27 April 2008 at 17:45
Hi Peter, 
After reading your last post, I can see the cause for your confusion. I am, however, unable to detect whether you are really confused or trying to obfuscate the issue. 
Let’s follow the sequence of our exchange. 
After losing a debate on the facts as reported in the Hadley temperature record, you said in effect that even if the record shows that warming has stopped, it really has not, citing as proof for this “Arctic sea ice which shrank to its minimum level ever recorded, in the summer of 2007” (your words). 
In other words you changed the subject from the temperature record (which has shown cooling) to something else to prove your point (to show warming). 
So I simply checked your facts. Summer 2007 was reported to be a record low, so you were right. The record did not exist back in the pre-satellite 1930s, a period during which limited data from Greenland, etc. showed less ice (and warmer temperatures) than today. But that is just the weakness of the record and not your fault. 
Then I up-dated your info to include the period since summer 2007, and found that the ice has again expanded, well beyond the amount of expansion reached during recent years. This is based on a report from NASA. 
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice_conditions_... 
So your “proof” of continued warming was invalidated by the most recent facts on the ground (actually on the sea). 
I also pointed out that northern hemisphere snow cover (this time over land) has not decreased since 1980, based on the Rutgers record, and I also cited a reference (this time from Watts) that refers to the Rutgers record. 
To your statement: “I suggest you take your data from some reputable organisation like the NSIDC rather than "wattsupwiththat", I suggest you, Peter, check the source of the Watts data: 
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/ 
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=n... 
From these reports you will glean the current extent of NH snow cover as well as the long-term record, which shows no reduction over the past 20 years. 
To your last statement: “So you don't need to worry about the coming ice age quite yet.”. 
Peter, I am not “worried” about an ice age. 
I am also not “worried” about global warming (as you appear to be). 
It looks like we are entering a cooling cycle now, but who knows? Do you? Of course you don’t. Nobody knows what will happen in the real world, no matter what the virtual world of GIGO computer models and doom-saying “climate scientists” prophesy. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
27 April 2008 at 17:50
Typo in last message. NH snow cover shows no reduction in past 20 years, i.e. since 1988 (not since 1980). 
Max
manacker 
27 April 2008 at 19:10
Hi Peter, 
You threw out some recent numbers on the increase of Arctic sea ice. 
Quoting from the February 18, 2008 report citing NASA studies regarding recent increase in Arctic sea ice: 
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.htm... 
“Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.” 
“"The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase." 
"It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday. 
“2 million square km of expansion compared to average of last 3 years and 10-20 cm thicker than last year” are the take-home messages here. 
Is there something unclear in these statements? 
Does this development in Arctic sea ice constitute “evidence” of continued AGW (as you stated)? 
The NSIDC study which you cited shows a somewhat smaller increase (the figures you quoted), but also does not support your claim that Arctic sea ice changes provide “evidence” of continued AGW. They rather show the opposite, if anything at all. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
27 April 2008 at 19:28
Message to Black Wallaby 
You listed various bloggers on this site that referred to various NAS reports in their posts. 
I felt slighted, because you did not mention me, then I saw that I had not directly cited NASA on this site. 
With my latest post to Peter Martin, I hope you will now add me to your list. 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
28 April 2008 at 00:20
As Stargazer has commented throughout this thread........ 
http://icecap.us/index.php 
Apr 27, 2008 
An Urgent Signal for a Coming Ice Age 
By Peter Harris 
When paleoclimatologists met in 1972 to discuss how and when the present warm climate would end , termination of this warm climate we call the Holocene seemed imminent and it was expected that rapid cooling would lead to the coming ice age. These ideas were based on the 1M year analogue for climate transitions first proposed by Milankovitch over 60 years ago, which has been demonstrated to show the correlation of glacial and interglacial climate with solar insolation as it is modulated by our changing distance from the sun. These data sets may be used to serve as a signal for the coming ice age. Orbital geometry was approaching similar conditions to those of the previous transitions to ice. 
But soon it was observed that global temperature was increasing and at about this time Global Climate Modeling GCM received more attention and the Milankovitch analogue was forgotten. There has been no further discussion about the coming ice age. The data below was compiled by the mathematicians Quinn, Levine et al in 1991 and Insolation values due to Precession, Obliquity and Eccentricity as well as total insolation or Solar Forcing are charted on the same time scale as Stages of Glaciation representing climate. This climate data was provided by Lisieckie and Raymo and is based on sediment proxies. The climate data shows close agreement with ice core data based on a different proxy. Produced in 1991 this chart confirms the correlation of climate transitions with insolation which is modulated by Earth position in orbit and was first proposed by Milankovitch over 60 years ago. 
See full size graph here 
In studying the analogue there is no use of a GCM which is subject to limitations and interpretation. Use of the analogue is based on simple observation of clear empirical data and the archeological record of temperature. The data and the correlation are sound. The geological record shows that the transitions are sudden, long term and extreme. All of the Milankovitch parameters for a transition are satisfied by the present orbital position. We have already seen extreme winter conditions and T appears to be declining in the short term. The decline will continue under rapidly declining insolation and the coincident effect of reduced solar activity which has also been correlated with temperature in the past. Read full opinion piece here.
bobclive 
28 April 2008 at 00:26
Here's some stuff on temperatures that might interest you. 
Since global temperature records have been kept (based on the UK's Hadley Centre), and we have been emerging from the Little Ice Age, there have been several multi-decadal cycles from warming to cooling, with an overall slight warming trend. 
Period Trend Years Increase 
1860-1879 0.196 20 0.39 
1879-1906 -0.047 27 -0.13 
1906-1940 0.161 35 0.56 
1940-1976 -0.020 36 -0.07 
1976-1998 0.175 22 0.39 
1998-2008 0.000 10 0.00 
Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade 
Increase is linear increase over period in degreesC 
Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a very slight cooling trend. 
This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken). 
This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906. 
Then came another warming trend until around 1940, followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976 (this one has been very briefly rationalized by IPCC, without any supporting evidence, as having been caused by anthropogenic aerosol emissions). 
Following this, we had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase from 1976 to 1998. 
This trend appears to have reached a "plateau" from 1998 to today, in sharp contrast to the IPCC projections from model studies, which predicted a record rate of increase of 0.2 degrees C per decade for the first two decades in the 21st century. 
The longer-term trend over all these cycles has been an increase of somewhat more than 1 degree C over the 150+ years of measurement. 
In its TAR (2001) IPCC reported an increase over the 20th century (1901-2000) of 0.6 degree C. 
If one "jiggles" the definition of the 20th century (as IPCC did in its 2007 SPM report) to replace the 1900-1906 cooling trend with an essentially flat trend from 2000 to 2006, one can show a 100-year increase of 0.74 degrees C. 
Interestingly, the highest decadal rate of increase occurred over the 20-year period from 1860 to 1879, in the "horse and buggy" days long before AGW was a problem. 
The multidecadal cycles are apparent in the record, as is the underlying warming trend over the entire period. 
Whether or not the past 10 years are the beginning of a new "flat" or cooling cycle remains to be seen. 
What is apparent, however, is: 
• that temperatures are in an overall slow rising trend 
• that there are multidecadal swings from slight cooling to warming 
• that the impacts of various "forcing" components on the global average temperature are not as simple as IPCC would have us believe 
• that the ability of climate models to predict temperature trends is limited. 
EL NINO`S 
IPCC AR4 suggest El NIno events during the last 30 years have become more frequent compared to the previous 100 years. What surprises me is that all the studies have tried to link El Nino`s to AGW. but are not interested in the almost PERFECT correlation between rising temperatures and the increase in the frequency of El Nino`s over the last 30 years, IPCC conclude that there is NO evidence to date that links an increase in ENSO with Global warming. 
Look at the graph I have posted on ENSO to temps then compare with CO2 to Temps. 
http://www.adv-geosci.net/6/95/2006/adgeo-6-95-2006.pdf
Peter Martin 
28 April 2008 at 01:26
Manacker, 
Have you heard the phrase “The lady doth protest too much, methinks!” Its from Hamlet. 
You certainly have gone to a lot of trouble to dig out all the references to NASA. NASA did have a slight problem with some of their data last year and issued a correction. Contrarians the world over loved to call that a blunder, and I think that you might find some of the references on this forum are taking to NASA to task over that. As I think you already know, I was making the point that the “unusual winds” report was the first NASA report or paper which has been referenced approvingly. If I’m wrong on that, maybe you could let me know of some other ones which you approve of. I always thought that James Hansen was something of a hate figure for you guys, but maybe you’ve started to warm to the message he’s been trying to get across for the last twenty or more years. That would be good. 
Robin, 
I know you’ve been meithering me (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Meither) with the same question for several posts now. I thought I had done my best, to answer your questions previously, but I’ll have one more go. Lets take yet another look at this graph. ( as originally posted by Stargazer) 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/warming2.png 
I’m not sure why you picked on the years 1860 to 1979 as being especially relevant. If you can accept that the spikes are just noise and therefore not real, the blue line shows approximately a +/- 0. 1 deg C variation for the 19th century. If we had the records going further back I dare say we might see similar variations. I might even be persuaded that they were of a solar origin! Krakatoa erupted in 1883 and it seems reasonable to attribute some of the cooling that occurred between then and 1909 to that. After 1909 the temperature would be expected to rise slightly, as the earth recovered. In addition CO2 emissions were starting to increase so they would have had an effect too. 
I don’t want to get involved in another sterile argument about the percentage figures. You can look at the graph and form your own opinion, but I would suggest 0.55 degrees of global warming since 1975 and 0.4 degrees between about 1909 and 1975 although the temperature did rise to 1940 and then fall slightly and remain flat during the fifties, sixties. You’ll have seen the standard explanations in terms of aerosols and even the atmospheric H bomb tests in the 50’s and 60’s have been cited as possible reasons. You can make of that what you will. 
As the world economies grew exponentially in the 20th century, CO2 emissions similarly grew in an exponential fashion. A 4% annual growth figure means a doubling every 18 years. If it keeps on growing it doubles again in the next 18 years. Just to put the situation into perspective, some of the Asian economies have been growing at more like 8% in the later part of the 20th century. So whatever the reason for the increase between 1909 and 1940, which I would suggest was a mixture of natural and anthropogenic effects, there can be little doubt that the rise since 1975 has been mainly due to anthropogenic causes. The is just no evidence to suggest that the sun has changed its characteristics significantly in the last 30 years. 
If that explanation doesn’t satisfy you, well I’m sorry, but that’s it. The internet is full of this discussion. If you have all now accepted the NASA line on AGW , that’s good and I’m sure you’ll find all the information you need on their and other similar websites.
manacker 
28 April 2008 at 01:49
Hi Peter, 
I’m afraid I can’t do much with your latest ramble starting with the Shakespeare quote and continuing with NASA, Hansen, “unusual winds”, etc. Are you sure this message was meant for me and not someone else? 
We had a long exchange on global temperatures, where I finally convinced you that the Hadley record has shown multidecadal warming/cooling cycles since the record started in 1850, with no apparent correlation with CO2. I also showed you that the most recent period (since 1998) shows a flat to slight cooling trend. 
You countered by changing the subject to Arctic sea ice, pointing out that the summer 2007 all-time low extent (since the record started with satellites) proves that AGW is still occurring. 
I pointed out to you that a more recent 2008 NASA study shows that the extent of Arctic sea ice has grown significantly, so this hardly fits your claim that Arctic sea ice developments show that AGW is still occurring. 
If you wish to discuss this topic further, OK. But do not send me blog messages that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
28 April 2008 at 02:16
Message to Peter Martin (copy to Robin Guenier) 
Sorry for cutting into your exchange with Robin Guenier, but I must admit he has a very valid point which you seem to be evading with long-winded waffles but no direct reply. 
IPCC makes the claim that the late 20th-century warming (since 1976) was caused by AGW since no other explanation fits. 
Yet IPCC says there are “uncertainties” as to what caused the early 20th-century warming (from 1906 to 1940), without going into any further detail. 
And IPCC totally ignores the end 19th-century warming cycle that occurred before there was any AGW effect. 
So it appears to me that Robin’s statement (if I understood correctly) that if the reasons for the temperature increase over these earlier periods (which together were higher than that of the latest period) cannot be established by IPCC due to “uncertainties”, then it is false logic to claim that the warming of the latest period was caused by AGW since no other explanation can be found. Could this warming not have been caused by the same “uncertainties” that caused the earlier warming cycles. 
This makes perfect sense to me. 
Did I misunderstand your question, Robin? 
Assuming that I did not misunderstand, do you have a problem with this logic, Peter? 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
28 April 2008 at 02:27
Hi Peter, 
Back again. It is really naughty of you to throw out the "stargazer" curve as proof that most warming occurred in the late 20th century. 
We have discussed the false logic of using a "levelled" curve and cherry picking break points to prove a point, and why using the raw data as published by (in this case) Hadley is the only way to make a valid comparison. 
Nice try, though. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
28 April 2008 at 02:55
Manacker, 
Well, you do seem to have got your knickers in a twist about a bit of smoothing on a graph! 
I don't want you to feel too frustrated on this question. So please feel free to try to get to the bottom of the issue if it's still bothering you. I hope you aren't going bombard us with more sets of figures and tables. I've showed you how to post up graphs using Flickr. Why don't you add your own lines and comments on Stargazer's curve, which is HadCRUT3, I've no problem with that, and we can all take a look. That has both the smoothed and raw data and you can choose the one you prefer. 
But please, once again, graphs -yes. Tables of data - No!
manacker 
28 April 2008 at 05:00
Hi Peter, 
It's OK. My issue has been resolved. And I e-mailed you the graphs of the original published data, which made it easier for you to visualize what is really going on out there, rather than having to plot the data yourself. 
And we cleared up the Arctic sea ice story, as well, so I'm OK. 
But as far as I can see, you still owe Robin an answer to his question. Seems very logical to me. You need to come up with something specific, or the whole rationale for linking the AGW theory with the observed facts gets pretty much kicked in the head as pure conjecture. 
The ball is in your court, Peter. But I'm sure you'll come up with something. 
Regards, 
Max
Black Wallaby 
28 April 2008 at 06:45
Peter Martin, instead of answering Robin Guenier‘s question properly, you came out with more vacuous waffle. 
In effect, in parallel, I have tried to illustrate much the same question twice to you, but have had no courtesy in reply. 
I repeat the latter part of my last prompt to you: 
“…but did you actually click the link I gave you, read my post #20, and compare with the graphic in the lead article? Did this picture help you in the apparent confusion you had with Max’s tabulations etc. It was intended primarily for your benefit and to place the whole thing in perspective also for quiet observers in the background…..Who knows, maybe even Mark Lynus himself may have looked, and gone….AAAH! 
Did it work for you? 
After-all, did you not complain above somewhere, when struggling with the data: A picture is worth ...... 
I can find you other picture versions if you like
Black Wallaby 
28 April 2008 at 07:13
Here is a post by Jabailo @ Gristmill somewhat related to the stuff above that you may enjoy: 
Fun With NOAA or Where Is The Warming ?!? 
Here's an interesting site...it basically lets you "play climate scientist": 
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGtsalt?mon1=1&bye1=1 ... 
and run the numbers with temperature data from 1880 to 2007. So, you can see trends and year by year deviations. 
Well, of course you want to start with the classic run of all the data: 
1880-2007 
Now according to the site it shows a trend of 0.05 centrigrade per decade. So, in a century, you would warm by half a degree. Now, that's a long way from the IPCC predictions of minimun 2C and possibly 6C or more. 
Ok, they must be seeing accelerating warming in more recent years...right? 
Well there's the classic cold spell of 1940-1970. It shows a global cooling trend of -0.04C per decade. 
1940-70 
But we're not arguing trivialities here -- we know that those three decades were "an anomaly". So lets get serious. Surely there was some extreme warming leading up to the nineties. Let's start at 1980 to get away from the nasty cooling and run it up to 1995. 
1980-1995 
We see a more rapid rate of warming -- 0.09C...per decade. So, now we're warming faster...to almost 0.9C in a century (much more than the 1/2 a degree based on the century long trend). 
But gee...still doesn't seem like much. Ok, how about those "hottest years ever". Well, certainly the temperature has been trending up over the 20th century (by 1/2 a degree)...but where's the "ooomph". 
Ok, let's try 
1995-2007 
Dam! Now we're up to 0.23C per decade. That's the 2C per century we heard about in the initial reports. But man, how did we get that high so fast. Well, let's tighten it up 
1997 -2003 
0.38C per decade! Wow...it's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes...I think...but seems funny the more I narrow it down to those few very, very hot years the bigger the trend. 
How about recent history...? 
2002-2007 
Ouch! It's getting cooler again...by -0.05C per decade. A century of this it might drop half a degree. 
Well, I don't know. But here at Grist they all rant about climate being an average over a long period of time. 
But if I take a big period of time, and especially if I de-emphasize the "weather" of 1998-2001, things start to seem a lot less dire. 
So, who's talking about the weather? The skeptics...or the IPCC? 
Texeme.Construct(Participant) 
by jabailo at 11:35 PM on 26 Apr 2008 @ 
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49#comment60
Peter Martin 
28 April 2008 at 07:34
Mr B. Wallaby, 
I think that perhaps you should let Robin speak for himself. He may well want to say exactly the same as you but, please, at least let him say it. 
You shouldn't just give me the benefit of your graphs. I'm sure that everyone reading this forum will be happy to look at them. They may have had some difficulty understanding the endless tables of data that you presented, but it would all be made much clearer, if you could just bring yourself to post a couple of graphs like I showed you on flickr.
Black Wallaby 
28 April 2008 at 08:00
Peter Martin: 
In no way am I trying to speak for Robin. I have just pointed out that you do not extend proper courtesy to both him and me. (and others) 
I have not presented any tables of data, (None, Zero), let alone endless tables. 
I have indicated that I presented a link to a graphic in an attempt to overcome YOUR difficulty with Max's tabulations. 
I don't get it! Is this a NEW form of obfuscation, by creating confusion about who said what to whom? 
I have not seen this technique from fundamentalists before!
Black Wallaby 
28 April 2008 at 08:15
Concerning what may be good NASA sources, and those that may not, I would prefer not to trust anything from GISS, as led by James Hansen. For instance, back on 30 October 2007, I made the following post, (slightly edited), over at GreenOptions. It was a fairly embarrassing question for the “Greenies” that abound there, and it was a credit to the editors that they allowed it not just as a comment, but as a LEAD ARTICLE. However, there were no responses from “greenies” to it OR to about five other lead articles of similar vein. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~’ere ‘tis: 
I remember a good while ago that the “outspoken” James Hansen, of NASA’s GISS declared something like: it was no longer necessary to exaggerate on global warming, and it was time to be more rational and science-based. However, I see in the recent link that he is still at it! 
"Research Finds That Earth’s Climate is Approaching ‘Dangerous’ Point." 
In Summary: 
It is certainly scary stuff, to learn that the West Antarctic ice sheet is vanishing so quickly! However, a rational person might dare to enquire what is happening in East Antarctica, which is not at all mentioned by Hansen. Such checking reveals that he appears to be selecting the data he likes best, to make things seem much worse than they actually are. For instance, not only is there a great deal more land-based ice in “the absent” East Antarctica, but it appears to be growing from snowfall at about double the RATE of the localized thinning that Hansen seizes upon. The EUROPEAN Space Agency provided beforehand a fuller picture, and here is a partial quote, preceding the relevant scientific papers by Davis and by Wingham: 
“The team used data from the European Space Agency’s radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, which measured changes in altitude over about 70% of Antarctica’s interior - more than 8.5 million square kilometres, roughly the same size as the United States.East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimetres per year over the time period studied, the researchers discovered. The region comprises about 75% of Antarctica’s total land area - but as its ice is thicker, it carries about 85% of the total ice volume. "It is the only large terrestrial ice body that is gaining mass rather than losing it," says Davis. In contrast, smaller West Antarctica showed an overall thinning of 0.9 centimetres per year. "It’s amazing that they can measure such small changes," says Vaughan.” 
Does anyone think that it is OK for Hansen to cherry pick and deceptively give us all "the terrors" like that? Is he not referred to as one of the leading climate SCIENTISTS in the world? 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
FURTHERMORE: 
The following figures appear variously in the blogosphere and have been attributed to NASA, however, I have yet to see the original source confirmed. 
Can anyone make an original source citation? 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/antarctic... 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/antarctic... 
If genuine, they should be an enormous embarrassment to AGW alarmists, because they show a major source of heat around West Antarctica and especially the Peninsula. It is logically linked to volcanic/tectonic activity, and of course, the Peninsula is really a continuation of the Andes mountain range. In addition to the famous active Mount Erebus, on the West Coast, which incidentally pumps lots of Chlorine high into the ozone hole, a British team recently found volcanic activity under the ice. 
Here you can see the Erebus plume still dense at around 6,000 metres, and apparently beginning to thin at top-of-frame at maybe 12,000 metres, which I think is close to the effective limits of the atmosphere at the poles. (The Earth’s rotation flattens it at the poles and spreads it towards the equator, via centrifugal force) 
See photo and the article with blog @ 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/antarctic... 
It would be nice to confirm the source of the NASA figures; what! 
Bad news for alarmists, but good news for the World!
stargazer 
28 April 2008 at 08:20
(Brute 
28 April 2008 at 00:20 
As Stargazer has commented throughout this thread........ ) 
Mmmm not quite.... I think we may be in for a 'maunder' style minimum (LIA) . I dont think we are due for 'the big one yet)
Peter Martin 
28 April 2008 at 08:24
Mr. Wallaby, 
Yes the remark about the graphs by email should have been directed at Max not you. Sorry about that. 
Nevertheless, speaking of obfuscation, your last but one posting, although I do realise that you'd copied and pasted it from somewhere else would have been better expressed in graphical form. 
It is quite easy to pick on two data points and come up with the silliest of conclusions. It is isn't particularly constructive. I would challenge both you and Max to produce your own version of the graph which Stargazer first posted, if you have a problem with it. Or the one that you've called #20. Why not just post that up yourself too? It would be simpler for us all to see what you are getting at then.
Black Wallaby 
28 April 2008 at 08:28
Re my penultimate post above: 
Sorry; two links evaporated somehow: 
Try for: 
"Research Finds That Earth’s Climate is Approaching ‘Dangerous’ Point." 
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070530/ 
The EUROPEAN Space Agency provided… 
http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=forces_n...
Black Wallaby 
28 April 2008 at 08:33
Following Peter Martins intervening errant self embarrassing nonsense, by a few minutes: 
For my 'penultimate' read 'almost penultimate'
stargazer 
28 April 2008 at 08:37
(Brute 
28 April 2008 at 00:20 
As Stargazer has commented throughout this thread........ ) 
Mmmm not quite.... I think we may be in for a 'maunder' style minimum (LIA) . I dont think we are due for 'the big one yet) 
I am going to modify what I said above....Its not impossible that if we go into a solar minimum (LIA) situation, that were it deep enough the sunlight reflected from snow and ice 'might' kick off the 'big one' 
after all we are right at the 'top' of an interglacial., and 'something' ( as in the past must push us over the edge)
Peter Martin 
28 April 2008 at 08:59
Mr Wallaby, 
There have been cooler temperatures in parts of Antarctica, but it often goes unmentioned that Chile and Argentina have had cooler temperatures too. 
Nasa have buried this information in a little known corner of their website but it is here for all to see 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ 
Just concentrate on the blue bits of the map in fig 1b. and ignore the red and brown parts. 
I think you might want to set an example on the 'proper courtesy' you recommend for others, and include Doctor Hansen's 'proper' title.
Black Wallaby 
28 April 2008 at 09:04
Peter Martin, 
I am not going to be distracted by three events of you wrongly "accusing" individuals of things said by others, and various other nonsense. I will keep reminding you of those issues that you seem to be trying to deflect from. For instance your 
Peter Martin 
28 April 2008 at 08:24 
In the latter part simply deflects from a proper response to a thrice prompted issue.
Peter Martin 
28 April 2008 at 10:44
Mr Wallaby, 
I didn't really understand what you were getting at and my suggestion was for you to clarify what you meant with totally your own posting. 
PM
bobclive 
28 April 2008 at 13:30
Tropical Trouble 1995, this might be old but it is VERY relevant. 
Two decades of Pacific warmth have fired up the globe 
Historically, El Niños recur every 3 to 7 years; the intervening periods are sometimes punctuat- 
ed by a cold spell known as La Niña. While these coolings do not follow every El Niño, temper- 
atures normally tend to see-saw above and below normal. Yet that pattern fell apart in the mid- 
1970s, when the Pacific’s equatorial thermostat stuck on warm. Since then, five El Niños have 
brewed, but only once did the ocean cool off to a certified La Niña. 
A question by Thomas J. Crowley of Texas A&M University in College Station gave Graham 
the chance to solidify his case. Crowley noted that the Pacific warming occurred at the same 
time as the major jump in global temperatures and wondered whether computer climate mod- 
els could discern any relation between the two. 
So Graham ran a series of simulations on an atmospheric general circulation model for the 
period 1970 to 1992. The model uses equations to simulate how different components of the 
atmosphere change over time. In his experiment, Graham plugged actual records of sea surface 
temperatures into the model and watched the digital atmosphere evolve in response to the ocean warming. The model contained no information about rising atmospheric concentrations 
of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. 
Despite the absence of greenhouse gas data, the modeled atmosphere warmed up. In fact, 
the computerized climate closely paralleled the actual temperature rise since the mid-1970s. “I 
just about fell out of my chair,” says Graham, who reports his results in the Feb. 3 SCIENCE 
. 
Graham is not alone in finding hints that warm tropical waters fired the recent global temperature rise. His findings dovetail with the conclusions of a modeling study conducted by Arun Kamar and his colleagues at the National Meteorological Center in Camp Springs. 
According to Graham’s modeling work, a warming of the tropical ocean can explain most of the broad precipitation and temperature changes observed globally in the last 20 years. But it fails to answer the obvious question: What warmed the tropical oceans? 
What is happening here is that this study is indicating 
that the trend of El Nino`s every 2 years since the late 1970`s is possibly the major factor in global warming. 
Lets have some feedback on this topic. 
I have split this link, 
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:HgAFQlT9zTcJ:www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/1995/147-10/14710-13.pdf 
+have+el+ninos+caused+the+warming+since+1970%60s&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=uk&client=firefox-a
bobclive 
28 April 2008 at 21:01
This study is about Shrimps, but it`s also about PDO, and a step shift which started at 1976 and ended at 1998, notice anything striking, odd that AGW appears to accelerate around 1976 and err end around 1998. 
http://seagrant.uaf.edu/nosb/papers/2006/seward-shrimps.html 
An abrupt temperature change that occurred in the mid 1970's as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifted from cold mode to its warm mode. That shift was further enhanced by a strong El Nino event. These events initiated a series of long standing ecological change that has been described as a "regime shift." During this phase of the regime shift, from 1976 – 1998, numbers of shrimps on crabs and other crustacean diminished while numbers of cods and flatfish flourished. "Regime shifts are a change in the marine ecosystem occurring inter-decadally and globally. They are induced by what is referred to as climate forcing, or increases in global temperatures or global warming. (Wright 2003) "Regime shifts can occur, for example, when changes in ocean conditions, such as warming, affect plankton production, an event that easily propagates up the food chain. Changes in ocean conditions can also affect migration patterns, growth rates, and mortality of fish species." (Cugini 2004) In this case the warming of the air and ocean temperatures has cause melting glaciers, resulting in raised sea levels and a changed salinity due to an influx of fresh water run-off. "A dramatic 'regime shift' occurred in the late 1970s, producing a major increase in temperature and a reduction in seasonal ice cover." (Alexander 2000)
manacker 
28 April 2008 at 21:34
Hi Peter, 
The question posed to you by Robin Guenier seemed fairly straightforward. 
But, in light of our long exchange on the cyclical nature of the past temperature trend, let’s see if I can rephrase it. 
1. We have established that the 150+ year Hadley record shows that temperatures have risen slightly over 1C over the entire period from 1850 to today. 
2. We have also seen that this warming occurred over several multidecadal cycles of warming and slight cooling: 
a. There were three warming cycles: 1860-1879, 1906-1940, 1976-1998 
b. There were three slight cooling cycles: 1850-1860, 1879-1906, 1998-2008 
3. We have seen that the combined linear temperature increases of the first two warming cycles was higher than that of the third, most recent, cycle. 
4. We have seen that the combined cooling of the three cooling cycles has been relatively minor, in that it has reversed only around 15% of the combined warming of the three warming cycles 
Now to IPCC: 
IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 3 (p.240) recognizes that the 20th century temperature trend showed three “sub-periods”: an early 20th-century warming, a mid-century stable or slightly cooling period, and a late-century warming period. No mention is made of the 19th century warming or cooling periods. 
It also states (p.240): “The 1976 divide is the date of a widely acknowledged ‘climate shift’ and seems to mark a time when global mean temperatures began a discernable upward trend that has been at least partly attributed to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.” “The picture prior to 1976 has essentially not changed and is therefore not repeated in detail here.” 
In Chapter 9, IPCC states: 
(p.681): “The simulations also show that it is not possible to reproduce the large 20th-century warming without anthropogenic forcing regardless of which solar or volcanic reconstruction is used, stressing the impact of human activity on the recent warming.” 
(p.685): “Climate simulations are consistent in showing that the global mean warming observed since 1970 can only be reproduced when models are forced with combinations of external forcings that include anthropogenic forcings.” 
(p.691): “Detection and attribution as well as modelling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming than recent warming.” [Again, no mention is made of the late 19th-century warming.] 
Rephrasing the above statements more simply, IPCC says: 
a. There have been two warming cycles in the 20th century [in addition the record shows that there was a third warming cycle in the late 19th century]. 
b. We don’t know what caused the warming of the early 20th-century [or the late 19th century, which we do not even mention] 
c. We are not going to discuss in detail what happened prior to 1976 
d. We know that CO2 caused the 1976/1998 warming. 
e. Why? 
f. Because nothing else explains it according to the models. 
So the question is, if IPCC cannot explain what caused the warming of the two earlier warming periods, how can it claim that the latest warming period was caused by CO2 “because nothing else explains it, according to the models”. 
Or stated otherwise: Until IPCC can explain what caused the warming of the two earlier warming periods and show evidence that this factor (or these factors) did not re-occur over the latest warming period, it cannot claim that the latest warming period was caused by CO2 “because nothing else explains it according to the models)”. 
This is very important, because it raises a very fundamental question on the robustness of the CO2 temperature causality, which is the basis for the AGW hypothesis. 
Is this the “fatal flaw” in the AGW hypothesis? 
Appreciate your comments on this, Peter. Before responding, take time to think this out thoroughly. See what hard evidence you can find to answer this fundamental question. Try to stay on topic rather than digressing to other interesting side issues. 
Regards, 
Max
Robin Guenier 
28 April 2008 at 21:35
Max & Black Wallaby: thanks for your support. But, Max, although you get to the essence of my view, I’m unaware that the IPCC has said that the 1976/1978 must be caused by AGW “since no other explanation fits”. If they did, it adds further force to my argument – set out in more detail below. Rob
Robin Guenier 
28 April 2008 at 21:38
Peter: I’m sorry you are bothered by my apparently awkward request. Yes, it’s true that I’ve put it to you several times. But, instead of answering it, you have done no more than ignore it or make vague observations (your post yesterday was an example). As I believe it’s a crucial matter, going to the heart of the AGW hypothesis, I will keep bothering you until I get a serious and precise reply. 
I suspect you understand what I am saying well enough. But, nonetheless, I will spell out the essentials again. First, I take the period from 1850 to today. I do so to avoid any suggestion of cherry picking as I understand that most informed people would regard 1850 as the date around which the Little Ice Age finally ended and the so-called “modern warming” began. Then I look at temperature changes over that 157 year period and note that it included three periods of significant warming: 1860/1879, 1906/1940 and 1976/1998. I then consider those three periods of warming in relation to the record of CO2 emissions (referring either to the graph in the IPCC’s recent report or to that based on the dataset by Marland et al dated 2003: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/global.total....), noting the marked acceleration in emissions that started around 1950. It is evident from this comparison that two of the warming periods (1860/1879 and 1906/1940) took place before the 1950 acceleration and one (1976/1998) after it. I note then that the IPCC concluded that the 1976/1998 warming was “most likely” caused by man’s CO2 emissions. As a newcomer to the AGW issue, I thought it reasonable to assume that the IPCC, in coming to that key conclusion, must have excluded whatever were the reasons for the two earlier warmings (presumably some natural climate variability). It was after all clear that they were unlikely to have been caused by man’s CO2 emissions. Therefore, I was surprised to find that, not only were they not so excluded, but that the report said little about the reasons for the earlier warmings. That struck me as extraordinary: how was it possible for the IPCC to be so sure about the CO2 basis of the most recent warming without setting out the causes of the earlier warmings and then demonstrating how those causes could be ruled out in relation to the recent warming? 
It seemed to me obvious that, even if the IPCC had bizarrely ignored this critical matter, it must have had serious scientific attention elsewhere. Hence my request: 
“Please provide peer-reviewed scientific evidence (a) setting out unambiguously the reasons for the 1860/1878 and 1906/1940 warming periods and (b) ruling out those reasons as the cause of the 1976/1998 warming period.” (In case you misunderstood, I am looking for “peer-reviewed scientific evidence”, not your opinions or suggestions.) 
If (a) such evidence doesn’t exist or (b) it does exist but is uncertain in its conclusions or (c) it is certain in its conclusions but cannot be firmly ruled out as applicable to the recent warming, it seems to me that the IPCC’s basic conclusion is suspect and probably undermined. As major policy changes are being implemented on the basis of that conclusion, this is no mere academic issue. Hence my repeated requests. 
I look forward to your response.
Robin Guenier 
28 April 2008 at 21:43
I posted the above before I saw Max's most recent post. It's interesting that, coming at the issue from slightly different perspectives, Max and I are saying essentially the same thing. 
This is IMHO most important - over to you, Peter.
Peter Martin 
28 April 2008 at 22:22
Robin and Max, 
I believe that the problem you are having with these temperatures over the period 1850 to the present day, is partly caused by your concentration on particular annual values. Even today with a worldwide network of weather stations and satellite observations it is still good statistical practice to apply some polynomial smoothing or averaging. Relying on one or two annual values from the mid 19th century does not make any sense at all. 
Partly also, you both seem very averse to plotting and posting your own graphs. I have produced several graphs which you no doubt you have found fault with in one form or another. OK , if that is the case let's see you produce your own. I really do not believe that you can sensibly analyse 150, or more, years of world temperature data in any other way than in a graphical format. 
Excel allows you to do 5 year (or whatever number you choose) averaging, or as Stagazers graph shows, you can download polynomial smoothing programs to apply to the data. You can produce plots with both the raw data and smoothing applied. Common sense is usually enough to indicate which trace is more reliable. You should also then be in a position to answer your own questions to a large extent. 
I have already said a picture tells a thousand words. So its over to you guys. lets have some graphs!
Peter Martin 
28 April 2008 at 23:10
PS As I have aready said I do not feel that there is anything special about the change in world temperatures between 1860 and 1879. The only way you can argue otherwise, is to pick out the noise spikes in the graph. Therefore I doubt if you will find any "peer reviewed" papers on the subject. 
Krakatoa erupted in 1883 so you may find soemthing on world temperatures after that. In any case, I am really not sure if the 19th century data is that reliable. There seems to be quite a disprepancy between the Hadley data as downloaded in tabular form and the HadCRUT3 data as shown in the graph Stagazer posted.
manacker 
28 April 2008 at 23:40
Hi Peter, 
You are waffling, talking about "5 year averaging", posting graphs, etc. etc., but you have not yet addressed the basic issue that both Robin and I raised. 
Did you not understand this issue? 
IPCC recognizes but cannot explain earlier warming periods. 
IPCC explains the latest period as being caused by AGW, because models show that no other explanation fits. 
How can IPCC rule out "unexplained" factors in the most recent period when they cannot identifiy these "unexplained" factors for earlier periods? 
Pretty basic, Peter. 
Just stick with the basic issue here, Peter, rather than waffling. Still waiting for a response. 
Regards, 
Max
Black Wallaby 
29 April 2008 at 00:07
Attn. Peter Martin, 
The big question, above, has been re-expressed several times by several people, and could not have been put more exquisitely from two directions by Max and Robin above. 
Your response is utter waffle. 
You evade the big question. 
I have also given the link to a graph where if you look at the black smoothed line, the second warming period is seen as greater than the recent. (with much lower CO2 levels). 
You also refuse to respond to that pictorial demo. 
You claim to be a physicist and mathematician, but are confused by tables and graphical illustrations. 
Your credibility is looking extremely poor at the moment, and I wonder if any casual readers have any support for your lone voice
Peter Martin 
29 April 2008 at 01:33
Mr Wallaby, 
I guess you haven't figured out how to use flickr yet? It is free and very quick to use. You mean this graph? 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2229/2449933305_548d82611c_o.... 
Maybe you would be good enough to clarify the nature of your question, both for my benefit and for anyone else who may be reading this. 
PM
manacker 
29 April 2008 at 04:33
Hi Peter, 
Not to distract you from finding an answer to the question posed by both Robin and myself, but you sent a cool curve with some 5-year leveled Hadley data and a neat line showing “warming before 1975” and “warming after 1975”: 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/warming2.png 
A cool cherry pick. 
Draw the line around 1940 and put in “warming before 1940” and “warming after 1940”. 
Looks different, doesn’t it? 
Just goes to show you how you can prove anything by using “5-year leveled” figures and “cherry picking” the break points for making a comparison. 
As Black Wallaby has pointed out to you regarding Hadley “interpretations” of their data, you can “prove” anything with numbers, if you manipulate them in the right way. It’s really best to stick with the raw data, hope they have not been fudged in some way and interpret them yourself, rather than let someone else tell you what they “really mean”. 
Still waiting for your answer to my earlier post. But don’t hurry and shoot something off from the hip. Do your research and gather your supporting data, so you can truly respond to the question asked with hard data rather than just personal opinions. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
29 April 2008 at 06:08
Max, 
Well correct me if i'm wrong but, we weren't talking about 1940, we were talking about the change since the mid 70's. I'd used the year 1975 and you used the year 1976. If you feel that the one year difference makes any material difference then please repost the graph with the line shifted slightly to the right. 
It may seem repetitious but can I ask why, if you don't like mine, you don't post up your own graphs? I think it was Mr Wallaby who used the phrase "...... exchanges were reduced to a quagmire of data." 
For once I do agree with Mr Wallaby!
manacker 
29 April 2008 at 07:02
Hi Peter, 
By using the "break point" 1976 for the "before/after" comparison, you put the 1940-1976 cooling period in the "before" column. 
Duh! 
Don't get off the main issue, though, Peter, with discussions about graphs and quagmire of data. You owe me and Robin a response. 
I agree that you should take your time putting this together, so you do not shoot yourself in the foot again with a hasty "shoot from the hip" response. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
29 April 2008 at 08:01
Manaker, 
Well of course you have to keep track of the cooling as well as the warming. We've had periods of cooling since 1975 too, in the early 80's and early 90's. 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/tempavs.png 
So what do you suggest we do? Add up all the positive movements and ignore the negative ones? 
I don't think I owe you anything, but if you'd like to remind me of your question again I'll see what I can do.
Robin Guenier 
29 April 2008 at 08:40
Peter: I’m weary of your attempts to obscure a simple matter. However you (or Max) plot the temperature graph for the last 150 years, it shows three periods of significant temperature increase: two occurring before 1950, around which date CO2 emissions increased markedly, and one after. Please provide peer-reviewed evidence (a) setting out unambiguously the reasons for the first two warming periods and (b) ruling out those reasons as the cause of the third warming period.
Peter Martin 
29 April 2008 at 10:00
Robin, 
I think I have already said that the so called first warming period, in the 19th century, was insignificant for two reasons. Firstly, it was very small. You have only to look at the graph that Mr Wallaby is promoting to see that it was maybe a little over 0.1 degs. Secondly the temperature later fell and reached a recorded minimum by 1910. So in that sense it was irrelevant. Krakatoa blew in 1883 and it was generally accepted that this eruption cooled down the world well into the 20th century. 
The rise from 1910 to 1940 was partly a rebound from the Krakatoa cooling, partly AGW, and I'm even prepared to accept that there may have been a solar contribution. The warming from 1975 onwards not only takes the earth's temperature higher than it has been for at least 1000 years but co-incides with a rapid increase in CO2 concentrations. Like most scientists I would suggest that the reason for the warming since 1975 is largely from anthropogenic causes. Especially as it had long been predicted that the so called GHG's of methane and CO2 were likely to have a pronounced warming effect. 
Now I'm not sure what "peer reviewed" evidence you are looking for. My peers would no doubt favourably review anything I wrote for a few free beers . ( That was meant to be a joke in case I have to explain these things to people with no sense of humour) . 
However, more seriously, I can imagine that you are going to start whingeing about me saying nothing new. And that's right, maybe I haven't. But you've asked my my opinion and I've given it to you. If you'd like anyone else's opinion,( Bob Carters, Prof Lindzen's, or Roy Spencer's maybe) I would suggest that you ask them instead.
Robin Guenier 
29 April 2008 at 13:19
Peter: I am content to use data provided by the IPCC. First, see Figure SPM.1 (page 3) in the 2007 Report of Working Group 1 – Summary for Policymakers. I refer to the inset panel in the first chart re changes in CO2 concentrations, noting that the green curve changes to a (steeper) red curve soon after 1950 – denoting much greater concentrations of CO2 after that date. Then I refer to Figure SPM.3 (page 6) (a) “Observed changes in global average surface temperatures”, noting that it shows three periods of significant warming since 1850: 1860/1879, 1906/1940 and 1976/2000. I then observe that two of those periods occurred before 1950 (when CO2 concentrations became greatly increased) and one after 1950. 
My request is that you refer me to peer-reviewed scientific evidence (a) setting out unambiguously the reasons for the first two warming periods (preferably both, but an analysis of the 1906/1940 period only might be adequate) and (b) ruling out those reasons as the cause of the third warming period. Please be clear, Peter, I am not asking for your views or observations on these matters (interesting though they may be) but am seeking to determine whether or not scientists specialising in climatology have given them full professional attention and, if so, what conclusions they have reached. You should note (see Max’s detailed post at 21:34 yesterday) that the IPCC barely touches on this – referring, for example, only to “uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming” (WG1, chapter 9). 
I’ll repeat why I consider this important. If (a) such evidence doesn’t exist or (b) it does exist but is uncertain in its conclusions or (c) it is certain in its conclusions but cannot be firmly ruled out as applicable to the recent warming, it seems to me that the IPCC’s basic conclusion is suspect and probably undermined. As major worldwide policy changes with far reaching consequences (including harm to some of the poorest people in the world) are being proposed and implemented on the basis of that conclusion, this is no mere academic issue. In other words: it is a serious matter – please treat it as such.
Black Wallaby 
29 April 2008 at 15:28
A Quickie, scuse any typos etc:: 
Robin, Max, Brute, Bob, me and other rationalists, should we not take note that we are trying to convince just ONE person of evident truths, and it is NOT WORKING with this individual. 
He will never concede anything or respond properly to issues. To ask the same question so many times and get back frogshit over and over is pointless. 
What is the point? 
What if he were to drop dead overnight? 
Would anything change? 
Perhaps we should ask if any quiet observers are taking interest, in which case it might be worthwhile, but we don't know. 
Presumably Petr martin assumes that there are no observers, because I cannot think that he could imagine that he would hold any credibility with them. 
Does Mark Lynus read this stuff; the editors, anyone? 
You'd think with over 1,000 posts they might be interested, but without their input or interst, why bother? 
Why should we argue with just one fundamentalist? 
It's really a little past my bedtime, but tomorrow, i might relate my experiences with a Christadelphian Cult that moved into the Adelaide Hills (Australia) prior to the year 2000 because they were convinced that the evil city of Adelaide would be wiped out by a tidal wave at the turn of the millennium. 
It is impossible to deal sensibly with such people! 
Believe me, I know from experience!
Robin Guenier 
29 April 2008 at 16:42
BlackW: you’re dead right of course. I’ve been debating with Peter for months (on this and the New Statesman’s earlier David Whitehouse thread) and my experience has been that he never backs down or concedes any ground. Just occasionally he’s right – but usually not, in which case he waffles, moves to another topic or ignores you. I've got to admire him really: he's got no allies left here (there were plenty when all this started back in December) yet he continues to hold his head up. I’ve gone from being irritated by him to becoming rather fond of him. 
So why continue the discussion? Well I do so because Peter provides a valuable service for me. When I first got involved, responding to some ill-informed comments about Y2K (I led the UK Government’s awareness campaign), I was an ill-informed but mild believer in the AGW hypothesis. Debating with Peter has sharpened my understanding of this important subject and turned me from believer to sceptic. And very occasionally he’s right and I’m wrong, so I learn something. I still find it helpful: being forced to defend my position here strengthens my confidence in dealing with the subject elsewhere – which I now do from time to time. Given the opportunity, I’d be delighted to buy him a drink. Cheers - Rob
JZ Smith 
29 April 2008 at 18:16
Gentlemen (and Ladies, if I misapplied gender to any of you), 
I have long followed these two forums, contributing as often as I could and when I thought I had something worthwhile to contribute. I think Max and Robin have finally, through these months of debate and reasoned argument, finally boiled this discussion down to its essence with the basic questions posted so eloquently above by Max and Robin. 
Peter, my hat is also off to you for sticking this out for so long as the (mostly) lone voice on the AGW side. I would also compliment you on your generally civil tone compared to what so many on the AGW side of the debate spew out when their ideology is questioned. 
Black Wallaby's question is a good one. What can we do with the conclusions that many of us skeptics (or sceptics, for non-Americans!) have come to with all the many data points brought forth herein by so many very smart people? We need to find a way to bring this to the mainstream, although it appears to me that the Skeptic voice is a rising one that continues to gather strength every day. For sure, the bulk of the media continue to accept as settled science the AGW argument, but there are definitely chinks and cracks developing in the armor. We skeptics, however, remain a significant minority. 
Just this past weekend I had the opportunity to debate AGW with some friends, several of which are fully in the AGW camp. As we have seen here, they have a viewpoint that humans have been harming the planet for decades, and seem to have been searching and waiting for just such thing as AGW to justify their long-held beliefs. It is so convenient that they cannot and will not hear any arguments to the contrary. 
Even if the skeptic view is eventually proven correct, as I have a strong belief it will, they will never finally put up their hands and admit that they were wrong. They will continue to fight for their global changes to remake the world and society to fit their POV. How can we who seek only truth without politics or bias win against such people? 
I don't know the answer.
Brute 
29 April 2008 at 20:31
JZ Smith, 
We need to continue to spread the word through private conversation. 
Black Wallaby, 
I hang in there for the reason that you stated in that other people are reading these posts and gleaning information that they in turn may forward to friends, coworkers and acquaintances. I also keep up with it to educate myself and it’s sort of entertaining. I also have a queer (not that way) fondness for Mr. Martin. I think his heart is in the right place; he is simply woefully misguided and closed minded. 
As I wrote over 4 months ago; I was a skeptic, albeit not fully entrenched; however, after reviewing information posted by everyone on this site and following through and conducting research on my own, I am completely of the opinion that global warming is nothing more than mass hysteria brought about by clever marketing, (total nonsense). 
If a person researches the motivation and ideology of the people/organizations behind the global warming hysteria you’ll find that they are politically and ideologically Leftists. They oppose free market solutions to this perceived problem and are attempting to insert government into our lives in the minutest detail through the conduit of “global warming” and it's a great way to raise taxes through guilt. It is clear that the majority of the people posting out of 1022 are Realists and do not buy into this nonsense. Now, I don’t know if the people posting here are a true representation of the global population or if we’re all nerdy geeks with nothing better to do, but it is quite obvious that we “Skeptics” outnumber the “Alarmists”. 
Most “laypeople” that I run into know virtually nothing about this topic other than what they have been force fed through the media which is that “mankind” and “greedy industrialist” are polluting the planet simply by existing. When I ask what they are willing to do to combat the perceived problem they quickly retreat into their SUV’s and drive to their 4,000 Square Foot homes in the distant suburbs and plan their next jet born vacation to the Caribbean…..they talk big, but don’t practice what they preach. As with Al Gore and Mr. Lynas’, they jet set around the planet spewing carbon/CO2, burning irreplaceable fossil fuels preaching to the rest of the “little people” how we must sacrifice for the sake of the planet…..charlatans. 
Recently Prince Charles and his entourage cruised the Caribbean in their 200 foot 20 million dollar yacht to promote the "cause" of climate change. (I sometimes wonder if people such as this actually believe that they are taken seriously when they display such complete and blatant hypocrisy). 
When Alarmists are confronted with facts, (particularly that global temperatures have leveled off and are trending downward while CO2 output continues to rise), they assert that even thought their theory may be incorrect, the ends justify the means and it’s all “for our own good”. How nice, how elitist; Environmentalists/minimalists/Socialists dictating to the rest of humanity what’s best for them. 
I wrote several times on this site that through E-mail, (passing along Realists information) and word of mouth, the citizenry that have been indoctrinated by the global warming Prophets of Doom can and will (as JZ Smith correctly hypothesized), be countered….God knows that they won’t get accurate unbiased information from the likes of Al Gore, Mark Lynas’, James Hansen or environmentalist kook media outlets. This forum does benefit in that it provides for a raw form of information exchange…..real information/opinion from real people, not packaged talking points from George Soros, Greenpeace, The Sierra Club (or Exxon Mobil for that matter). Raw opinion/commentary. 
Misery and apocalyptic fantasies sell…..(just take a look at Gore and Lynas’ bank books), as well as all of the “scientists” that are benefiting immensely from this fairy tale. 
Hell, even Big Oil and Detroit, the bane of the environmentalist’s existence, are cashing in on the hysteria……….good for them; there’s one born every minute. 
When they shut this site off, which should be very soon, I suggest we move over to Tony’s place @ harmlesssky.org. This is a particularly good group and I think that Tony would be most accommodating. Oh, you can come also Peter!
manacker 
29 April 2008 at 20:34
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “if you’d like to remind me of your question again, I’ll see what I can do.” 
My question to you is essentially the same as Robin has asked you repeatedly. 
I can count six posts from Robin and three from myself going back several days all asking you the same thing. 
As you appear to be suffering from short-term memory lapses, I will direct you to two of these (one each from Robin and myself): 
Robin’s post of 28 April at 21:38 
My post of 28 April at 21:34 
Robin states the question very succinctly, so rather than causing you to get wrapped around the axle in confusion over slightly nuanced differences between his query and mine (and since Robin started this whole discussion with you in the first place), please address Robin’s post. I will consider that a response to mine, as well. 
Looking forward to reading your response. 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
29 April 2008 at 23:49
CHILLING......................... 
Dr. Gray: Warming Not Behind Hurricane Activity 
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/6/220303... 
HURRICANE EXPERT: SCHOOL SILENCING ME OVER GLOBAL-WARMING VIEWS 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353023,00.html
Peter Martin 
30 April 2008 at 00:15
Robin and Max, 
I guess what you are saying is that the warming of the first half of the 20th century may have been nothing to do with CO2 emissions and if that was the case then the last quarter warming may also be independent of CO2 emissions. 
If you want "peer reviewed" , here are a couple of scientific references. 
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/ar4/wg1/faq/ar4wg1faq-9-2.pdf 
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2000/td0002.... 
There are more on the net but you may have to subscribe to the journal to get them. I think that you'll find what I said, previously, on the subject was pretty much consistent with the contents of these papers. Whether they will sway you any ore than I did - I doubt it. We are talking about a detailed analysis of what happened between 70 and 100 years ago, when data collection was limited. You can't go back in time and repeat the measurements using modern methods. 
What is more important is what is currently happening. The overwhelming consensus is that GHG in the atmosphere are the major driver of climate change or gloabal warming right now. 
That is a well worn track. Lets just take a look at CO2 emissions on their own, for a moment. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising. The earth's forests and oceans absorb about half of human CO2 emissions. This means that even if we just keep to 
the present level of CO2 emissions, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to rise. It will continue to rise for ever at the present rate. If increasing acidification of the ocean causes it to saturate then of course the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 will rise even for the same level of emissions. 
So, regardless of any argument about AGW, sooner or later, we will have to act to reduce CO2 emissions to something less than half their present level on a global scale. We should start now. It does not make any sense to delay the process just because the period of early 20th century warming may have been slightly more to do with solar variations and lack of volcanic activity, than GHG emissions.
manacker 
30 April 2008 at 01:37
Hi Peter, 
Robin may want to respond to your latest post separately, but here is my response, after having gone through the two references you cited. 
The first (IPCC Chapter 9 FAQ) provides no information at all on the early 20th-century temperature rise, except one sentence that says: “In the early part of the 20th century, global average temperature rose, during which time greenhouse gas concentrations started to rise, solar output was probably increasing and there was little volcanic activity.” 
This obviously does not address the question Robin raised, so this reference can be dismissed. 
The second reference does go a bit deeper into the early 20th-century warming period, by confirming, “Over the period 1910-1944 there is a linear trend of 0.53K per 35 years in observed global mean temperature”. [This can be compared with a linear trend of 0.35K over the 22-year late 20th-century period (1976-1998)]. 
In other words 60% of the total 20th-century linear warming occurred over the 1910-1944 period versus 40% over the somewhat shorter 1976-1998 period, confirming what Robin and I have both told you. (This does not change if you add in the essentially flat years since 1998.) 
The study computed linear trends over all possible 35-year periods over the past 900 years and concluded: “internal model variability alone is unable to explain the observed early 20th century warming” (i.e. no period came up with as much warming as this period). 
Later on the report states “there could be some contribution of solar forcing to the warming of the early 20th century, but its quantification is problematic.” And later, “Because the integrations used here do not contain interdecadal variations of volcanic or solar forcing, we can make no assessment of the potential contribution of these forcings to the warming of the early 20th century”. “ Additional experiments with solar and volcanic forcing, as well as with improved estimates of the direct and indirect effects of sulfate aerosols, will help to further constrain the causes of the early 20th century warming.” 
In other words, Peter, this report clearly states that: 
· The early 20th century warming (1910-1944) showed a linear trend of 0.53C in observed global mean temperature 
· The causes for this increase are largely due to unexplained factors 
· More studies are needed to identify these causes 
This begs the question, “if unexplained’ factors caused the early 20th century warming (of 0.53C), why could these same ‘unexplained’ factors not have caused the somewhat smaller late 20th century warming (of 0.35C), rather than anthropogenic GHGs?” 
But Robin’s questions to you are much more succinct. 
Sorry, Peter, you have not yet answered Robin’s (or my) question. Keep trying. 
Regards, 
Max 
PS Your impassioned plea for starting the process now to "act to reduce CO2 emissions to something less than half their present level on a global scale" only makes sense if one can demonstrate that the current warming has been caused by CO2. And that can only be demonstrated if one can rule out that this warming was caused by the same "unexplained factors that caused the earlier warming period. 
Got the connection?
manacker 
30 April 2008 at 03:14
Message to JZSmith 
Thanks for your post, which really gets right down to the heart of the discussion. 
The current AGW hysteria is being driven by a largely political agenda. You can read this in Peter’s last post to me, for example, where he calls for immediate action to reduce CO2 (and energy consumption) to one-half the current level on a global scale. 
By “immediate action” the politicians and bureaucrats (of the UN and elsewhere) really mean the implementation of carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes that will cost the world hundreds of billions of dollars, with those at the bottom of the pyramid bearing the brunt of the cost and a very few benefiting (individuals and companies involved in carbon trading companies, hedge funds, politicians and bureaucrats that have billions of dollars of new public funds to shuffle around, and, yes, a few climate scientists, who continue to get funding for their “climate research” projects). 
In order to justify these added costs to the public, it must be convinced. Fear is one of the most effective motivators used by politicians throughout history to gain support for an otherwise unpleasant political agenda (be it war, taxes or whatever). 
This opens the door for “agenda driven science”, where scientific reports with a specific message are being generated and communicated by the media to arouse fear in the general public. IPCC is a master at generating 1,000-page pseudo-scientific reports conveying a political message. 
Together with fear comes “guilt”, another strong motivational factor. You mentioned discussions of AGW with friends who see mankind as the destroyers of the planet. There are several treatises on why people in the affluent societies fall into this self-made trap. 
The least affluent among us (especially those who live in the poorest countries of the world) do not have this “guilt feeling”. Yet, ironically, they will be the ones who suffer the most as a result of the self-imposed guilt feelings of their more affluent neighbors. 
And finally, it is important for the politicians who want to push through these taxes that the public is instilled with a “sense of urgency”. We must act now, or it will be too late. Al Gore’s movie showing Katrina shots, Ban Ki Moon’s dire newspaper op-eds on inundation from 6-meter waves within the next 100 or even 10 years, James E. Hansen’s imminent “tipping points” from which the environment and the planet will never recover, etc. 
All of these are intended to instill a sense of urgency or even panic to act now (whatever that means). 
It is important for the politicians, etc. that want the carbon taxes implemented that this be done now rather than waiting. Time is running out for AGW. We have already had 10 years with no warming and it has gotten appreciably colder since last year. The global warming bubble may burst soon as people realize there is no more warming. 
Some diehards like the author of the lead article here will continue to delude themselves into thinking that it is still getting warmer even though the thermometers say otherwise. Others will warn us that the present cooling is just a temporary anomaly and global warming will soon come back to haunt us again with a vengeance. 
But these voices will not be able to convince the public for very long if the warming stops or even reverses itself for much longer as it has done for the past 10 years. 
IPCC chairman, Dr. Pachauri, is concerned enough about this "plateau" that he says he will investigate the reasons for it, adding that he hopes it will not cause people to think that global warming is "hogwash". 
You made the point that the skeptical voice on AGW is continuing to gather strength every day, and this is my observation, as well. 
In defining the role of the skeptic, you made a good point that we have to bring rational arguments against this hysteria to the mainstream. 
It is still somewhat “non-PC” to question that man is causing the planet to warm due to over-consumption of fossil fuels, which is essentially a bad thing. 
Just look at the apologies from “New Statesman” for the Whitehouse article, which they even dubbed as “controversial”. The response by Lynas did not get this epithet, although I found it every bit as “controversial” if not more so. 
Yes, we skeptics are probably a minority today. And we are certainly not as well organized as the AGW proponents and activists. But we are a growing minority and, as such, will become a more vociferous one as time goes on. 
The voice of reason may not be as loud or shrill as the shouts of irrational hysteria, but I am confident that it will prevail, as long as people like you and I and the many others on this and other sites are not afraid to speak out. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
30 April 2008 at 04:28
Max, 
I thought you said it was 70% now you are saying 60% ? 
Anyway when you finally figure out how to post your own graphs maybe you'll be able to show us what you really mean. 
Your line of reasoning is not sound either. Basically what you are saying is: 
Period of warming A was not, in the main, caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. 
Therefore Period of warming B was not caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 either. 
You could make the same argument one morning when waking up with a hangover after a heavy night on the town. You could say "I had a headache three weeks ago. I didn't have anything to drink then so therefore it must be caused by something else this time too". 
I don't think that we'll ever get 100% acceptance that AGW is the result of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But the burden of proof shouldn't be all one way. What proof do you guys have that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by 100 ppm, 200 ppm, 300 ppm is safe? 
If you can't prove it is safe then we shouldn't we be taking steps to minimise CO2 pollution?
manacker 
30 April 2008 at 07:17
Hi Peter, 
You are waffling again with your "hangover" analogy. Answer Robin's question. 
Your statement about "burden of proof" is downright silly. It is all one way. You claim CO2 causes warming, so prove it. Don't make an unsubstantiated claim and then ask others to prove your claim is false. 
Answer Robin's question or just admit that you can't. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
30 April 2008 at 08:00
Max , 
I have answered Robin's question. If you don't like my answer then maybe you'd like to have a go yourself. 
Your burden of proof argument is false. Mathematics has proofs. Science has evidence. There is no proof of Quantum mechanics for instance, and many people, some scientists included, argue against it. It is hard to understand, it is counter-intuitive , but gives all the right answers. 
There is a precedent to the CO2 issue with CFCs. There was no proof , in the sense that you are demanding, that CFCs damaged the ozone layer. However, there was a large body of evidence to suggest that CFCs were problematic, and that it was sensible to limit their emissions to protect the ozone layer. That looks like it is working and that the ozone layer is now on its way back. 
We could make a similar case for SO2 emissions from power stations and the problem of acid rain. Most people , not everyone, accept that taking steps to reduce SO2 emissions are a good thing. I could go on. Smoking in pubs and restaurants is another one, but you get the idea.
Brute 
30 April 2008 at 13:57
Wednesday, April 30, 2008 
RUSSIA SAYS IT HAS NO PLANS TO CAP CARBON EMISSIONS 
So put that in your pipe and smoke it! There's no way you could lean on THEM! 
Russia will not accept binding caps on its greenhouse gas emissions under a new climate regime, currently being negotiated to succeed the Kyoto Protocol after 2012, top officials said on Monday. Kyoto puts a cap on the average, annual greenhouse gas emissions from 2008-12 for some 37 industrialised countries, including Russia. But former communist countries are well within their emissions targets, which are compared to 1990 levels, because their industries and carbon emissions subsequently collapsed after they struggled to adapt to free markets. 
As a top energy producer and consumer, Russia welcomed the fact that Kyoto had not limited its carbon emissions and expected the same of any future climate deal, said Vsevolod Gavrilov, the official in charge of Russia's Kyoto obligations. "Energy must not be a barrier to our comfort. Our emerging middle class... demands lots of energy and it is our job to ensure comfortable supply," he said. 
"We don't plan to limit the use of fuel for our industries. We don't think this would be right," he said, referring to the current round of Kyoto. Asked if Russia would resist capping the use of fossil fuels, which emit the planet-warming gas carbon dioxide when burned, under a new climate deal after 2012, he said:"In the foreseeable future, this will not be our model, no." He pointed out that the United States had also declined to impose emissions caps. 
But Russia welcomed investment from other industrialised countries to help it clean up its energy and industry, saying in this way it could prevent greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. Under Kyoto, industrialised countries which are missing their emissions goals can pay for cuts elsewhere -- if that is cheaper -- getting carbon offsets in return. 
OFFSET 
Industrialised countries spent some 326 million euros last year buying such offsets from former communist countries, under Kyoto's Joint Implementation (JI) scheme. "We see (Kyoto) as a means, not as an end in itself... It is a way to get new technology for our industries," said Gavrilov. 
A key way for Russia to profit from the planned 3 billion tonnes of emission reductions will be by trapping and processing natural gas, a by-product of oil production. By 2012, Russia has called for 95 percent of its associated gas to be harnessed and sold, whereas more than 25 percent of it is currently flared, wasting 20 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. 
"Why is the flaring of gas so common? It's because of economic barriers to building infrastructure that will process it," said Mikhail Stavsky, vice president of Russia's largest oil firm, Rosneft. With the help of trading in carbon offsets, Stavsky said that the profitability of such gas harnessing will roughly double, and the return on investment in the projects will come in 7 years, compared to 17 years without Kyoto. 
Russia's gas export monopoly Gazprom will also use these mechanisms to harness the gas, said Alexander Ishkov, the head of its energy saving and environmental department. "We are expecting to cut tens of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent" by 2012, he said. 
Out of the twelve emissions-reduction projects that have applied for JI approval, several are from companies at least partly owned by Gazprom, Oleg Pluzhnikov, Gavrilov's deputy at the Economy Ministry, told Reuters. "They are keeping a low profile for now. But when they see it working, I think they will put their name behind it."
manacker 
30 April 2008 at 17:59
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “I have answered Robin's question. If you don't like my answer then maybe you'd like to have a go yourself.” 
No, Peter, you replied, but I do not see that you answered anything. 
But it is up to Robin to let you know whether or not you satisfied his query. 
You provided links to two sources. The first one barely mentioned the early 20th century warming period. 
The second one confirmed that this period resulted in 60% of the entire 20th century warming, essentially shooting down your claim (based on a “jimmied” curve) that warming after 1975 was significantly greater than warming before 1975. (So you shot yourself in the foot with that link.) 
In addition the reference you cited essentially confirmed Robin’s point that we cannot explain what caused the warming that occurred over this period (which the report defined as 1910-1944). (So you shot yourself in the second foot.). Ouch! 
All the sidestepping rhetoric about ozone, sulfur, etc. does not change the facts. 
So far you have been unable to show that the link between CO2 and warming is real, by explaining what caused earlier warming and demonstrating that whatever this was did not also cause the late 20th century warming. 
And this is truly the “fatal flaw” in the AGW hypothesis and in your argument for reducing CO2 emissions drastically. 
I have seen from earlier posts that you like quoting Shakespeare. This one is not from the bard, but gets to the point here: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again”. 
Keep trying, Peter. 
Regards. 
Max
bill s. 
30 April 2008 at 19:56
The alarmists are right about one thing: the science of AGW is pretty well settled, just not in the way they think. All the evidence points to factors other than CO2 causing any warming (end of LIA, the El Nino effect, solar radiation, maybe others); and against CO2 (during all but a small portion of the last 150 years, there was no parallel between CO2 buildup and warming trend). 
Is it possible that there really is a causal connection between CO2 buildup and warming, which was masked by other factors during most of that period (including the last several years)? Of course, but possibility isn't scientific evidence. 
Nor is expert opinion scientific evidence. If it was, Galileo would have been wrong, because his views squarely contradicted the concensus of expert opinion. 
But science is one thing, and the public policy debate is another. The skeptics do seem to be gaining ground, probably because those people who bother to look into the science for themselves often come to realize that AGW isn't science. The claims of its supporters are specifically designed to discourage people from looking behind the curtain ("The science is settled", it's too complicated for a layperson to understand, etc.). And well they should, because there's nothing substantial back there. 
But many people are just too curious to be scared away from taking a peek, and every time it happens, there's a good chance that one more person will be asking about Mr. Gore's new clothes. The "Do as I say, not as I do" jet-setters need to be working up a new scam, because AGW's days are limited. -- Bill S.
manacker 
30 April 2008 at 20:29
Bill S. writes about AGW "there's nothing substantial back there." 
And he is spot on, despite 1,000-page reports of thinly veiled political hype backed up by pseudoscientific gibberish, paid for by the world's taxpayers, and designed to frighten these same taxpayers into digging more deeply into their pockets to pay for draconian new taxes or cap and trade schemes, which will make a few already wealthy people richer at everyone else's expense. 
But he is also correct in saying that the bubble is about to burst on this scam as the thermometers out there tell a different story than the 1,000-page reports. 
Max
bobclive 
30 April 2008 at 20:51
The UHI is a major player in the past rising temps shown by the ground stations, (especially from the mid 1970`s), the Jones study was totally flawed, it is not surprising that EVERY study that includes only a single city and its surrounding RURAL sites alway shows a SUBSTANTIAL urban bias of around 0.4C., but then those researchers ACTUALLY visit the sites. 
Study this link and you may learn something. 
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/90lettnat.htm 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1502 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1492#comments 
There is strong evidence of a climate shift in the late 1970`s including an increase in solar irradiance. 
The step change in temps in the seventies fits better with the La Nina/ El Nino argument than AGW. It also explains why the last fifty years of the 20th century were wetter than the first fifty. 
The El Nino of 1998 was terminated in May 1998 (oceanic temps dropped 6 degrees in two weeks). On 12th May 1998 ALL PLANETS WERE ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE SUN - with the Earth last. See ‘Short and Longer Term planetary effects on Sun & Earth’, by Kenneth W Dickman, Energy & Environment, V17 No1 pp63-73, 2006. 
The late Theodore Landscheidt (look him up) was good at predicting ENSO`s very accurately years in advance based upon study of the gravitational effects of the major planets orbiting around the Sun’s Centre of Mass. Hence there is no need to invoke CO2 at all! 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/persisten... 
http://www.geog.uvic.ca/dept/uvtrl/pdo.pdf 
1) 1977/78 climate shift there after predominantly warm El Nino`s. 
2) Very active sun. 
3) UHI contaminating ground station temps upwards. 
The nine researchers conclude that their analysis "suggests that the 1976 transition was not unique in terms of magnitude." In addition, the recurring nature of the climate regime shifts suggests that they are natural non-anthropogenic-forced phenomena that have nothing to do with the historical increase in the air's CO2 content. This conclusion is particularly noteworthy in light of the fact that the study of [] Seidel and Lanzante (2004) suggests, in their words, that "it is reasonable to consider most of the warming during 1958-2001 to have occurred at the time of the climate 'regime shift,' modeled here at the start of 1977." Consequently, the complementary findings of these two studies do much to relieve anthropogenic CO2 emissions of responsibility for the global warming of the last fifty or more years. 
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N49/C2.php
bobclive 
30 April 2008 at 22:30
Danish anti-environmentalist author Bjorn Lomborg today received his just desserts courtesy of a fellow writer Mark Lynas who was enraged at his "dangerous and misleading" statements on crucial green issues. A pie was thrown in his face at Borders Bookshop in Oxford just after 7pm this evening. 
Lomborg's background is as a statistician, a training which has left him well-equipped to tell lies by manipulating figures in order to jump on the anti-environmentalist bandwagon says Mark Lynas. 
Well Mr Lynas, did you watch ITV news at ten and see those poor third world children eating mud patties seasoned with salt. 
Because of the actions of people like yourself who have lobbied hard to ensure bio-fuel replaces petrol and diesel in our vehicles the price of maze is now unaffordable to these people. Bio fuel is by far the main cause of the high price of maze and wheat seen today, it is also the prime culprit in the destruction of the rain forests. 
These so called environmentalists almost wrecked Yellow Stone Park, they caused hundreds of millions of deaths in the third world by instigating the ban on DDT and are now set on making another catastrophic blunder by pushing bio fuel. 
What started all this, the environmentalists half baked notion that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming. 
All Bjorn Lomborg suggests is that the billions spent on global warming could be better used alleviating the the misery in the third world, was he correct.
Black Wallaby 
30 April 2008 at 23:40
Peter Martin shoots himself in the foot again 
He wrote: 
There is a precedent to the CO2 issue with CFCs. There was no proof , in the sense that you are demanding, that CFCs damaged the ozone layer. However, there was a large body of evidence to suggest that CFCs were problematic, and that it was sensible to limit their emissions to protect the ozone layer. That looks like it is working and that the ozone layer is now on its way back. 
However, Quoting the ESA: 
Record ozone loss during 2006 over South Pole 
2 October 2006 
Ozone measurements made by ESA’s Envisat satellite have revealed the ozone loss of 40 million tonnes on 2 October 2006 has exceeded the record ozone loss of about 39 million tonnes for 2000. 
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMQBOKKKSE_index_0.html 
Also, Re: Black Wallaby 28 April 2008 at 08:15 above 
“…In addition to the famous active Mount Erebus, on the West Coast, which incidentally pumps lots of Chlorine high into the ozone hole, a British team recently found volcanic activity under the ice. 
Here you can see the Erebus plume still dense at around 6,000 metres, and apparently beginning to thin at top-of-frame at maybe 12,000 metres, which I think is close to the effective limits of the atmosphere at the poles. (The Earth’s rotation flattens it at the poles and spreads it towards the equator, via centrifugal force) 
See photo and the article with blog @ 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/antarctic... 
It would be nice to confirm the source of the NASA figures; what! 
Bad news for alarmists, but good news for the World!” 
I’ve always though it a bit odd that that most CFC’s were emitted in the NH, but the hole is in the SH! Still, Monsanto and others did well out of it! 
The purpose of my comment IS NOT TO START A NEW TOPIC, but to show that PM is full of alarmist nonsense, if I can express it calmly
Peter Martin 
30 April 2008 at 23:56
Mr Wallaby, 
You were asking me about this graph. 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2266/2455599234_68b59195ea_o.... 
I've added a few notes to it which I hope answers your questions. 
It shows pretty much the same thing as a graph I posted up previously. But if you prefere this one , that's fair enough. 
The important point that I would like to make is that you should beware of anyone, from either side of the argument, who presents an argument using claimed data points, in tables of text, rather than showing the full graphical representaion. 
It is very easy to pick out the noise spikes, which I have marked, in the graph to skew the data whichever way you choose. If you do that to the data of the 19th century you can claim , for instance that the period between 1860 and 1879 showed a high degree of warming which is clearly untrue. 
Your friend Max seems pretty much prone to this sort of mistake. Some might accuse him of deliberately trying to deceive, but I feel in a charitable mood this morning and maybe we should just give him the benefit of the doubt on this. 
It is natural that we should know more about the second period of warming in the 20th century than the first. Instruments weren't as good 70 years ago and measurements were fewer. You could also look at the warming of the 20th century as a essentially a single wraming with a period in the middle which showed a slight cooling. 
That might be a harder question to answer. What caused the cooling from 1940 onwards?
Peter Martin 
01 May 2008 at 00:49
Mr Wallaby, 
The Australian government must be full of "alarmist nonsense" too ( I presume you are from Australia). They are certainly spending your hard earned tax money producing some pretty comprehensive reports on the CFC problem. 
http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/ozone/publications/... 
I perhaps should have said that CFCs were quite long lasting in the atmosphere but according to the CSIRO they are falling at about 1% pa. We will probably have a few bad years, from time to time, for a while longer yet. 
The Australian CSIRO have lots of good stuff on global warming too. 
http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfbg.html 
It must be nice to know that your tax money isn't being wasted! 
As a matter of interest, would you say a sceptism on global warming tend to be highly correlated with sceptism on other issues such as CFCs and the Ozone Layer, Tobacco and Health, AIDS and HIV, Asbestos and Lung Cancer? Maybe there are a few more that I have missed that you could fill me in on.
Brute 
01 May 2008 at 01:32
Grain companies' profits soar as global food crisis mounts 
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/breakingnews/83971.php 
Will Media Remember Gore's 1994 Tie-breaking Vote Mandating Ethanol? 
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/will-m...
Black Wallaby 
01 May 2008 at 01:33
Peter Martin, 
I pointed out that your assertions on CFC's were "innappropriate" for various reasons. As stated I am not going to launch into a new topic because you are still obfuscating or ignoring earlier issues. 
BTW, again, I'm not going to discuss it but I'm disgusted by the response of governments etc in general to Tobacco and the other things you imagine bad of me. 
(Although as a rationalist, I wonder if second-hand tobacco smoke is all that harmfull, since the "dose", is extremely low compared with full-drawn smoke into the lungs.....I hate it though....carcinogens are usually detected at extremely high doses in animals) 
I will not discuss it!
manacker 
01 May 2008 at 01:49
Hi Peter, 
Love that cute graph you sent Black Wallaby with your “noise spike” explanation for observed facts that didn’t fit the expectations and other neat comments (designed to convey the erroneous message that late 20th century warming exceeded the early 20th century warming). 
Forget it, Peter, that’s just another red herring. The data are the data, and the linear trends are the linear trends. 
The Delworth et al report in Science (for which you sent me the link) did this a bit more scientifically than just scribbling some lines and notes on a graph when they stated: 
“Over the period 1910-1944 (which encompasses the warming of the 1920s and 1930s), there is a linear trend of 0.53K per 35 years in observed global mean temperature.” 
The Hadley record shows a linear trend of 0.35C per 22 years over the period 1976-1998, with no warming since then. 
So this figures out to a 60/40 split for the two warming periods. 
And, besides, IPCC (TAR) sort of liked the “record” year 1998 (which you dismiss as a “noise spike”): 
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/056.htm 
“The five warmest global optimally averaged years since the beginning of the record in 1861 all occurred in the 1990s with 1998 having the warmest anomaly (0.55°C). This year was significantly warmer than the second warmest year, 1995 (0.38°C), while 1999 was fourth warmest year, despite the strong La Niña event. The remarkably consistent monthly global warmth of 1998 is discussed in Karl et al. (2000).” 
But this is all beside the point. 
Still waiting for an answer to Robin’s question. But take your time and don’t rush. 
Regards, 
Max
Black Wallaby 
01 May 2008 at 01:50
Attn Peter Martin 
In response to your: 
"You were asking me about this graph. 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2266/2455599234_68b59195ea_o.... " 
This is a quickie reply: 
You are a bit screwed-up in the contexts. 
You should also try to understand some of the issues around the arbitrary smoothing techniques and different data sources and analysese. 
If it does not stop raining soon here in Melbourne NE, I will paste a series of 3, or it might be 4 of my posts from another site, which may assist you. Then might be a time to discuss your waffle above. 
I've already mentioned that you should take care to remember who said what to whom. Youve done it again! You said to Max: 
"I thought you said it was 70% now you are saying 60% ? " 
For crying out loud, it was the IPCC who said it, not Max.......You see, it sometimes depends on the source!
Black Wallaby 
01 May 2008 at 02:08
Hey Max, 
I've got to agree that Peter's explanation of "noise spikes" was rather cute. He only found four though if I understand him correctly, but I reckon there were several dozen of them which were alsmost deafening!.
Peter Martin 
01 May 2008 at 03:20
Mr Wallaby, 
If you'd used the text finder rather than "crying out loud', you would have been able to find that the 70% figure came from Max: 
"Until you can show what caused 70% of the warming since 1850 (which occurred in two distinct periods prior to 1940), you cannot conclude that, by default, AGW caused the other 30% of the warming (which occurred from 1976 to 1998 " 
Posted by Manacker, who I don't believe is part of the IPCC, 23/04/08 
And this is the sort of thing you have to do to get anywhere near these figures: 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3047/2455133547_a1e4a23d19_o.... 
I have added three 'cheat lines' based on cherry picking the noise spikes. 
Yes, you are correct there are more noise spikes to choose from, and, if you want to play the game of data manipulation, you can have a bit of fun choosing the best ones to suit your argument. 
Furthermore, having, for instance mentioned that there are three warming periods, or whatever, you conveniently forget to mention the periods of cooling in between. Don't post the whole graph up like I've done of course. That gives the whole game away ! 
You can "prove" that we are heading for the next ice age or that the global warming problem is twice as bad as it really is and have a bit of a chuckle when the counter arguments come in. You've got to be a bit unethical to really enjoy it though.
Black Wallaby 
01 May 2008 at 04:47
Attn Peter Martin 
Your memory fails you again! You said to Max: 
I thought you said it was 70% now you are saying 60% ? 
Yes, Max did say 70% somewhere, but the 60% came from the IPCC, not from Max. 
Got it? 
You cannot even recognise satire when you see it either, 
More goble gobble gobble from you!
Black Wallaby 
01 May 2008 at 04:59
Temperature Series Smoothing Part 1 
From another thread, MNG is an AGW alarmist, and my response to his: 
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49#comment59 
Is closely related to the debate with Peter Martin: (PETER PLEASE DIGEST IT) 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
It would be too tiresome to go through all of what MNG has expressed so nicely for the benefit of readers, but I'll just quickly point out one thing whilst I'm at lunch. 
The biggest problem we rationalists have with the Hadley 21 point method for trending is actually defined by Hadley in the fine print, but not mentioned by the great elaborator MNG: 
Quote, my emphasis added 
"Toward the ends of the series there are not enough points to calculate the smoothed value. For example, in order to calculate the smoothed value for 1998 we would need to know what the annual averages were for the 21-year period 1988-2008, but we only currently have annual data for the period 1988-2007. Ideally the smoothing should stop before the filter 'runs off' the end of the series, but a series that has been shortened in this way appears not to be up-to-date. 
*In order to extend the simple smoothing to the very ends of the time series it is necessary to either extend the data series, or shorten the filter. Howsoever it is done, the data near the endpoints will be treated differently to data in the middle of the series. Extending the data series can be done in a number of ways, but the method used on these pages is simply to continue the series by repeating the final value.* [sic] 
In March 2008, some diagrams were placed on this web site which showed smoothed annual series that included data for 2008. The annual value for 2008 was based on the only two months of data - January and February - that were available at the time. January and February 2008 were cooler than recent months, leading to a marked downturn towards the end of the smoothed series (Figure 2, orange line) that caused much discussion." 
In other words, in addition to the arbitrary 21 point (20-year) smoothing used by Hadley, because there is no data for the last half cycle of 10 years, they use a different arbitrary method of inventing the statistical smoothing. Just recently, they made a change to it because they did not like the outcome. 
Part 2 to follow
Black Wallaby 
01 May 2008 at 05:05
Temperature Series Smoothing Part 2 
Further to my part 1 above; we ended up showing that in a long term data set, ie 150 years, various arbitrary codes can be used quite well to filter or smooth the up and down spikes in say annual data, (noise), to give a desired type of long-term trend line. In the case of Hadley, they use an arbitrary 20 year smoothing, where for each point on the graph, the data for 10 years each side are treated with an arbitrary computer code of their selection. 
Different data sources may be treated arbitrarily differently in any combination of both parameters. A further problem of choice comes when the end of the data-set is reached, so in the case of Hadley at say end 2007, data through to end 2017 is required, which of course is impossible. No problem! We can create other code of our choice to fill-in the last ten years of unknown information! 
Again, there are various ways that this can be done, but arguably, such "statistical" treatments become of doubtful value over a short-term, and many would argue that an "eyeball" trend with a transparent ruler is as good as any fancy statistical development in that case. If you click (+Ctrl)? on the following link, which was kindly provided by MNG 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif 
It gives unsmoothed monthly data from GISS for about ten years. Blind Freddie can see, without any need to treat it statistically, that this short data span is virtually flat. However, it is possible to use arbitrary techniques in variety to show something different, including what you as an individual would PREFER to see. 
For those of you that don't like to hear good news, I can sense that your hackles are rising, but the fact is that I will next identify information in the IPCC reports of 2001 and 2007 which confirms that such CHEATING has been published quite brazenly in both peer reviewed journals and by the IPCC. 
The most obvious was the disgraced "Hockey-stick" of Mann et al 1999, somewhat exaggerated in 2001 in the TAR's in all possible corners and at podia etc. It had a 40-year smoothing, to flatten trends as much as possible. (Any greater may have raised eyebrows?). However, that aside, what I come to is that, as above, the last twenty years of absent data had to be "invented" somehow, to complete the 40-year smoothing. This is where it gets REALLY TRICKEY, because since about 1997/8, (Openly; Re: Overpeck, Hughes and also Esper), the dendro's were scratching their heads over the issue that despite temperatures going up, and forestry experiments showing that increased CO2 gives improved growth, the rate of tree-ring growth since around 1960 was reducing, sharply opposite to expected trends. This has been coined "The Divergence Problem", (unsolved), and has not had a lot of IPCC or Media discussion. (After-all, it hardly projects confidence backward for a thousand years!) 
So, the problem faced by the dendro's was that their proxy data was plunging down, opposite to the red instrumental data for a while on regular smoothing, but by doing a flip-flop on the last 20 years of data, (yet another method of data creation), we have a nice (desirous) upturn at the end. See the blue 40-year smoothing in Figure 2 in MBH99 @ 
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf ... 
I give you the actual paper link rather than IPCC 2001, because you may be surprised at some (entirely) other things in the paper, that are not common knowledge, or reflected by the IPCC 2001, if you are courageous enough to study it. 
When we come to the 4AR, 2007, WG1, there is the famous spaghetti graph, (Fig 6:10a) which includes a barely visible subdued version of the hockey stick buried in there, and a sneak preview of the gradual return of a MWP and LIA. There are a whole bunch of dendro' thingies with the same little upturn-cheat at the end, but this time they are said to have a 30-year smoothing, not 40-years. Oh well! Why not! 
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html (Go to Chapter6) 
Part 3 to follow
Black Wallaby 
01 May 2008 at 05:11
Temperature Series Smoothing Part 3 
At this point, it is worth repeating the emphasised paragraph from Part 1, describing the Hadley "data creation" for the end period of smoothing. 
*In order to extend the simple smoothing to the very ends of the time series it is necessary to either extend the data series, or shorten the filter. Howsoever it is done, the data near the endpoints will be treated differently to data in the middle of the series. Extending the data series can be done in a number of ways, but the method used on these pages is simply to continue the series by repeating the final value.* [sic] 
Notice that I added [sic]. This was because I could not really believe that they would repeat the final year ten times. If anything is to be repeated, a more neutral assumption would be to repeat the whole of the last ten-year series, but even this is a dodgy construct, with no statistical reality. Basically the Hadley team must be EXPECTING the trend to continue to climb upwards, even though the raw data does not indicate it for ten years!. 
In fact if you look at graph 1 at: 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ... 
And "eyeball" the raw data, the current period ~1980, till now, looks remarkably similar to the period ~1910 to ~1945, and two somewhat similar smaller earlier downtrends. 
Rather than tweak the data to make it look in line with their expectations, a true scientist should present the data as it is, and discuss the possibilities if he/she is surprised by it. Better still, the last ten years should not be smoothed at all! 
Looking at prior trends it is statistically arguable that ~1998 looks like ~1940 and also ~1900 and ~1880. The projection for 2008 (Green) certainly adds to this. There is actually a consideration based on data here, whereas Hadley applied an arbitrary method which supported their expectations. This worked fine when there was a high last year to duplicate, but not so "desirable" when it is a low year. (Hence they made a "correction") 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Steve McIntyre and Ross McItrick, eventually overcame Nature journal and the establishment to show that the Hockey-stick was a fraud. Also, August last year, Steve overcame resistance from GISS and forced them to make corrections to the surface temperatures for the contiguous USA, showing that 1934 was the hottest year. (roughly the time when Greenland was warmer, and not much NH sea ice). These guys are very good with data handling and stats. 
Check-out the following: 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2955 
Please read diligently! 
Part 4 to follow
Peter Martin 
01 May 2008 at 05:44
Mr Wallaby, 
I'm getting a bored with temperature graphs now. I might come back to them later. 
I was a little disappointed with your "I will not discuss it!" comment when I asked you about the other things that you might have been sceptical about like AIDS/HIV, tobacco/health etc. 
The controversy about AGW has, arguably, more to do with psychology than teperature graphs so I would defend any accusation that we were going off-topic. I tend to stick to pretty much the accepted scientific establishment line on most things, and that includes nuclear power, which I'm not at all against, providing the highest safety standards are adopted at all times. 
But I am intrigued to know more about what makes the other side tick. I hope you might reconsider your flat "no comment" answer.
Black Wallaby 
01 May 2008 at 06:23
Attn. Peter Martin, 
If you want to cop-out from trying to understand the issues in parts 1 to 4, that is up to you, but it reflects badly on your credibility. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
You also wrote: 
I was a little disappointed with your "I will not discuss it!" comment when I asked you about the other things that you might have been sceptical about like AIDS/HIV, tobacco/health etc. 
In case your mrmory has failed you again, what I said in part was: 
"...As stated I am not going to launch into a new topic because you are still obfuscating or ignoring earlier issues. 
BTW, again, I'm not going to discuss it but I'm disgusted by the response of governments etc in general to Tobacco and the other things you imagine bad of me. 
(Although as a rationalist, I wonder if second-hand tobacco smoke is all that harmfull, since the "dose", is extremely low compared with full-drawn smoke into the lungs.....I hate it though....carcinogens are usually detected at extremely high doses in animals) 
I will not discuss it! 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Is there something complicated in this that you do not understand? 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
If you stop going gobble gobble gobble, and properly address the issues above, we can then move onto new topics! 
Got it? 
BTW, again, I'm not going to discuss it but I'm disgusted by the response of governments etc in general to Tobacco and the other things you imagine bad of me. 
(Although as a rationalist, I wonder if second-hand tobacco smoke is all that harmfull, since the "dose", is extremely low compared with full-drawn smoke into the lungs.....I hate it though....carcinogens are usually detected at extremely high doses in animals) 
I will not discuss it!
manacker 
01 May 2008 at 07:42
Hi Peter, 
Just to clear up your obvious confusion as is evident in your exchange with Black Wallaby on the ridiculous "60% vs. 70%" diversion 
The report which you referenced confirmed that the periods 1910-1944 represented 60% of the total warming experienced over the entire 20th century (0.53C), with the remaining 40% occurring during the period from 1976 to 1998 (0.35C) as confirmed by Hadley. . 
On the other hand, the 70% figure includes the warming that occurred over the two periods, 1860-1879 and 1910-1944, as compared to 30% for the period 1976-1998. 
The intermittent cooling cycles (1879-1910 and 1944-1976) are excluded, as are the slight cooling periods from 1850 to 1860 and the most recent one from 1998 to 2008. In total, tthe record shows that these offset somewhere around 10 to 15% of the combined warming of the three warming cycles. 
Just the facts, Peter (even if they may be a bit inconvenient as far as the AGW hypothesis is concerned). 
Is this difficult for you to understand? 
If so, check the Hadley record. It;s there for one and all to see, and that is what it shows. 
Has this cleared up your apparent confusion on this point? 
I hope so. 
Again, rather than fogging up the issue with a 60%/70% discussion or other obfuscations, answer Robin's question. 
If you cannot, this raises serious doubts about the whole AGW hypothesis, as both Robin and I have pointed out to you. 
Regards, 
Max
Black Wallaby 
01 May 2008 at 08:22
Vacuous Gobble Gobble 
Peter Martin wrote above to me: 
Furthermore, having, for instance mentioned that there are three warming periods, or whatever, you [Black Wallaby] conveniently forget to mention the periods of cooling in between. Don't post the whole graph up like I've done of course. That gives the whole game away ! 
Wot a load of slimey slugshit! 
Should I produce a dictionary definition of 'period'? If I mention three warming periods, by definition, there must have been two other periods in between each of those three warming periods! Is it terribly complicated? 
This has been discussed so much that it is banal to suggest that we are unaware of the separating cooling periods. 
Mr Obfuscation has also referred to a graph that I linked which clearly shows the intervening cooling periods. 
What a load of old.............pardon my French! 
What is the point of talking to this fool?
Peter Martin 
01 May 2008 at 08:26
Max, 
You ask " Is this difficult for you to understand? If so, check the Hadley record. It;s there for one and all to see, and that is what it shows. 
Has this cleared up your apparent confusion on this point? " 
Well no. I'm still struggling with all these figures that you are throwing up. Maybe you have aproblem with your calculator? 
A few days ago you sent me an email with an attachment containing Hadley data which contained the following temperature anonalies in deg C: 
1910 -0.559 
1944 0.087 
1976 -0.229 
1998 0.515 
So, by my reckoning the warming from 1910 to 1944 was 0.646 deg C 
The warming from 1976 to 1998 is 0.744 deg C 
Aren't these numbers annoying! Maybe its my calculator which is at fault or perhaps the excel file got corrupted between the USA and Australia. What do you think? 
In addition your figures show that there has been a rise in temperature of 1.074 deg C between 1910 and 1998. I don't think the IPCC know that the temperature has risen as much as that in the 20th century. Will you write to tell them or shall I?
Black Wallaby 
01 May 2008 at 08:30
BTW Peter Martin, 
I echo that although Max's very eloquent summary way above, crossing with Robin's, was a great piece of very lucid prose, I would vote Robin's as being slightly more exquisite. 
When will you show respect and give a response which may be acceptable to any neautral observer?
stargazer 
01 May 2008 at 09:01
The AGW scam is on the run. 
In todays paper http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/... 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/... 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/...
stargazer 
01 May 2008 at 13:16
OUOTE "The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted. " 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7376301.stm 
Whaaa HA ha ha ha .Whaaa HA Ha ha ha.Whaaa HA ha ha ha.........
Brute 
01 May 2008 at 13:51
Stargazer, 
Hah.....Good post. I don't know what they call this on your side of the pond but in America we'd refer to this as "backpedaling", "hedging your bets" or “straddling the fence”. 
In the parlance of my friends, we’d call this BEING WRONG and not having the integrity to admit it. 
This all started with the change in idiom from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”…….a vague definition meaning ANY change in the weather, (which occurs naturally every day, every year, every decade, every century), constitutes proof that mankind is evil and ruining the planet according to the Prophets of Doom subjecting us to this canard and making BILLIONS OF DOLLARS from this scam.
JohnJones 
01 May 2008 at 14:50
Peter Martin, 
It is quite a time now since you have had someone to give you some moral support. I thought that you might be in some trouble when two headkickers descended on this thread but you seem to be doing just fine. Keep up the good work. I do not fully agree with you about the way the world will keep warming but I agree that it is a good thing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It should help us become less dependent on oil and gas which is already too expensive.
bobclive 
01 May 2008 at 16:07
Stargazer, what is startling is the anti AGW response in your first link , it appears very few people believe the global warming hype, I think the politicians and the press had better take note. 
Peter, & Black wallaby 
Step jump in Australian temps mid 1970`s 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26198338@N06/2457144646/ 
That jump in Australian average temperature correlates with the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/1977. The Shift marks a change from Pacific Decadal Oscillation cool phase to warm phase – thus reversing a cool shift in the early 1940s. This 76/7 climatic step-change correlates with an abrupt reduction in the upwelling quantity of cold deep water in the equatorial eastern Pacific. Put another way – before the shift there was a preponderance of La Niña conditions, and after it El Niño dominated. Change in upwelling quantity on this scale (it varies a lot - but say, from about 26 Sverdrups before the Shift to about 18 Sv after) is an inertial event of huge magnitude. I don’t see how human-caused CO2 emissions could have done that.
bobclive 
01 May 2008 at 16:14
Step jump in Australian temps mid 1970`s 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26198338@N06/2457144646/
bobclive 
01 May 2008 at 16:18
Step jump in Australian temps mid 1970`s ( try again) 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/2457144646_11e78ce59b.jp...
Brute 
01 May 2008 at 19:26
http://icecap.us/ 
Fellow Realists, 
There is a dramatic graph associated with this story (follow link above) which will not show up on in this forum. 
Apr 30, 2008 
The Evidence Against Human Causation in Global Warming 
Chris Towsey, MSc(Syd) BSc (Hons) Dip Ed FAusIMM 
The following data does not fit the assumption that human activities result in global warming. It follows then that the assumption that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming is fundamentally flawed. 
� Ice core data shows that there have been repeated heating and cooling events on the earth long before human activity was significant. Global warming is a 
naturally occurring event. Attempting to interfere in this process may have unpredictable consequences 
� The Earth cooled between 1940 and 1975 while fossil fuel consumption rose dramatically. The Earth should have warmed if CO2 emissions from fossil fuel 
consumption is a cause of global warming. The theory does not fit the data. 
� Ignoring data that does not fit a theory is poor science. Only one inconsistent piece of data is necessary to negate a theory. 
� Reducing CO2 emissions and introducing carbon trading will not prevent global warming, but will make energy dramatically more expensive to the consumer. 
The evidence does not support the commonly held view that human activities that produce increased levels of CO2, is a cause of global warming. 
Global warming is a naturally occurring and recurring event unrelated to human activity. Cutting CO2 emissions therefore will not alter global warming. Trading carbon credits will have no effect on global warming. It would be more useful to study the period from 1940 to 1975, when the Earth cooled hile fossil fuel consumption skyrocketed, to find out why the Earth cooled. This period holds the key to the root cause of global warming.
Brute 
01 May 2008 at 19:34
Petition To Stop Climate Alarmism Trumps Gore’s $300 Million Effort In Just 8 Days 
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/news/sections/?...
manacker 
01 May 2008 at 20:12
Hi Peter, 
To your latest waffle, subtracting numbers for individual years and calling this a trend is ridiculous. For shame, Peter, I am sure you know better. After all, you say you have studied mathematics and physics. 
You have to calculate linear trends over a period (as IPCC does and as I did). I even sent you the graphs with these trend lines and equations included. 
Here they are again for the periods you just mentioned (and I am truly sorry if they are “annoying” for you): 
1910 to 1944: Linear increase 0.53C ; linear trend 0.150C/decade; 35 years 
1976 to 1998: Linear increase 0.37C ; linear trend 0.159C/decade; 23 years 
Just the facts, Peter. No fancy spin. No blah-blah about files getting corrupted between “USA and Australia” or other equally silly rubbish. 
But this is all digression. 
You still have not addressed Robin’s question. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
01 May 2008 at 20:24
Hi Peter, 
To you other (was it frivolous?) question about total warming over the 20th century: did you fail to catch the fact that there was a mid-century cooling period? 
I know IPCC did not talk about this too much (since the observed facts did not fit the AGW theory), but they did give it brief mention in the FAQ section. 
But maybe you missed that part. 
Back to Robin's question, Peter. 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
01 May 2008 at 20:26
Here’s a good one for you Pete………….. 
More Carbon Dioxide, Please 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/more-carbon-...#more-1179
Robin Guenier 
01 May 2008 at 21:09
Perhaps I should remind Peter and Max that I am not asking Peter a question: I’m making a request – there’s a difference. It may be helpful to repeat the most recent example (of many) of that request (29 April at 13:19). After referring to data provided by the IPCC (to avoid nit-picking debate about data validity), I asked Peter to: 
“… refer me to peer-reviewed scientific evidence (a) setting out unambiguously the reasons for the first two warming periods [1860/1879 and 1906/1940] (preferably both, but an analysis of the 1906/1940 period only might be adequate) and (b) ruling out those reasons as the cause of the third warming period [1975/2000].” As I said, if such evidence (a) doesn’t exist or (b) does exist but is uncertain in its conclusions or (c) is certain in its conclusions but cannot be firmly ruled out as applicable to the recent warming, it seems to me that the IPCC’s basic conclusion is suspect and probably undermined. 
I regret, Peter, that you have not yet provided anything even approximating an adequate response. If you are unable to do so, fair enough – there’s nothing to be ashamed of in being unable to help me in this case. If so, please tell me and we can move on. 
Just one other comment, however. Usually, I avoid argument by analogy – in my experience, it's rarely precise enough to sustain a case accurately. But it might help you to understand my request if I were to refer back to one you used yesterday. You said this: “You could make the same argument one morning when waking up with a hangover after a heavy night on the town. You could say "I had a headache three weeks ago. I didn't have anything to drink then so therefore it must be caused by something else this time too".” 
Let’s apply that to my request. Three weeks ago, you had a mysterious headache yet you hadn’t been drinking – and (to complete the analogy) let’s assume that you had another such headache about three weeks before that. Now mysterious headaches can be serious things – they may be an indication of a brain tumour for example. But you decided to ignore the symptom. But, this morning, you wake up with another headache. This time, however, you’ve had a heavy night on the town and, understandably perhaps, you assume it’s the drink. Now, possibly the drink contributed. But, in the circumstances, might it not be wise to get help to determine the possible cause of the first two headaches, so as to be quite sure that something more serious than the drink isn’t happening, something that it is confirmed by this morning’s headache? Not a perfect analogy, I agree (after all, I didn’t choose it) – but do you understand my request now? 
I hope so. And look forward to your response. 
Rob
Robin Guenier 
01 May 2008 at 21:13
Discussing the paper published in Nature (re the probability of global cooling for the next ten years or so) reported by the Daily Telegraph and BBC today (see Stargazer’s posts above), Richard Wood of the UK's Hadley Centre, said, "We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations…” In other words, when temperature increases (or decreases) before there are any significant man-made CO2 emissions, that must be caused by unspecified natural variations. When, however, it increases after there are significant CO2 emissions, its anthropogenic and natural variation is irrelevant – but, if the temperature decreases now, that of course is caused by natural variation. Hmm.
Black Wallaby 
01 May 2008 at 23:15
Brute gave an indirect link to a graph which puts the non-correlation of CO2 BRILLIANTLY 
This would appear to be the direct link: 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FuelvsDT.jpg 
It is a MUST SEE 
Other inteesting stuff and full article at: 
http://icecap.us/ 
Great stuff Brute!
Brute 
01 May 2008 at 23:59
It may have seemed incidental but it was all part of my evil plan...... Ha, Ha, Ha…..sinister aren’t I? 
Seriously, passing information back and forth is why I watch this site. Bob Clive posted a graph a few months back that depicted an uninterrupted temperature graph, from Ireland I believe, from the late 1830’s until today that showed a gradual steady warming trend proving, (in my mind) that we’ve been warming steadily, (and naturally), since the end of the Little Ice Age. It cinched it for me………….I reiterate; pass this information around to friends/family/co-workers; I think it’s that important, considering where the U.N. and the rest of the Alarmists are headed, i.e. taxation, redistribution of wealth, wrecking economies and starving citizens of third world nations all under the guise of “combating climate change”. I think this “initiative” is extremely dangerous and is already proving catastrophic to many people worldwide. Have you checked out the price of a loaf of bread lately? I’m rich, I’ll be the last to starve to death; but these kooky Liberals and Environmentalists are KILLING people with their cockamamie schemes and loony fantasies of a “planetary, environmentally pristine, Utopia”.
Brute 
02 May 2008 at 00:12
More backpedaling as the facts don’t fit the Alarmist predictions. These Alarmists must have held a meeting last week to stop the bleeding……An attempt to stop the hemorrhaging………..Anyone seen Al Gore lately? 
Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=worldw...
Peter Martin 
02 May 2008 at 00:33
Bob, 
It was interesting that the temperature you showed in your graph went up with a jump. I'd like to read more on the subject. 
Where did this graph come from? 
Max, 
Why don't you do the same instead of throwing up all these figures? There are plenty of graphs of temperature changes from 1850 to the present day produced by NASA and using Hadcrut 3 data. All you need to do is add a few lines and words of explanation for what you mean. I've shown that you are wrong both on the basis of Stargzers long term graph, Mr Wallabies long term graph, and also on th e real unsmoothed data points. Just sticking with the facts as you advised. Graphs are better than getting bogged down in a quagmire of data, as Mr Wallaby put it, but, all the same, this is getting boring. Lets move on. 
John, 
Thanks for the support. I agree that cutting CO2 emissions is the desirable way to go. We'll see who is right on the temperature question shortly but there are other reasons for wanting to keep CO2 levels under control. Acidification of the oceans is potential problem which perhaps should warrant more attention. 
Robin, 
I just don't know how I, or anyone else, can answer your question any better than I've tried to, or the papers I've given you as references on the subject. Science is good at working on present day problems. However, the sort of detailed answer that you are looking for, an exact theory of what caused the temperature changes of 70 and more years ago, short of going back in time to collect the data, just isn't possible. 
Stargazer, 
It remains to be seen if the Telegraph reports prove to be correct. Do you accept every thing the German scientists say? 
Including the bits about: 
"However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model." 
and 
"it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away." 
I thought you guys have the position that computer modelling is unreliable. Or is it reliable when it gives you the results you like but unreliable when it doesn't? 
Don't overlook this one as well: 
{Noel Keenlyside} stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades. 
Just the initial findings. There are two reasons why you shouldn't celebrate. Firstly its all very preliminary. 
Secondly,and much more importantly, even if the new computer model does turn out to be correct, it doesn't give you the results you'd like and it doesn't make any difference in the long run. It's good if you now accept computer models as a valid approach to predicting future climate. We have to plan, as I'm sure you will agree, for longer than the next decade, in fact we have to plan for the second half of the 21st century. In which case, even if the German model proves to be better than all the rest, even if it proves to be 100% accurate, the message is the still same. 
We need deep cuts in CO2 emissions right now.
Brute 
02 May 2008 at 01:01
Pete, 
You're dreaming again. Snap out of it........Get a hold of yourself. Global Warming is a fraud, a scam, a ruse, a con, a dodge, a flim-flam, a canard. 
Accurate temperature measurements have PROVEN that there is NO relationship between CO2 and global temperature increase, (or decrease). 
The computer models are useless in predicting distant future weather patterns, higher or lower, which is what the IPPC has based their entire case upon. 
THEY WERE WRONG, and because they were wrong and they propagandized this hoax, people are suffering and dieing. They’ve convinced people to BURN THEIR FOOD. Does that sound like it makes a modicum of sense?
Peter Martin 
02 May 2008 at 02:43
Brute, 
Yes I agree with you as far as bio-fuels go. The agri-business lobby have latched on to that one to suit their own ends. The best solution is to switch to nuclear power as quickly as possible. Replace coal burning power stations with gas burning power stations is a good interim solution until these are ready. 
Instead of bio fuels we should either use hydrogen, electrical batteries, or synthesised hydrocarbons for transportation. 
So you are denouncing all computer models? Including the one in the link that Stargazer posted up? He will be disappointed , he seemed quite excited about that one
manacker 
02 May 2008 at 02:53
Hi Peter, 
Your last waffle on the multidecadal warming/cooling cycles did not shed any new light on this topic, so I agree that our exchange on this topic is getting boring. 
In summary, we saw from the Hadley record that: 
There were two multidecadal warming cycles in the 20th century and one in the late 19th century with intermittent multidecadal cooling cycles and the beginning of a “plateau” over the last 10 years (whether this continues as a multidecadal cycle of slight cooling or doesn’t is anyone’s guess. 
There is no observed correlation between the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature, with the notable exception of the late 20th century warming cycle, during which period CO2 concentrations also rose. This one cycle is being used to “blame” human CO2 for warming, without looking at what caused the other warming/cooling cycles, so the argument for causality is anything but robust (Robin’s point). 
The above observed facts raise some questions concerning your closing sentence, “We need deep cuts in CO2 emissions right now.” This seems rather more like a statement of faith than anything based on scientific observation. But, I agree, everyone is entitled to believe whatever makes them happy. 
As Brute has also pointed out to you, it looks like these “deep cuts” will not accomplish anything positive, since the record shows that the weather (or climate) is going to do what it wants to do, with or without CO2. 
Regards, 
Max
Sal333 
02 May 2008 at 03:37
Mr. Lynas 
I noticed you had the decency to admit the origins of your graph: realclimate. May I remind you that one of the creators of that site is Professor Michael Mann. The same professor who came out with another graph, the MBH98 or more commonly known as the hockey stick. If you recollect that hockey stick graph was torn to shreds. It was proven to be a shoddy piece of work. It was exposed as a perfect example of junk science. 
And now you expect us to accept another masterpiece from this professor. I'll accept that chart only if you admit that global warming is Mann-made.
Robin Guenier 
02 May 2008 at 06:20
Further to my posts yesterday, this is quite interesting: 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/hadcrut-h... 
It appears to show a correlation between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the HadCRUT global temperature anomaly. As I understand it, yesterday’s report on the paper in “Nature” suggested that the projected cooling (or, rather, “lull”) is associated with a PDO downturn. Therefore, could the 1975/1998 warming be associated with the 20-30 year PDO upturn? No, that’s not it, that’s CO2 emissions: after all, that’s “settled science”. The 1910/1940 warming, however, may be associated with the concurrent PDO upturn – we just don’t know enough about it. And Stargazer would, I think, remind us that solar cycle 23 is still lingering on – might that also have something to do with all this? Oh dear, climate is so complex. It’s just as well that we now have CO2 emissions to simplify things. Hmm.
stargazer 
02 May 2008 at 06:58
Peter said "It remains to be seen if the Telegraph reports prove to be correct. Do you accept every thing the German scientists say? 
Including the bits about: " 
"However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model." 
NO ...because of solarcycle 25.... 
the later cycle 24 is in starting.(and I don't mean two very small spots) the lower/shorter cycle 25 will be. and that will likely affect cycle 26 too...we are talking a decades long cooling here. perhaps a maunder style minimum I have posted many detailed accounts and links on why, on both this and the other thread. 
Again... 
there is a connection between the solar cycle, ocean temperature,PDO, el Niña and Niño possibly via cosmic rays/clouds, But no I don't know what it is... and neither does anyone else.
Black Wallaby 
02 May 2008 at 09:11
Attn. Sal333, 02 May 2008 at 03:37 
Welcome aboard! 
You wrote: 
Mr. Lynas 
I noticed you had the decency to admit the origins of your graph: realclimate. May I remind you that one of the creators of that site is Professor Michael Mann. The same professor who came out with another graph, the MBH98 or more commonly known as the hockey stick. If you recollect that hockey stick graph was torn to shreds. It was proven to be a shoddy piece of work. It was exposed as a perfect example of junk science. 
And now you expect us to accept another masterpiece from this professor. I'll accept that chart only if you admit that global warming is Mann-made. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Nicely put! 
Can you believe that those guys can draw those multiple very silly 8-year straight-line trends, on the GISTEMP graph, whilst insisting elsewhere that you can’t do trends like that? 
Also, the following GISTEMP graph looks rather different for the last decade, than that corrupted in the lead article. 
Yet another case of deception by RealClimate! 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
Black Wallaby 
02 May 2008 at 09:21
Attn JZ Smith Reur; 29 April 2008 at 18:16 
That was a nice contribution of yours. 
We need more lucidity like that. 
Please come back soon
bobclive 
02 May 2008 at 11:57
Peter, the link to the graph you wanted, 
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/hera...
bobclive 
02 May 2008 at 12:17
Here is an interesting link Peter, 
http://pichuile.free.fr/ecad/France/
bobclive 
02 May 2008 at 12:25
Peter, these comments below relate to the links I posted for above. 
In Western Europe, I’ve plotted temperatures of the ECAD database. For a majority of stations, the warming is made likewise by a jump, not in the 70s like in Australia but on around June 1986 (see graphs here http://pichuile.free.fr/ecad/France/ ) 
This clear regime shift is unreconcilable with a greenhouse gases warming but unless you look at it for yourself, don’t expect official climate scientists and the media to tell you such inconvenient truths. 
Demesure of Bordeaux (Reply) 
Tue 09 Oct 07 (04:16pm)
Brute 
02 May 2008 at 16:44
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/32821 
May 01, 2008 
Globe May be Cooling on Global Warming 
By Deroy Murdock, Scripps Howard News Service 
“Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.” Dr. Phil Chapman wrote in The Australian on April 23. “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” Chapman neither can be caricatured as a greedy oil-company lobbyist nor dismissed as a flat-Earther. He was a Massachusetts Institute of Technology staff physicist, NASA’s first Australian-born astronaut, and Apollo 14’s Mission Scientist. Chapman believes reduced sunspot activity is curbing temperatures. As he elaborates, “there is a close correlation between variations on the sunspot cycle and Earth’s climate.” 
Anecdotally, last winter brought record cold to Florida, Mexico, and Greece, and rare snow to Jerusalem, Damascus, and Baghdad. China endured brutal ice and snow. NASA satellites found that last winter’s Arctic Sea ice covered 2 million square kilometers (772,000 square miles) more than the last three years’ average. It also was 10 to 20 centimeters (about 4-8 inches) thicker than in 2007. The ice between Canada and southwest Greenland also spread dramatically. “We have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south,” Denmark’s Meteorological Institute stated. “Snows Return to Mount Kilimanjaro,” cheered a January 21 International Herald Tribune headline, as Africa also defies the “warming” narrative. 
While neither anecdotes nor one year’s statistics confirm global cooling, a decade of data contradicts the “melting planet” rhetoric that heats Capitol Hill and America’s newsrooms. 
AccuWeather’s Expert Senior Forecaster Joe Bastardi has stated: “People are concerned that 50 years from now, it will be warm beyond a point of no return. My concern is almost opposite, that it’s cold and getting colder.” And on Wednesday, the respected journal, Nature, indicated that Earth’s climactic cycles have stopped global warming through 2015. 
If nothing else, all this obliterates the rampant lie that “the scientific debate on global warming is over.” That debate rages on. Assuming that the very serious scientists cited here are correct, the “inconvenient truth” about global-warming is inconveniently false. If so, mankind should chill out and turn our thinking right side up. Read more here.
bobclive 
02 May 2008 at 19:57
Peter, see link below, 
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/oeip/cb-mei... 
Peter, the graph in this link shows that between 2002 to the end of 2005 there was a warming El nino even so global temperatures did not increase from 1998 to 2008, why would a warming trend cause a cooling trend, surely 31/2 years of warming + an increase in the level of CO2 should have ensured that the temperatures would keep on rising. This same graph also shows the climate shifts in 1976, 1998, and 2002. 
Th Great Pacific climate shift. 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Cl...
bobclive 
02 May 2008 at 20:42
Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said. Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a “lull” for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. 
I look at it this way, the IPCC believe there is no urban bias in the ground temperature measurements, if UHI has in fact inflated ground temp measurements as many believe by up to 0.4C, this would be like starting the measurements in 2008 at 0.4C instead of 0.0C, the readings will now always read high. 
Any warming that has occurred is I believe totally natural with a minuscule CO2 element and the rise is a fraction of what is being reported. 
I`m probably talking rubbish.
Black Wallaby 
02 May 2008 at 23:20
Temperature Series Smoothing Part 4 
To recapitulate on parts 1 -3 above; (and also some of Max’s comments); there are four common sources of global temperature graphs, (Hadley, UAH, RSS, and GISS). The latter; GISS, run by James Hansen, MAY be tainted in accuracy, because GISS data has significant differences to the other three, his inappropriate political art of AGW activism can be well demonstrated, and errors in GISS data have recently been exposed. However, despite some scepticism on accuracy, GISS do provide an accessible graph of monthly data for the last ~10 years @ link: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif 
From this, it is clear that a linear trend "eyeballed" through this ten-year period (decade) is at least a SUDDEN plateau! 
There are diverse arguments that can be presented relative to this "eyeball" trend, but the FACT remains that SOMETHING has dramatically changed over the past decade, relative to the preceding significant warming period. The cause cannot be claimed to be positively known, but that is NOT the immediate issue! The immediate issue is that there has been a sudden ten-year change! 
One of the challenges from "those that don't like good news" (alarmists) is that it is "unfair" to consider 1998 because it was a high spike. (Although the IPCC and Mann et al ETC, have orgasmed on it previously). However, alarmists ignore the fact that 1999 and 2000 were LOW spikes, amounting to a "correction". Furthermore such "data behaviour" is typical of other up and down spikes in the long-term temperature record, the share-market, and all sorts of other stuff. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Just to make matters more complicated, the different data sources use different trending methods. (also known as filtering or smoothing). Hadley use a 20-year span, (21-point), and GISS a five-year (6-point, or 2.5-year each side). Interestingly GISS do not cheat on the last 2.5 years, whereas Hadley do "invent" stuff on their last 10 years of smoothing. If you are losing me, see parts 1, 2, and 3 above. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
In consideration of these complexities, I think the best way is to take the Hadley data, and DELETE their preferences in assumptions for the last ten years of contrived smoothing data. (eg 2007 through 2017, see earlier parts 1-3). After-all their arbitrary method can't be all that good, because they had to change recently when they did not like the results. (failing their EXPECTATIONS) 
It can be shown that the "high inertia" of wide time-span (20-year) smoothing results in an over-shoot upwards beyond any suddenly occurring plateau, # but no matter, to be consistent, please see my mark-up and text on a Hadley graph, as follows: 
Largest size (broadband) 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_1701416471 ... 
OR, smaller size for impatient dial-up users: 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_a1442bf86f ... 
Regards, BobFJ (Black Wallaby) 
NOTE: # With say GISS 5-year smoothing, as MNG may imply above, detection of a plateau occurs earlier, with less over-shoot. A flattening-off will thus be seen sooner. Whatever, both such methods of trending are selectively arbitrary! To keep it simple let's look at Hadley pears compared with Hadley pears: bugger the GISS pineapples! 
Part 5 to follow.
Black Wallaby 
02 May 2008 at 23:33
STRANGE! 
The last two links in my post above from Flickr would not open from here. However if you go over to Gristmill @ 
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49#comment93 
They work fine there!
Black Wallaby 
02 May 2008 at 23:40
TESTING REPASTING OF LINKS 
Largest size (broadband) 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_1701416471_o.... 
OR, smaller size for impatient dial-up users: 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_a1442bf86f.jp...
Brute 
03 May 2008 at 02:31
More bad news from Down Under for all of the Chicken Littles............ 
Sydney's Coolest Summer in 50 Years Leaves Empty Cafes, Gloom 
By Shani Raja and Simeon Bennett 
(Bloomberg) -- Sydney residents and tourists are cursing La Nina as the harbor city says goodbye to the summer that wasn't. 
While the La Nina weather pattern is delivering rain to farmers after the worst drought in a century, it's cutting profits for cafe owners, travel agents and insurers. Insurance Australia Group Ltd., the nation's largest home insurer, last week posted a sixth straight profit decline after hail storms cost it A$105 million ($97 million). The yearly `Symphony in the Park,' which usually attracts 80,000 people, had 700 this year as the orchestra played behind a tarpaulin during a downpour. 
``Everyone always thinks Australia is the best place for perfect weather, but I'm not sure I'll believe it any more,'' says Minsoo Seo, a 28-year-old marketing executive from Korea's Jeju Island, as he gazes at the waves crashing toward Bondi Beach on Australia's last day of summer. ``The wind's too strong,'' he says after deciding against surfing on a grey, gusty morning. 
After four years of water restrictions, Sydney saw about 50 percent more rain than usual this summer, according to Mike De Salis, a spokesman at Australia's Bureau of Meteorology. 
No day topped 31 degrees celsius (88 degrees fahrenheit) for the first time since 1956. Average daily sunshine totaled 6.7 hours, an hour less than normal and the lowest since 1991-92. The average maximum temperature was 25.2, the coolest since 1996-97. 
``Suddenly we get one cool, wet summer and everyone's complaining,'' said De Salis. 
Matthew Hassan, an economist at Westpac Banking Corp., said the soggy summer has weighed on Sydney's $285 billion economy. 
``The endless rain is certainly adding to the sense of gloom,'' Hassan said. Employment and housing data show Sydney is already struggling with rising interest rates and gasoline prices. 
More Rain 
Surfer Seo's contribution to the tourism industry -- and the local economy -- will soon end. Seo is cutting his three-month Sydney stay short by a month because of the rain, which is forecast to remain for at least three months, according to the meteorology bureau. 
La Nina, which means ``little girl'' in Spanish, is created by the cooling of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. It's the opposite of El Nino, or ``little boy,'' which can cause drought. 
Dam levels rose to 64.4 percent at the end of February from 37.1 percent a year ago. Rain fall reached 439 millimeters this summer, compared with an average of 298 millimeters. 
``We're not whinging about the rain,'' said Ben Fargaher, chief executive officer of the National Farmers' Federation in Canberra, Australia's capital city. ``Good living weather is not good farming weather.''
manacker 
03 May 2008 at 08:02
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “The best solution is to switch to nuclear power as quickly as possible. Replace coal burning power stations with gas burning power stations is a good interim solution until these are ready. Instead of bio fuels we should either use hydrogen, electrical batteries, or synthesised hydrocarbons for transportation.” 
Let’s look at the hydrogen alternate: 
Hydrogen has been proposed to replace gasoline as a motor fuel to help: 
· increase energy independence (from politically unstable regions), 
· reduce air pollution (from automotive exhaust) and 
· reduce carbon emissions (to curb greenhouse warming). 
The US Department of Energy (DOE) has estimated that if 1 kg of hydrogen has the same cost at the pump as 1 US gallon of gasoline, the resultant $/mile cost would be equivalent. 
The (US) National Academy of Engineering (NAE) has published an exhaustive report on the opportunities and challenges of moving toward a “hydrogen economy”. 
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10922&page=R1 
As Black Wallaby has reminded us, the USA (with all its Hummers and SUVs and no real public transportation system) is the largest per-capita consumer of gasoline plus diesel fuel today. 
If the decision were made tomorrow to move to a “hydrogen economy”, the (US) National Research Council (NRC) predicts an annual production of 60 billion kg of hydrogen in the USA by 2037. This would replace roughly 30% of the 165 billion gallons of gasoline plus diesel fuel currently being used there. By 2050, the NRC report predicts that hydrogen demand could exceed 100 billion kg, representing the equivalent of around 50% of current gasoline/diesel use. 
http://www.nap.edu/booksearch.php?term=Search+This+Book&isbn=0309091632&bottom_Search+This+Book.x=14&bottom_Search+This+Book.y=13 
http://www.physorg.com/news111926048.html 
Since hydrogen is not available in significant quantities in nature in pure form, it must be produced. 
A significant amount of hydrogen is produced today by steam methane reforming (95% in USA; 48% worldwide), and this is currently the most economical way as long as methane (natural gas) is available cheaply and in large quantities. 
http://www.getenergysmart.org/Files/HydrogenEducation/6Hydro... 
At current conversion efficiency of 70%, it requires around 2.9 tons of methane to produce 1 ton of hydrogen by steam methane reforming (SMR). This process has the disadvantage, however, that the carbon in methane (CH4) must also be disposed of (2.5 tons of CO2 are produced for each ton of hydrogen produced). Proven carbon sequestration technologies do not yet exist and the environmental viability of these processes is highly questionable, so they can be dismissed for now. 
Natural gas can be used directly as a motor fuel, without incurring the extra conversion cost plus energy loss of converting the natural gas to hydrogen. Natural gas vehicles (NGVs) exist on the market today. 
There is a limited amount of natural gas available (current US reserves are estimated to last less than 50 years, and worldwide quantities only slightly longer). If significant quantities of natural gas were to be converted to hydrogen to replace gasoline or diesel fuel, these limited reserves would be used up more quickly. 
So hydrogen from SMR does not appear to offer any long-term advantages or meet the stated DOE objectives. 
The DOE has also investigated hydrogen production from coal (and steam). Since there are very large reserves of coal in the USA (and elsewhere in the world), this source would have the advantage of providing energy independence. The disadvantage of this source, however, is that large amounts of CO2 are produced (over 10 tons of CO2 are produced for each ton of hydrogen produced). 
So if we postulate that one of the objectives of moving to a “hydrogen economy” is the reduction of “greenhouse” CO2 emissions, this path would not provide a solution. 
A third process for producing hydrogen is the electrolysis of water (1 kg of hydrogen gas requires about 2.4 gallons of de-ionized or distilled water with an added electrolyte as feedstock). This process is currently significantly more costly than SMR, but has the advantage that it is not dependent on a dwindling natural gas resource. In addition, no “greenhouse” CO2 is produced. 
The process requires large amounts of electrical power. At the current upper end of efficiency of 70%, electrolysis consumes around 57 kWh per kilogram of hydrogen. 
To replace 30% of the gasoline and diesel fuel with hydrogen in the USA alone (NRC estimate for 2037) would require an additional installed generation capacity of around 400,000 MW. Current installed generation capacity in the US is around 1,000,000 MW, so this would require a 40% increase. 
If fossil fuels, e.g. coal, oil or natural gas, are used to generate the electrical power, there is no “greenhouse” advantage over using the fossil fuels directly, since there is a considerable loss of energy and even more CO2 is produced. Therefore, the large-scale use of hydrogen (to reduce carbon emissions) depends on using nuclear, hydroelectric or renewable electricity (solar/wind). 
New hydroelectric sources are limited and can be discounted. A study made by the DOE shows that other renewable power sources (solar/wind) are not economically viable today at the scale required to replace gasoline with hydrogen. These sources could become more attractive in the future if more efficient new technologies can be developed, but, even then, it is doubtful that they will ever be able to generate the large amounts of electrical power required to move to a “hydrogen economy”. 
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/solar_... 
Even without the development of fast-breeder reactors, there is no practical limit to the amount of nuclear fuel available and its price is not subject to global geopolitical pressures. In addition, nuclear power generation costs are quite attractive today, so this appears to be the best alternative for the foreseeable future, as you wrote, Peter. It also provides the side benefit that no “greenhouse” CO2 is generated (if this is deemed to be important). 
At around 100,000 MW total today, only around one-tenth of US generation capacity is nuclear. This would have to be increased to 500,000 MW to generate the hydrogen required to replace 30% of the current gasoline/diesel consumption, as estimated by DOE for the year 2037 (excluding increased power requirement for other uses). This would put the US nuclear generation at around one-third of the total, which is still a relatively small percentage when compared to France at over 70%. 
As long as reducing “greenhouse” CO2 emissions is one of the stated objectives of moving to a “hydrogen economy”, it appears that it will have to be done by adding nuclear power generation capacity. 
If this objective is removed (if, for example, the world concludes, as David Whitehouse has, that global warming has stopped and that CO2 is not, in fact, causing potentially alarming greenhouse warming, and, therefore, does not need to be curtailed), then coal reforming or electrolysis plus “clean coal” conventional power generation could be considered as alternates, as these routes would achieve the other stated objectives: reduction of pollution (from automotive exhaust) and energy independence (from politically unstable regions). 
The practical safety problems of transporting, storing and handling (the very reactive and effusive “rocket fuel”), hydrogen as a motor fuel would still need to be resolved. 
Just some thoughts for further discussion. 
Max
Black Wallaby 
03 May 2008 at 11:19
Hi Max, 
That's an interesting analysis, but should only be considered WRT to the problem of "peak Oil". 
In my view, when looking at the US consumption of oil-in-ground of around 25% of total, and over double per capita of say Germany and UK, something ain't right. From memory, USA has 12.6% of the combined populations of India and China, which are likely to be the most predominant in unstopably emulating the lifestyles of the "west". 
I think the potential world instability from this threat is far more serious than the hypothetical AGW nonsense! 
I might post a fuller picture of this shortly, but something else has come-up.
Black Wallaby 
03 May 2008 at 11:34
Max in particular, but to all of you who would like to chat with a real live climate scientist, (whatever that is), Dr. Andrew Dessler has just opened a new blog thread @ 
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/95549/87820/#comment5 
I think his speciallity at the moment is clouds, which is a good one, because it is hard to imagine that anyone will begin to understand them within the lifetimes of anyone here.......thus, one can be very controversial! 
He tends to shoot himself in the foot when he talks outside his narrow field of expertise, but is not afraid to shoot-off on silly analogies etc. It's fun talking to him sometimes! 
I intend to duplicate my first post to Dr. Dessler next here, and I think it may help to explain to Peter Martin, with some marked-up graphics, some things that he has claimed to to be too difficult to understand before etc.
Black Wallaby 
03 May 2008 at 11:44
Dr. Dessler wrote in part, asking; *Has Global Warming Stopped?*over at: 
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/95549/87820 
“…There has been a lot of nonsense written about the lack of much if any warming over the last few years… …but like an axe-wielding psycho from a cheap horror flick, it just keeps coming back. At times like this, *it is always useful to look at the data* …” (emphasis added) 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
1) Although some may suggest that GISS data, may be a bit sus’ (more on that later), the following is a convenient source of data over the past decade: 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif 
It gives unsmoothed monthly data from GISS for the decade. Without any need to treat it statistically, any neutral person would conclude that this short data span is virtually flat. (A plateau at an average anomaly of ~0.6 C) However, it is possible to use arbitrary techniques in variety to show something different, including what you as an individual would *prefer* to see. (more on this later) 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
2) Now let’s look at a different Hadley graph @ 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual_bar.png 
This is an annual bar-chart with the Hadley arbitrary 20-year filtering, (also known as smoothing or trending), given with the blue line which they suggest is the average result of the vertical bars. Unfortunately, there is a computer coding problem with the last ten years of data, (more on that later), but there are some features in this graph, which Dr. Dessler does not indicate 
The following link shows a marked-up version of the Hadley graph discussed above 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa_o.... 
You may be rather surprised at some of the things that Dr. Dessler failed to mention.
Black Wallaby 
03 May 2008 at 11:55
I've just tested the last two links above, and had one failure. Try the re-pastings below if necessary: 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual_bar.png 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa_o.... 
and if that fails, they open fine if you go to Gristmill @ 
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/95549/87820/#comment5 
Also, on the last one, depending on your browser, with MS IE V7, you need to go to menu PAGE and then Zoom
Brute 
03 May 2008 at 14:39
It would seem that the people of London have spoken despite the Catastrophists rantings…………….as Mr. Guenier has stated, people are not drinking the Alarmist Kool Aid. 
May 03, 2008 
Climate Realist Elected Mayor of London 
“The hypocrisy of the Europeans over Kyoto is staggering. They attack America in hysterical terms, and yet the 15 EU countries have never come close to meeting their own eight per cent target for cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. They have not even agreed which countries should cut the most. If America were to meet its Kyoto targets now, it would require a cut of 30 per cent in emissions, and how, exactly, is that supposed to work in the current economic downturn? It would exacerbate the recession, and when Bush says no, he is doing what is right not just for America but for the world” 
--Boris Johnson, The Daily Telegraph
Robin Guenier 
03 May 2008 at 15:52
You’re right, Brute – the times they are achangin’. See the results of a survey reported in the “Independent” (our greenest newspaper) yesterday: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-... 
“More than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change, according to a new poll." 
And here’s an article written by the afore mentioned Boris a couple of years ago: 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2...
Brute 
03 May 2008 at 17:39
Wow Robin, that guy Lovelock is a real killjoy. Where does he live, Doom City? 
Maybe he should open a vein and end it all right now. Great googly moogly, what a pessimist! 
Jim Jones comes to mind. Someone ought to throw a butterfly net over that guy……….
Robin Guenier 
03 May 2008 at 18:29
I commented yesterday (06:20) how revised computer models are now projecting that downturns in the Pacific Decadal and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations (PDO and AMO) are likely to cause global cooling for the next ten or fifteen years. In view of the absence of warming since 1998, that would mean continued cooling for quarter of a century, despite a continuing build-up of CO2 emissions: rather different from those computer models that confidently projected continued and increasingly serious warming throughout the 21st century. So much for “settled science”. 
This cooling, we are assured, would suppress the man-made global warming that would otherwise (of course) have occurred. AGW will, however, resume normal service when the PDO and AMO effects cease: just as millennial cults, when their end of the world predictions don’t materialise, are unashamed at specifying a new doomsday.
manacker 
03 May 2008 at 19:36
Hi Black Wallaby, 
Of course you are right. 
The proposed "hydrogen economy" with hydrogen as an automotive fuel only makes sense to curb CO2 emissions. 
The US DOE listed 3 objectives for considering moving to a "hydrogen economy": 
- increase energy independence (from politically unstable regions) 
- reduce air pollution (from automotive exhaust) 
- reduce carbon emissions (to curb greenhouse warming) 
The "800-lb gorilla" on that list is the last item. The first two items are "window dressing" and can be done much more efficiently in some other manner rather than moving to a "hydrogen economy". 
So, if (or rather when) the DOE wakes up to the fact that global warming has stopped for now and that the link between CO2 emissions and warming is tenuous, the whole rationale for moving toward a "hydrogen economy" will collapse. 
Regards, 
Max
Robin Guenier 
04 May 2008 at 06:02
Brute: more on Boris at http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
Black Wallaby 
04 May 2008 at 08:01
On “Smoothing” Temperature Graphs Part 1 of 4 
This is further to my introduction to the topic on 03 May 2008 at 11:44 
Dr. Dessler wrote in part, asking; *Has Global Warming Stopped?* 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
There are four sources of such data: Hadley, UAH, RSS, and GISS, and all use arbitrary methods of smoothing the raw data. 
The Hadley 21 point method is actually defined in their fine print, as follows 
Quote: 
“Toward the ends of the series there are not enough points to calculate the smoothed value. For example, in order to calculate the smoothed value for 1998 we would need to know what the annual averages were for the 21-year period 1988-2008, but we only currently have annual data for the period 1988-2007. Ideally the smoothing should stop before the filter 'runs off' the end of the series, but a series that has been shortened in this way appears not to be up-to-date. 
*In order to extend the simple smoothing to the very ends of the time series it is necessary to either extend the data series, or shorten the filter. Howsoever it is done, the data near the endpoints will be treated differently to data in the middle of the series. Extending the data series can be done in a number of ways, but the method used on these pages is simply to continue the series by repeating the final value.* [sic] 
In March 2008, some diagrams were placed on this web site which showed smoothed annual series that included data for 2008. The annual value for 2008 was based on the only two months of data - January and February - that were available at the time. January and February 2008 were cooler than recent months, leading to a marked downturn towards the end of the smoothed series (Figure 2, orange line) that caused much discussion.” 
In other words, in addition to the arbitrary 21 point (20-year) smoothing used by Hadley, because there is no data for the last half cycle of 10 years, they use a different arbitrary method of inventing the statistical smoothing. Just recently, they made a change to it because they did not like the outcome. 
*I intend to expand on this in more detail in part 2*
Black Wallaby 
04 May 2008 at 08:09
On “Smoothing” Temperature Graphs Part 2 of 4 
Further to my part 1 above; we ended up showing that in a long term data set, ie 150 years, various arbitrary codes can be used quite well to filter or smooth the up and down spikes in say annual data, (noise), to give a desired type of long-term trend line. In the case of Hadley, they use an arbitrary 20 year smoothing, where for each point on the graph, the data for 10 years each side are treated with an arbitrary computer code of their selection. 
Different data sources may be treated arbitrarily differently in any combination of both parameters. A further problem of choice comes when the end of the data-set is reached, so in the case of Hadley at say end 2007, data through to end 2017 is required, which of course is impossible. No problem! We can create other code of our choice to fill-in the last ten years of unknown information! 
Again, there are various ways that this can be done, but arguably, such “statistical” treatments become of doubtful value over a short-term, and many would argue that an “eyeball“ trend with a transparent ruler is as good as any fancy statistical development in that case. Please refer the following link: 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif 
It gives unsmoothed monthly data from GISS for about ten years. Blind Freddie can see, without any need to treat it statistically, that this short data span is virtually flat. However, it is possible to use arbitrary techniques in variety to show something different, including what you as an individual would *prefer* to see. 
For those of you that don’t like to hear good news, I can sense that your hackles are rising, but the fact is that I will next identify information in the IPCC reports of 2001 and 2007 which confirms that such *cheating* has been published quite brazenly in both peer reviewed journals and by the IPCC. 
The most obvious was the disgraced “Hockey-stick” of Mann et al 1999, somewhat exaggerated in 2001 in the TAR’s in all possible corners and at podia etc. It had a 40-year smoothing, to flatten trends as much as possible. (Any greater may have raised eyebrows?). However, that aside, what I come to is that, as above, the last twenty years of absent data had to be “invented” somehow, to complete the 40-year smoothing. This is where it gets *really tricky*, because since about 1997/8, (Openly; Re: Overpeck, Hughes and also Esper), the dendro’s were scratching their heads over the issue that despite temperatures going up, and forestry experiments showing that increased CO2 gives improved growth, the rate of tree-ring growth since around 1960 was reducing, sharply opposite to expected trends. This has been coined “The Divergence Problem”, (unsolved), and has not had a lot of IPCC or Media discussion. (After-all, it hardly projects confidence backward for a thousand years!) 
So, the problem faced by the dendro’s was that their proxy data was plunging down, opposite to the red instrumental data for a while on regular smoothing, but by doing a flip-flop on the last 20 years of data, (yet another method of data creation), we have a nice (desirous) upturn at the end. See the blue 40-year smoothing in Figure 2 in MBH99 @ 
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf 
I give you the actual paper link rather than IPCC 2001, because you may be surprised at some (entirely) other things in the paper, that are *not* common knowledge, or reflected by the IPCC 2001, if you are courageous enough to study it. 
When we come to the 4AR, 2007, WG1, there is the famous spaghetti graph, (Fig 6:10a) which includes a barely visible subdued version of the hockey stick buried in there, and a sneak preview of the gradual return of a MWP and LIA. There are a whole bunch of dendro’ thingies with the same little upturn-cheat at the end, but this time they are said to have a 30-year smoothing, not 40-years. Oh well! Why not! 
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html (Go to Chapter6) 
Part 3 to follow
Black Wallaby 
04 May 2008 at 08:21
Sorry...typo's 
For 4AR above read AR4 
For Fig. 6:10a read 6:10b
Brute 
04 May 2008 at 13:37
Robin, 
May 04, 2008 
The Boris Effect: UK Government to Srap Green Taxes in Bid to Calm Voter Fury 
Gordon Brown is poised to scrap a series of unpopular tax rises as part of sweeping changes to stave off a dangerous revolt over the rising cost of living which last week dealt Labour its worst electoral hammering in 40 years. Today the Prime Minister will respond to a growing suburban uprising by signalling moves to help motorists and other consumers. Last night Downing Street sources hinted the 2 per cent rise in fuel duty due in the autumn may not go ahead, in a concession to tight household budgets. 
--Gaby Hinsliff and Jo Revill, The Observer, 4 May 2008 
Internal polling in London found Ken Livingstone's green policies, such as new charges for gas-guzzling cars, alienated older voters, while the environment was at best a low priority for others, suggesting that, as families' budgets shrink, so does their willingness to pay to save the planet. 'My colleagues will say Labour has got to be brave on green issues, but the public are really feeling the pinch,' said one senior minister. 
--Gaby Hinsliff and Jo Revill, The Observer, 4 May 2008 
U.K. voters resoundingly rejected the Labour Party in local elections last week. It was no capricious shift, but a citizen revolt against trendy carbon and nanny-state taxes that empower only bad government. For Labour, it was the worst election in 40 years. Every tax and intrusion imposed by Labour in recent years was justified as being for voters' "own good." Ending global warming, reducing carbon footprints, lowering carbon emissions and raising public funding of renewable energy - all were excuses used to hit the voters' pocketbook with more taxes. Yet none of these taxes improved the quality of life. 
--Investor's Business Daily, 2 May 2008 
Oh dear! The inevitable is happening. The 'global warming' trope is unravelling on a daily basis - scientifically, economically, and politically. The wheels are coming off the hysterical bandwagon, and it is not going to be a salutary sight watching the politicians and the media junkies jumping cart and trying to throw mud in everyone's eyes. 
--Philip Stott, 3 May 2008 
Global warming is a new religion and blasphemy against that religion is not a laughing matter. The high tide of unthinking adherence to this new religion has been reached and I think it may well be in the coming years the tide will gradually recede but it will be a very glacial progress. 
--Nigel Lawson, The Guardian, 3 May 2008 
But, of course, people aren't interested in these kinds of facts. They want the religion. They want the sweet moralistic feeling of telling someone to stop doing something. They want to be able to rage about Chelsea Tractors and Tony Blair's flights, and they want to give vent to their feelings of disgust at the whole triumph of Western consumerist capitalism. 
--Boris Johnson, The Daily Telegraph, 11 January 2007 
For the first time in years, voters seem skeptical that solar, wind, ocean waves and currents, biofuels and other so-called renewable sources of energy can replace gasoline, petroleum-based diesel, home heating oil, natural gas, and propane to any significant degree in the foreseeable future. Among ordinary middle class, working class and poor voters, global warming appears to be a non-issue. More and more hard-pressed people are more afraid of pauperization than the manmade greenhouse gases that supposedly cause climate change. 
--China Confidential, 3 May 2008 
Failed asylum seekers are sneaking out of Britain - because they are fed up with the poor healthcare and bad weather. Scores have been caught trying to break past border controls in recent weeks, according to immigration staff. Les Williams, a chief immigration officer for the UK Border Agency, said: "We cannot explain exactly why they are trying to go, but when some of these people were questioned they said they wanted to go to a warmer country as they are fed up with the English weather." 
--The Daily Mail, 3 May 2008 
Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge. 
--Lao Tzu, 6th Century BC Chinese Poet
Robin Guenier 
04 May 2008 at 14:37
Brute, you missed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2...:
bobclive 
04 May 2008 at 16:08
Global Warming Proponents Rely Upon Flawed Surface-Temperature Readings 1998. 
As noted earlier, the surface temperature readings global warming theory advocates rely on do not provide temperature data for the oceans (or nearly 70 percent of the earth's surface) and tend to be located predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere while under representing the Southern Hemisphere. Furthermore, the majority of land-based readings are recorded in towns and cities that yield artificially high temperatures. This phenomena is known as the Urban Heat Island Effect and it is one of the major sources of error that have led some scientists to falsely conclude that rapid global warming is occurring. 
One of the key causes of the Urban Heat Island Effect is that urban areas contain concrete, roads, buildings and airports that heat to high temperatures in the daytime. This results in higher daytime and nighttime temperatures compared to temperatures in nearby rural areas, which do not similarly accumulate heat. Exacerbating the distortion is that many temperature readings are recorded at airports, which are significant heat islands in themselves. The combination of huge asphalt runways and the operation of jet engines generate considerable heat, leading to abnormally high readings. 
A second key cause is that as the number of buildings and trees grow around urban-based temperature gauges, heat pockets develop, trapping additional heat in and around these gauges. For every one percent of the sky that is blocked, the temperature immediately around the gauge will rise by about .4· F. One of the reasons that many surface temperature sites show a gradual warming trend is that the temperature increases as the urban area grows and air traffic increases. 7 It is understandable, then, how a temperature site in a given city can show significant warming over a period of two or three decades. 
For some reason there appears to be no response to the obvious, the large majority of the ground temperature stations are now effected by UHI giving the ground temps an upwards bias of a possible 0.4C. 
Most active sun in a thousand years, 
70% of the globe not measured, 
Most of measuring equipment in northern hemisphere, 
El nino`s every 2 years since the 70`s, 
Massive climate shift to warming in late 70`s. 
explosion in urban development since 70`s 
Urban heat island effect, 
You don`t even need CO2 after that lot. 
The debate is over, more CO2 more food.
manacker 
04 May 2008 at 21:52
IPCC ignores warming/cooling cycles 
Peter Martin has asked for graphical presentations (rather than just tables of data) in order to better understand the various warming/cooling cycles that have been observed since 1850 (Hadley record). 
Other contributors to this site have questioned Mark Lynas’ conclusion that AGW global warming has not stopped (for now). Some, such as Brute, Black Wallaby, bobclive, robin guenier, myself, etc. have called attention to the cyclical nature of the temperature record, and commented on the lack of clear observed evidence of CO2/temperature causality. 
To make these cycles easier to visualize I’ve plotted them (as Peter asked me to do). 
Below are links to these data showing the overall linear trends, plus the linear trends during the various multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles observed since the record started. 
The Hadley global average annual land and sea surface temperature anomaly record since 1850 (raw data) 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual 
The Hadley temperature record since 1850 (graph) 
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2464515301/sizes/o/ 
The three multi-decadal warming cycles since 1850 
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2465370166/sizes/o/ 
The seven multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles since 1850 
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2465302088/sizes/o/ 
What can be seen from these data is that 
· There has been an overall warming trend since 1850 
· There have been three multi-decadal cycles of warming (and four cycles of cooling) since 1850, when the record started 
· Warming over the most recent cycle (1976-1998) is not at all unusual, when compared to warming over two earlier cycles (1858-1879 and 1910-1944), when there was very little impact of CO2 or other GHGs 
As was pointed out by Robin Guenier earlier on this site, there is an inconsistency in the logic of the IPCC in stating its case for AGW. The warming of the most recent cycle is attributed (by IPCC) to CO2 (and other anthropogenic GHGs) because models show that “no other explanation can be found”, yet no explanation has been found for the other two warming periods (when there was very little or no increase in CO2). 
In other words, the logic goes something like this: 
1. We cannot explain what caused the late 19th century and early 20th century warming. 
2. We know that CO2 caused the late 20th century warming. 
3. Why? 
4. Because nothing else explains it. 
And, one could add: we also do not know what has caused the current plus mid-20th century flat to cooling trends. 
The clear “take home” is that there are multi-decadal cycles of climate change, that have very little to do with CO2 (or other man-made GHGs), that are ignored by IPCC, because they cannot be explained by AGW. 
Max
Brute 
04 May 2008 at 22:59
Wow Max, you've been busy. I planted bushes in the front yard all day. 
I'd like to add a 5th item to your IPCC "logic" listing...... 
# 5. It's a boondoggle for politicians; a perfect excuse to tax and control anything and everything that consumes any and all types of energy. 
-Brute
manacker 
05 May 2008 at 07:06
Hi Brute. Good for you. Those bushes you planted will (at least according to IPCC) do a lot more to save us from runaway global warming than all the reports they have put together (plus all the proposed carbon taxes). 
Regards, 
Max
Robin Guenier 
05 May 2008 at 08:46
Yes - good for Brute. But, in my experience (in England), the best time for planting trees and bushes is in the Autumn (Fall) when they don't need constant watering. For example, I planted several hundred in November. Also doing my best to save the planet. Rob
Robin Guenier 
05 May 2008 at 08:52
But wait. Maybe we got it wrong. See this piece by St Boris (London's new mayor): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2...
Peter Martin 
05 May 2008 at 09:01
Normally I would be hoping that a Democratic candidate would successful in the US elections but this time I might be hoping that John Mc Cain comes out in front. 
He does seem to be in favour of precisely the sort of energy policy that I've argued for. He's asked the question of why the USA cannot follow the French example and generate 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. 
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/Speeches/13bc1d97-4... 
Max, 
You do seem very keen on the idea of putting a straight line through any set of data that comes your way. What if the data is better represented by a curved line than a straight one? A straight line is an example, a very extreme example, of smoothing. If you are rejecting the idea of 5 year averages or polynomial fitting, on the grounds that this distorts the data, how come it is suddenly Ok to put a straight line through 150 years of temperature anomaly figures? 
It really doesn't make any sense to do this. I would suggest that the true picture of what has happened over the last 150 years would be better revealed if you could bring yourself to accept the idea of either five year averaging or polynomial filters which would much better represent the data than a straight line. 
I'm not sure why the raw Hadley data shows much greater temperature variablity in the 19th century than the HadCrut3 data, as shown in graphs supplied by Stargazer and Mr Wallaby. In any case, the error bars for each data point would have to be much greater in the 19th century data. This makes it quite difficult to speculate on exactly what happened then.
Brute 
05 May 2008 at 11:17
My sudden interest in Botany has nothing to do with the IPCC.....I’m held accountable to a higher authority, Mrs. Brute..............
Sven 
05 May 2008 at 11:31
Come on, Peter Martin, 
Ever heard of trends and trend lines? That's exactly what Lynas used trying to counter Whitehouse, that got this whole article started! Look at the graph at the beginning of this article...
Black Wallaby 
05 May 2008 at 12:14
Peter Martin, 
Just to make sure you absolutely understand what Sven is saying, go to this link: 
http://images.newstatesman.com/articles/2008/998/20080114_gr... 
It would be interesting to hear what you have to say about the very large number of VERY SILLY 8-year trends they show, and which Lynus swallowed. 
It really depends on what and why you are trying to show.
Black Wallaby 
05 May 2008 at 12:22
BTW Peter Martin, 
have I asked you this before? 
Do you regard RealClimate as a source of reliable information? 
When you see that Mark Lynus was sucked-in by that nonsense, it leaves little doubt that he is incompetent to judge any scientific issues
Robin Guenier 
05 May 2008 at 13:57
In any case, I don’t think we need take too much notice of Mark Lynas. About five years ago, he wrote two articles for the New Statesman asserting, “the debate about climate change is over”. Er … not quite, I think. He went on to describe those sceptics “who were not oil and gas frontmen” (that’s us folks) as “semi-deranged obsessives”. Well, maybe he got that right. Then, after referring to the “end-Permian apocalypse” when “up to 95 percent of species (were) wiped out”, his main point was that now “we stand on the brink of a similar cataclysm” but that this time “the agent of death is man”. He suggested that we might already “have reached the point of no return". If that was true then – five years ago – what hope have we now?
Brute 
05 May 2008 at 15:20
Global Warming Profiteers Are Wrong 
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/warmin... 
'Global Warming' has stopped 
Monday, April 07, 2008 4:37:26 PM 
The simple truth is, the global warming, excuse me, the climate change alarmists are wrong. How wrong? (Emphasis mine throughout) 
For 10 years, average temperatures on earth have not risen. For seven years, the trend has been downward. The fall between January 2007 and January 2008 was the biggest since records began in 1880. 
Of course, it would be premature for me to assume that any climate change, at least into the plus side, has completely stopped. As the above states, the climate has indeed changed. But not in the way we have been browbeat about for years now. If anything facts like these show unequivococally that climate change FLUCTUATES. It is never static, either trending up or down. And the fact that the temperatures of the planet have either plateued, or dropped over the last ten years, especially during a time when the EVIL CO2 has continued to increase in the atmosphere, should lead anyone seeing Al Gore in person to tell him to shut the hell up. 
Well the UN says we're all doomed. Really? 
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's climate panel, says it had better find out where it got its sums wrong. Lord Lawson, a former UK Treasury Secretary, says the panel should be scrapped. 
Well, well, umm, ice sheets are breaking off at an alarming rate. Glaciers are melting. Blah, blah, blah. It seems that with most things, a bit of context is needed, at least as far as the alarmists are concerned. 
"A 5,282-square-mile ice shelf has begun to collapse because of rapid climate change in the Antarctic Peninsula. The Wilkins is one of a string of ice shelves that have collapsed in the past 30 years. Larsen B disappeared in one month in 2002. Six similar collapses underscore the region's unprecedented warming." 
Blood-curdling, but false. The Wilkins Ice Shelf, like its vanished neighbors, was not there in the medieval warm period, or in the 2,000-year-long Holocene Climate Optimum, when global temperatures were above today's. 
Ted Scambos of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, who first spotted the disintegration in March, says the Wilkins has been in place for a few centuries. So it was not there before. 
The Antarctic Peninsula represents just 2 percent of the continent, and still less of its ice mass. The vanished ice shelves covered a combined area just 1/55 the size of Texas. Massive chunks break away from Antarctica all the time, to re-grow in colder times. Whalers' logs going back centuries report sightings of vast icebergs hundreds of miles long. 
Since regular temperature records were first kept 50 years ago, most of the continent has been cooling. The Antarctic peninsula is an exception. Local undersea volcanic activity may be partly to blame. 
Don't forget the Sun... 
Another factor is the warming effect of the recently ended 70-year Solar Grand Maximum, when the sun was more active, and for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years. Long-term ocean changes have also contributed. 
And don't look for alarmists claiming much ice melt or break off over the next few months. Why? Winter has come to Antartica. And a funny thing about that sea level rise. Did you know the sea ROSE 8 inches during the 20th century? Neither did I. And all of those places that were on the coast a hundred years ago aren't under 8 inches of water. 
Back in the Antarctic, winter has come, so ice-shelf disintegration has stopped. Even if Wilkins collapses altogether, melting ice shelves add not a millimeter to sea level: the ice is already floating. Niklas Moerner, who has spent his entire 30-year career studying sea level, says sea level will rise this century by little more than the 8 inches observed in the 20th century. Just 3 inches of that rise will come from ice-melt. 
And here's a coup de grace paragraph if there ever was one. 
In the Arctic, the media reported less summer sea ice than at any time since records began. Most did not report that records began only 30 years ago; that at both Poles there is more sea ice now than ever since records began; that there are five times more polar bears today than 50 years ago; that the Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than today; or that the average thickness of the vast Greenland ice sheet grew by 2 inches yearly from 1993-2003. 
The dead ender, the climate fascist or Gore Acolyte won't acknowledge any of this. It's cherry picked. 'Big Oil' funded something/someone, etc. It is a case study in fanaticism. 
Show this stuff to anyone you may know, who hasn't bothered to do any research or inform themselves on the subject. I'd be willing to bet they pass it off as something made up or it couldn’t be true. Then ask them how they know. How many of them will be able to name a scientific source? How many have even looked at anything contrary to the propaganda? How many of them will point to Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, “An Inconvenient Truth” or the MSM said such and such? 
What is even more telling is that almost none of them will respond in a positive manner. Will they give thanks? Will they be happy that the good news is the bad news was wrong? No! 
It shows the investment of negativity and the willingness for so many to abdicate so much based on so little.
manacker 
05 May 2008 at 21:08
Brute is right 
Quoting an article for which he provided a link, Brute has written: 
“For 10 years, average temperatures on earth have not risen. For seven years, the trend has been downward.” 
To see this graphically (based on the Hadley temperature record) see: 
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2468849882/sizes/o/ 
Max
manacker 
05 May 2008 at 21:34
Hi Peter, 
In attempting to discount the observed cyclical temperature trends you wrote, “You seem to be very keen on the idea of putting a straight line through any set of data that comes your way.” 
Duh! 
Not actually any “set of data”. 
Just temperature trends, where I use the same linear trend approach used by IPCC. 
Check SPM 2007 (p.7) 
“The up-dated 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]. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.” 
If you look at the Hadley (1906-2005) graph I cited, it shows exactly the 100-year linear trend of 0.74°C that IPCC mentions in their report. 
So sell your double-talk to IPCC. The record shows what it does, i.e.: 
“20th century warming” based on the 100-year linear trend (1901-2000) of 0.6°C. 
If you “jiggle” the definition of 20th century, by replacing an early 20th century cooling cycle with an early 21st century flat period, the 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) becomes 0.74°C. 
Several multi-decadal cycles with linear warming and cooling trends over the entire 150+ year record. 
Those are the facts, Peter (even if they do represent “an inconvenient truth” for you). 
Regards, 
Max
JZ Smith 
05 May 2008 at 21:49
It occurs to me that since the CO2 record doesn't seem to match the temp record, that there are probably lots of worried scientists reviewing the history of CO2 emissions right now looking to 'correct' the obvious flaws in the record. I expect a better-fitting (to the AGW POV) CO2 record soon.
Peter Martin 
05 May 2008 at 23:34
Max and Sven, 
Well, of course, trend lines and linear regressions have their place in statistical analysis. As do polynomial curve fitting and running averaging of statistically variable results. You can't accept any one of these and throw out the others, it all depends on the way that each is applied. 
What Mark Lynas and the guys at Realclimate have showed, with their series of 8 year trend lines, is that it is possible to reach a variety of different conclusions depending on which particular 8 years are chosen. 
Whichever method is chosen, I should say that its is quite dangerous to predict too much into the future on the basis of any type of curve fitting of previous data. If it was that easy we'd all be millionaires on the stock market! 
Tha real value of the historical data is that it allows us to check our computer models against what has happened previously. 
Whichever one of these models that you would care to choose, the message for the longer term is exactly the same: 
Global warming is caused by CO2 emissions into the atmosphere at a greater rate than the earth can cope with, and therefore, they need to be curtailed with the utmost urgency.
manacker 
05 May 2008 at 23:48
JZ Smith makes a good observation on a soon to be released 'corrected' CO2 record. 
There will probably also be a soon to be released 'corrected' temperature anomaly record.
manacker 
06 May 2008 at 00:13
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “I should say that its is quite dangerous to predict too much into the future on the basis of any type of curve fitting of previous data.” 
I could add: “It is even more dangerous to predict too much into the future on the basis of any type of GIGO computer model output.” 
This is even more dangerous when the historical data show that the assumed CO2/temperature correlation being fed in to the models is highly doubtful. 
You wrote: “The real value of the historical data is that it allows us to check our computer models against what has happened previously.” 
This is exactly the weak point in your argument. The historical data show us multi-decadal cycles of warming and cooling that appear to be unrelated to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. 
The models are unable to “explain” early 20th century warming, yet they conclude that late 20th century warming was caused largely by AGW, because “nothing else explains it”. 
This is the reason that you have been unable to address Robin’s request with anything other than side-stepping double-talk. 
To your closing statement: 
“Whichever one of these models that you would care to choose, the message for the longer term is exactly the same: Global warming is caused by CO2 emissions into the atmosphere at a greater rate than the earth can cope with, and therefore, they need to be curtailed with the utmost urgency.” 
This is a pure “statement of faith”. I “would care to choose” none of these models, since they are all based on assumptions that have been shown by the observed historical data to be highly doubtful. 
Sorry, Peter, your argumentation is weak (but I’ll admit that your “faith” is strong). 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
06 May 2008 at 01:21
Hi Peter, 
Just to clear up your apparent confusion, "I'm not sure why the raw Hadley data shows much greater temperature variablity in the 19th century than the HadCrut3 data." 
The Hadley data ARE the HadCrut3 data, so (by definition) they show the same temperature variability. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
06 May 2008 at 04:30
Hi Peter, 
You once advised me (very wisely) that a picture is worth a thousand words. 
Here is a picture showing the actually observed correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature over the past 150+ years. 
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2469181025/sizes/o/ 
I cannot for the life of me see a “robust” causation. Can you? (If so, you should maybe check with your optometrist.) 
Regards, 
Max
Black Wallaby 
06 May 2008 at 09:32
What to do on a damp and dull afternoon! 
I did some colouring in MS Paint!… great fun….long ago I used to hobby-enjoy wax and dry pastel painting, and some of my works are represented in UK, USA and Hong Kong! 
I also opened this late afternoon, a bottle of Oz-Audi Cabernet Merlot @ $2.99c (Currently ~US$ 3.20c, maybe $2.80c soon?), which so-far on glass # ~1.5, is surprisingly tolerable. 
Peter Martin has demonstrated some difficulty with an earlier tri-element graph in simple monotone. SO, at great effort, I’ve added all these colours to it, and notes explaining things as best I can. Gee, I hope he can sort the relevant from the irrelevant, after my huge effort! 
Hey, give it a click @ 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2470502310_99908b19a6_o....
Black Wallaby 
06 May 2008 at 09:46
Gee, Robin Guenier Reur 05 May 2008 at 13:57 
I did not know Markus Horribillus Lyingarse (Lyinass in Americano?) was capable of shit like that!!!! Does he draw an income from it? Why?....How? 
I'm Speechless! 
Maybe I might do a Google on him one day if I'm in some kind of silly mood, maybe prior to pointing a pistol to my temple! 
Regards BobFJ (Black Wallaby)
Black Wallaby 
06 May 2008 at 11:03
Furthermore Robin Guenier, 
Is it possible that some people actually believe such lyingarse gobble gobble shit?
Peter Martin 
06 May 2008 at 11:58
Max, 
You might want to reconsider your comment on the correlation between CO2 and temperature anomaly. 
Its pretty good. You didn't have the axis set to the right values to show this though. 
How about this? 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/2470764072_daed0d3e4f_o.... 
Mr Wallaby, 
I'm not sure what you are saying exactly. Global warming isn't proportional to emissions for any one year but the accumulation of emissions over a number of years.
Robin Guenier 
06 May 2008 at 14:38
“Actual observations trump computer models and as we learn more about the Earth we start to realize how puny and irrelevant man's contribution to climate change really is.” See: http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?seci...
bobclive 
06 May 2008 at 18:07
Watch the web for climate change truths 
By Christopher Booker 
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 04/05/2008 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2... 
This is an extremely good read and appears give credence to the sceptic view of AGW, has the press finally seen the light. 
On April 24 the World Wildife Fund (WWF), another body keen to keep the warmist flag flying, published a study warning that Arctic sea ice was melting so fast that it may soon reach a "tipping point" where "irreversible change" takes place. This was based on last September's data, showing ice cover having shrunk over six months from 13 million square kilometres to just 3 million. 
What the WWF omitted to mention was that by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km (see the website Cryosphere Today), and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded. (At the same time Antarctic sea ice-cover was also at its highest-ever level, 30 per cent above normal). 
The most dramatic evidence, however, emerged last week with an announcement by Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that an immense slow-cycling movement of water in the Pacific, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), had unexpectedly shifted into its cool phase, something which only happens every 30 years or so, ultimately affecting climate all over the globe. 
Discussion of this on the invaluable Watts Up With That website, run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts, shows how the alternations of the PDO between warm and cool coincided with each of the major temperature shifts of the 20th century - warming after 1905, cooling after 1946, warming again after 1977 - and how the new shift to a cool phase could have repercussions for decades to come.
bobclive 
06 May 2008 at 18:15
Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Reaches “Unprecedented” Levels 
http://www.climateaudit.org/ 
While global warming enthusiasts might take cheer from the NOAA's claim that "average global land temperature" in March was "the warmest on record", this was in striking contrast to a graph published last week on the Climate Audit website by Steve McIntyre. 
Tracking satellite data for the tropical troposphere, it showed March temperatures plunging to one of their lowest points in 30 years. 
I live in the midlands UK and I can tell you March 2008 was one of the coldest for years.
Robin Guenier 
06 May 2008 at 18:30
bobclive: unfortunately, Christopher Booker's writings are not evidence that the press has seen the light. He's been putting the sceptic view for a long time and is very much an exception. Far more typical is this piece published by the BBC today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7384807.stm 
However, the comments following the Booker article are typical of comments made also about AGW articles - perhaps one day the media will catch up.
manacker 
06 May 2008 at 18:50
Hi Peter, 
You wrote that you felt that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is “pretty good”. 
Get an eye test, Peter. 
And look at the lower bar/line graph I sent you to see how “robust” this correlation really was. 
The fact is that the correlation is lousy, with the exception of the 1976-1998 warming period, which is IPCC’s poster period, where linear temperature increase was around 0.37C and CO2 went up by 33 ppmv.. 
The 1944-1976 period showed a slight cooling with CO2 increasing by 25 ppmv. Ouch! 
The “unexplained” 1910-1944 period showed warming of 0.53C with CO2 rising only by 15 ppmv. 50% more warming than over 1976-1998 with less than half the CO2 increase. Hmmm… 
The warming and cooling periods prior to 1910 happened without any real significant in CO2. Oops! 
If you “level” things out enough you can show that both went up smoothly in sync, but that is like flattening out the Alps with an imaginary giant steamroller and then saying Switzerland is as flat as the Netherlands. 
It is a sophisticated way of bending the observed facts to fit the desired theory. 
Until you can respond with hard data to Robin’s request, your AGW theory “because nothing else explains it” is very weak and the link between CO2 and temperature is based on conjecture and (in your case, apparently) "faith".. 
Bring facts, Peter, not hype, rigged graphs and obfuscation. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
06 May 2008 at 19:06
Hi Peter, 
Back to our correlation/causation discussion. As we both know, correlation between two variables does not demonstrate causation. 
An example would be the correlation between rising temperatures from 1976 to 1998 and rising global consumption of hamburgers over this same period. 
It is, however, obvious that the LACK of correlation between two variables does clearly demonstrate the LACK of causation. 
In the case of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, the observed record shows an apparent correlation for the period 1976 to 1998, which, as explained above, does not demonstrate a causation. 
Yet this apparent correlation is used to support the AGW hypothesis, with the nonsensical rationale that "it must be so, since we can find no other explanation" (Robin’s point, i.e. the “fatal flaw” in the hypothesis). 
The problem is that no other periods in the temperature and CO2 record since 1850 show such a correlation: there are warming periods with little or no CO2 increase as well as cooling periods with significant CO2 increase. 
The lack of such a correlation is a clear indication that the suggested causation is falsified. 
So far you have not been able to show otherwise. Keep trying. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
06 May 2008 at 21:53
A bad time for AGW “believers” 
The 21st century has not started out well for “believers” in the AGW hypothesis, or for the politicians and bureaucrats that are hoping to use the AGW scare to implement hundreds of billions of dollars in carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes. 
The ink has barely dried on the IPCC’s 1,000+ page AR4 WG1 report and it is already way out of date. 
While AGW alarmists are predicting model-generated imminent “tipping points” with disastrous consequences, the thermometers out there (even the ones next to AC exhausts or asphalt parking lots) are telling us a different story: global warming has stopped. 
Global land and sea surface temperatures have reversed the late 20th century warming trend and have cooled slightly since around 1998. The satellite temperature record of the troposphere shows the same slight cooling trend. 
Ocean temperature measurements from Argo robots show that the ocean has cooled significantly since 2003, when measurements started, essentially reversing the warming measured at spot locations over the previous 50 years. Since the ocean holds 1,000 times more heat than the atmosphere, this is a sign of major cooling of our planet. 
The cold winter 2007/2008, that did not want to end, has broken records all over the world, and the WMO tells us that 2008 will continue to be colder than normal, as ENSO is in a cool cycle and Solar Cycle 24 starts out very slowly. 
And during all this cooling, human CO2 emissions are continuing at record rates, as the economies of new giants, such as China and India are booming, European emissions are continuing to rise and Americans are still driving around in their gas-guzzling SUVs. 
To make matters even worse for the AGW alarmists, there are increasing numbers of scientists and journalists that are daring to take the “non-PC” stand of questioning the science underpinning the AGW scare. One such article by a top climate scientist: 
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828 
And, in this age of instant information, AGW skeptical sites like ClimateAudit, WattsUpWithThat, etc. are drawing the public’s attention to weak points and errors in the science and data, which support the AGW hypothesis. 
No wonder the AGW alarmist sites like RealClimate, Grist, etc. are getting worried and are hoping to keep the scare going with articles (like the lead article here)denying what the thermometers are telling us (“it’s just a speed bump in the road”) or diverting our attention with claims of overwhelming “consensus” in the “peer reviewed scientific community” for AGW, etc. 
The politicians are also getting concerned that the multibillion-dollar boondoggle may implode before it really gets off the ground and are shouting that “the debate is over” and “we must act now to save the planet before it’s too late”. 
Before it is too late, indeed…Pop! 
Max
Peter Martin 
06 May 2008 at 23:51
Max, 
The linking of increased CO2 levels to AGW is not based solely on temperature observations and statistical correlation. 
The physics of the way CO2 molecules absorb the refelected IR radiation from the earth's surface is relatively well understood. 
This is a good account of the way the theory has developed historically. 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-satu...
manacker 
07 May 2008 at 00:54
Hi Peter, 
You wrote, “The linking of increased CO2 levels to AGW is not based solely on temperature observations and statistical correlation”, and then gave me a link to the history of the theory. 
That’s nice (even if nothing new). 
I am aware of the theory and the calculations (Arrhenius, Stefan-Boltzmann). 
They tell me (ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL) that a doubling of the 1900 CO2 concentration of around 280 ppmv to an expected concentration by 2100 of 560 ppmv should cause a temperature increase of around 0.7C over these 200 years. We are a bit less than halfway there by now, so we can expect 0.4C warming from CO2 by 2100. No big deal. 
And the wonderful thing is that CO2 would have to double again, to 1120 ppmv to cause another 0.7C rise. This could happen by the year 2400 if we haven’t run out of fossil fuels by then. A real ho-hum! 
Everything else is hype plus computer models with GIGO feedbacks, “scenarios” and “storylines” programmed in to produce alarming results. 
What we are observing now is that “all other things are not equal” and nature is in full control of the weather (i.e. the climate) and that it has very little to do with man-made CO2. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
07 May 2008 at 03:18
Max, 
I would say that if you checked through the scientific literature such as: 
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensi... 
You'd find that the best estimate for climate sensitivity to CO2 levels was 2.9 deg C not 0.7 deg C. 
Climate sensitivity being defined as the temperature increase which would be expected from a doubling of CO2 levels. 
At present, CO2 levels have increased by about 30% from pre-industrial levels and the temperature has increased by ~0.6 deg C which is consistent with the above figure bearing in mind that there are other factors playing a part too. 
Three degrees of warming is pretty serious. And it's also an average. The arctic regions are experiencing a much higher degree of warming than average. You'll already know of the problems that may result if Greenland warms significantly.
Peter Martin 
07 May 2008 at 03:38
Robin ( and others including Stargazer), 
Stargazer has also have referenced a link to the same German study. 
Can I just ask if you accept all of this study, or just the part that predicts that the next decade may be cooler than other studies have previously predicted?
Black Wallaby 
07 May 2008 at 09:16
Hands up anyone who has studied the *2003* paper of: L.B. Klyashtorin & A.A. Lyubushin! (K & L) 
No? Well what they did was show very logically, back in *2003* that there is an ~60-year low signal in climate fluctuation, with another peak commencing at about that time. (prior to publishing in *2003*) Guess what? In 2008, the evidence for that is looking much stronger. It is good news if it continues to be true for the next 60 years!; 
1) People worried about New York swamped by tidal waves will have a reprieve 
2) Scientists worried about the potential return of a "Little Ice Age”, eg…… Re: solar cycle 24 has gone all funny, and the PDO etc, may perhaps gain comfort from (K & L) 
Anyway, see my updated mark-up of Fig 5 in (K & L)’s paper. 
Let’s hope they are right, because it appears to be very good news! 
We can survive a bit of cold over the next 30 years or so! 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2357/2473007422_0f83ed191d_o.... 
Source is identified thereon
Black Wallaby 
07 May 2008 at 09:44
Peter Martin wrote in part to me, on 06 May 2008 at 11:58: 
I'm not sure what you [Black Wallaby/BobFJ] are saying exactly. Global warming isn't proportional to emissions for any one year but the accumulation of emissions over a number of years. 
Well Peter because you are a declared mathematician and physiscist, I'm surprised how you could be so confused....... or maybe I don't understand what you are saying.......I dunno, I'm flumoxed!. 
Just to clarify the issue, as I understand it, you alarmists argue that with increasing levels of GHG, (mostly CO2), the global surface air temperature will increase. (let's not get distracted by progressive logarithmic reduction in that function). 
OK, I've pointed out that during cooling periods, the CO2 levels are still going up, and vice versa, disproportionately, apart from the very latest warming period. 
I'm really baffled where you are coming from in trying to obfuscate that very clear published data! 
If you want ME to understand YOU, how about you take the CO2 data over the last 150 years and do a Flickr on what you think the corresponding global temperatures should be....Like draw a graph.... showing your expected relationship between CO2 and temperature. 
Remember that there are probably silent observers to this debate
bobclive 
07 May 2008 at 09:54
Is There A Cumulative ENSO Climate Forcing? 
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html 
Is There a Cumulative ENSO Forcing? Part 2, 
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-there-cumulative-e...
Robin Guenier 
07 May 2008 at 10:26
Peter, by asking about my “acceptance” of the recent German study, it seems you don’t understand what it means to be a sceptic. It means I am not easily persuaded to subscribe to any particular hypothesis relating to climate. I do, however, suspect that the factors affecting climate variability are hugely complex and probably inadequately understood by anyone – comprising (amongst many things well beyond my ability to specify them) factors arising from changes outside the system, such as solar radiation and atmospheric aerosols and greenhouse gases (especially water vapour) and factors arising from natural changes within the system, such as El Ninos, changes in ocean circulation and oceanic heat content anomalies. I believe that the idea that humanity can somehow manage the climate by trying to manipulate just one aspect of one of these factors is arrogant and absurd – cue King Canute (see my post of 21 April 2008 at 14:47). For me, therefore, the value of the German study is that it serves to confirm the relevance of one of these many factors – in this case, ocean circulation. No more than that – “acceptance” doesn’t arise.
bobclive 
07 May 2008 at 10:26
If you watched BBC`s news night last night you should be concerned, they clearly stated that cooling will continue until 2015 and warming will again commence from that date, and thats from the horses mouth. 
They gave two heavily censored spots to Roy Spencer obviously to make believe there was some kind of balance, it was difficult to know what Spencer was talking about, I think it was the weather, by the way the Beeb also revealed that Uk modelers have now got an IBM deep blue super computer which they said can model everything accurately, obviously the US universities can`t afford this high tec gear otherwise the debate would be over.
Black Wallaby 
07 May 2008 at 10:33
Poor confused Peter Martin. 
If you did not understand the graph posted above: 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2470502310_99908b19a6_o.... 
It may be necessary for you increase page size, zoom, or whatever the terminology on your web browser is. 
In MS IE v7; go to Menu Page- Zoom
bobclive 
07 May 2008 at 10:51
This is a question asked by one bogger, 
I would like to understand the sociology of the satellite versus ground based measurements. The MSU is a scientific instrument, calibrated against the three degree radiation of the Big Bang. It takes 30,000 measurements a day and covers virtually the entire earth’s surface every week. There have been some minor corrections to the UAH analysis and RSS comes up with a slightly warmer analysis. Compared to this, the ground based weather stations are a heterogeneous network of thermometers that cover maybe 15% of the earth’s surface and none of the oceans, and have all sorts of documented problems such as questionable siting, poor maintenance, UHI, data irregularities, and on and on. 
In any other field of science the satellite measurements immediately become the primary measurements and any ground based data is relegated to secondary status and only used to answer very narrow questions. So why in climate science does the majority dismiss the satellite measurement of the atmosphere’s temperature? There are a lot of other satellite measurements of climate variables that are accepted without a problem, why is it so difficult to accept this one?
manacker 
07 May 2008 at 17:30
Message to bobclive 
You asked: “There are a lot of other satellite measurements of climate variables that are accepted without a problem, why is it so difficult to accept this one?” 
GISS is run by James E. Hansen, who is paid to give the US taxpayer unbiased and correct temperature and climate data, but who has become an AGW activist, warning the world (and US Congress) of imminent “tipping points” bringing environmental disaster, extinction of species and a threat to humanity itself, unless carbon taxes are implemented immediately. 
UAH is run by John R. Christy, who takes a more neutral stand on AGW and deplores the fact that “climate science” has become politicized. Roy W. Spencer, a scientist on Christy’s team has recently written about this problem. 
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828 
So, if you are the political organization (the UN’s IPCC), which has done the most to cause this politicization and who (like Hansen) is also trying to convinced the world to accept draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes, whereby politicians and bureaucrats (in the UN and elsewhere) can shuffle around hundreds of millions of dollars, which record are you going to accept? 
Spencer describes “The Sloppy Science of Global Warming” pretty well. 
I'm afraid that's the answer to your question. 
Regards, 
Max
Robin Guenier 
07 May 2008 at 18:54
This is interesting: http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1041
manacker 
07 May 2008 at 19:19
Hi Peter, 
Thanks for link to Annan/Hargreaves paper which essentially pointed out that previous estimates of “climate sensitivity” [the global temperature change in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2] have been subjective and questionable, with a conclusion that they are “unaware of any significant evidence in favor of such a high value” [i.e.4.5C]. 
But this is sort of beside the point of our discussion. 
Back to Arrhenius and Stefan-Boltzmann plus IPCC (SPM 2007). 
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf 
Let us accept the IPCC estimate (p.2) that “pre-industrial” atmospheric CO2 was at 280 ppmv and that it had reached 379 ppmv by 2005, based on the Mauna Loa record. 
Let’s check the arithmetic using the theory: 
IPCC tells us in Figure SPM.2. (p.4) that the radiative forcing (RF) estimate for anthropogenic CO2 (from 1750 to 2005) is 1.66 W/m^2 
Arrhenius Law tells us 
dE = [alpha] ln ( [CO2] / [CO2] orig ), 
where alpha is 5.35 (Myhre et al.) 
and dE is change in radiative forcing (RF) 
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm 
If we make this calculation, we can confirm the RF estimate as stated by IPCC 
dE = 5.35 ln (379 / 280) = 1.62 W/m^2 
Note: The calculation actually results in a RF of 1.62 rather than 1.66, but this is a minor error of only a bit more than 3%. 
using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation: 
dT/dE = 1 / (4 [sigma] T^3) 
then: 
dT = dE / 4 [sigma] T^3) 
Where sigma (Stefan-Boltzmann constant) equals 5.6705E-08 W/m^2*K^4 
And substituting T = 15 degrees C = 288.16K 
We calculate a temperature increase from 1750 to 2005 (from 280 to 379 ppm CO2): 
dT = 1.66 / (4 *5.6705E-08 * (288.16^3)) 
or 
dT = 0.306 centigrade 
for simplification, let's call that 0.3 degrees C 
IPCC has various projections for future CO2 levels by 2100, based on various “scenarios” and “storylines” (p.18). These also include “climate-carbon cycle feedback” resulting from the lower CO2 solubility in warmer oceans (p.13) 
If you assume that the CO2 concentration will be 560 ppm by 2100, and use the same equations. 
You arrive at an additional RF of 2.09 W/m^2 
And a dT of around 0.38 degrees C, by increasing CO2 from 379 to 560 ppm 
for simplification, let's call that 0.4 degrees C 
In Figure SPM.2. (p.4) IPCC shows that positive forcing from other GHGs plus black carbon on snow are essentially cancelled out by negative forcing from land use and aerosols. (Strangely, solar irradiance has essentially no impact on forcing, according to IPCC). 
This means that over the 350 years from 1750 (at 280 ppm) to 2100 (at 560 ppm , or twice the 1750 concentration), CO2 will have caused a temperature increase of around 0.7C. 
Since the relationship is logarithmic, CO2 will have to double again, to 1120 ppmv for another 0.7 degrees C to result. This might happen by around the year 2400, if current rates of increase continue and we haven’t run out of fossil fuels before then. 
So your “best estimate for climate sensitivity to CO2 levels” [i.e. a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from “pre-industrial” values to expected values by 2100] of 2.9C according to greenhouse theory and estimated forcing factors as estimated by IPCC is incorrect. 
The number is 0.7C. 
NOT 2.9C. 
As the relationship is logarithmic and we have already experienced around 45% of this increase [i.e. 0.3C], we have another 0.4C left to go by 2100. 
Ho hum! 
Regards, 
Max
stargazer 
07 May 2008 at 20:06
Robin 
The link you posted is the closest I have seen 
anyone else come, to what I have been saying. 
That 
(from one of my postings) 
there is a connection between the solar cycle, ocean temperature,PDO, el Niña and Niño possibly via cosmic rays/clouds, But no I don't know what it is... and neither does anyone else.
Robin Guenier 
07 May 2008 at 20:57
I guessed you'd appreciated it, Stargazer!
manacker 
07 May 2008 at 21:34
Hi bobclive, 
Back to your query, “There are a lot of other satellite measurements of climate variables that are accepted without a problem, why is it so difficult to accept this one?” 
I believe you are highlighting a chronic problem (as was pointed out in the Spencer article on “The Sloppy Science of Global Warming”). 
IPCC does not only have a problem accepting satellite measurements that do not support their position of alarming temperature change, they have this same problem with measurements that do not support their claims of mass loss of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. 
Let’s take the Antarctica example: 
IPCC claims a net mass loss of Antarctic ice 1993-2003 due to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with a corresponding sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the same period (pp.5,7). This equates to a loss of ice mass of 71 Gt/year. 
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf 
A report by D. Wingham et al based on 11 years of continuous actual measurements by ESA satellites covering the same time period shows no shrinking, but an increase with a corresponding lowering of sea level over the period. 
http://bowfell.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~lidunka/ ... s/djw3.pdf 
Wingham used the record of millions of 24/7 satellite altimetry readings to calculate a mass balance for the time period mid-April 1992 to mid-April 2003 and extended this to the whole AIS by adding calculated estimates for those non-measurable areas near the coasts and near the pole, where satellite altimetry could not give accurate readings. 
Wingham’s conclusion of an overall net 27 Gt/year mass gain is clearly not compatible with the IPCC claim of 71 Gt/year mass loss over the same time period. 
There have been other reports covering different time periods and showing different results, some of which are only based on spot readings, others that truncate an entire winter season, etc., but no studies cover the period cited by IPCC other than the Wingham study, which IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept). 
Later in the IPCC report, IPCC states the future sea level “projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from … Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993-2003” (p.14), ignoring the satellite record showing that the Antarctica ice sheet grew during this period, rather than shrinking. 
So a faulty past record is used to make a faulty projection for the future. 
This is, unfortunately, just the “tip of the iceberg of the sloppy science of global warming”. 
IPCC has made many claims that have been contradicted by scientific studies, which IPCC has chosen to ignore: 
1. Antarctic Ice Sheet receded from 1993 to 2003 (it actually grew) - above example 
2. Greenland Ice Sheet receded from 1993 to 2003 (it actually grew) 
3. Rate of sea level rise accelerated 1993-2003 over earlier 20th Century rate of rise (it actually slowed down) 
4. Northern Hemisphere snow cover receded in latter part of 20th Century (it did not since 1988) 
5. Antarctic sea ice showed no change and there was “a lack of warming” (it actually grew and there was recorded cooling) 
6. Warmth of last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years (denies a well-documented Medieval Warm Period) 
7. Solar forcing is less than 1/10th of CO2 forcing (unfounded claim, ignoring all but direct solar irradiance) 
8. Discrepancies between surface and tropospheric (satellite) temperature record have been reconciled (the published records show this is not true) 
9. Tropospheric temperatures have risen faster than those at the surface, confirming AGW theory (they have actually risen more slowly) 
10. UHI effect on surface temperature record is negligible (many studies from all over the world show it is significant) 
11. Globally averaged water vapor content has risen since 1980s (it has not) 
12. Intense tropical cyclone activity has increased in latter half of 20th Century (it has not) 
13. Severe weather events have increased in latter half of 20th Century (they have not) 
The low-end projections for the future (temperature, sea level) are reasonable, but not alarming. 
The high-end temperature projections are alarming but not reasonable (and supported neither by the physics of the greenhouse gas theory nor by the radiative forcing values stated by IPCC). They are based on climate models, which have programmed in GIGO “positive feedbacks”, “storylines” and “scenarios” designed to arrive at alarming results 
The high-end sea level projections have been described as “nonsense” by the scientist in charge of INQUA, the worldwide agency responsible for sea level monitoring. 
The projections concerning severe weather events are unfounded. 
Unfortunately, it is the unreasonable high-end projections and forecasts of more severe weather events that are used by the media and politicians to stir up fear, while the reasonable low-end projections are ignored. 
Conclusion: IPCC 2007 SPM has ignored a large number of scientific data that do not support its main thesis of AGW; some of these studies show trends that are directly opposite to those claimed by IPCC, others show trends that are much less alarming than those claimed by IPCC. All in all, the errors and omission in IPCC 2007 SPM go in the direction of making global warming sound more alarming than it is in actual fact, thereby painting a false picture of potential future catastrophe due to AGW. 
Unfortunately, that’s the “sloppy science of global warming” at work. 
The taxpayers (mostly those of the developed world) are paying billions of dollars per year for this “sloppy science”, the intent of which is to frighten them into supporting carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes that will cost these same taxpayers hundred of billions of dollars. 
But the good new is that global warming has stopped (at least for the past 10 years). And if the current cooling trend continues for just a few more years, the AGW bubble will burst and reasonable people all over the world will recognize at as a “non-problem”, and the UN’s plan to “tax the air that we breathe” will collapse. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
07 May 2008 at 23:09
Max, 
It's curious that you have been able to work out the answer so precisely, from a few equations, when everyone else expresses the answer as a range to 95% confidence limits. 
So it seems to be that your answer, for whatever reason, is at variance with the answer from 'established science' by a factor of 4 or 5. 
You haven't mentioned water vapour in your calculation. It is often mentioned, correctly, that water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. CO2 itself produces a small increase, lets say your figure of 0.7 deg. The small temperature increase allows more water vapour to be absorbed and so amplifies the effect of the CO2. 
Have you had any comments from climate scientists on your calculations? 
Mr Wallaby, 
Can you give a reference for the source of the CO2 data and temperature data used in the graph that I was having trouble with? 
Incidentally one reason I was having some trouble, was that there was no scale given for CO2 concentrations. I'll have to deduct a couple of marks for that.
Black Wallaby 
07 May 2008 at 23:36
Peter Martin, 
If you are responding to my following post: 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Poor confused Peter Martin. 
If you did not understand the graph posted above: 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2470502310_99908b19a6_o.... 
It may be necessary for you increase page size, zoom, or whatever the terminology on your web browser is. 
In MS IE v7; go to Menu Page- Zoom 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
The authors, link to their paper are on the graph 
There is no scale for CO2, because the units are of total fossil fuel consumption, which is thought to be related to GHG emission. The shape of the curve is similar to typical published curves for CO2, but is not CO2
Brute 
07 May 2008 at 23:42
Via Ice Cap................................................... 
May 07, 2008 
CO2 Science Papers Refuting Hansen’s and Gore’s Claims 
By CO2 Science 
In a story entitled ”East Siberian Arctic Temperatures of the Last Interglacial” the Idson’s challenge Hansen’s assertion the current warming may be unprecedented. In an attempt to portray earth’s current temperature as being extremely high and, therefore, extremely dangerous (as well as CO2-induced), Hansen et al. (2006) have claimed the earth “is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ~1C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. 
In a study that provides evidence that is pertinent to this claim, Kienast et al. studied plant macrofossils found in permafrost deposits on Bol’shoy Lyakhovsky Island (73N, 141 30E) of the New Siberian Archipelago on the coast of the Dimitrii Laptev Strait, from which they reconstructed climatic conditions that prevailed during the prior or Eemian Interglacial. 
In the words of the five researchers, “macrofossils of warmth-demanding shrubs and aquatic plants, occurring farther south today, indicate that local mean temperatures of the warmest month were at least 12.5C, thus 10C higher than today at that time,” when maximum atmospheric CO2 levels were on the order of 290 ppm, or about 100 ppm less than they are today. 
This finding is just one of many that indicate that various places on the planet have been much warmer than they are today at various times over the past million years, and when the air’s CO2 content was also much lower than it is today. For more such examples, see our Major Report Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion, which also presents evidence refuting many of Hansen’s other outlandish claims. 
In another story ”Accelerated Disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet” the Idso’s report a phenomenon that both Al Gore and James Hansen promote involves the thousands of meltwater pools or supraglacial lakes that form on the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet each summer, and the conduits or moulins that can form in fractures beneath them and rapidly drain their water to the bedrock at the bottom of the ice sheet, enhance the ice sheet’s basal lubrication, and thereby cause portions of it to flow faster towards the sea. Two papers published in Sciencexpress on 17 April 2008 bring a much needed dose of reality to the discussion of the role that is likely to be played by this phenomenon in Greenland’s potential contribution to future sea level rise; and their findings are radically different from what Gore and Hansen contend. Read more here.
Brute 
07 May 2008 at 23:48
I realize that this has been alluded to earlier; I just thought that Mr. Martin may enjoy reading it again................... 
Report: Global Sea Ice at 'Unprecedented' Levels 
April 2008 had the third highest recorded amount since records were started in 1979, contradicting media coverage of diminishing sea ice. 
By Jeff Poor 
Business & Media Institute 
5/6/2008 8:52:34 AM 
Don’t expect to hear this reported on the your evening newscast, but according to new data, sea ice levels in the Southern Hemisphere are at 25-year highs. 
“On a global basis, world sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were ‘unprecedented’ for the month of April in over 25 years,” Steve McIntyre wrote on Climateaudit.org on May 4. “Levels are the third highest (for April) since the commencement of records in 1979, exceeded only by levels in 1979 and 1982.” 
McIntyre, along with Ross McKitrick, debunked the validity of the “hockey stick” graph used in a journal article by Michael Mann, which described the increase in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature. The two claimed Mann’s graph was based on flawed calculations and data defects. 
That data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) suggests the effects of global warming aren’t as dire as some media reports would have you believe. A segment on ABC’s March 28 “Good Morning America” warned melting sea ice is endangering the global warming alarmists’ favorite mascot, the polar bear. 
“[I] realize what I need to do is try and tell these stories through National Geographic magazine by using animals such as polar bears to hang this campaign on, to say that if we lose sea ice in the Arctic, and projections are to lose sea ice in the next 20 to 50 years, we ultimately are going to lose polar bears as well,” National Geographic magazine photographer Paul Milkin said to ABC’s Sam Champion. 
According to the NSIDC data, sea ice had declined in 2007 to record lows, but showed a rebound in 2008, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere. 
An Aug. 19, 2007 CBS “60 Minutes” segment warned melting sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere was endangering the penguin, another species often trotted out by global warming alarmists. 
“Getting manhandled may ruffle their feathers, but it was key to discovering their fate,” “60 Minutes” contributor Scott Pelley said. “These are grown penguin chicks chasing their mothers for food, which she delivers beak to beak. Soon, the chicks will go to sea to hunt for a shrimp-like crustacean called krill. The krill grow beneath the sea ice, but in the warming ocean, the sea ice is melting away.” 
“So the penguins have been going to sea and starving to death?” Pelley asked Sue Trivelpiece of NOAA’s Antarctic Ecosystem Research Division. 
“The chicks are declining and we think they just can’t find the krill,” Trivelpiece replied. 
Although sea ice has actually increased, it isn’t clear if the penguins’ food supply will increase and the species native to the polar regions of the Southern Hemisphere will once again thrive.
Brute 
08 May 2008 at 01:31
Predictions, Predictions, Predictions! 
5/1/08....Next decade may see no warming due to changes in ocean currents. link 
4/30/08....Warming to level off through 2014 mostly due to ENSO then surge thereafter. link Note: this is the same story as the one on the bottom. 
4/28/08....We could reach the global warming tipping point within 2-3 decades. link 
11/15/07.....Climate change accelerating, scientists warn. link. 
01/03/08.....2008 will be one of the top ten warmest globally since 1850. link. 
12/07/07......Rising CO2 will lead to wetter storms in the northern hemisphere. link. 
12/21/07....More than 400 scientists cast doubt that man-made global warming threatens the planet. link. 
01/23/08....Warming oceans reducing the # of landfalling U.S. Hurricanes. link. 
03/04/08........Famous hurricane forecaster predicts global cooling in 10 years. link. 
04/23/08.......Prepare for an ice age. link. 
02/12/08......Sea level rise could be twice as high as current projections. link. 
08/31/07.......Global warming will bring violent storms and tornadoes. link. 
03/27/08.......Expect more warming of extreme temperatures. link. 
07/25/07....Huge sea level rises are coming unless we act now! link. 
10/3/07.....Earth will only heat up 8/10 of a degree over the next 100 years and the sun is the 
major driver of this increase. link. 
08/10/07.......Global warming will speed up after 2009. link. 
04/30/08........Global warming will stop until at least 2015. link. 
04/29/08.......PDO flip could mean cooler times for the West Coast. link. 
05/19/03....New model predicts greater 21st century warming. link. 
10/01/03....Solar contribution to global warming predicted to decrease. link. 
09/16/06.....Scientists predict solar downturn, global cooling. link. 
03/20/03..... Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming. link. 
11/06/97......Brightening sun is warming earth. link. 
04/14/08....Warming will mean fewer, but more powerful tropical cyclones. link. 
08/26/06....Russian scientist predicts global cooling in coming decades then a warmer interval. link. 
04/29/07.....Humans are to blame for global warming. Easrth will warm 3.2 to 7.1 F by 2100 with sea level increase of 7 to 23 inches, according to IPCC. link. 
05/11/07.....Eastern U.S. will face severe heat by 2080. link. 
01/31/07....Sydney, Australia will see a 9 degree celsius increase in temp. by 2070. link. 
08/13/07.....Expect CONTINUED warming over the next 10 years. (UK Met office). link. 
04/27/08....Ten-year forecasts produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre CAPTURE this LEVELLING of global temperatures in the middle of this decade. From the article "Is global warming all over?" link. 
Note: The above doesn't seem to jive with what they (UK Met) said in August of 2007 (see second paragraph from the bottom).
Peter Martin 
08 May 2008 at 01:50
Max, 
More on the issue of climate sensitivity. This reference gives a list of various calculations and estimates over the years. Maybe you'd like to add "Max' and your figure of 0.7 deg C to the list? 
http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html 
You do realise ( don't you ?) that by giving the figure of 0.7 deg C, although probably much too low, for the climate sensitivity of CO2 you have actually joined the ranks of the AG warmers. Your analysis implicitly assumes that the earth is warming, and that the primary cause is man-made greenhouse gases. 
You are rejecting the often heard argument of it being inconceivable that humanity is capable of changing the earth's temperature and climate. 
Given the level of uncertainty, letting CO2 levels double is surely much too dangerous. It would certainly not be possible to build a nuclear reactor, for instance, if the chances of it malfunctioning were anywhere near as high as the probability of global warming being very much on the higher side of current estimates, even though the environmental damage would be tiny by comparison. 
So how confident are you that you are right? What 95% confidence limits would you apply to your answer? Why take the risk unnecessarily? Why not take every precaution to minimise climate change?
Peter Martin 
08 May 2008 at 04:01
Max, 
A bit more on the subject. 
As you say, there is a logarithmic relationship between temperature rise and CO2 concentrations. 
dT = 3.322 x CS log {[co2]/280} 
where dT is the rise in temperature, CS is the climate sensitivity, [co2] is the atmospheric CO2 concentration in ppmv 
A quick check on the above equation gives dT=0 for [co2] = 280 
dT= CS for [co2] = 560 
Whatever value you assume for CS , the present concentration of CO2 of 380ppmv would indicate, if the earth were in a state of equilibrium, that we are 44% of the way towards equalling the CS figure. 
What temperature increase have we measured so far? I think your estimate of 0.4 deg C is too low. There has been approximately 0.6 deg C of warming since the start of the last century. True there has been a contribution from methane and also some negative effects from aerosols. Can we assume that these cancel out? 
So, if the earth were currently in equilibrium, this would indicate CS will turn out to be at 1.36 deg C. More than double your figure. The average figures measured so far have been quite different on land and on the ocean. This is because the thermal mass of the ocean is much greater and will warm up much more slowly. In other words the earth at present is not in a state of equilibrium and we can expect the oceans to catch up with the land based temperature measurements over a period of years. 
Now some of these land based increases have already been measured as several degrees C. This will mean that the CS figure will turn out to be much higher. Of course, some land measurements themselves are affected by ocean winds, which will have a cooling effect, so we should be looking at some of the measured temperature increases in the middle of large land masses which are worryingly high. 
So, figures of 3 and 4 degs C for CS, certainly do not seem to be an underestimate.
Peter Martin 
08 May 2008 at 06:45
Max, 
Yet another comment on your calculation. 
I've checked it through and as far as it goes it looks OK. I'm just wondering why it seems to give an answer at the low end of the scale. 
The S-B equation must work for a blackbody and I could get all nit-picky and say that the earth is not a blackbody, but let's assume that it is for now. 
I think the flaw in your analysis must be in the application of feedbacks. Maybe you could just elaborate on how you have handled these? 
The question of whether the feedbacks, particularly of water vapour, have been positive or negative has recently been in dispute, with Spencer opposing the general opinion that they are positive. If Spencer is right then your value will be too high, if he is wrong then it will be too low.
Black Wallaby 
08 May 2008 at 08:42
Peter Martin, 
Just for the record, would you like to repeat your claim that you are a physicist and a mathematician? 
I don't want to preempt what Max may say in response to your waffle above, but you seem to be terribly confused to me. 
You also make zero comment on some big issues above, and stating that you are bored when it becomes difficult for you!. 
How can anyone take you seriously?
manacker 
08 May 2008 at 08:42
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “I think the flaw in your analysis must be in the application of feedbacks. Maybe you could just elaborate on how you have handled these?” 
Sorry, Peter, this is not a “flaw” in my analysis. 
I have handled “feedbacks” just as Arrhenius and Stefan-Boltzmann have “handled” them: I have ignored them. 
I have calculated a radiative forcing (RF) for CO2 using the greenhouse theory, just as IPCC has done, and have come up with essentially the same RF for CO2 as IPCC states, i.e. 1.62 resp. 1.66 W/m^2 for an increase from pre-industrial CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv to 2005 concentration of 379 ppmv.. 
This RF calculates to a warming of 0.3C using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, as I have demonstrated to you. 
A further increase of CO2 to 560 ppmv (estimated by 2100) calculates to a warming of another 0.4C. 
That’s all, Peter. Just the facts according to the greenhouse theory. 
No arbitrarily assumed “feedbacks” programmed in to triple or quadruple the RF for CO2. Just the greenhouse theory as it was defined by Arrhenius and Stefan-Boltzmann, with the impact of other GHGs cancelled out by other negative forcing factors, exactly as IPCC has stated. 
Now here is my question to you: how did you arrive at 2.9C warming for a doubling of CO2 when the greenhouse theory according to Arrhenius and Stefan-Boltzmann (and the CO2 RF according to IPCC) tell us the warming should be 0.7C? 
This is a major discrepancy between the greenhouse theory and your assumption. Can you please explain how you arrived at this exaggerated number (which is over 4 times the warming from a doubling of CO2 according to the greenhouse theory and according to the RF as stated by IPCC)? 
What are the specific "feedbacks" that cause this major difference between your number and that of the greenhouse theory? 
I am really curious what you will say here, Peter. 
Please be specific here and elaborate how you arrived at this absurd number of 2.9C for a doubling of CO2 when the greenhouse theory tells us it should be 0.7C, 
I am awaiting a specific response from you, Peter, with a detailed explanation for how your "feedbacks" account for a 4+-fold increase in the warming caused by CO2 according to the greenhouse theory. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
08 May 2008 at 09:30
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “You haven’t mentioned water vapour in your calculation. It is often mentioned, correctly, that water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. CO2 itself produces a small increase, lets say your figure of 0.7 deg. The small temperature increase allows more water vapour to be absorbed and so amplifies the effect of CO2.” 
Let us analyze your statement. 
First, 0.7C temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 (i.e. from 280 ppmv in 1750 to the expected 560 ppmv by 2100) is not MY figure. It is the figure derived from the greenhouse theory as defined by Arrhenius and Stefan-Boltzmann (as you should know as a physicist). 
Second, the assumed increase in water vapor (caused by the small warming due to increased CO2?) is a great hypothesis. It just didn’t work out that way in actual practice (despite IPCC claims to the contrary): 
IPCC (SPM 2007) states (p.5) that: “The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold.” 
This claim sounds pretty definite but it ignores studies on global atmospheric water vapor trends from satellite measurements over the period 1996-2006, which show observed increases in some regions and decreases in others, with the conclusion that “For the whole globe the increasing trend is non-significant when taking into account the 1997/1998 El Nino event, which is seen in the globally averaged data as strong positive H2O amounts from September 1997 to March 1999.” http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025393.shtml 
Another wonderful “hypothesis” kicked in the head by the observed facts. Ouch! 
Peter, you are really grasping for staws here. 
So back to my earlier post. Bring me specific evidence of a 4-fold increase of the theoretical warming from CO2 due to “feedbacks”, Peter, not just a bunch of theoretical happy talk. 
Regards, 
Max
harmlesssky.org 
08 May 2008 at 09:51
There is no obvious connection between local government elections in the UK and the climate change debate, but recent results seem to reveal a rather startling fact which I have not seen reported elsewhere: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=82 
TonyN
bobclive 
08 May 2008 at 13:17
Earth’s average temperature rose by about 0.4°C for the period from 1880 to 1978 according to Hanson, this is how he did it. 
The first "reliable" global measurements of temperature from NASA, published by Hansen and his colleagues in 1981, showed a modest warming from 1880 to 1980, with only a slight dip in temperatures from 1940 to 1970. 
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GISSTemperature/giss_... 
Now view these two links. 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3238/2475873932_034f3fc764_m.... 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2038/2475057751_44499642ea_m.... 
I have banged on about the UHI effect recently and in the past, these above two links should convince all that you cannot possibly rely on global temperature data derived from ground stations, not only has there been massive urbanisation over the years but the coverage right up to the 1940`s is sparse other than in the industrialised northern hemisphere, even until recently the coverage was only about 10 percent of the planet. see next link for the full set of station positions. 
Historical Station Distribution 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2711 
This should convince you that the warming purported to be linked to CO2 is more likely linked to land use change, the rest is natural. 
Ask yourself why there is a need for so many weather stations in the industrialised northern hemisphere which covers less than 10 percent of the planet when Hanson is able with only a handful of stations to calculate global temps for the other 90 percent. The reason is he needs all those northern hemisphere URBAN stations to enable him to manipulate his data, if this were not the case all that is needed to disprove the UHI effect is to remove all urban stations out of the northern hemisphere data set, this would still leave greater coverage in that area compared to the rest of the planet. Urban areas amount to well under 2% (some estimations put them, at 0.2%) of the Earth’s surface yet the majority of the weather stations are situated there, this is absurd, how can you possibly obtain global average temperatures from such a small contaminated area. 
The only reliable global temperature data is satellite data from1985 onwards, unless Hanson gets his hands on it, the rest is rubbish, you have all been had. Hanson relies on totally on computer models and always has done, RIRO. You can discuss trends till the cows come home but if the data is rubbish so are the trends.
bobclive 
08 May 2008 at 13:22
I will try again, 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2038/2475057751_44499642ea.jp... 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3238/2475873932_034f3fc764.jp...
Peter Martin 
09 May 2008 at 01:07
Max, 
Are you claiming that there are no feedbacks? You might be in a minority of one if that is your position. 
If you are going to get involved in the Physics of climate change, rather than indulge in the safer tactic of dismissing all scientists as crooks, you might want to listen to some of the small minority of scientists who might be sympathetic to your position. 
For instance this is Prof Lindzen of the subject of feedbacks: 
“When the hullabaloo began over global warming, it became clear the answer depended a lot on the feedback from water vapor and clouds" 
Incidentally, Prof Lindzen comes up with the slightly higher figure of 1.0 deg C for the climate sensitivity of CO2 in the absence of any feedbacks. 
So, the contrarians might just want to check on the actual position of your scientific allies before you write things like "there is no link between CO2 and rising temperatures". 
Prof Lindzen thinks there is , so in that sense he's a AGW' er too. It is all a question of how much.
Peter Martin 
09 May 2008 at 01:39
Mr Wallaby, 
"There is no scale for CO2, because the units are of total fossil fuel consumption, which is thought to be related to GHG emission" 
You should always have a scale on a graph. There is really no excuse! 
The theory is that increased temperatures, are not related to consumption or emissions, as such, but rather the accumulation of emissions. In mathematical terms you need to integrate the emissions over a period of time and then subtract the integral of the absorbtions of the oceans and forests over time. 
It is a bit like weight accumulation. At the end of the year your weight deosn't fall back to what it would have been if if you'd ate less. It carries on to the next year. 
So, even if emissions were kept level, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would not stay level, it would continue to increase and in turn the temperature will continue to increase.
Black Wallaby 
09 May 2008 at 04:39
Peter Martin, 
If you are responding to this post of mine: 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Poor confused Peter Martin. 
If you did not understand the graph posted above: 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2470502310_99908b19a6_o.... 
It may be necessary for you increase page size, zoom, or whatever the terminology on your web browser is. 
In MS IE v7; go to Menu Page- Zoom 
The authors, link to their paper are on the graph 
There is no scale for CO2, because the units are of total fossil fuel consumption, which is thought to be related to GHG emission. The shape of the curve is similar to typical published curves for CO2, but is not CO2 
********************************************** 
Your comments may be about something else. For instance you again complain that there is no scale for CO2. However, since the graph does NOT discuss CO2, why should it have such a scale? 
Does anyone think I’m being unreasonable in ignoring the rest of Peter’s silliness?
manacker 
09 May 2008 at 16:40
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “Are you claiming that there are no feedbacks? You might be in a minority of one if that is your position.” 
No, Peter. I have just asked you to explain to me why these feedbacks are all positive and how they cause the 0.7C warming expected from a doubling of CO2 (with the RF as used by IPCC) to suddenly become 2.9C (over 4 times the theoretical greenhouse warming!).. 
So far you have been unable to explain how this works. 
Why is it that the assumed feedback from clouds is positive when every schoolchild knows that the net cooling effect of clouds is over ten times the heating expected from doubling CO2? 
Why is Prof. Lindzen's "infrared iris" theory (which was validated by Dr. Spencer et al) ignored? 
Where are the data supporting the increased water vapor content, and how many added ppmv of water does this represent globally? (Note: actual satellite measurements have found no observed increase in water vapor.) 
Come with some facts, Peter. 
And while you are at it, explain to me what the actual feedbacks have been over the past 10 years as temperatures have declined rather than increasing. 
Facts, Peter. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
10 May 2008 at 05:20
Max, 
You must know some odd schoolchildren if you can say that "every schoolchild knows that the net cooling effect of clouds is over ten times the heating expected from doubling CO2 ". I thought Al Gore had indoctrinated them all to have the opposite view. :-) 
Yes, of course, on a cloudy day the temperature is lowered; but, on the other hand it is increased on a cloudy night, as the clouds hold back the radiated heat from the earth's surface. It is those calm clear winter nights that produce the deepest frosts. As we hear so often from your side of the argument, the strongest GHG is water vapour so I would have thought that we could at least agree that water vapour has a warming effect. 
"Where are the data supporting the increased water vapor content?" The first thing to say is that it is well established that warm air can hold more water vapour than cool air. When warm air does cool you'll see clouds of condensation appear. The eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991, producing a strong cooling effect lasting several years , also allowed direct atmospheric measurements. 
I'd refer you to: Soden (2002) 
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2002/soden02... 
and this article by Tony DelGenio. 
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_DelGenio.pdf 
I do have some symapathy with those who complain about the famous "the science is settled" comment. Science is seldom if ever fully settled and the range of 1.5 degC to 4.5 deg C, for CO2 climate sensitivity, as used by the IPCC is obviously an example of this. Incidentally the figure I gave you of 2.9deg C wasn't from my calculation , it came from the reference I gave you previously. As you might expect most scientists would would put the true figure right in the middle of the IPCC range. Prof Lindzen and Roy Spencer have both claimed that the feedbacks, at least some of them, may be negative, which is certainly counter intuitive, and which would lead to a lower figure. Whether or not they are right remains to be seen. They are certainly not being ignored but they are in a small minority on the issue. 
The temperatures and feedbacks during the last decade and more? You can read off the temperatures from this graph. 
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/tempavs.png 
and I would say the feedbacks have been unchanged during this time.
Robin Guenier 
10 May 2008 at 06:15
A story for Brute. May 09 2008: “Correne Erasmus-Coetzer has been forced to abandon her dream of becoming the first African woman to cross the icy continent of Greenland on foot. The dream came to an end this week when the expedition of nine men and women came up against a ferocious wind and snow storm … as they approached the quarter-way mark of their 550km slog from the east to west coast of Greenland, across the Arctic Circle. Erasmus-Coetzer was hoping to create awareness about global warming …” See: http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=139&art...
Peter Martin 
10 May 2008 at 06:25
BobClive, 
You have by your own admission been banging on about the Urban Heat Island effect rather a lot recently. 
It is a convenient and simple way to discredit the data of course, but does it stand up to scrutiny? We would expect, if the UHI were a substantial effect, for the regions of high population to show a higher increase in temperature than sparsely populated regions. 
Take alook at this graph: 
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/208426main_surface_temp_a... 
I would suggest that there is little or no correlation between warming and populatation density. On the other hand, I would suggest that, apart from the Arctic regions, the oceans have warmed the least and the areas in the middle of large land masses have warmed the most. 
This is not surprising. The thermal mass of water is much higher and we can expect the warming to take longer. So can, in time, and even if CO2 levels are stabilised at current levels, can we expect similar warming everywhere to what we are seeing in central Asia now? 
If the answer to this question is 'yes' then we really do have a big problem on our hands, and the case for doing something about CO2 emissions right now must be overwhelming.
harmlesssky.org 
10 May 2008 at 14:30
I don't know whether anyone has been following the World Climate Modelling Summit that took place at Reading this week, but I've posted about it here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=85 
It would seem that something rather startling is happening in this very important branch of climate research. 
TonyN
bobclive 
10 May 2008 at 16:22
Peter, 
Continuing Massive urbanisation in China with continuing rising temps since 1998, isn`t there a link somewhere. 
Fast Urbanization Drives up Temperature in China. 
From 1978 to 2000, China's gross domestic product grew at an average annual rate of 9.5 per cent, compared with 2.5 per cent for developed countries and 5 percent for other developing countries. 
The number of small towns in CHINA soared from 2,176 to 20,312, nearly double that of the world average during this period; the number of cities increased from 190 to 663; and the urban population rose from 18 to 39 percent of the total, their paper revealed. 
Proviso otherwise they would be shot. 
"Our results should be interpreted as illustrative rather than definitive," he says, "we need to better characterize the system with observations and better describe and model the complex processes involved." 
I can find NO temperature graph for China from 1998 to 2007-8, if there is one and it showed a temp rise over that period UHI could obviously be the prime cause. 
Found something, 
China's AVERAGE temperatures at highest level since 1951(2007-12-3). 
http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/en/NewsInfo.asp?NewsId=6750 
http://www.china.org.cn/english/environment/100059.htm 
Global warming takes toll on nation 
By Sun Xiaohua (China Daily) 
Updated: 2007-03-02 06:57 
Global warming has caused China to experience its second warmest winter in 50 years. It has also caused sandstorms, heavy fog and severe drought. 
The China Meteorological Administration (CMA) said yesterday the winter season from December 2006 to February 2007 recorded a national average temperature of -2.4 C, following the warmest winter in the country between 1998 and 1999, with an average temperature of -2.3 C. 
Song Lianchun, spokesman of CMA, told a press conference that the national average temperature and the regional average temperature in 19 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities last month were the highest compared to the corresponding periods each year since 1951.
harmlesssky.org 
10 May 2008 at 21:38
bobclive 
Forgive me if this is something you've already covered and I've missed it but I think that Ross McKitrick published a paper within the last year that showed a correlation between weather stations that have recorded strong increasing temperature trends and areas of rapid economic growth.
manacker 
10 May 2008 at 23:22
Hi Peter, 
Again you come with wonderful theoretical discussion, but no facts. 
“Warmer air can hold more water vapor than cooler air”. 
Does this mean “over the entire globe warmer air by definition must hold more water vapor than cooler air”? 
Where is the observed evidence of this? 
I sent you the link to a study that shows there has been no measurable globally observed increase in water vapor. So the evidence that exists contradicts your suggestion that increased temperatures will automatically result in increased water vapor concentrations. 
Peter, you have to look at all the effects of water: as vapor, as liquid droplets in low-altitude clouds and as ice crystals in high-altitude clouds. 
Clouds have a net cooling effect, as all studies show, and this is an order of magnitude greater than the IPCC’s RF of CO2 from 1750 to 2005. The net impact of clouds on the radiation budget (i.e. absorbed solar radiation minus emitted thermal radiation) is negative. 
Studies (Spencer et al) have shown that (warming) high-altitude clouds decrease with higher temperatures (confirming Lindzen’s “infrared iris” theory), but (cooling) low-altitude clouds increase. 
You have not shown that the net effect of water (vapor, liquid, solid) is a “positive” feedback, which increases the radiative forcing of GHGs by a factor of four. In fact, you have not shown evidence of any positive feedbacks. 
Bring evidence based on facts, Peter, not theoretical double-talk and totally irrelevant temperature graphs. 
Your Hadley graph does not prove anything except how wrong the UK Met Office apparently is in their projections. But this is nothing new. They predicted “record warm years” for both 2006 and 2007, only to have to rationalize after the fact why this did not happen. 
At least they wised up for 2008 and made no such predictions. From your graph it looks like they made their prediction for 2014 back in 2005, before they wised up. 
But that’s all beside the point of what we are discussing, i.e. assumed positive feedbacks that exaggerate the warming according to the greenhouse theory by a factor of four. 
Facts, Peter. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
10 May 2008 at 23:44
Hi Peter, 
More on the verification by the Spencer study of Lindzen’s “infrared iris” theory. 
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828 
To quote from the article: 
“In the August 2007 Geophysical Research Letters, my colleagues and I published some satellite evidence for a natural cooling mechanism in the tropics that was not thought to exist. Called the “Infrared Iris” effect, it was originally hypothesized by Prof. Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 
By analyzing six years of data from a variety of satellites and satellite sensors, we found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up due to enhanced rainfall activity, the rain systems there produce less cirrus cloudiness, allowing more infrared energy to escape to space. The combination of enhanced solar reflection and infrared cooling by the rain systems was so strong that, if such a mechanism is acting upon the warming tendency from increasing carbon dioxide, it will reduce manmade global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree.” 
Makes that assumed “4X feedback from water” sound a bit weak. In fact, it makes it sound like total rubbish. 
Bring some facts to refute this, Peter, if you can. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
11 May 2008 at 00:20
Max, 
You've not commented on these links I gave you. Maybe you missed them? 
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2002/soden02... 
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_DelGenio.pdf 
You are always looking for facts, so maybe if you don't believe me when I say that warmer air holds more water vapour than cool air, you'd like to read someone who has actually published on the topic. 
In addition I've found another one for your perusal: 
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0702872104v1.pdf 
The Energy Tribune may be a good journal on some issues but I'd suggest you need to broaden your reading and take a look at the scientific press to get a better informed picture.
Brute 
11 May 2008 at 02:44
Connections (TV series) 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series) 
Stargazer, 
Several weeks ago, a close friend loaned me a series of DVD’s titled Connections, hosted by James Burke which evidently was a television series filmed in the 1970's. These DVD’s have been lying around the house and I'd yet to watch them. After a relatively severe thunderstorm Thursday night/Friday morning the cable television went out. We've called the repairman, but you know how that goes.........be around sometime next week. We began watching the series and ironically one segment deals with The Little Ice Age, (in this series they titled it the Medieval Cold Period) and chronicled how inventions and adaptations created during this period of history still influence us today, everything from clothes buttons to chimneys. The ironic thing is that this series and host attributed the Little Ice Age to a lack of sunspot activity, (this was 1978). In particular they featured Harwood House at, (Shrewsbury?). Don’t know if I’ve gotten that right……interesting though. They described a longer growing season in the Northern Hemisphere and vinyards in Northen England before the LIA. How Greenland was fertile and warm.....(hence the name). 
I do remember that at about that time, the scientific community was espousing the immediacy, (and scientific consensus), of the looming ice age. History repeats itself…………….It seems that the waxing and waning of sunspots influencing the weather was postulated 30 years ago. You’ve been proven correct! Ha…….
Brute 
11 May 2008 at 03:16
Pete, 
Had to restart the furnace here after laying it up for the season. May 9th and I'm still running the heat! Where is the global warming you promised! 
Global Warming the Cold Freeze 
Global warming hoax exposed by record global cold 
April 7, 2008 
The media and governmental hype over a danger from global warming that already is allegedly causing the polar icecaps to melt and threaten a global climate catastrophe, looks more and more like the political hype it is. This year to date, snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966. 
According to the US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) many American cities and towns have suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was - 0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 average." 
China is surviving its most brutal winter in one hundred years. Temperatures in the normally mild south were low for so long that some middle-sized cities went weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them. 
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has been hurt as home buyers have stayed home. In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, breaking the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in 1950. 
Arctic Ice Melt has Reversed 
One of the most dramatic results of the record cold over much of the planet is the reversal of the much-reported melt of the icebergs in the Arctic Ocean. Last autumn the world was alarmed to hear from certain climatologists that the ice in the Arctic had melted to its "lowest levels on record.” What was carefully omitted from those scare stories was the fact that those records only date back as far as 1972, and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past. 
Now, as a result of the recent record cold weather, the ice is back. According to Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year. 
What few people know and what the Global Warming lobby seems at pains to keep known is the fact that there is considerable seasonal variation in how much pack ice of the Arctic ice pack covers the Arctic Ocean. Much of the ocean is also covered in snow for about 10 months of the year. The maximum snow cover is in March or April — about 20 to 50 centimeters over the frozen ocean. The thickness is not one of the universal constants, never was. 
Admit flawed Climate Model 
There is also admission by several intellectually honest climatologists that their predictive models are flawed. Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona, two very prominent climate modellers, recently admitted that the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (as in the fictional movie The Day After Tomorrow) are wrong. In a recent interview Russell said, “It's not ice melt, but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of man-made warming on polar ice melt.” Now that’s very interesting. 
When professors Toggweiler and Russell reprogrammed their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator, then back towards it again, the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the recent Arctic warming. 
Russian climatologists believe recent weather changes around the globe are results of solar activity and not man-made emissions. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, calls the argument for man-made climate change "a drop in the bucket." His research shows that now the recent very active solar activity has entered an inactive phase. He advised people to "stock up on fur coats." 
Kenneth Tapping of Canada’s National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon. The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased. 
The Global Warming Geopolitics 
The recent Global Warming hysteria is in reality a geopolitical push by leading global elite circles to find a way to get the broader populations to willingly accept drastic cuts in their living standards, something that were it demanded without clear reason by politicians, would spark strikes and protest. The UN’s latest IPCC report on Global Warming calls for diverting a huge 12% of global GDP to “prevent the harmful effects of climate change.” The UN report, for example, estimated that its recommendations to reduce certain manmade emissions would cost about $2,750 per family per year in the price of energy. 
With the meteorological evidence of their claims for global warming dissolving as the ice forms anew, it is not surprising that news of the Arctic refreeze and other contrary evidence to their doomsday thesis are kept from mainline international media.
Peter Martin 
11 May 2008 at 03:41
Brute, 
The prediction for Arctic Ice is that it will be another record minimum this summer. 
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/1fb96a0f5e60677e20ddafee67219... 
Although so far the graph for 2008 doesn't look quite so alarming as it did last year but we'll have to wait and see: 
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Black Wallaby 
11 May 2008 at 04:13
WHY DO YOU GUYS ALLOW PETER MARTIN TO INTRODUCE YOU TO NEW CRAP, (AND RESPOND), WHEN THERE IS ALL THAT IMPORTANT STUFF UP THERE THAT HE 'FORGETS'. 
This is a classic sequence technique used by fundies 1) Challenge 2) Obfuscate 4) Change subject
manacker 
11 May 2008 at 04:17
Hi Peter, 
It is truly amazing how you keep falling into the same trap, over and over. 
The Del Genio article you cited gives a very nice theoretical discussion on water vapor feedbacks. Unfortunately, the GCM (computer model) predictions it cites are not the same as measurements of observed facts. Just more computer-generated hype. 
The study I cited does show that the measured observed facts show no global increase in water vapor content, based on actual satellite measurements in the real world. 
So should we follow the IPCC approach and change the observed facts to accommodate the theory as expressed by GCMs? 
I hardly think so, Peter. 
Come with facts. Not model studies. 
To your statement: “The Energy Tribune may be a good journal on some issues bud I’d suggest you need to broaden your reading and take a look at the scientific press to get a better informed picture.” 
Are you suggesting that Geophysical Research Letters is not “the scientific press”? 
And are you suggesting that Dr. Roy Spencer is not a serious expert in the field of climate? 
I hardly think so, because that would make you look ridiculous. 
Bring some facts to justify the 4-fold exaggeration of CO2 impact from so-called “feedbacks”, Peter. So far you have not done so. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
11 May 2008 at 06:59
Max, 
I don't think that you are taking the trouble to read these references that I'm providing you with! 
See if you can find the following sentences in them: 
"Data from the special sensor microwave imager SSSM/I show that total atmospheric water content over the oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/decade since 1988" 
"Soden et al use satellite data to show that the peak cooling of the Mt Pinatubo eruption caused ~3% in column water vapor and a corresponding decrease in upper troposphere water vapor,indicationg a strong positive water vapor feedback" 
You are obviously a big Roy Spencer fan but why just an Energy Tribune article? For one thing, I should imagine that they wouldn't let climate scientists write anything they like in their columns. For anopther, what Roy Spencer is really saying is a bit more subtle that many might think. He's conceding that without feedbacks that there is about 1 deg CS due to C02 , he also doesn't argue that more water vapour is absorbed when the climate is warm but he still claims a negative feedback by virtue of the nature of water vapour precipitation ( mainly rain) in the atmosphere. I'll leave it to you to search through his papers , and you can let me know what you think. 
It is a difficult argument , very counter intuitive and you certainly aren't going to sway the readers of the Energy Tribune with it, which is why he doesn't explain it properly in their columns! But if you really want to follow what all the climate scientists are saying, not just your 'popstars' of Spencer, Lindzen et al ( there really are lots more!) you need to broaden your reading as I've suggested. 
PS You are very persistent in asking for "facts" 
How about these six ? 
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/
manacker 
11 May 2008 at 07:18
Hi Peter, 
So far, you and I have carried on several separate discussions on AGW. 
In the first discussion you were asked (first by Robin and then by myself) to explain the IPCC logic of ascribing the 1976-1998 warming to anthropogenic GHGs because models show that nothing else can explain it when earlier warming periods cannot be explained. 
You were unable to come up with any scientific papers that resolve this dilemma. 
Then you made the incorrect claim that most warming since records started occurred after 1976, and I showed you that the Hadley record shows that earlier warming cycles prior to the most recent warming period represented more than two-thirds of the total warming. 
Now I have asked you to show me scientific evidence based on observations that the theoretical warming from CO2 has, in actual practice, been magnified four-fold due to suggested “positive feedbacks” from water (vapor, liquid, solid) as you claimed. 
Again, you have shown that you are unable to come up with any scientific papers that resolve this dilemma. 
And you have also been unable to explain why global temperatures have been cooling slightly over the past decade despite record CO2 emissions. 
Peter, I think you will have to admit that you are beginning to look like a loser in this discussion (whether you care to admit it or not). 
The recent IPCC reports were “out of date” before they were even published early last year, and they are even more so today. 
Wake up to the facts, Peter, AGW is dead. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
11 May 2008 at 07:22
Mr Wallaby, 
You are getting yourself too worked up! You're shouting which is not consistent with New Statesman's 'courteous basis' policy below. 
BTW. I'm curious to know your third point !
manacker 
11 May 2008 at 07:23
Hi Peter, 
You just sent me a reference to Met Office "facts". 
Nice statements, but I did not see any "facts" there, Peter, just Met Office claims. 
Bring observed facts, Peter. Not Met Office hype. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
11 May 2008 at 07:28
Hi Peter, 
Sent you this one once already, but apparently you missed it (relates to a study of "global" water vapor based on satellite observations): 
“For the whole globe the increasing trend is non-significant when taking into account the 1997/1998 El Nino event, which is seen in the globally averaged data as strong positive H2O amounts from September 1997 to March 1999.” http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025393.shtml
Peter Martin 
11 May 2008 at 09:01
Max, 
I'm not sure if you have a browser problem, Have you tried Mozilla Firefox? When you get it sorted out you should be able to see that I posted up references to the scientific papers that you've asked for. 
You might not agree with them, you might not understand them, you might not even want to understand them but that is quite a different matter. 
You are still clinging to your belief that Global warming occurred mainly before 1976. Well if I'm wrong on this then so are NASA, the Hadley Climate centre in the UK, the Royal Society (UK), the CSIRO (Australia) and just about every major scientific body in the world. 
I'll post this graph one more time 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2163/2440243665_63416a6212_o.... 
Which you'll notice originated from a contrarian website. I doubt that even Roy Spencer would agree with you on your 2/3 warming claim. This is how he interprets the graph: 
" There is little doubt that globally averaged temperatures are unusually warm today" and 
"The warming up until 1940 represents the end of the multi-century cool period known as the "Little Ice Age", a time that was particularly harsh for humanity. This warming must have been natural because mankind had not yet emitted substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Then, the slight cooling between 1940 and the 1970's occurred in spite of rapid increases in manmade greenhouse gas emissions. One theory is that this cooling is also manmade -- from particulate pollution. Finally, fairly steady warming has occurred since the 1970's. This recent warming has no doubt played a central role in current fears of a climate catastrophe." 
Its not a question of winners and losers in the short term. I see that there is a real danger of the rejection of science on this issue. The attitutude of many contrarians reminds me of the antics of a teenage girl (at the risk of being sexist!) who is determined not to hear what she doesn't want to hear, and instead cups her hands over her ears singing "La La La ..........." 
If politicians duck the issue for short term electoral popularity the situation will get ever more difficult. If it is left too late we'll all end up the losers.
bobclive 
11 May 2008 at 12:26
Peter, 
If this does not convince you that UHI is a substantial driver of rising temperatures then nothing will. Just look at the graphs and charts. 
Note the signifant difference between Hong Kong and its RURAL neighbor Ta Kwu Ling. 
Just look at Hong Kong from 1980 to 2007, did any urban development take place in these times. 
Please don`t say its just local. 
http://www.hko.gov.hk/climate_change/climate_change_hk_e.htm
Brute 
11 May 2008 at 13:26
Black Wallaby, 
It's obvious that he cannot and will not answer your assertions. Typical debate tactic of the Alarmists, change the subject or change the theory to fit the facts......(after the fact).
Brute 
11 May 2008 at 13:41
Lehman Bros. Report: Oil Bust in the Cards 
Friday, April 25, 2008 5:56 p.m. EDT 
Is $120 oil even real? Not if you ask the Saudis, or even Lehman Bros. 
The investment bank’s oil expert said this week that the oil boom is due to bust. Economic growth across the globe will slow just as new refineries kick in, raising supply. 
Recession or not, a U.S. slowdown will slacken demand sharply, right as new oil hits the market. "Supply is outpacing demand growth,” said Michael Waldron, Lehman’s oil strategist. 
"Inventories have been building since the beginning of the year. We have pretty significant projects starting soon in Saudi Arabia, and large off-shore fields in Nigeria,” he said. 
Lehman is now predicting prices at $83 a barrel in 2009 and as low as $70 in 2010. 
Although some years off, Brazil too has found as much as 8 billion barrels of light oil and gas offshore. The South American giant’s president says his country might well join OPEC when the Tupi field begins to pump, in 2011. 
In addition, Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds have pushed up the oil price by investing billions of their oil gains, ironically, in commodities index funds. 
Now they could be looking to get out, warns Waldron. He figures the money effect has driven anywhere from $20 to $30 into the barrel price. 
In addition, a weak dollar is holding oil prices high, according to a series of statements from OPEC leaders over the past week. 
If you buy the views of OPEC’s various leaders, that’s at least another $20 of oil price that is not supported by the actual supply and demand situation. 
In addition, Europe’s central bank seems bent on containing inflation there. A rate increase in Europe is sure to contain the euro’s rise against the dollar — if serious steps are taken soon. 
Couple that with a lower-than-expected rate cut in the U.S. next week, or perhaps no cut, and the oil price drops as the dollar gains ground. 
All this is having little immediate impact now, of course. U.S. gas prices at the pump hit $3.58 a gallon just as the summer driving season kicks off. 
If nothing changes, analysts now expect gas to rise to as high as $4 a gallon in as little as a month.
bobclive 
11 May 2008 at 18:49
If you want to know what is causing the majority of warming look at China. 
You have seen Hog Kong temps here is another study, 
Urbanization Effects on Observed Surface Air Temperature Trends in North China. 
Guoyu Ren, Ziying Chu, and Jiangxing Zhou 
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi... 
Forget about Jones and Peterson, their studies are flawed, this Chinese study is based on : 
Rural, small city, medium city, large city, and metropolis and not lights at night seen from google earth as is the Peterson study, I belive the Jones study was based on supplied flawed data that has now been debunked. 
China is the perfect place to study the UHI effect as it has seen the largest URBAN growth in the world over the last 20 years. I believe the UHI effect is responsible for at least half of the warming seen by the ground stations since 1945.
manacker 
11 May 2008 at 20:24
Hi Peter, 
No browser problem here, but the stuff you are citing does not provide any observed physical data to contradict the ERBE observations on water vapor or the Spencer observations on clouds. Bring hard facts, Peter, not beautiful theories. 
Now to your cherry-picked Hadley graph. I have returned it to you with a different cherry-picked break point. This shows that around 60% of the warming occurred before 1945. 
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2484104758/sizes/o/ 
Of course, this is as much nonsense as your cherry pick. The way to state warming over multi-decadal periods is to take the raw (unsmoothed) data and draw a linear trend (this is IPCC’s approach). If you check the graph below you will clearly see that there were three multidecadal warming periods since the record started, and that the most recent warming period (1976-1998) accounted for less than half of the total warming. 
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2484120504/sizes/o/ 
Peter, I know this is distasteful for you (as you are cupping your hands over your ears and singing LA-LA-LA, like the teenage girl you mentioned), but these are the facts (i.e. the “science”, as you put it) and you have to grit your teeth and face them. 
And until you can explain the causes for the pre-1945 warming cycles you cannot logically conclude that the latest warming cycle was caused by AGW “because models show that no other explanation fits”. 
And until you can bring scientific observations (i.e. “science”) and not computer model output (i.e. “pseudoscientific hype”) that validate positive feedbacks that exaggerate the theoretical greenhouse warming by a factor of four, these feedbacks are based on pure conjecture and computer hype. 
Sorry Peter. Bring facts (i.e. “science”) to validate the theories, or admit that they are just unproven hypotheses, rather than “science”. 
Regards, 
Max
bobclive 
12 May 2008 at 00:01
Adjusting URBAN BIASE in the regional mean surface temperature series of South Korea, 1968-99 
Study for South Korea suggests that temperatures in urban stations are warmer than those in rural stations. Estimates of the annual mean magnitude of urban bias range from 0.35 °C for smaller urban stations to 0.50 °C for large urban stations. 
About 60 years ago South Korea’s industry was comparable to that of the poorest countries in Asia and Africa as seen in the comparison of GDP per capita. Since then it has grown rapidly South Korea’s current per capita GDP is about $20,000, which is an enormous improvement from $100 in 1960. 
Received: 1 February 2002; Revised: 18 November 2002; Accepted: 20 November 2002. 
Again massive urban growth linked to temperature rise. 
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/104085978/abstrac...
Peter Martin 
12 May 2008 at 01:19
Max, 
1975/76 is considered to be the time when the main driver for climate change changed from being solar to CO2 driven. As this link from the UK Met Office shows: 
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/1.ht... 
We were talking about 1975/76 but you now have changed it to 1945 but then when it came to drawing you graph you chose the 1940 peak. And even so you still couldn't resist a little cherry picking of the noise points! Look, this is getting boring. If you still want to keep up the argument: pick a year, and don't change it , stick to it, and let's discuss it by email. 
I think I get your drift about facts and theories now. Anything from Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen is hard fact, and incontrovertible data; but, anything from from the opposite side of the argument, which is, in fact, the overwhelming majority view, is just a 'beautiful theory' ? 
You do need to study both sides of the argument. But let's start with Roy Spencer. I do think I've figured out what he's saying. It isn't an easy argument to follow and it goes against common sense in that we have to get away from the notion that warmer air holds more water vapour than cool air and therefore there is likely to be positive feedback effect from the CO2 warming, which you have calculated to be 0.7 degs for a doubling. 
How about having a go at explaining Roy Spencer's theory in your own words? As you have such strong views on the topic I presume you must have a good understanding of the competing theories.
manacker 
12 May 2008 at 02:10
Hi Peter, 
In your latest waffle, you talk about changing peak points on a graph. 
I told you your “cherry-picked” curve was silly and admitted that my “cherry-pick” on the same curve was equally silly. 
The graphs show the three warming cycles since 1850, and they show that the cooling in the latest cycle (1976-1998) was less than the other two. And this is done by plotting linear trend lines and calculating linear change over the period (as IPCC do this). 
I realize that when you lose a debate, it gets “boring” for you, but you were the one who just changed subjects from the assumed but unvalidated “positive feedbacks” back to temperature curves, by posting the link to your “cherry-picked” curve. 
So you have not been able to answer either point with facts. 
These points are: 
· IPCC cannot explain the warming observed over previous warming cycles. 
· IPCC models cannot explain the warming of the most recent cycle without cranking in AGW (because no other explanation fits) 
· IPCC cannot be sure that the same earlier “unexplained” causes were not also the cause for the most recent warming 
In addition you have been unable to refute that: 
· IPCC cannot explain why we are now experiencing global cooling despite record CO2 emissions 
· IPCC cannot bring any physical evidence that supports its rationalization of 1944-1976 cooling due to “human aerosols” 
Then we come to the “positive feedbacks”. Here you have been unable to show any scientific observations that bring evidence of global increased water vapor concentrations or of heat-trapping high-altitude clouds, both of which would lead to “positive feedbacks”. 
You have been unable to refute the two studies I cited, which (a) show no observed increase in water vapor and (b) show that (warming) high-altitude clouds decrease and (cooling) low-altitude clouds increase with temperature, providing a strong negative feedback rather than a positive one, as assumed by the models. 
Together these raise serious doubts of the validity of your claim that that positive feedbacks would increase the theoretical greenhouse warming by a factor of four. 
So you have lost this part of our discussion, as well. 
And now it seems to be getting “boring” for you. 
Sorry, Peter, you could not bring facts to support your position. 
But it was interesting chatting with you anyway. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
12 May 2008 at 03:15
Max, 
You do seem to be very concerned with winning or losing some sterile debate. I'm more concerned with trying to get a better understanding of what is going on in the atmosphere. 
You seem to be ducking the challenge I have made which is to better explain how the atmosphere does have negative feedback as Roy Spencer and some others claim. 
You have correctly calculated the value of 0.7deg C for CS of CO2. Now, it may be simple minded, but the prevalent view is that warmer air holds more water vapour than cooler air, and that therefore we might expect that this figure of 0.7 degs will be amplified. Exactly how much it is amplified is a matter of some debate and uncertainty ( factors of 2- 7 have been suggested) but it easy to see how it works in principle. 
Another example of positive feedback can be seen in the Arctic. As the area of ice diminishes the area of high reflectivity (or albedo) also decreases. Therefore, more heat is absorbed in the ocean than previously, leading to even more ice melting. 
Now it may well be that Roy Spencer is right. It may well be that the correct argument or theory is the counter -intuitive one. Maybe not in the majority of cases, but it sometimes is in science, so it would be foolish to discount it without a closer examination of the theory. 
I'd just like to know how you have come to your conclusion that the figure of 0.7deg C which you have calculated needs to be reduced , or at least kept the same, rather than amplified as the simpler theory would tend to indicate. 
As I showed in the links I sent you recently Soden has used satellite data to show that the peak cooling of the Mt Pinatubo eruption caused ~3% in column water vapor and a corresponding decrease in upper troposphere water vapor,indicationg a strong positive water vapor feedback. 
So in other words a cooler atmosphere due to the volcanic eruption has led to a lower water vapour content just as we might expect. 
What leads you to believe that Spencer is right and that Soden is wrong?
harmlesssky.org 
12 May 2008 at 12:27
As comments on this tread have now passed the 1200 mark, and the total for both the Whitehouse and Lynas threads is very close to the 2500 mark, I'm posting this message yet again, just as a precaution: 
On the 11th March the New Statesman closed comments on the Whitehouse thread and it seems likely that they will do the same here eventually. If anyone wants to continue this discussion after that happens, then there may be a way of doing so. 
I’ve prepared a page on my own blog, www.harmlesssky.org , that has links to both the New Statesman articles and all the comments, where the discussion can continue. You will find it here: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63 
Look for ‘New Statesman’ in the left hand sidebar. 
The comments form will not be activated until AFTER THIS NEW STATESMAN BLOG CLOSES so that the thread remains consecutive. So you will not be able to comment there so long as this blog is active. 
My blog stats suggest that a lot of people are still visiting this page.
Brute 
12 May 2008 at 14:48
Robin, 
Another ironic story; seems one of Al Gore’s pals owns a cruise ship that was offering “Eco-tours” of the Antarctic which hit an iceberg and sank to the bottom spilling 48,000 gallons of diesel fuel into the sea. With “friends of the environment” like this around, the penguins don’t have a chance. 
Al Gore buddy owner of sunken ship that left huge carbon footprint on Antarctic Ocean floor 
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/780
Brute 
12 May 2008 at 18:08
BLACK DAYS FOR BRITISH GREENS: NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ANYMORE 
An amusing cry of woe from an ecofascist below. The Fascists versus the people and the people look like having the last say 
Gordon Brown, Ken Livingstone and 300 Labour councillors were not the only casualties of the local and London elections. No one seems to have noticed, but the other big losers were those people who care about the environment. We might just look back on May Day 2008 as the moment when the power of green politics peaked and went into reverse. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it. The reaction of the two main parties to the elections was instructive. Desperate to prop up his own position after Labour's rout, Mr Brown needed to toss a few bones to the voters and jittery Labour backbenchers. So it suddenly emerged that he was about to dump the so-called "bin tax" - allowing councils to charge householders who do not recycle their rubbish. Downing Street didn't confirm it, and five token pilot schemes will go ahead, but it's clear the bin tax has been binned. 
Brown allies also floated the idea that the 2p rise in fuel duty might be shelved again. No doubt this was an attempt to placate motorists. As well as being anti-green, it was a surprise, since the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, will need all the revenue he can get when he delivers his pre-Budget report in the autumn - not least to compensate the losers from the abolition of the 10p tax rate. 
Mr Brown was not alone in relegating the environment to the back burner. David Cameron, the wind in his sails after the elections, held a prime ministerial press conference in which he set out his priorities for government. Significantly, the words "environment" and "climate change" did not appear in his 1,200-word statement. 
Was this the same man who fought the local elections on the campaign slogan "vote blue, go green"? And was the leader who hugged huskies to convince us his party had changed addressing new issues and no longer preaching to the Tory converted? Green issues have gone out of fashion for Mr Cameron; they have served their purpose. 
Naturally, the Tory leader denied it. "We have made quite good progress," he insisted. "I'm not saying the job is done. There is still a huge amount that we want to see changed." But whatever happened to the impressive tome of green policies produced last year by the Tory policy review headed by John Gummer and Zac Goldsmith, who seems to have disappeared off the planet he was trying to save? When asked, Mr Cameron banged on about the fuel price pressures facing motorists and hauliers. Officially, the Tories remain committed to raising green taxes in order to cut taxes for families. But they don't talk about it much. After a brief detour, they seem to have arrived at the same point as Mr Brown: that the public needs "carrots" as well as "sticks" to go green; that they suspect green taxes are stealth taxes. 
Another reason why the elections have set back the environmental cause is the election of Boris Johnson as Mayor of London. He will dump Mr Livingstone's plan to charge drivers of gas-guzzlers 25 pounds to enter the capital's congestion charge zone, and review its recent expansion into west London. In Manchester, the councillor behind plans for a 5 pound congestion charge lost his seat to a community party which opposed it. 
Labour and the Tories will doubtless argue that the Manchester experience shows they are right to be cautious on green issues. Similarly, Labour MPs say the bin tax was an issue on the doorsteps in the local elections. As The Independent reported eight days ago, a new opinion poll found that more than seven out of 10 people are not prepared to pay higher taxes to fund projects to tackle climate change. 
It's hardly surprising that people downgrade soft issues such as the environment when economic times are hard. Yet politicians surely have a duty to lead rather than follow public opinion. Despite that, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs quietly shelved plans to bring in annual personal carbon allowances this week, saying the idea was "ahead of its time". 
The two main parties will continue to pay lip service to green issues in the run-up to the general election. But something has changed in the past week. Both parties will put saving seats before saving the planet.
Robin Guenier 
12 May 2008 at 18:44
Max: I'm full of admiration at your perseverance in trying to get a straight answer from Peter on the three warming periods issue. I thought we'd put it to him in the clearest terms terms a week or so ago and, after it became obvious that he would not give us a straight answer, I thought it pointless to continue. But I have a question for you. You imply that the IPCC has used AGW to "explain" the recent warming by saying “because models show that no other explanation fits”. Is that a quotation? Or is it a summary of their position? In either case, have you the reference?
manacker 
12 May 2008 at 19:19
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “ I’d just like to know how you have come to your conclusion that the figure of 0.7 deg C which you have calculated needs to be reduced, or at least kept the same, rather than amplified as the simpler theory would tend to indicate.” 
We have both agreed that the greenhouse theory says that doubling CO2 from 280 ppmv in 1900 to 560 ppmv in 2100 should result in an increase of temperature of 0.7C over those 200 years. 
This agrees with the radiative forcing as postulated by IPCC for CO2, with warming from the other GHGs essentially offset by cooling from aerosols and other factors, also as assumed by IPCC. 
This also says we have seen around 0.3C of this warming at 380 ppmv, leaving 0.4C between now and the year 2100 at 560 ppmv. 
At a projected 0.4C temperature increase over the next century, you will have to agree that there is not much scare factor left in the AGW story. 
I fail to see that “amplifying” the figure of 0.7C by a factor of more than 4 (to 2.9C) with a bunch of assumed feedbacks, which are all positive, rather than keeping it at 0.7C represents a “simpler theory”. In fact, it is very clear to me that it represents a more complicated and totally unproven theory. 
Sorry, Peter, your argumentation in support of massive positive feedbacks is weak, and your suggestion that including these feedbacks represents a “simpler theory” than not including them is basically flawed. 
But I really think we have beaten this horse to death, since our discussion is beginning to become a bit repetitive. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
12 May 2008 at 20:10
Hi Robin, 
To your query about IPCC citing model studies to implicate AGW for warming because no other explanation fits: 
IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 9 (pp.685 and 686) states: 
“Climate simulations are consistent in showing that the global mean warming observed since 1970 can only be reproduced when models are forced with combinations of external forcings that include anthropogenic forcings (Figure 9.5).” 
“No climate model using natural forcings alone has reproduced the observed global warming trend in the second half of the 20th century. Therefore modeling studies suggest that the late 20th-century warming is much more likely to be anthropogenic than natural in origin,” 
(And on p.681): The simulations also show that it is not possible to reproduce the large 20th-century warming without anthropogenic forcing regardless of which solar or volcanic forcing reconstruction is used…stressing the impact of human activity on the recent warming.” 
This would all be very logical if: 
· The models were perfect 
· Our knowledge of what causes climate change were complete 
· There were not earlier warming periods that cannot be explained 
But, unfortunately for the logic of IPCC’s verdict of CO2 being “guilty by default since there is no other suspect [that we know of]”, there were other warming periods prior to large-scale emissions of anthropogenic GHGs (primarily CO2). 
One occurred in the late 19th century. This one is not even mentioned by IPCC. 
The second one occurred in the early 20th century (1910-1944). This period accounted for more warming (linear trend over period) than the late 20th-century period (1976-1988), i.e. 0.53C vs. 0.37C, yet there was very little increase in CO2. 
These periods are apparently a bit of an embarrassment for IPCC, since they are written off with the short remark (Chapter 3, p. 240): “The picture prior to 1976 has essentially not changed and is therefore not repeated in detail here.” 
There is the statement (Chapter 9, p.691): “Detection and attribution as well as modeling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming than the recent warming.” 
In effect, the logic goes as follows: 
· We cannot explain what caused early 20th-century warming 
· We know that anthropogenic factors caused the late 20th-century warming 
· How do you know this? 
· Because our models show us there is no other explanation 
Regards, 
Max
bobclive 
12 May 2008 at 20:15
Peter, you posted a heat map from Gristmill refuting UHI, well here is another one from Leicester University. 
http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMHAZ715QE_index_1.html#subhead1 
The left hand image clearly shows all the major cities in the UK are significantly WARMER than the surrounding RURAL countryside. 
Global warming - the Hong Kong connection (1 August 2003) 
http://www.weather.gov.hk/wxinfo/news/2003/pre0801e.htm 
At the Hong Kong Observatory Headquarters in Tsimshatsui, temperature readings have been accumulated for the 118 years period from 1885 to 2002, apart from a break during the wartime from 1940 to 1946. Analysis of the temperature data indicates that there was an average rise of 1.2 degrees C per 100 years. The annual mean temperature rose from 22.0 degrees C in the late 19th century to a mean of 23.5 degrees C in the most recent decade. The warming has become significantly faster in the last ten years or so (1989 - 2002), reaching 6 degrees C per 100 years. 
According to the latest assessment report by IPCC, the global average surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees C in the 20th century due to increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 
At the Ta Kwu Ling station in the northern New Territories and the Lau Fau Shan station on the northwestern coast of the New Territories, the mean temperatures rose by 0.15 and 0.19 degrees C per decade respectively since 1989. At the RURAL station situated on the island of Cheung Chau, NO significant change in the annual mean temperature has been observed since 1971. 
A FASTER rate of warming at the Hong Kong Observatory Headquarter compared to the global trend since the 1980's can be attributed to the effects of high density URBAN development. 
At RURAL Cheung Chau, NO significant temperature rise is found since the 1970s, indicating that changes in temperatures over the seas around Hong Kong is small, ( SST`s not rising in this area for over 30 years ?). During the last 10 years or so, the annual mean temperatures at Lau Fau Shan and Ta Kwu Ling, both located in the RURAL parts of Hong Kong, rose by about 0.19 degree C and 0.15 degree C respectively, slightly LESS than the global rate of 0.21oC for the same period. These two stations can be seen as representing regions in Hong Kong that are LESS affected by urbanization. In contrast, at the heart of urban Kowloon, the Observatory Headquarters ( NOT IN GREEN PARK) recorded an additional rise of 0.4degree C per decade due to URBANISATION (that’s almost twice the global rate). 
A faster rate of warming at the Hong Kong Observatory Headquarter compared to the global trend since the 1980's can be attributed to the effects of high density urban development. At Cheung Chau, NO significant temperature rise is found since the 1970s, indicating that changes in temperatures over the seas around Hong Kong are small. During the last 10 years or so, the annual mean temperatures at Lau Fau Shan and Ta Kwu Ling, both located in the RURAL parts of Hong Kong, rose by about 0.19oC and 0.15 degrees C respectively, slightly less than the global rate of 0.21 degrees C for the same period. These two stations can be seen as representing regions in Hong Kong that are less affected by urbanization. In contrast, at the heart of urban Kowloon, the Observatory Headquarters recorded an ADDITIONAL RISE of 0.4 degrees C per decade DUE TO URBANISATION. 
Now Petersons study suggests that the weather stations in urban areas will be predominantly in green areas such as PARKS therefore the UHI effect will be minimal, just 0.002 degrees C, well the Hong Kong station is not in a park and the majority of the other stations throughout the world are NOT in parks, Petersons study has been shown by Steve Mcintyre and others to be utter rubbish. 
The IPCC state the difference between Urban and Rural is 0.002°C per decade since 1900. The study above shows this to be figure to total fiction.
Robin Guenier 
12 May 2008 at 20:48
Thanks, Max - just checking. Rob
manacker 
12 May 2008 at 21:32
Mid-century global cooling 
Hi Robin, 
It appears that you have perplexed Peter Martin with your query on the flawed logic of incriminating CO2 for late 20th-century warming by default when warming of earlier warming periods cannot be explained. 
But there is another flaw in the IPCC logic. 
Supporters of the postulation that anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) is the primary driver for the global warming observed during the 20th century are often questioned why this warming occurred over the period from 1910 to 1944 (with very little increase in CO2) but did not occur during the period of global cooling from around 1944 to 1976 (with a much larger increase in CO2), a period that was clearly an aberration from the general warming trend of the 20th century. 
Period Trend Years Dtemp DCO2 
1910-1944 0.150 35 0.53 15 
1944-1976 -0.006 32 -0.02 25 
1976-1998 0.159 23 0.37 33 
1998-2008 -0.021 10 -0.02 20 
Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade 
DTemp is linear change over period in degreesC 
DCO2 is increased CO2 concentration over period in ppmv 
Sources, temperature: 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual 
Sources, CO2: 
After 1958: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ 
Before 1958: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf 
There is very little mention of this global cooling period in the latest IPCC AR4 WG1 report. Two references are cited in the “frequently asked questions” sections: 
Chapter 3, FAQ Section 3.1, Figure 1 (p.253): “From about 1940 to 1970 the increasing industrialization following World War II increased pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, contributing to cooling, and increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases dominate the observed warming after the mid-1970s.” 
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-cha... 
Chapter 9, FAQ Section 9.2 (p.702): “During the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures leveled off, as increases in aerosols from fossil fuels and other sources cooled the planet.” 
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-cha... 
No hard data are presented to support these suggestions. 
What makes this cooling trend even more of an anomaly is that during this period of post WWII boom the emissions of man-made CO2 were growing exponentially, while economic growth was booming, fossil fuel energy costs were extremely low and few worried about energy conservation. 
This was one of the points raised in the UK TV documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” 
http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=881376822 
A common response, which expands on the rather sparse statements of the IPCC can be found on the pro-AGW blog sites. The response below is quoted from a pro-AGW blogspot as part of its “how to talk to a skeptic” series: 
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-about-mid-cen... 
“During this period [1944-1976] the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time [than today]) was temporarily overwhelmed by an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this different kind of emissions and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over. 
In other words, the warming effect of globally increasing CO2 levels ‘was temporarily overwhelmed’ by an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution". 
This phenomenon has been given the name of “global dimming”, although IPCC states in its report: “’Global dimming’ is neither global in extent nor has it continued after 1990.” 
On another site critiquing the UK “Swindle” documentary it was explained as follows: “As is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants, called sulfate aerosols, into the atmosphere. These particles have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”. By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulfate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2. By the 1980s, however, stronger warming had exceeded this masking effect and global temperature has since continued to rise.” 
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.p... 
While IPCC makes very little direct reference to it, this suggested explanation is very “convenient” as it attempts to explain what would otherwise be a fairly strong argument against CO2 as the principle driver of climate, i.e. strong temperature increase from 1910 to 1944 (when there was little increase in CO2 and subsequent temperature decrease from around 1944 to 1976 (when there was a much larger increase in CO2). 
There are, however, some problems with the explanation of “global dimming due to anthropogenic aerosols”: 
First and foremost, the suggested aerosol explanation for the mid-century temperature drop is based on hypothesis alone. There is no observational physical evidence for strong anthropogenic aerosol cooling on a global basis during this period. The data are just not there. 
The regions that produce aerosols have shown warming in recent years, and those that cooled from 1944-1976 were not necessarily those regions where aerosols were supposed to have any discernable effect. In other words, the actual observations do not support this cause-effect relationship for the mid-century cooling as suggested by the IPCC. 
Those areas that were not affected by aerosols show the 1944-1976 cooling trend. This is evident in IPCC Southern Hemisphere temperature records for the last century. The question must be answered: how did “increased pollution in the Northern Hemisphere”, as postulated by IPCC, affect temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere? 
Next, regions that produce massive amounts of aerosols today do not show cooling at all. They actually show warming. 
During the period from the 1950s to around 1980, there was negligible increase in temperatures in China. There was also negligible economic growth. Starting in the 1990s, there has been explosive economic growth in China with tremendous increases not only in CO2 but also in aerosol and sulfate emissions. If the mid-century “global dimming” hypothesis were valid, these emissions should presumably cause local cooling today as they are supposed to have done from 1944 to 1976, yet there has been a sharp increase in temperatures in China. 
If we look at global emissions of the principle aerosol, sulfur dioxide, we see that these have increased steadily from around 28 to 72 million metric tons per year over the period 1945 to 1980 (expressed as sulfur), then decreased slightly to around 65 million metric tons per year in 1995 before increasing again to around 77 million metric tons per year today, where they now stand at a record high. The latest increase has occurred primarily in Asia, while both North America and Europe have seen significant decreases since around 1980. On a global basis, however, SO2 emissions have not been reduced, but have remained roughly constant or even increased slightly. In other words, there is no reason that aerosol emissions should have caused a cooling effect from 1944 to 1976 and then not continued to cause cooling after 1976 on a global basis. 
Since the residence time of sulfur dioxide and sulfates in the atmosphere is very short (from 2 to 6 days), there is not much of a cumulative impact, and today’s record rates of SO2 emissions (77 Mtons/year) should show a higher cooling effect than the much lower rates, which occurred in the 1950s and 1960s (30 to 45 Mtons/year) and which are blamed for the cooling trend then. 
Another argument points away from the suggestion that the mid-century cooling was caused by anthropogenic aerosols. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution sulfates and CO2 emissions have largely increased together, and on a proportional basis sulfate emissions were higher than greenhouse gases during the early industrial revolution when there were no automobiles or diesel engines and a higher percentage of the CO2 emissions came from (relatively high sulfur content) coal rather than oil or gasoline. This period was also before there were any environmental regulations governing sulfur pollution. Since the temperature record shows that the late 19th-century industrial revolution, as indeed the period from 1910 to 1944, was not accompanied by cooling, the suggestion that cooling in the mid 20th century was caused by sulfates can be seriously questioned. 
And finally, Europe and the USA have seen a recent massive cleanup of sulfate aerosols, and indeed the temperature rose in these regions over the same period. The AGW theory as stated in the “illconsidered” blogsite cited above postulates: “Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in aerosol emissions and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over.” 
If one were to accept the explanation for mid-century cooling as having been caused by anthropogenic aerosol emissions, then the aerosol reduction in the USA and Western Europe alone would have had a sufficiently high impact that CO2 would not even have been needed to explain the subsequent warming in these regions. As Hans Erren points out graphically, if all of the cooling in the USA from 1950 to 1975 were caused by increasing aerosols (Schneider et al) then all of the warming since 1975 could well be caused simply by eliminating a major portion of these aerosols. 
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/usso2vst.gif 
In other words, the IPCC’s suggested anthropogenic aerosol explanation for the global cooling experienced from 1944 to 1976 makes a good story that superficially “fits” the AGW theory but, upon closer examination, it has several serious flaws and inconsistencies and can therefore be dismissed. 
Max
Peter Martin 
13 May 2008 at 01:27
Max, 
You are trying to wriggle out of discussion of the feedback question. What we agree on is the calculation of the direct increase in temperature 0.7deg C caused by CO2 emissions. 
There are those on your side of the argument who disagree with even the small amount. There is a commonly held quasi- religious view that somehow humankind is incapable of altering the climate. They'll cite examples from history to show that because Kings have tried to control the tides and failed, that this somehow proves that whatever humanity does to the climate will have a zero effect. 
If you won't take my word for the importance of the feedbacks, and that they cannot just be ignored, maybe you will listen to your idol Roy Spencer on the subject: 
" This {0.7 deg C increase] is NOT a controversial statement...it is well understood by climate scientists. (We are currently about 40% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.) but everything else in the climate system probably WON'T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipition systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called "feedbacks", and they determine whether manmade global warming will be catastrophic, or barely noticiable. Feedbacks are the source of almost ALL SCIENTIFIC DISAGREEMENTS over global warming. " 
Please excuse the capitals but they are Roy Spencer's not mine. 
So it is clear that if you are basing your opposition to AGW on science you need to be able to explain how the climate produces a negative feedback rather than the positive feedback (warmer temperatures=more atmospheric water water vapour) that would seem more likely on first consideration. 
Of course if you aren't basing your opposition to AGW on scientific principles, maybe you just dislike Al Gore for example, you'd like to tell us now? 
Brute, 
Are you thinking of taking up UK citizenship or oving to the UK? You seem awfully partisan about the London elections and UK politics generally. I don't think you'd like life in Europe generally, though, the price of gasoline is just about double what you are used to in America, all taxation is higher. But on the other hand you are much less likely to go without health care if you can't afford it. 
Robin, 
You still are meithering on about the early 20th century warming. What exactly have I said on this topic which you disagree with? OK It was mainly natural. The theory is that it was generally a recovery from the LIA. It would be nice to go back in time to get some accurate solar measurements to confirm all that and calculate how much was due to solar and other natural effects and how much was due to atmospheric CO2 concentrations which were starting to increase. Have you got any suggestions on how that might be done? 
We do have measurements to show that the warming since 1975 was not caused by solar effects though.
manacker 
13 May 2008 at 05:51
Hi bobclive, 
You pointed out to Peter Martin (with specific examples) how the UHI effect has caused a significant upward distortion of the surface temperature records of both Hadley and GISS. 
Meteorologist Anthony Watts has examined most of the weather stations making up the U.S. Historical Climatology Network and published the results. Of those examined, more than half fall short of federal guidelines for optimum placement. Some examples include weather stations placed near sewage treatment plants, parking lots, and near cars, buildings and air-conditioners - all artificial heat sources which cause spurious higher temperature readings, providing physical confirmation of a root cause for a significant UHI effect on the record. 
http://www.surfacestations.org/downloads/USHCN_stationlist.x... 
Watts cites the example with photographs of two fairly closely located weather stations, both located north of Sacramento. CA: one (Orland, CA) is properly positioned in a grassy area with trees around, while the other (nearby Marysville, CA) is located near an asphalt parking lot with buildings and airconditioning units nearby. 
A comparison of the official NASA GISS temperature records of the two stations over the 70-year period 1937-2006 shows that the improperly positioned station at Marysville shows a spurious linear increase in temperature of around 0.20 deg C per decade higher than the well-positioned station at Orland (1.4 deg C over the 70-year period), confirming a significant “urban heat island” (UHI) distortion. 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py... 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py... 
The graph showing this UHI distortion can be seen on: 
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2488845702/sizes/o/ 
The UHI effect is undeniably very apparent., and amounts to essentially all of the recorded warming. 
Just another nail in the AGW coffin for Peter to contemplate. And there are many more. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
13 May 2008 at 06:29
Hi Peter, 
Your latest bah-blah contributed absolutely nothing to clear up the fatal flaw in IPCC arguments on AGW as the cause for global warming or the suggested positive feedbacks that result in a four-fold exaggeration of greenhouse warming. 
I know it must be difficult for you to face the facts that contradict your quasi- religious view that somehow the evils of humankind are capable of altering the climate and the truth that there are other unknown natural factors out there driving climate change. 
You have not brought any facts, and our discussion on this is over. 
But it has been very educational for me, as a rational skeptic, to see how an AGW quasi-religious fundamentalist thinks. 
Bye, 
Max
Robin Guenier 
13 May 2008 at 10:20
Good morning, Max. Thanks again for the data - interesting and useful stuff as always. I see you've given up on Peter. About time I think - it took me a while to learn the futility of trying to debate with a closed mind - although, for a time, I found it useful and even enjoyed it. 
But you might be amused, even interested, to have a look at this (it's vehemently anti "conservative" so I think Brute would love it): http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winnin... It's a thread largely populated by people who share Peter's mindset (he'd get on well there). Maybe you might even contribute?
Peter Martin 
13 May 2008 at 11:27
Robin, 
Thank you for the climateprogress link. I like this page I think I've been around exactly the same merry go round several times! 
http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/11/how-do-we-really-know-... 
I'm sorry you think I have a closed mind. If I have then most of the scientific community worldwide has too. I must confess I've become a bit of a fan of Richard Dawkins lately. Do you think he has a closed mind too? I'm not sure exactly what his opinion is on global warming but I'm very pleased to see that he's recently stood up not just to organised religion , but to various new age cults and the 'quackery' of so-called alternative medicine. You'll probably disagree with me, but this is where the closed minds can really be found. It is probably a reading of Richard Dawkin's books that has encouraged me to stand up and be counted in favour of conventional science. It has strained a few friendships when I've been critical of such hocus-pocus as acupuncture and homeopathy, I can tell you. 
I'll probably carry on until this forum closes. I haven't wanted to see a New Statesman forum surrendered to a very right-wing inspired attempt to discredit what is the most important scientific piece of knowledge to emerge in the last twenty years. 
Not that I am totally uncritical of the left. There are exceptions, but they have their own 'new age' issue to grapple with in terms of nuclear energy. On any rational examination of the evidence, nuclear power is nowhere near as risky and dangerous as its critics claim. Probably as many people die each day from the effects of particulate pollution from the burning of fossil fuels as have ever died from the peaceful use of nuclear power and winning that argument, with the left, is probably even more important than winning the argument with the right on the science of global warming.
Robin Guenier 
13 May 2008 at 12:24
Well, Peter, we can agree on something at last: I too am a fan of Richard Dawkins. And I wholly agree about conventional science: I too agree about the foolishly closed minds to be found in new age cults. How sad that, without realising it, AGW alarmists have become something very like them. Nor am I, by any definition, "very right-wing" - why must you drag politics into this? For a taste of my views here's something I said on climateprogress this morning: 
"I am, for example, concerned with world poverty. When I see already desperate people (people without a voice) being further damaged by well-meaning Western liberals anxious to reduce their “carbon footprint”, distorting the allocation of aid to meet an AGW agenda and insisting on the cultivation of biofuels - all based on data from the IPCC - I think it essential that any doubts are made public and the document subjected to intelligent analysis."
Peter Martin 
13 May 2008 at 14:34
Robin, 
Yes I agree with you on bio fuels too. Most of the current problems could have been foreseen with sufficient thought. Naturally the agricultural lobby were quick to seize on the idea and they've done well on it. 
I did try to keep politics out of the argument too in the early stages. There was a lot of Al Gore bashing and the argument was crudely that if he was for the idea of AGW then it must be a bad thing. It is absurd of course to decide a scientific question on the bsais of politics; but, like it or not the argument has been politicised, especially in America, and the last link you posted showed just how. 
51% of Republicans, according to climateprogress.com believe that the earth is not even warming! So, for them, even people like Roy Spencer, who does in fact say that current world temperatures are unusually high, are dangerous alarmists! Only 27% of Republicans believe that the burning of fossil fuels is a significant contributory cause of warming. On the other hand 84% of Democrats do accept that global warming is a reality. 
So why should it be that a persons political opinions should be so inffluential in deciding what should really be a scientific question? As Roy Spencer says there is no scientific dispute over the basics of the Stefan Boltzmann calculation leading to the figure of 0.7 deg C, the dispute is whether the feedback is positive of negative. So why is the majority right wing position against even what Roy Spencer concedes is scientifically well established? And why, presumably, would most of the rest argue that the feedbacks are strongly negative? 
I do believe that strong economic interests are feeling threatened by the rise of the AGW problem and they have regrouped to try to undermine the science in recent years. Naturally their most loyal political supporters have been the quickest to fall into line as the figures on your link have shown. 
The charge of quasi-religion is often made against science too. It a hard charge to answer. For instance I do believe that the DNA molecule is shaped like a double helix but I've never really thought about it much and I'd have no idea of how to prove it from first principles. Its way outside my field and I do just accept that the science is basically OK. Is that a quasi-religious position? I don't think so, but those who question these things would disagree.
Robin Guenier 
13 May 2008 at 18:14
I’m not especially interested, Peter, in differences between Republicans’ and Democrats’ views on global warming – my guess is that few know much about it and even less think it’s very important. But I see you’re amused to note that a lot of Republicans “believe that the earth is not even warming”. Maybe that’s because it isn’t.
Brute 
13 May 2008 at 20:13
Pete, 
Me become a citizen of Londonstan or Paristan? (I understand that much of England and Europe is progressively losing their identity and being overwhelmed by Muslim culture and Sharia law, pandering/appeasing Muslim activists in effort to be politically correct). 
Socialized medicine? No thanks, I’ve read far too much and talked to many European immigrants regarding the inadequacies of Socialized medicine; the interminable, (sometimes fatal) wait for simple procedures……..People pulling out their own teeth with pliers and a bottle of bourbon…..Waiting outside of hospitals in the back of ambulances because the emergency room doesn’t have the staffing or has time constraints to admit them. 
No, I can call my doctor or dentist this morning and have an appointment this afternoon. I like having a choice in which doctor or dentist I see; I don’t need some bureaucrat dictating who I should consult with regarding my health. I’ve also noticed that wealthy Europeans, (and Canadians), travel to the United States for medical care….that speaks volumes. 
There is no such thing as “free” health care; someone pays….. and in the case of England, successful, responsible citizens are paying for the indolent and opportunists. 
No, I'm not interested in becoming a citizen of the United Kingdom: however, I happen to be a history buff and find the history/culture extremely interesting and the people charming. The US offers +/- 400 years of history while the UK and Europe offer +/- three thousand years of history to study. I’d like to visit again, truly fascinating. 
I find the political climate interesting in that it seems fads and crazes such as global warming, (and Beatlemania), catch on initially in Europe and then move West, (over here), before they fade. In some instances the United States is 10 years behind. It seems as if the United Kingdom and Europe have had their fill of the global warming charade and see it now for what it is; a complete fraud. I like to see a glimpse the future. 
I’ve also noticed that Europe seems to be moving to the right politically, (Germany, France). 
Robin, 
I have, a couple of times, waded into debate with groups/people such as the one that you listed, but it is really pointless. Liberal ideology, (which is what these people ascribe to), is based on emotion as opposed to reason, fact and logic. I could explain and provide fact after fact, over and over again that the Sun rises in the East, but if that fact does not fit into their world view, they will not accept it, (case in point, Mr. Martin). 
They state that burning fossil fuel emits CO2 into the atmosphere which causes the earth to warm which will destroy it….. Ergo, any facts that conflicts or interferes with that belief is fabricated or inaccurate in their minds and they flatly reject it. The fact that CO2 levels continue to rise while the global temperature drops eludes them; they have an unrealistic fantasy of what the world should be, that cannot be shaken, despite the facts. Their goal is quite different than “saving the planet”……they would rejoice hearing the news that global temperatures have dropped if that were the case. Instead, the fact that global temperatures have dropped and the cause has nothing to do with CO2, (and they are unhappy about the news), exposes their true agenda which is Socialistic, not environmentalism. In my view, the goal of the Greens is to reshape society, a political goal, not anything to do with the environment, which is why they’ve involved politicians, (The United Nations, National and local governments). I’d be very happy with the entire initiative if it were voluntary…..fine, have at it; but the tree huggers are attempting to influence law and force me to adhere to their fanaticism…..I do object to that. 
These people tend to be unhappy in most areas of their lives and have a pessimistic view….they view society as inherently “evil” and blame their own personal failings on someone, (George Bush) or something, (Big Oil), for their personal inadequacies. 
Liberal political figures foster this “victim hood” mentality and offer big government (as well as big taxes), as the solution to all of society’s problems. I'll make decisions regarding my life; I don't need their input. It’s a confidence scheme and has been going on for thousands of years. Global warming Alarmists will retreat into the “it’s not about politics” arena, then turn around and offer a political/governmental solution to a non-existent problem. 
Nikita Khrushchev said that a politician will offer to build you a bridge where there is no river……….it’s much the same with Global Warming; there is no river, we don’t need a bridge, so there is no reason for us to give them the money or power to build one.
manacker 
13 May 2008 at 20:56
Hi Peter, 
You sort of naively would have liked to keep politics out of the AGW discussion. 
It is not possible to keep politics "out of the discussion". 
Politics is what AGW is all about. 
Why is a politician like Al Gore even involved? 
Why are politically motivated Oscars and Nobel Peace Prizes handed out? 
Why are activists like James E. Hansen hiding in the mantle of objective scientists while they testify to the politicians in the US Congress that imminent "tipping points" will cause irreversible harm to humanity, other species and our planet unless political action (carbon taxes) are implemented? 
Why is the world'd top politician, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, writing in op-ed articles of 6-meter waves that could inundate us in 100 or even 10 years, unless we take "immediate [political] action". 
Why are billions of dollars of tax-payer money being funneled by politicians into "climate science" to support the story of alarming AGW? 
Why are so many people even engaged in this debate - if it were purely a scientific "ho-hum" discussion, these sites could all shut down. 
Face it, Peter, the driver of this whole hysteria is politics. 
And is not the first time that politicians have used "fear" to motivate a general public into supporting an unpleasant political agenda. 
Whether this is the specter of a "mushroom shaped smoking gun" (to support a war to eliminate the conjured threat of WMD in the hands of a tin-horn middle eastern dictator) or "6-meter waves swallowing New York City" (to support draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes to eliminate the conjured threat of runaway global warming), it is all political. 
But you cannot limit it to a purely US discussion between Democrats and Republicans, because that is a gross oversimplification. The debate rages in Europe (where I live) as well. And, judging from the participants on this site, the debate covers the whole globe. 
It is a debate between those that feel governments, politicians and taxes bring solutions to problems and even taxing human beings for the air they breathe is fair game and others, who do not see a real problem and do not believe taxes will provide any solution to this non-problem. 
Just my thoughts on this, Peter. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
13 May 2008 at 22:00
Brute, 
Your Nikita Khrushchev quote is good. 
Here’s another one, from American journalist of the early 20th century. H.L. Mencken. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” 
Fits pretty well today, and folks still keep falling for it. 
But I also believe another one (don't know who coined it first): 
"You can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time." 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
13 May 2008 at 22:02
Robin, 
I hope you don't feel that I was attacking you with my latest comment. I like you, (I like poor, misguided, befuddled Luddite Peter Martin also, but not as much). I also don't think I was telling you anything that you haven't realized already.
Brute 
13 May 2008 at 22:10
Max, 
"You can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time." 
Abraham Lincoln said that. Great American-Freeded the slaves-- Global Warming Skeptic - Reconciled the country during the American Civil War - Republican 
(I made up the part about Global Warming Skeptic ).
Brute 
13 May 2008 at 23:47
Max, 
Here's another good quote from Khrushchev: 
We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism." - Khrushchev 
Where in Europe are you writing from?
Peter Martin 
14 May 2008 at 06:00
Max, 
"Politics is what AGW is all about." 
You think so? So the earth has some sort of political bias and will detect whether CO2 is from a politically acceptable source, before deciding to induce a warming effect? 
This may sound ridculous, of course, but I noticed this equally ridiculous comment in Richard Lindzen's, (who should know better than Max) 2001 testimony to the US senate 
" their existence however [ of positive feedbacks] suggests a poorly designed earth which responds to pertubations by making things worse" 
As Roy Spencer has emphatically told us, whether the feedbacks are positive or negative is at the heart of the scientific disagreement. And here we have Prof Lindzen suggesting that the earth is somehow 'designed' with humanity in mind! And presumably the great designer would not have been remiss enough to include positive feedback!
manacker 
14 May 2008 at 08:55
You wrote, Peter: “So the earth has some sort of political bias and will detect whether CO2 is from a politically acceptable source, before deciding to induce a warming effect?” 
Obviously not, or it would not have cooled the past 10 years. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
14 May 2008 at 09:04
Hi Brute, 
Switzerland, actually, where "global warming" has deserted us, unfortunately, despite Peter Martin. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
14 May 2008 at 09:19
Hi Peter, 
To assume (as you and James E. Hansen apparently do) that Earth is bedeviled by “positive feedbacks” which “respond to perturbations by making things worse” is ludicrous, since it ignores the history of our planet. 
It is not a matter of whether Earth is “designed with humanity in mind”, it is just common sense and observation of what has happened in the past. 
You (and Hansen) have no evidence that the Earth’s climate is a fragile system bedeviled by positive feedbacks. 
Where is this evidence, Peter? 
Regard, 
Max
stargazer 
14 May 2008 at 10:48
Well here is something so sophisticated that could have settled this debate once and for all, but looks like it got cancelled for some 'unknown' reason.... 
http://www.desmogblog.com/whitehouse-withholds-dscovr-docume... 
Could it be that 'someone' does not want the result to be known ????
Peter Martin 
14 May 2008 at 11:25
Max, 
"Making things worse" is an odd sort of statement to come from a climate scientist. It pre-supposes that there is a better and/or a worse as far as the planet is concerned. 
A feedback is just as likely to be positive as negative. Negative feedbacks are good in engineering terms as they keep things stable. But, we know that some things in nature are stable and some aren't. 
You shouldn't ignore the history of our planet either. It shows that the earth's climate is far from stable. At times it's been hot, even at the poles, at other times freezing, and not just at the poles. So, it is not naturally stable. We cannot rely on the feedbacks being negative to maintain stability. 
Nevertheless, the earth's climate has been reasonably stable since the last ice-age which we came out of ten thousand years ago. Surely, we should do whatever we can to maintain that level of stability, rather than taking risks and allowing the CO2 level to increase out of control. 
The evidence for the lack of stabilising feedbacks is also to be found in the paper by Soden which you don't seem to be bothered to read. 
By all means ask for the evidence, but at least you should take the trouble to read it, when you get it. 
And no, the lack of negative feedbacks, and the lack of natural climate stability, does not mean that you can claim that any change in the climate is likely to be natural. It means that we are living in a fragile and delicately balanced system and we need to remember that.
Black Wallaby 
14 May 2008 at 13:38
Hi harmlesssky.org REUR 12 May 2008 at 12:27 
I seldom visit this thread nowadays, because I find the anal intercourse with Peter Martin a bit boring, although some contributors largely ignore it and make some interesting posts. 
I was intrigued by your comment that there appear to be a good number of visitors (whom do not comment?) Are you able to quantify that? 
It might alter by attitude
Robin Guenier 
14 May 2008 at 14:31
This might interest or perhaps amuse some of you: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warming-mostly-hot-air/
bobclive 
14 May 2008 at 16:17
You all know about Parker and Peterson`s UHI studies (ACCEPTED BY THE IPCC) where they claim that the difference between Urban and Rural sites is only 0.002 degrees C because all urban sites use standard good practice and are situated in cool green areas within the cities. Anthony Watts would dispute this I believe. 
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ 
Steve McIntyre says: 
June 14th, 2007 at 7:33 pm 
I’ve collated Parker’s US stations (together with their GHCN id. They all appear to be URBAN AIRPORTS, odd candidate for the “COOL PARK” effect mentioned by Parker. 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1718
Brute 
14 May 2008 at 16:32
Robin, 
Excellent article; thank you. Try this one……….. 
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/05/0...#comments 
Environmentalists' Wild Predictions 
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget. 
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." 
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000." 
Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." 
It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply. 
Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming? 
Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
Brute 
14 May 2008 at 18:24
This is too bad because I like Paul McCartney........but it's still funny. 
Paul McCartney's Lexus Hybrid Delivered By Plane From Japan 
Cars & Transportation 
Paul McCartney should have been celebrating: the High Court of England had just finalized his very public divorce from Heather Mills, and on top of that he had just received a Lexus LS600H as a gift from Lexus for doing some promotional work for them. The LS600H is their flagship hybrid vehicle, with a Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV) rating and an impressive 430 horsepower engine. However, the car's fuel efficiency is rather poor at 21 MPG on combined highway/city driving. In other words, it's the kind of car that a rock star seeking to do some green branding (greenwashing?) would want to drive. Unfortunately for Mr. McCartney, the green aspects of the car--valid or not-- were overshadowed by the fact that it was delivered to him by plane direct from Japan, which made the carbon footprint of shipping the car 100 times bigger than had it been shipped by boat. 
A source close to the former Beatle was quoted as saying that Paul will be "horrified after learning it was delivered by plane. Paul has always campaigned for green issues and he can’t understand why anyone would send an enormous car from Japan to Britain on a plane." Just how high is the carbon impact of shipping a car 7,000 miles on a Korean Air Flight? 
According to the offsetting company CO2balance.com, "the plane journey would have caused a carbon footprint of 38,050kg, compared to 397kg for a three-week boat journey." That means that the impact of shipping the car by plane is just as impactful as driving the same car around the world six times, according to Mike Rigby, director of CO2balance.com. It looks like Paul is going to have to shell out a fair amount of money for some high quality offsets. . . 
In any case, this story is bound to get far less attention (if any) in the British tabloids than his high profile divorce, even though carbon emissions--especially from aviation--are getting a lot of press these days.
JZ Smith 
14 May 2008 at 19:24
Hi Robin, 
I was—I suppose foolishly, upon reflection—surprised that the editor of the Climate Progress blog you linked to was so quick to edit and delete posts that he found objectionable. Not obscenely objectionable, of course, they just contained argument that he deemed "disinformation". 
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that leftists have a predilection to suppress freedom of speech (with which they disagree).
Brute 
14 May 2008 at 21:47
JZ Smith, 
I'm flabbergasted and appalled. The webmaster of a Leftist, Alarmist site censored you for posting information contrary to their religious dogma? 
I have a good mind to write my Congressman, (who just voted to proclaim the Polar Bears in the Northland an endangered species).
JZ Smith 
14 May 2008 at 21:51
Maybe they need to eat more penguins. The polar bears, that is.
Brute 
15 May 2008 at 03:28
Polar Bears listed as threatened - now comes the lawsuits 
Here’s what will happen next. Eventually, anyone, (or any industry), producing more than their “allotted” amount of carbon (CO2) will be in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Then, ATTORNEYS will file lawsuits akin to the tobacco industry lawsuits. Carbon Dioxide is produced by burning: Natural gas, Oil (Gasoline), Coal, (Power Plants), and is produced by every living thing on the planet that breaths oxygen. Attorneys will sue oil and natural gas companies, (steal the stockholder’s money) as well as impose heavy regulation on industries that produce anything that burns fuel or electricity. These industries will raise the price of whatever they sell to recoup the losses, (passing the costs along to you and me). CO2 is PLANT FOOD. 
Carbon dioxide is produced by all animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms during respiration and is used by plants during photosynthesis. This is to make sugars which may either be consumed again in respiration or used as the raw material for plant growth. It is, therefore, a major component of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is generated as a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels or vegetable matter, among other chemical processes. Inorganic carbon dioxide is output by volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as hot springs. 
Polar Bears listed as threatened - now comes the lawsuits 
14 05 2008 
Bear down! - Send an ambulance and a lawyer! 
The big green machine has finally successfully lobbied enough FUD to get the thriving polar bear listed as a threatened species. Never mind the fact that the arctic sea ice has melted before in the last 100 years. See the news release from the Department of the Interior here: 
http://www.doi.gov/issues/polar_bears.html 
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne announced on May 14, 2008 that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. 
So what happens if sea ice grows? Let’s see how well that “best available science” holds up. According to the full DOI press release, computer model scenarios figured heavily into the delusion. 
Now come the lawsuits for everything under the sun that may potentially affect sea ice and those poor bears. Yep, fire up that big lawsuit engine, let’s get ready to ruuummmmble! 
Update: The Sierra Club is not happy about this, because the “decision is riddled with loopholes, caveats, and backhanded language that could actually undermine protections for the polar bear and other species”. You just can’t please some people. 
Update 2: If you really want to see green stupidity in action, try the Polar Bear Brainwashing Parking game: 
http://www.gamesfree.ca/other_games/810/Polar_Bear_Parking.h... 
Play the game and watch the “education” at the end. Note to intellectually challenged game designers: Penguins don’t inhabit the arctic.
Peter Martin 
15 May 2008 at 06:17
It seems that the guys at Realclimate and I have something in common in that we both like a bit of a bet now and again. 
http://www.realclimate.org/ 
In their latest post they have challenged the Keenlyside group to back up their pediction of short term cooling with some hard cash. You've got to admire those who aren't just full of empty words. 
I don't know if they will have any more success than I have in finding any takers. Max seemed keen enough at one time but I'm still waiting for a second email to finalise the details. All I'm looking for is some verification of identity, addresses & phone numbers etc . I'm happy to trust someone up to a $100 or so but bigger than that I'll be asking for guarantors and references. 
There are lots of people who say that Global warming has really stopped but there seems to be no-one who will back their words with a bit of hard cash. I wonder why?
manacker 
15 May 2008 at 09:15
Hey Peter, 
To my amazement, I see you have written, "Max seemed keen enough at one time but I'm still waiting for a second email to finalise the details." 
You asked me for "some time". 
You are the one who is stalling on our bet, not I. 
E-mail me how you want to handle it, but don't lie about our bet on this blogsite. That is naughty. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
15 May 2008 at 10:05
Hey Max, 
That is just rubbish. If you do word search on this forum for "some time" I don't think you'll find those words used by me to you. 
On the 25th April in this blog, after I'd reminded you about the bet, you mentioned an email. I replied by email, the following day, to say that I'd had only one email from you but it did not mention anything about the bet. 
I'm really not happy about your accusation of a lie. All our correspondence has been either through this forum or by email. 
I'd appreciate it if you would either substantiate your allegation or apologise. You are quite free to make any direct quotations from my emails to you. 
PM
Robin Guenier 
15 May 2008 at 10:34
I fear, JZ Smith, that the antics of the editor of the Climate Progress blog are not so surprising. You may be amused to see my most recent contribution - if it's still there!
bobclive 
15 May 2008 at 10:47
Black Wallaby, 
The heading to this thread is good, 
Has global warming really stopped? 
The posters have left links to many interesting and informative articles and studies, anyone visiting this thread and clicking the links will hopefully be made aware of the folly of AGW, or at least the thread will open their eyes to the other more plausible cause of the warming. 
Managing Polar bears, I wonder. 
Elk were nearly extinct in 1920, but by the 1950s they threatened to overrun Yellowstone Park. To protect vegetation and habitat for other wildlife, the Park Service began a program of shooting surplus elk. But animal lovers and hunters soon protested the program: animal lovers because they didn't want the elk shot; hunters because, if the elk were to be shot, they wanted to shoot them. When Congressional committees began to hold hearings on the subject, the Park Service quickly adopted a new policy: Let nature regulate elk numbers. As a result of this policy, overgrazing by elk, deer, and other ungulates is turning Yellowstone and other parks into biological deserts. 
I wonder what will happen when polar bears reach the hundreds of thousands and there are not enough seals to go round. The greens state that Polar bears are thinner because of melting ice and need protecting, that being the case , how will they get fatter with less ice and more Polar bears.
Peter Martin 
15 May 2008 at 11:28
Mr Wallaby, 
I think you might be missing the point here. No one is denying that when animals are protected, there can in fact be an abrupt population rise, leading to perhaps a localised overpopulation of the animals. Other examples that spring to mind are elephants in South Africa, and Koalas on Kangaroo Island , South Australia. 
The hunting method of the Polar Bear depends on it being able to find its prey , mainly seals , in ice burrows on the frozen Arctic Ocean. As wikipedia puts it; " As it can hunt consistently only from sea ice, the polar bear spends much of the year on the frozen sea ..." 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear 
And if the sea is no longer frozen , or the ice is insufficiently thick ?
bobclive 
15 May 2008 at 16:33
Some thoughts on UHI’s and rural stations 
(adapted from an essay by P. M. Pollock) 
What constitutes an urban site versus a rural site? Peterson and others who support the IPCC viewpoint consider a town with a population of less than 10,000 people to be rural and not to require any adjustment for urbanization. Nothing could be further from the truth. Oke (1973) and Torok et al (2001) show that even towns with populations of 1000 people have urban heating of about 2.2 C compared to the nearby rural countryside. Since the UHI increases as the logarithm of the population or as about 0.73 log (pop), a village with a population of 10 has an urban warming of 0.73 C, a village with 100 has a warming of 1.46 C, a town with a population of 1000 people already has an urban warming of 2.2 C, and a large city with a million people has a warming of 4.4 C (Oke, 1973). 
Try this thought experiment: In 1900, world population is 1 billion and in 2000, it is 6 billion for an increase of a factor of six. If the surface measuring stations are randomly distributed and respond to this population increase, it would equal 2.2 log (6) or 1.7 C, a number already greater than the observed warming of 0.6 C. If however we note that UHIs occur only on land or 29% of the Earth’s surface, than the net global warming would be 0.29*1.7 or 0.49 C which is close the observed warming. It is not out of the realm of possibility that most of the twentieth century warming was urban heat islands.
bobclive 
15 May 2008 at 18:43
Some thoughts on UHI’s and rural stations 
(adapted from an essay by P. M. Pollock) 
What constitutes an urban site versus a rural site? Peterson and others who support the IPCC viewpoint consider a town with a population of less than 10,000 people to be rural and not to require any adjustment for urbanization. Nothing could be further from the truth. Oke (1973) and Torok et al (2001) show that even towns with populations of 1000 people have urban heating of about 2.2 C compared to the nearby rural countryside. Since the UHI increases as the logarithm of the population or as about 0.73 log (pop), a village with a population of 10 has an urban warming of 0.73 C, a village with 100 has a warming of 1.46 C, a town with a population of 1000 people already has an urban warming of 2.2 C, and a large city with a million people has a warming of 4.4 C (Oke, 1973). 
Try this thought experiment: In 1900, world population is 1 billion and in 2000, it is 6 billion for an increase of a factor of six. If the surface measuring stations are randomly distributed and respond to this population increase, it would equal 2.2 log (6) or 1.7 C, a number already greater than the observed warming of 0.6 C. If however we note that UHIs occur only on land or 29% of the Earth’s surface, than the net global warming would be 0.29*1.7 or 0.49 C which is close the observed warming. It is not out of the realm of possibility that most of the twentieth century warming was urban heat islands. 
Even “towns” with zero population can have an urban heat island. 
1. Consider Nowheresville, population zero. In 1900 it consisted of a single store at the intersection of two dirt roads. In 2000, the store is abandoned and the roads are paved. The surface is now darker than in 1900 and the region around the store is warmer. If you are 500 feet from the road, your thermometer will show a 0.1 C warming and two of my correspondents have found such warming. The building itself will heat up during the day and release the heat at night, further adding to the warming. The net effect is warmer nights and slightly warmer days with a decrease in the diurnal temperature range (DTR). Decreases in DTR have been observed worldwide. 
2. Next consider Podunk Corner, population 5. A road house at the crossing of two gravel wagon roads, Stevenson Screen in the open over by the corral, exposed to the prevailing wind. However the motorcar has arrived. The roads are paved, the hitching area and former corral likewise converted into parking. All that asphalt absorbing and then emitting energy. The saplings of 1910 growing into ever large windbreaks. Population still five. The net result is still an urban warming even with no change in population. 
3. Or try a village of 30 people in five houses going to 150 people in 30 houses. All with their roofs, driveways and roads. An experimenter taking temperatures as he drives through such villages will find several degree higher readings within. But a village of 150 gets no UHI adjustment. 
4. Then there is the maintenance problem: many of the remaining stations have intermittent signals, implying the likelihood of poor maintenance when they are up. A Stevenson screen that needs new white paint or that is dirty is a warmer screen. The response of the screen will change if the type of paint is changed and the new paint has a different thermal emissivity. A screen with its louvers occluded by spiders, birds nests, etc. is a warmer screen. Bushes and trees growing around the screens will block outgoing thermal radiation at night and their slow growth will be a warming signal, but not one related to AGHG. Earlier we called the last effect the “changing skyline hypothesis”. There is inadequate documentation of all these effects and no real interest in testing their validity, presumably because climate scientists are happy with the warming signal they see and are happy to attribute it to AGHGs. 
Since satellite measurements began in 1979, the world’s population has approximately doubled leading to an UHI signal of 0.67 C over land and 0.19 C globally. The observed surface warming is about 0.36 C over the same time period, so a substantial portion may be just uncorrected UHI effects. Other effects include land use changes, increased darkness of vegetation, direct heat from fossil fuel burning, a brighter sun, changes in cosmic ray intensity, soot on snow, more soot in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases (and this list is not exhaustive). There are many competing theories for the recent warming and some of them do a better job at explaining the observations than do greenhouse gases. 
The land surface stations were designed to provide local climatology. They were NOT designed to detect climate change. Quality control of the surface network is inadequate.
bobclive 
15 May 2008 at 19:16
The Polar Bear 
Environmentalists were already mapping out plans to file lawsuits challenging the restrictive measures outlined by Kempthorne. 
"They're trying to make this a threatened listing in name only with no change in today's impacts and that's not going to fly," said Jamie Rappaport Clark of Defenders of Wildlife and a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director. 
Members of Congress also were skeptical. 
The Bush administration "is forcing the polar bear to sink or swim," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of a House committee on global warming. 
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., called it "a lifeline for our last remaining polar bears" but said the bear's survival won't be assured without LIMITS ON OIL DEVELOPMENT in the same Arctic waters where the bears are found. 
Now we know why the environmentalists pushed this legislation through, nothing to do with Polar bears, its all about oil, but thats alright, leave it all to the Russians and Canadians, I believe this act has no jurisdiction on them.
Black Wallaby 
15 May 2008 at 23:40
Bobclive and Brute, 
I've been holding discussions (self flaggelating) together with those two comics Jabailo and Nucbuddy, with some loonie goodie goodie greenies about those poor polar bears@ 
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/05/07/alaska/index.html#comment3 
Also a bit at at 
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329#comment17 
You may be entertained. (or vomit) 
I thought I heard a report recently that Yellowstone or somewhere was showing signs of recovery with the introduction of wolves
Black Wallaby 
16 May 2008 at 00:13
Update on polar bears, April 2008: 
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i33312
Brute 
16 May 2008 at 00:42
Black Wallaby, 
I was over there looking around and saw your posts.....good stuff. I'll get over there more often, time permitting; work is starting to heat up again, (pun intended). It's cyclical, like the Sun and the weather…err, climate. 
Just curious, what is your profession? You are very knowledgeable regarding the topic......I’ll assume from the name you live in Australia? 
Gotta go and over fertilize the lawn before it rains. Ha 
Let’s use this site to catch back up if they shut down this one: http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63 
You guys have really taught me a lot and provided some great information to pass along to my Alarmist friends. I’ve actually turned a couple around and brought them over to “The Dark Side”. Fact and reason turned them from Kook Global Warming Activists to reasonable, well adjusted, Realists.
Peter Martin 
16 May 2008 at 01:42
BobClive, 
You certainly have a bee in your bonnet about the UHIE. 
No one is denying that the UHIE isn't important when taking temperature measurements, but it is not just the IPCC which says that the uncertainty is an order of magnitude smaller than would be necessary to seriously distort the results. I can give you lots of peer reviewed papers, besides the Peterson ones, who claim that the effect has been correctly handled. There is no peer reviewed scientific work of any standing which supports your position. 
The most compelling evidence that has been correctly handled is there for you to see with your own eyes. Just take a lokk at NASAs photos of the ever shrinking Arctic ice cap, which lead to a minimum summer sea ice level in 2007. That's an important benchmark to watch this year again too.
Peter Martin 
16 May 2008 at 01:53
Max, 
Still no apology about the lie accusation? 
All our correspondence has been in written format so it would be easy enough for you to substantiate your accusation if were true. 
I know it isn't, and so either you've got confused, and for which I'm happy to accept your apology, or you are showing to all that you yourself are the liar.
manacker 
16 May 2008 at 02:04
Black Wallaby wrote: “I thought I heard a report recently that Yellowstone or somewhere was showing signs of recovery with the introduction of wolves.” 
Here in Switzerland we have been less fortunate with wolves. They were re-introduced (from across the Alps in Italy) with a lot of ballyhoo from Green Party members, WWF activists, etc. Turned out they preferred mutton and lamb to venison, so the farmers shot them all. 
Then there was the sad story of “Bear 5”. As another experiment in re-introduction of species a few brown bears (from Hungary, I believe) were settled in the Alps. One of these bears apparently had no fear of humans and started moving around in the mountain villages looking for food. Attempts were made to scare him off with rubber bullets, etc., but this did not work and the villagers were beginning to worry about their children walking home from school or playing outdoors. Finally the bear was put down to the great dismay of the greenies. 
One Green Party parliament member was quoted as saying,”this is a tragedy; we must rethink our bear concept”. 
“Bear concept?” Hmmm… 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
16 May 2008 at 02:07
Hi Peter, 
You wrote me: "Still no apology about the lie accusation?" 
What in hell are you talking about? 
Send me an e-mail, but don't put this rubbish on this blog site. 
I am still waiting for you to define the terms of the bet. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
16 May 2008 at 02:25
Hi BobClive, 
Peter Martin advised you, “Just take a look at NASA’s photos of the ever shrinking Arctic ice cap, which lead to a minimum summer sea ice level in 2007. That's an important benchmark to watch this year again too.” 
You really don’t need to wait until this summer to see interesting developments in the “not-so-ever-shrinking” Arctic ice cap. 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/arctic-sea-i... 
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-disappearing... 
Or, for an “important down under benchmark” see: 
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap... 
Regards, 
Max 
PS The good news is that neither location suffers from the UHI effect, like most of the surface weather stations (no AC exhausts, asphalt parking lots, etc. nearby), so the temperatures measured there are probably accurate.
Peter Martin 
16 May 2008 at 02:32
Max, 
You ask "What in hell ar you talking about?" 
I am asking why in your posting of "15th May 9-15" you used the phrase "don't lie about our bet" 
I am asking you to either substantiate that libellous comment or apologise for it. 
Is that simple and clear enough for you?
manacker 
16 May 2008 at 02:50
BobClive, 
Peter is apparently telling you that there are no studies that report a significant UHI effect. He is ill-informed on that. 
In addition to two studies made for the USA by Karl (1998) and Kalnay/Cai (2003) several studies world wide have been cited by climate scientist Douglas Hoyt on Roger Pielke’s website on March 29, 2006 (comment 16) http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/03/23/new-paper-on-solar...… 
Around two-thirds of the weather stations, mostly in remote and rural locations in northern latitudes and many in the former Soviet Union, were shut down between 1975 and 1995, with over 60% of these shut down in the 4-year period 1990-1993. This coincides exactly with a sharp increase in the calculated global mean temperature (particularly in the Northern Hemisphere), giving additional credence for a significant UHI distortion of the surface temperature record. There is good reason to believe that, prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, these remote Siberian locations systematically reported lower than actual temperatures, in order to qualify for added subsidies from the central government, which were tied to low temperatures, so as this distorted record was removed, it resulted in a spurious warming trend. For a graph showing this correlation see: 
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html 
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/intellicast.essay.... 
Meteorologist Anthony Watts has examined close to half (to date) of the 1,221 weather stations making up the U.S. Historical Climatology Network and published the results. Of those examined, more than half fall short of federal guidelines for optimum placement. Some examples include weather stations placed near sewage treatment plants, parking lots, and near cars, buildings and air-conditioners - all artificial heat sources which cause spurious higher temperature readings, providing physical confirmation of a root cause for a significant UHI effect on the record. 
http://www.surfacestations.org/downloads/USHCN_stationlist.x... 
Watts gives the example with photographs of two fairly closely located weather stations, both located north of Sacramento. CA: one (Orland, CA) is properly positioned in a grassy area with trees around, while the other (nearby Marysville, CA) is located near an asphalt parking lot with buildings and airconditioning units nearby. 
A comparison of the official NASA GISS temperature records of the two stations over the 70-year period 1937-2006 shows that the improperly sited station shows a spurious increase in temperature of 0.20 deg C per decade higher than the well-positioned station, again confirming a significant UHI distortion. (If one takes into account that the total linear increase in temperature since 1976 was around 0.16 deg C per decade, based on the surface record, a long-term spurious error of 0.20 deg C per decade becomes extremely significant, and not “negligible”, as claimed by IPCC). 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py... 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py... 
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2488845702/sizes/o/ 
A 2007 report from Winnipeg, Canada shows that the average low temperature recorded in the center of the city [due to the urban heat island] was 2.7 degrees C warmer and the average high temperature was 1.6 degrees C warmer than that recorded at the more isolated and exposed Winnipeg airport location. This study concludes that: “There is a strong case to be made that changes in the locations of measuring stations and the human activities taking place near them [that have occurred] can explain the differences in records [between the surface and satellite temperatures].” “The IPCC have made indecisive attempts at demonstrating that the surface measured data they use is reliable” and “Changes in surface measured temperatures are significantly different to more reliable satellite measurements.” 
http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=1884 
A 2006 study on land use/land cover change effects on temperature trends at rural U.S. weather stations showed that there was no significant temperature trend prior to the period of greatest land use changes; “in contrast, after the period of greatest LULC change was observed, 95% of the stations that exhibited significant trends (minimum, maximum, or mean temperature) displayed warming trends”. 
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026358.shtml 
The IPCC attempt to counter these many reports has been rather feeble. IPCC has referred to studies by Parker (2004, 2006), which found there was no effective difference in global trends if one segregates the data between windy and calm nights. One should note that Parker does not directly measure overall trends in temperature differences between urban and nearby rural stations, (a.k.a. the UHI effect), but simply makes a comparison based on the trend between “windy and calm nights” (with interpolated wind data obtained from questionable reanalysis). He concludes: “This analysis demonstrates that urban warming has not introduced significant biases into estimates of recent global warming. The reality and magnitude of global-scale warming is supported by the near-equality of temperature trends on windy nights with trends based on all data.” 
Despite this stated conclusion the study does not clearly demonstrate, however, that there has not been a significant UHI effect, as no direct urban and rural temperature comparisons were made. A review of the Parker study entitled “Surface Air Temperature Trends at Night” concludes that: “Parker’s [2004] conclusions, therefore, need further analysis and interpretation before they can be used to conclude whether or not there is an influence of urban warming on the large-scale temperature trends.” 
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/ptojects/soap/pubs/papers/jones... 
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf 
So, until IPCC can conclusively refute the many reports that show there is a significant upward distortion in the globally averaged surface temperature record worldwide, one must conclude that these many reports are correct and that the IPCC claim that these are “real but local, and have a negligible influence” on the record are incorrect. 
Max
Peter Martin 
16 May 2008 at 03:49
BobClive, 
I think I dis specify "peer reviewed" scientific papers on the UHIE rather than the stuff that just get posted up on websites such "www.globalwarmingisacommunistconspiracy.com". 
Wikipedia makes this claim: "However, these views [essentially the same as yours-PM] are mainly presented in "popular literature" and there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers holding this view" 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island 
Are you saying they are wrong? Maybe you would like to post a correction to Wiki?
Black Wallaby 
16 May 2008 at 07:55
Hey Brute, 
teasing the greenie loonies can be fun, and you sure have joined-in with a vengeance @ 
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/05/07/alaska/index.html#comment69 
and subsequently. 
I enjoyed it so much, it set me off on a post when I should have been outside doing something else. I'm pleased enough with it to repeat here. It's fun! 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Bears are very inquisitive & intelligent! 
This is what would happen *IF*, repeat *IF*, the Antarctic ice melted a great deal. 
Dark females would move north, because they know that “size does count” 
White males would move south looking for more “humpy” 
Dark males would be pushed further south by bigger white males, and would be less able to pass-on their genes 
Interfering fundie greenies would set up “arctic seal” sanctuaries to protect them from excessive predation by the bears, when the seals birth on exposed rocks. 
White bears would learn from the darkies to modify their diet, especially to *increased* vegetarianism, fish catching and stuff. 
(Because it would be less cold, the whites would not need so much high-fat diet) 
Forgotten dark genetic tendencies would tend to re-emerge in the whites 
Biological diversity would be increased by greater hybridisation. 
Doesn’t seem too bad to me. 
After all, black humans seem to survive OK in Detroit, and it’s tough enough for the whites! (although many humans have some social mores about hybridization) 
BTW, I don’t know if the Australian expression “humpy” is universal, but see this photo of an Oz road-sign which explains succinctly: 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/2496677998_46fb7aa3e9_o.... 
Zoom-out if necessary 
Oh, and here’s an excellent photo of a grizzly-polar hybrid: (Grolar, grizlar?) 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/images/bear-... 
Cute and cuddly, aren’t they?…. Why not set-it-up as wallpaper on your desktop? 
Oh and BTW……Try this: 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/arctic-sea-i... 
Bad news for shipping and peak oil! 
Bugger! Just as the Vikings were thinking of returning to Greenland too! 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Anyone for a good laugh, see Brute's posts starting at the first link above!
manacker 
16 May 2008 at 08:08
Hi BobClive, 
When PM writes, "I think I did specify "peer reviewed" scientific papers on the UHIE rather than the stuff that just get posted up ", don't fall for the "my study is better than your study, 'cause it's peer reviewed" ploy. 
We all know from the Mann hockey stick fiasco how the "peer review" rubber-stamping process works (or, better yet, doesn't work). 
Regards, 
Max
Black Wallaby 
16 May 2008 at 08:15
Hi Max, 
In Oz, they seem to be more practical. 
Shoot or poison-bait the dingoes, rabbits, foxes, and feral dogs/cats that detroy the native stuff, and shoot or harvest plague kangaroos, buffalo and brumbies (wild horses). I think I have it right that the French enjoy eating our brumbies. We also export very healthy live camels to the Middle East. 
It's not nice, but it's practical. 
NATURE ain't nice either! 
Regards Bob
manacker 
16 May 2008 at 08:16
A thought for Peter Martin 
BTW, PM, none of Einstein's work was "peer reviewed". Believe Galileo passed up on the "peer review" process, too. 
Face it, Peter, "peer review" is a "rubber stamping by like-minded individuals" hoax. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
16 May 2008 at 08:36
Max, 
Of course, all this about Einstein sounds plausible. Pity it's not correct. 
Albert Einsteins original work was read and approved for publication by editor Max Plank in the Annalen der Physik Oct 1905. 
Einstein would no doubt have been very happy to be considered a peer of Max Plank. 
The point about peer reviewing, prior to pubication, is not so much to make sure that everything is correct, but that it all at least makes sense, that the work is up to a basic standard and follows established scientific practice. 
The ultimtate "peer review' of Einsteins work came after publication and that needs no further explanation.
sandywinder 
16 May 2008 at 08:51
If your children were going on a plane journey and the chief engineer of the plane said there was a 90% chance of the plane crashing would you let them get on it?
manacker 
16 May 2008 at 09:10
Hi Peter, 
On 15 May 6:17 you wrote, “ Max seemed keen enough [to bet] at one time but I’m still waiting for a second e-mail to finalise the details.” You continued with, “There are lots of people who say that Global warming has really stopped, but there seems to be no-one who will back their words with a bit of hard cash. I wonder why?” 
Rather than e-mailing me to discuss this directly you went onto this open blog site to imply that I was backing down on a bet with you on future temperature development. This is untrue, so I called you on it. 
As you are fully aware, I have e-mailed you, asking you to state the terms of out bet specifically, but have not yet received an answer from you. If you still want to bet, state your terms to me by e-mail and we can proceed. 
I can fully understand why you might want to back down on this bet yourself, what with the recent cooling, solar cycle 24, etc. But do not make false snide remarks on an open site that I have backed down on a bet with you. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
16 May 2008 at 09:13
"If your children were going on a plane journey and the chief engineer of the plane said there was a 90% chance of the plane crashing would you let them get on it?" 
Depends on the "chief engineer". If he were a bit confused or trying to discredit the airline for ulterior political reasons, I might ignore him.
manacker 
16 May 2008 at 09:17
Hi Peter, 
Looks like my message to you on "peer review" got "edited". 
I referred to the Mann hockey stich that passed peer review and was later discredited as a hoax. 
Let's hope some overzealous`editor doesn't cut this oit this time. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
16 May 2008 at 09:17
Max, 
Still no comment about the lie? You obviously cannot back up your claim with written quotes even though it would be the easiest thing in the world to do so. 
You've made it obvious to all that it is you who is the liar, not me.
manacker 
16 May 2008 at 09:23
"The ultimtate "peer review' of Einsteins work came after publication and that needs no further explanation." 
Yes. And the ultimate "peer review" of Mann's hockey stick work also came after publication, by McItrick and later Wegman. 
So I guess the "poeer review" process does work after all. 
Max
manacker 
16 May 2008 at 09:26
"Still no comment about the lie? You obviously cannot back up your claim with written quotes even though it would be the easiest thing in the world to do so. " 
Peter, read my 16 May 2:08 to clear up your confusion. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
16 May 2008 at 09:31
Max, 
The last postings crossed. To set the record straight I have recieved only one email from you, on the 24/4 containing nothing about any bet. I have sent two replies to you on the 25/4 and on the 26/4 which reminded you about the bet. 
You saw fit to allege that I had lied on this forum. I also see fit to reply on this forum , not by email. 
You've accused me asking for 'more time' and lying. Never at any time have I prevaricated or asked for more time. If you are saying otherwise then prove it ! Or apologise! All our correspondence is by email or on this forum. Please free free to make any quotations from emails sent to you.
bobclive 
16 May 2008 at 14:03
Black wallaby, 
RE Yellowstone park, 
Saturday, May 03, 2008 
37 Yellowstone National Park Wolves Shot Dead FOR EATING THE ELKS. 
The restoration of the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies is one of America's greatest environmental success stories. Wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone and the central Idaho wilderness in 1995 after being exterminated by settlers, trappers and the federal government. Since then, these new populations have increased to 1,500 or so animals. Wolves play a crucial role in the ecosystems of the Northern Rockies, helping to preserve riparian forests and maintain healthy populations of raptors and coyotes. They are also a boon to the region's economy, generating tens of millions of dollars in tourist revenue each year. 
But Rocky Mountain wolves are now in grave danger. In March 2008, idiots in the Bush Administration stripped gray wolves in Greater Yellowstone and across the Northern Rockies of endangered species protection. Earlier in the year, these same idiots in the administration issued a new rule allowing the slaughter of hundreds of these wolves. Entire packs of wolves could be gunned down from airplanes in minutes. In fact, the federal government has already spent our tax dollars to buy two planes for the purpose of aerial gunning. 37 wolves have been shot dead in the past month.
Black Wallaby 
16 May 2008 at 14:45
Bobclive, 
I don't get it! 
Didn't the willows start growing along the river-banks, because of reduced ungulate grazing. And tree seedlings in the aspen (?) forests start to reach surrvival point? 
I'm a bit hazy on it but I thought it was all good news. 
There was a think, a story that local farmers did not mind some stock losses though, which I thought was a bit sus' 
Did sumfink change around election time?
Black Wallaby 
16 May 2008 at 14:51
Max, 
There is an expression here in Oz, used a fair bit by State and Federal Police: 
"Serial Pest" 
Was denken sie?
Black Wallaby 
16 May 2008 at 15:00
Oh BTW Max, 
I don't even bother to read what PM writes, so have no idea what his recent gobble gobble is. 
I admire your tolerance/patience
bobclive 
16 May 2008 at 16:18
Peter, 
It appears to me that you actually want AGW to be the primary cause of this recent warming.
bobclive 
16 May 2008 at 16:22
Averaged temps across the state of North Carolina, 
There has been no long-term trend in the state’s annual temperature history since 1895, the year when well-compiled temperature records first become available from the National Climatic Data Center (located in Asheville). Figure 1 shows that the coolest period of the past 113 years in North Carolina occurred during the 1960s. Since then, average temperatures across the state have returned to the levels that were common during the four decades prior to the 1960s. Temperatures during the past decade are by no means unusual when properly set against the long-term temperature history of the state. 
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/orig...
Brute 
16 May 2008 at 19:10
I hope Al Gore is hanging his head 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/i-hope-al-go...#comments
Peter Martin 
17 May 2008 at 01:47
I don't like to promote the Heartland institute; it's a funded by big business and attempts to skew the science for in favour of its own vested interests. Nevertheless the resident sceptics might be interested in taking this 'test' 
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/GWQuiz/Testindex.html 
Surprisingly, I found that I disagreed on with their given answers less often that I would have imagined and 'scored' 7/10 ! From what I have read on this forum I'd be surprised if you did any better. 
Robin, for instance, would get the first question wrong. 
I'd be interested to see us compare answers.
manacker 
17 May 2008 at 01:52
Brute, 
You know that Al is not hanging his head. 
It's not about "doing good to do good". 
For him it's all about "doing good to do well" 
And he appears to be doing very well, thank you (at $100 million since he left politics). 
And the Nobel committee is not interested in awarding a prize to those who "do good"; it is rather to award a prize as a political statement to those that support the political view of the committee members. 
These are the people who should be ashamed, not Al, our pal, who is just a normal opportunistic (ex)politician.. 
Max
manacker 
17 May 2008 at 02:11
Note to Peter Martin 
I took your "Heartland" test and got 10 out of 10. 
This means you and I only disagree on 3 out of 10 points. 
Wonder what they are? 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
17 May 2008 at 03:26
Max, 
In fact, it was onlyone answer that I absolutuely disagree with. Q3 (I think) Orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun's output. I would disagree that this is the cause of the current warming , as you might expect. 
The one with the graph. I had to pass on that as I wouldn't agree with the shape of it to start with. 
Interesting the test does concede that CO2 is an important GHG but the figure of 5% is too low. The effect of each gas cannot be defined individually, the sum of all their combined effects is greater than the sum of their individual parts. 
The question abouts satellites and surface temperatures is debatable. Both types of measurement have their place. 
I should have passed on the forest question too. There is conflicting evidence on this and I do not believe that it is possible to give a definitive answer at present.
bobclive 
17 May 2008 at 08:54
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). 
http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
Robin Guenier 
17 May 2008 at 08:58
Er, Peter, what makes you think I would get Q1 wrong? (But it wasn't a precise enough question. I voted Yes on the basis of the record since 1850. I would, however, have voted No had the question said "Earth's temperature is increasing now.") I got 9/10: as you might expect, I didn't agree about the scientific consensus.
bobclive 
17 May 2008 at 12:25
Dr. Theodore Lanscheidt died on May 20, 2004, he forecast this latest cooling, read how in the three links below, 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/la-nina-a... 
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/pdotrend.htm 
http://sharpgary.org/landscheidt.html 
When you take away 0.4-5c for UHI what is left, just the ups and downs of natural climate variability.
bobclive 
17 May 2008 at 13:16
Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2. 
If this correlation showed CO2 as the driver RC would have a field day, a very interesting read and the graphs speak for themselves, 
Joe D’Aleo, an AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, one of the founders of The Weather Channel and who operates the website ICECAP took it upon himself to do an analysis of the newly released USHCN2 surface temperature data set and compare it against measured trends of CO2, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and Solar Irradiance. to see which one matched better. 
It’s a simple experiment; compare the trends by running an R2 correlation on the different data sets. The result is a coefficient of determination that tells you how well the trend curves match. When the correlation is 1.0, you have a perfect match between two curves. The lower the number, the lower the trend correlation. 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-whamm...
Brute 
17 May 2008 at 13:32
9/10. I got the coal fired plant question wrong, (figures.....I'm a Power Engineer). 
Carbon Dioxide emitted by coal fired plants does not harm trees, but other products of coal combustion can. 
Pete, 
You're still clinging to the "groups such as Heartland are funded by BIG, (insert your evil enterprise here)" mindset. After all of this discission wouldn't you say that there are vested monetary interests on both sides of the argument? 
For instance; if I'm a weatherman hired to study the effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere, wouldn't a reasonable person assume that my inclination is that mankind is effecting/affecting weather? Other sources of warming/carbon dioxide emissions are benign and there is virtually nothing that can be done to eliminate them. Think about it; if a scientist (weather man) states that carbon dioxide is released through the Earth’s natural processes or global warming is caused by the Sun, government and private funding would stop, right? He would be eliminating the perceived need for his position, wouldn’t he? 
After all, why would he even pursue this profession if he did not believe that this problem exists? Why would he purposely undermine his own research field? I think that you are of the mindset that scientists, (people), are incorruptible and blindly objective. If I worked for a university department studying global warming that depended upon funding from…….let’s say government grants; wouldn’t it be in my personal best interest to continue this research and perpetuate the need for further study? 
On the opposite side of the coin, people/institutions that exist as a result of burning fossil fuels have interests to protect also. I’m certain that the whaling industry was quite upset and demonizing the oil industry during the 19th century…….the tar pitch industry badmouthed the copper industry, (both competed to provide protection for wooden ship’s hulls). See my point? (Maybe my analogies are no good).
Brute 
17 May 2008 at 16:46
May 16, 2008 
That Sinking Feeling 
By Philip Stott 
The highly-respected Lausanne-based Institute for Management Development (IMD) has just issued its 20th anniversary ‘World Competitiveness Yearbook 2008’. It is not a pleasant read for the UK. The IMD report downgrades the UK’s position against its global rivals on the crucial factor of economic performance, from seventh out of 55 countries to an alarming sixteenth. And the cause of this decline? Yes, you have guessed it - the rising tax burden and worsening business environment. 
I could go on and on, about higher food, petrol, and energy prices. But the point is already painfully clear. When times were good -"nice" to employ Mervyn King’s acronymic word - we could just about stomach nonsensical ‘Green’ trumpery over things like the Climate Change Levy and ‘Green’ taxes, which did nothing whatsoever about climate change, but which ‘sustained’ politicians in their pontificating about “Saving the Planet”. By stark contrast, in the present challenging world economy, such follies, such self-inflicted burdens, have, recalling the words of Benjamin Franklin - “even a small hole can sink a big ship” - , morphed into the iceberg that could well help to hole H.M.S. Britannia below the water-line. 
When metro-media-anti-business folk witter on incessantly about the imponderables of ‘global warming’, I get a queasy, sinking feeling. We are sailing blindly into an economic iceberg. We are unthinkingly blunting our competitive edge in the world; we are imposing more and more burdens on industry and on business, especially on small businesses, while others do not; we are forcing retrogressive costs and taxes onto the poorer of society; we are neo-colonially hindering development; and, we are losing power and influence in a world in which, as Carl Mortished so tellingly reminds us: “… the flow of oil, food and raw materials will shift increasingly towards China and India, rather than towards America and Europe. Life will become more expensive and more difficult for Europeans.” 
It is time to state clearly that I, for one, will vote for the major party with least damaging ‘Green’ trumpery. We need a ‘Rational Party’, and urgently. We require a Captain who can see the looming economic threat - an iceberg that will not melt under ‘global warming’ hot air. We have a titanic task before us. Read more here. 
Philip Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and a former editor (1987-2004) of the Journal of Biogeography. 
Icecap note: We can only hope and pray our next president and the congress will heed the lessons learned across the Atlantic before hitting our own icebergs and sinking our economy. The true science does not support the proposed, misguided efforts.
manacker 
17 May 2008 at 18:45
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “The question about satellites and surface temperatures is debatable. Both types of measurement have their place.” 
Right. I can agree with you on that. 
If I want to know what the temperature is in my back yard, a surface measurement is preferable. Likewise, if people in a city want to know the temperature down town or at the airport, this is also the preferred method. That is why surface stations were generally placed near the places where people live. They tell you the actual measured temperature for a specific location, with all the local factors that influence local temperatures, such as urbanization, replacing open grassland with asphalt parking lots, etc. 
Since people do not usually live in remote rural areas, there are fewer stations there. In the late 1980s and early 1990s many of the remote rural stations were shut down for economic reasons and ceased reporting. 
Since no one lives on the open oceans, there are no stations there, but spot measurements come from ships, and more recently from buoys. 
As a result, surface measurements covered less than 40% of the globe in the 1970s and this is probably closer to 20% today, with a “bias” toward the stations that remained open near urban centers. 
Large areas of the globe (parts of Africa, South America, central and northern Asia) are only very sparsely covered or not covered at all. 
And finally, the land surface temperature anomalies show a higher increase, particularly from 1980 onward than those over the sea, indicating that there might be a spurious increase due to all of the factors mentioned above. 
Now if I want to establish the “globally averaged land and sea temperature”, I would prefer to use the satellite temperature readings of the troposphere for several reasons. 
· Coverage is uniform and universal over land and sea 
· Human error is eliminated 
· Effect of land use changes and urbanization is eliminated 
· Effect of poor siting of surface stations (near AC exhausts, parking lots, etc.) is eliminated 
So I would agree with you that “both types of measurement have their place”; for local temperatures the surface record is best, to establish a “global average land and sea temperature anomaly”, the satellite record is better suited. 
And, in addition, if I am concerned about the temperature impact of greenhouse warming, the troposphere is where this should occur most rapidly, and this is what is measured by satellites. 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
17 May 2008 at 21:33
Max, 
By the way thanks for posting the link regarding the elimination of Soviet weather stations. I'd been looking for a good copy of that to send to a friend. That was you wasn't it? 
-Fruitcake
manacker 
18 May 2008 at 19:02
Hi Brute, 
Yep, I posted the link. It sure shows what can happen to a "continuous" temperature record when you abruptly remove a large percentage of the total data points, particularly if these data points had a built-in cooling bias. 
Golly, what a surprise! It got warmer! 
Must be all that CO2 at work. 
Regards, 
Max
bobclive 
18 May 2008 at 21:40
Lord Monkton. 
http://www.aim.org/mp3/podcast/podcast-2008-02-22-monckton.m...
bobclive 
18 May 2008 at 22:29
Audio Lecture. 
http://www.fromtheheartland.org/live/archive/2007/12/18/emer...
Peter Martin 
19 May 2008 at 04:03
There's still a lot of talk about the UHIE. 
So are you saying, not so much that the earth has stopped warming, but that the earth has not warmed at all since the 70's? If so, you need to explain how: 
1) There is no correlation between areas of high population density and and reported high global warming, which you certainly would see if the data was skewed by an UHIE. 
2) The permafrost is receeding. 
3) Th Arctic ice cap is shrinking. 
4) There are many reports of plants and animals being found at more northerly latitudes than they have traditionally. 
5) Agriculture too is effected. The contrarians make much of grapes being grown in Southern England during the MWP. There are now commercial vineyards in Northern England. 
6) Many more glaciers are in retreat than in advance 
7) The snow line has risen in many highland areas worldwide. Threatening the viability of ski resorts etc. 
Even 'gurus' like Roy Spencer who generally bats for your team, have stated that the earth is "unusually warm". Are you in disagreement with him too?
Black Wallaby 
19 May 2008 at 09:38
Hey Brute, 
I see you are having continued fun over at Gristmill: Alas Alaska. 
Actually, I was going to reproach you by saying it might be OK for you to club baby seals for a fur coat etc, but tearing-up the woods in your ATV was another matter......it could spoil the environment! But then you explained to them it was satire and not real!. 
Did you know there is another polar bear blog where I've made a quickie at Gristmill: 
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/05/14/polar_threat/index.html#comment5 
I did a Google on "polar bear population" and there is a lot of stuff there, suggesting the US were overwhelmed by politics. The Canadians do not seem to agree, but I'm short of time for a day or two. 
I'm a retired engineer BTW....you asked
Peter Martin 
19 May 2008 at 14:38
Those of us who support fixing the CO2 problem are often called Luddites. That doesn't bother me particularly , it just shows the lack of imagination and technical knowledge from those using the term. 
Incidentally, the term derives from the UK textile workers of the early 19th century who were concerned that the introduction of new technology threatened their livelihoods. 
They may deny this vociferously, but there can be little doubt that those who argue against reducing GHG emissions are motivated more by concerns for their loss of livelihood than they are by concerns of the strength of scientific arguments. In that sense, the contrarians are the modern day Luddites not the those who support established science and reasoned argument. 
Take a look at this video showing what is possible right now using current technology in terms of electric vehicles: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZVSQ3bvI10 
The sort of ranges that are mentioned could be doubled, trebled and increased tenfold in the next decade in the major players such as GM , Ford, Toyota, etc really got serious in the development of electric vehicles. There is something in it for everyone. For the left, it would largely mean an end to urban pollution. For the right, it would mean an end to reliance on foreign imported oil. 
Link this type of transportation to nuclear power stations which are 1000 times cleaner than coal fired alternatives and we're well on the way to the carbon free economy that the more backward of the green movement can only dream of.
Brute 
19 May 2008 at 15:46
Pete, 
You wrote: 
"Link this type of transportation to nuclear power stations" 
I say: 
I couldn’t agree with you more; you’re preaching to the choir. Unfortunately your fellow Alarmists don’t and block every attempt to: 
A. Build nuclear power plants, (which would resolve their issue). 
B. Utilize the resources that we have, (gas, oil and coal), in the interim. 
I know that I for one have gotten way off topic through the course of this discussion but I'd like to clarify that I have no problem with you driving whatever you'd like to drive; this has been my position throughout(although I’ve strayed from time to time). 
Over the course of the last few months I have on occasion viewed the Alarmist websites and have discovered that very few advocate anything other than population control and a "Collective", “World” economy shunning modern conveniences; hence my description of those advocating these views as "Luddites". 
As I have stated, I have myself embraced “Green” technology…..to save green, (the color of money), but forcing citizens to adhere to an environmentalist mindset through legislation is tyranny. Let the marketplace decide. Sure, make the technology available and those that CHOOSE to embrace it will. 
Gasoline is $3.79 per gallon here in the US…….I spent $93.00 to fill up last week. I use about 1 tank per week. It is MY money and if I want to spend it on gasoline that is my privilege and MY decision, (a large portion of that money also is “transferred” directly to the Sate and National government through taxation, so I am already paying a premium to drive my less efficient vehicle). I could choose to drive something more economical BUT I LIKE WHAT I DRIVE. It is far safer than the tin cans that I see speeding along at 80+ mph everyday. I have also seen first hand what happens to one of those tin cans, (and the poor bastards inside), when they immediately stop moving at 80 mph…….horrifying. I drive about 72 miles per day just back and forth to work and my wife and I carpool. (That being said, it still is less money than we would have to spend using public transportation). 
I resent being lied to and resent being admonished for being productive, creative and successful. 
My capitalization is not meant to connote shouting….I’m just adding emphasis to the words and the underline option is unavailable.
Brute 
19 May 2008 at 16:16
Pete, 
One other thing..............I've noticed that the most public proponents, (read: big mouths), of "conservation" (Lynas, Gore, Travolta, Prince Charles, Streisand, Dicaprio, Clooney) are the most copious consumers of our “dwindling resources”…….why is that? 
Please, enlighten us. 
Does Prince Charles hang his laundry on the line to dry? 
Does Al Gore use public transportation? How about Madonna? 
Phony’s......every last one.
bobclive 
19 May 2008 at 18:06
Peter, so you think it is all about CO2, well let me enlighten you. 
I am in my late 60`s and have saved up over the years for my Mercedes SLK 280, I did not want to look like an old fart driving a Belingo, recently this Left wing Labour government decided that my car is emitting too much CO2 so they doubled my road tax from £215 to £450 per year, I thought right if I convert my car to run on LPG this will lower my CO2 threshold and keep me in the lower tax band, how wrong I was, It appears this government have decided that the tax band relates ONLY to the manufacturers original CO2 rating, even if you reduce your emissions by half your road fund tax will remain the same. 
AGW is not about increased CO2, it never was, it`s all about controlling the population through taxation.
Joest 
19 May 2008 at 19:37
The parallel with closing every hospital in the land is an interesting one. The Radio 4 program 'More or Less' recently quoted some interesting data showing that when doctors stike (presumably closing the hospitals), the death rate falls - the figure quoted was by 39%.
bobclive 
19 May 2008 at 19:50
Peter, you say, 
There is no correlation between areas of high population density and and reported high global warming, which you certainly would see if the data was skewed by an UHIE. 
Well err, what about this, 
UBAN HEAT ISLAND AND ITS FEATURE IN ADDIS ABABA (A CASE STUDY). 
Bisrat Kifle, National meteorological agency 
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 
The total population increase in the 18 years (1967-1984 was 739, 591and the annual mean maximum temperature in the same period became warmer by 1.7 degrees C. The annual mean maximum temperature attained lt`s peak in the year 2000. It is interesting to observe that the urban population was also the highest in that same year. 
http://www.geo.uni.lodz.pl/~icuc5/text/P_6_11.pdf 
http://greycanada.blogspot.com/2007/12/population-growth-and...
bobclive 
19 May 2008 at 20:11
Peter, 
These UHI studies are all over the net, the IPCC will be forced to discard the flawed Jones/Peterson studies they presently rely on. 
Abstract 
China has experienced rapid urbanization and dramatic economic growth since its reform process started in late 1978. In this article, we present evidence for a significant urbanization effect on climate based on analysis of impacts of land-use changes on surface temperature in southeast China, where rapid urbanization has occurred. Our estimated warming of mean surface temperature of 0.05°C per decade attributable to urbanization is much larger than previous estimates for other periods and locations. The spatial pattern and magnitude of our estimate are consistent with those of urbanization characterized by changes in the percentage of urban population and in satellite-measured greenness. 
Hanson only allows 0.002C for any UHI effect. 
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=47...
bobclive 
19 May 2008 at 20:53
Here is another one Peter. 
Satellite-measured growth of UHI of Housten Texas. 
Between 1987-1999 the mean nighttime surface temperature heat island effect of Housten increased by 0.82C. It is curious to note that the increase in temperature scales roughly with the increase in population. 
http://files.harc.edu/Projects/CoolHouston/Documents/GrowthU...
bobclive 
19 May 2008 at 20:56
Hot Talk, Cold Science 
Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate 
By S. Fred Singer 
Foreword by Frederick Seitz 
While surface temperatures show slight increases—notably smaller than those predicted by the models—this appears to be due to the urban heat island (UHI) effect, stemming from population increases near weather stations. After correcting for the UHI effect, the years around 1940 emerge as the warmest years of the century in both the U.S. and Europe. 
http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.a...
Peter Martin 
19 May 2008 at 23:30
Brute, 
Its not just governments that you need to be looking at. 
And yes I agree, with you on the price issue. Altruism will only take us so far. What will really make the difference, are the dollars and cents savings that the new 'green' technology will allow. 
When I first heard about hybrid vehicles I thought: Great! They'll have a small highly efficient highly tuned motor, which will be switched off until and unless it is needed to charge a battery, which I can also recharge from the mains, So, if I only need to travel to and from work every day I won't need to use any petrol at all for most of the time. Maybe I can even spend a bit more, add extra batteries and increase the range. 
Wrong! That would have been the straightforward way to design a hybrid car of course. But, it seems that all the hybrid manufacturers, including Toyota with their Prius, have gone out of their way to make it as difficult as possible to run their cars in electric-only mode. 
For a full explanation see: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oBkkUVL5Jw 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_msUMx0HrE&feature=related 
There's quite a lot more on U tube if you have a look around. 
There is no technological barrier to producing a sensible plug-in hybrid car, and I feel it's just a matter of time before someone actually produces one. The market is crying out for it. But, you have to ask "Why are the major car manufacturers are so reluctant to get involved?"
Peter Martin 
20 May 2008 at 03:09
I've just discovered that one of the main obstacles is that Chevron is sitting on the patent to use large format NiMH batteries in EVs. 
There used to be an urban myth that there was some guy who had invented a water powered car but that the oil companies had bought the idea and kept all the details locked away in a bank vault. 
It turns out that there may be a grain of truth in the story after all.
Robin Guenier 
20 May 2008 at 12:13
This is interesting: 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TRENDAPRIL.jpg
bobclive 
20 May 2008 at 13:36
I thought I would pop this link in just for visitors. 
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/20128.pdf
Brute 
20 May 2008 at 13:36
Pete, 
"There used to be an urban myth that there was some guy who had invented a water powered car but that the oil companies had bought the idea and kept all the details locked away in a bank vault." 
Just off the top of my head............... 
Maybe it's because oil companies are in the business of selling oil and this would undercut their business?
Brute 
20 May 2008 at 13:37
I should have signed my last comment "Captain Obvious" as opposed to Brute.
bobclive 
20 May 2008 at 16:10
Peter this is just for you, 
'Heat Island' Tokyo Is in Global Warming's Vanguard 
Over the last century, Tokyo temperatures have increased five times as fast as global warming,'' said Takehiro Mikami, a professor of climatology at Tokyo Metropolitan University. While the world's average mean temperature has increased by one degree Fahrenheit since 1900, Tokyo's has increased by 5.2 degrees. 
I wonder if this increase might be linked to population growth. 
http://www.fig.net/pub/accra/papers/ts23/ts23_02_manu_etal.p...
bobclive 
20 May 2008 at 16:13
Grand canyon shows NO warming until Hanson gets his sticky fingers on it. 
http://espanol.wunderground.com/blog/sebastianjer/comment.ht...
JZ Smith 
20 May 2008 at 19:02
This is also interesting: 
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id...
bobclive 
20 May 2008 at 20:03
Peter, even a 16 year old has figured it out. 
16 year old teenage Skeptic Takes on Climate Scientists. 
Morning Edition, April 15, 2008 · If you're a scientist trying to convince people they are making the world warmer, Kristen Byrnes is your worst nightmare. She's articulate, intelligent, she has a Web site, and one day her people will be running the world. Her people, meaning 16-year-olds. 
Kristen's Web site, "Ponder the Maunder," has made her a celebrity among climate skeptics. After she posted a critique of Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, her Web site got so many hits the family's internet service provider sent them a warning. 
Her story may dismay mainstream scientists, but plenty of people are friendly to her ideas. 
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html 
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/index.html
bobclive 
20 May 2008 at 20:48
Interesting site. 
http://ecomythsmith.blogspot.com/2007/05/ponder-maunderupdat... 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seGyLIrH1-4 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZUlI9HHtXs
Peter Martin 
20 May 2008 at 22:47
BobClive, 
You aren't saying anything very new in your multiple postings. No-one is denying that the UHIE isn't real. The question is whether the effect has been adequately calibrated out in the overall measurements. If you look at Nasa temperature isothermal graph, you won't see a huge rise for Tokyo as you are suggesting above. And before you accuse Bob Hansen of fiddling the results it should be pointed out that the UK's Hadley centre have their own independent results which are very much in agreement. 
You might like to read this article on the subject by one of their staff: 
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/soap/pubs/papers/jones... 
I did make a list of 7 points why the UHIE cannot be used to expalin away the global warming that is apparent worldwide.. Why not work through them one at a time? 
Brute, 
Yes we all know why the oil companies, and coal companies generally, behave the way they do. The question is whose side are you on? Are you with them or against them? 
Mr Wallaby, 
You've been a bit quiet recently. I hope you've not been hopping along a busy highway and ended up as roadkill :-)
Peter Martin 
20 May 2008 at 23:37
You'll have all heard comments to the effect that those who share concerns about Global warming and damage to the environment generally, are somehow part of a 'new religion'. 
I've just done a Google search on what Richard Dawkins, who everyone knows is an opponent of religion in all its forms, thinks of global warming. 
Prof Dawkins is sensible enough to not stray too far afield from his areas of expertise in evolutionary biology and the philiosophy of science, but he did have this to say in answer to the direct question of whether global warming was a threat to the human species. 
"Yes. You could say that the human species is a threat to the human species. I recommend Al Gore's film on global warming. See it and weep." 
I'm not sure I agree that we need to weep. But at least Prof Dawkins seems to be on the side of reason , as always.
Brute 
21 May 2008 at 01:22
Mr. Martin, 
I’m on the side of Mr. & Mrs. Brute, the entire Brute family, (and the United States of America), but will not support the subversion of the Constitution of the United States. 
Oil companies are in the business of selling oil. Coal companies are in the business of selling coal. Nurseries are in the business of growing/selling trees. You, if I remember correctly, (God this has been a long thread), are in the business of manufacturing and selling some type of electronic equipment. Does your government tell you what product to produce, how many to produce and how much to sell each unit for? (See: Lenin/Marx). 
It is not the responsibility of oil or coal companies to investigate, create or subsidize alternative forms of energy just as the government has no business influencing the price of the product that you or I produce. If I think the price of these products is too high, I can CHOOSE not to purchase them or use less of them. If these oil and coal companies CHOOSE to expand their business into alternative forms of energy that would be their, (the stockholders), prerogative. 
The United States government, or the unelected stooges at the United Nations, has no business determining at what temperature I can keep the thermostat in my home, how much oil/gasoline I can use, how much food I can produce or consume or what level of fuel economy my car will achieve. 
I’ve always found it incredible that Congressmen, (who have voted time and time again to prevent American domestic oil exploration), ask oil company executives why the price of oil is high and what they are going to do about exploring alternative forms of energy. 
THESE COMPANIES ARE IN BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY, not to provide largesse. Do you give away the products you produce? Do you pass along trade secrets to your competion? 
Does your government gather up a group of carpenters and ask them why they aren’t producing horseshoes? 
Maybe one of my British friends can let me know how nationalizing industry has worked out? How much does a gallon, (liter), cost in Europe, Switzerland or Australia? 
Honda makes a hydrogen car, so does General Motors…..trouble is there is no place buy hydrogen, (right now). Why doesn’t someone with deep pockets and a moral environmental imperative, (Al Gore, George Soros), open a bunch of hydrogen fueling stations powered by nuclear power plants or photovoltaic? Maybe Al Gore could have contributed some of the 330 million that he just spent on terrifying school children to fund this worthy cause, (Instead of denigrating the nation and its people).
Peter Martin 
21 May 2008 at 01:46
Mr Brute, 
I'm sure that you are more familiar with the US constitution than I, but I'd be surprised if there was much in there to protect oil companies. 
The US government has a good record on anti-trust legislation and in fact acted swiftly in the early 20th century to break up the near monopoly that Standard Oil held at the time. The recent court tussles with Microsoft have shown that the desire of a company to maximise its profits isn't an absolute right that is enshrined in the US , or any European country's, constititution either 
I don't think we disagree on questions of choice. I would argue that everyone should have the choice of using whatever battery they like in their EV. There is nothing wrong with the patent system in principle. If a company, or an individual, invents or develops a product then it is only fair that they should be protected against competitors ripping off their idea and making blatant copies without making a contribution to the development and research costs which have been incurred. 
However the patent system is open to abuse. If it can be established that Chevron have indeed bought the patent of the NiNH battery with the express purpose of limiting individual choice then this is clearly an anti-competitive act and the US and other governments need to act accordingly.
Brute 
21 May 2008 at 01:55
Environmentalism as Religion 
by John M. Ostrowski 
"What harm is there in saying, Lord Cæsar, and in sacrificing, with the other ceremonies observed on such occasions, and so make sure of safety?" 
~ from The Martyrdom of Polycarp 
A Roman imperial official posed the above question to St. Polycarp in 155 A.D. All Polycarp had to do was swear on the emperor’s Genius – his personal guardian spirit in Roman mythology – perform some sacrifices for Caesar, participate in the necessary social events, and thus have his life spared. But Polycarp did not do this and for that we remember him as one of the great Christian martyrs. 
Roman religion was a deeply engrained part of Roman life – it was difficult for a Christian to stay completely true to their chosen faith without appearing at least a tad bit anti-social. Sometimes, when social isolation and the threat to stability in Roman cities grew too great, Christians were killed. Not very often, but every now and again. 
We live in the 21st century now. We don’t persecute people because of their religion, no matter how socially awkward it makes them. Right? 
Roman mythology and imperial cults have been left behind, but they have been replaced by a new religious mythology. It has begun to ingratiate itself into every aspect of American life, so that simple social activities demand adherence to the new ideology. The prime deity is none other than the Earth, or Mother Earth as adherents to the new religion call it. Adherents treat threats to their deity – quixotic as they may be – with ultimate seriousness. And the prime threat to Mother Gaia is anthropogenic climate change. This, of course, is just the most recent threat to occupy the majority of the environmentalists’ (a name they happily ascribe themselves) ire. In the past it has been such things as overpopulation, deforestation, man-made global cooling, nuclear power, etc. 
As with any religion, there is a church – the means through which religious goals are effected. That church is the modern state, for no "sensible" country on this planet denies that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Dissenters from the Kyoto Treaty are treated as churches in heresy – anomalies that must be re-converted to the faith. 
If it seems absurd that environmentalism is a religion that has inculcated itself into much of everyday life in America – nay – the developed world, then chances are you are ignoring the reality around you. 
"What harm is there in … sacrificing … [to] make sure of safety?" asked the Roman imperial official. Environmentalists demand sacrifices of people each and every day. Recycling is an activity subsidized by many levels of the government. Most people – and this is evidence of the pernicious degree to which environmentalism has ingratiated itself into the minds of most people – think this is a good thing. Is it? The promise is that recycling saves money and energy by turning waste into usable products. If this were actually the case, there would be no need for subsidization, and the act of recycling wouldn’t even be sacrificial. Waste management companies would see the economic incentive in collecting trash and turning into a product that people will buy. Instead, government needs to subsidize recycling programs in order to keep them running, meaning recycling is not an efficient use of energy and resources. As a simple example, it is often better for the environment and for our pocketbooks to simply produce new paper than recycle waste paper. American citizens have to pay for this government indulgence via higher taxes and wasted time spent sorting and recycling their own waste. 
This sacrifice has been beaten into the heads of American citizens by environmentalists and their state supporters so much that it has become a daily routine for most. Now, environmentalists are demanding more sacrifice. Carbon dioxide is the cause of the recent global warming, they claim, and thus we humans must cut back on our contribution of carbon dioxide. This means that environmentalists are demanding that we drive less, use less oil, and find ways to go about our daily business that use less energy than normal. For many people, this is a hassle. Environmentalists will counter that one need not make drastic changes in lifestyle to make a difference. The Internet is littered with lists of simple ways to help reduce global warming. To anyone willing to crunch the numbers, it is evident that small changes will not result in a significant decrease in carbon dioxide emissions. Only huge changes in lifestyle will result in a huge decrease in human carbon dioxide emissions. 
It should not surprise us that environmentalists demand sacrifices, for any religion demands sacrifices. And like other religions, environmentalism is a human-centered one. Yes, in its purest form, it is Earth worship; its reverence is directed at something decidedly non-human. However, the beliefs and tenets of the faith concern humans and their role in natural history. Inevitably, in the modern world, this role is an antagonistic one for the environmentalists. Humans are the problem, and the solution will demand some bane to human beings. It is this simple fact that has led Peter Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace and a man who has become disaffected with the environmental zealots, to call environmentalists "anti-human." 
Whereas most religions seek the betterment of humanity, environmentalism is unique in that it seeks the opposite. The sacrifices that it demands be made will result in severe harm for those who need help the most. In the developing world, environmentalists see an excellent area for proselytization and a place to implement their policies – for existing infrastructure is hard to change, but poor countries provide environmentalists with a tabula rasa. They preach the need for solar and wind power in the developing world. These two forms of energy, however, are not reliable or powerful enough for a world that is looking to industrialize. Imagine, for example, a modern factory of any type running completely on solar or wind power. Difficult to imagine? Of course. If the environmentalist vision of the developing world is allowed to take root, billions of people who can benefit greatly from industrialization will be condemned to poverty for the rest of their life. It’s sad that rich, Western environmentalists are so quick to demand this sacrifice of others. That the people they demand it of are the ones who will be harmed the most by it is downright reprehensible. 
Finally, like many religions, there is a strong emphasis in environmentalism on the end of the world. Fear mongering and predictions of the apocalypse are the primary evangelizing tools of environmentalists. In the past we’ve endured warnings about overpopulation, nuclear holocausts, and now a global climate disaster. And like the apocalyptic predictions of other religions, those of environmentalism have never come to pass. But luckily for them, people have a short memory, and fear is a powerful persuasive tool. By the time it is clear that anthropogenic climate chance not only won’t cause the end of the world but also isn’t even happening, no one will remember the hyperbolic claims made by environmental zealots. Instead, we will be entertaining their latest apocalyptic fantasy. 
It should be clear, now, that environmentalism constitutes a religion in every sense of the word. The fact that environmentalism is a religion does not bother me. If progressives (who constitute most of the movement) find their lives empty of meaning absent a real religion and thus decide to channel energy into Earth-worship and all that it entails, that is their business. When they try to use the violently coercive powers of the state in their favor, it is fitting that reasonable people challenge the basis for their beliefs. 
In the case of environmentalists, it is fairly easy to show that their beliefs are informed by faulty logic and are perpetuated by out-and-out zealots. The claim of environmentalists is that carbon dioxide is causing us to experience unprecedented warming. Unfortunately, every element of this assertion is patently false. First, the warming humans are experiencing right now is not unprecedented. During the Medieval Warming Period, which occurred between 800 and 1300 A.D., temperatures were higher than they are today. More importantly, the fundamental assumption of environmentalists concerning global warming – that carbon dioxide causes warming – is false. If one examines the timeline that Al Gore used in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which showed the impressive correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperature, one encounters a telling fact. Changes in global temperature precede changes in carbon dioxide levels by about 800 years. Carbon dioxide cannot be the cause if it follows what it is presumed to affect. Why does this phenomenon happen? When global temperatures rise, the seas get hotter, and carbon dioxide dissolved in the water starts to escape (gasses are dissolved more easily in liquids at lower temperatures). Because of the vastness of the oceans, it takes hundreds of years for ocean temperatures to rise. And finally, even if one does accept the environmentalist belief in carbon dioxide as the causal variable, one still has to deal with the fact that humans are responsible for a very small percentage of total carbon dioxide emissions. Volcanoes, animal flatulence, and rotting vegetation all contribute heavily to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Humans currently account for about four percent of total carbon dioxide emissions, and carbon dioxide makes up about 0.038% of the atmosphere. Our effect on Earth’s climate is extremely minimal at best. All this evidence against global warming, plus more, is documented very well in the recent British documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle." 
Thus far, despite the apparent falseness of their beliefs, environmentalists have been extremely successful in achieving their goals. They have convinced the American people to sacrifice at the altar of Mother Gaia, and they have turned the already ignoble state into an even uglier beast – their church, the effecter of their religious goals. If allowed to continue, they will destroy the American economy and doom billions of people in developing countries to perpetual poverty. Secularists are quick to call for a wall of separation between church and state. It is time that environmentalism be held to the same standard.
Peter Martin 
21 May 2008 at 04:01
Brute, 
The term 'environmentalist' is open to wide interpretation. It is easy to set up a straw man argument about the more unworldly fringe of the environmental movement who would have us all return to a semi medieval lifestyle. Given the present size of the world population , that is not a viable option. 
On the other hand, we can have a high tech, high science environmentalism. There is no reason why we can't have a healthy ecosystem alongside a prosperous human civilisation. In fact the more we understand about science the more we realise that the prosperity of our civilisation depends on the health of the planet. 
So, we should be aiming for healthy rainforests, inhabited by tigers , giant pandas , orangutans and each and every animal which is currently on the endangered list. Similarly we should expect to see whales, dolphins, sharks, tuna etc in healthy oceans. 
We can only achieve these goals by working at our problems scientifically. Bob Clive seems to be admitting that the current conflict is between mainstream science, he uses phrases such as ". ....may dismay mainstream scientists". That's showing a non rational attitude to the problem. 
I thought you may have disputed my previous assertion that "there can be little doubt that those who argue against reducing GHG emissions are motivated more by concerns for their loss of livelihood than they are by concerns of the strength of scientific arguments. In that sense, the contrarians are the modern day Luddites not the those who support established science and reasoned argument." 
But, so far, you've not raised a word of objection!
Sven 
21 May 2008 at 06:36
Environmentalism a religion? 
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg20-2008may...
bobclive 
21 May 2008 at 11:54
Peter, I am NOT a the contrarian or a modern day Luddite, this is just name calling, I just hold a different opinion to you, my opinion is backed by science, you know the type where you go outside of the university and actually check the facts in the real world and do some original work, not the sudo-science you are obviously wedded too. 
Show me any real world scientific proof (not computer generated) that CO2 is the main driver of this recent warming.
bobclive 
21 May 2008 at 12:49
Peter, 
Regarding UHI, it appears the discredited Peterson paper is the only evidence against the global effect of UHI you can find. All those postings I have provided are clear and concise, population growth over time is directly correlated to the UHI effect and appears in every single city on the planet. That is in the past, today the UHI effect will mainly occur over time in china and India, I have posted the recent Chinese (2007) studies showing this dramatic increase in temperature over time due to urbanisation, see also Hong Kong, Adis Ababa and the many other studies I have posted. Peter, rural ground stations show little if any warming, urban stations show significant warming of up to 8 degrees C, doesn`t this tell you anything, Hanson states the global difference is 0.002C, again this is all down to computer modeling, riro. It will all become clear even to you when Anthony Watts has completed his audit.
Brute 
21 May 2008 at 14:36
Pete, 
You wrote: 
I thought you may have disputed my previous assertion that "there can be little doubt that those who argue against reducing GHG emissions are motivated more by concerns for their loss of livelihood than they are by concerns of the strength of scientific arguments. 
I'm writing: 
Alarmists are exaggerating and in many cases outright lying regarding the topic in order to frighten people and alter their attitudes. These scientists and politicians are manipulating data to create an atmosphere of false urgency to steer funding to their specific interests/projects. 
In ancient Rome the evil boogeymen were Christians; in National Socialist Germany the evil boogeymen were "Zionists", In Stalinist Russia the evil boogeymen were capitalist, in Islam the evil boogeyman is Western culture. 
In the Alarmist rhetoric of today, the evil boogeymen are Big Oil, Big Coal, the citizens of The United States/ Western civilization, industrialization and Capitalism. 
You see, Progressive/Liberal politicians create and foster a victimhood mentality amongst their supporters and offer the solution of big government and Collectivism. They promise to solve of the world’s woes if you “just hand over control of your lives to them”. They know best……. Global Warming/Environmentalism is a tool used by politicians to rally populations to a false cause in order to convince free people to voluntary hand over their liberties and freedoms to an unelected oligarchy, being the United Nations or the State. It’s an excuse to create a global welfare system funded by prosperous, responsible societies, (Western Nations). 
Why aren’t the Chinese and Indians on the global warming bandwagon? The answer is that they are wise and are able to recognize when they are being duped. Or the Kyoto treaty doesn't apply to them so they'll happily sign on. 
Another group of people pushing this nonsense are the people that adhere to “environmentalism as religion” as Sven and I have illustrated. These people are simply unrealistic, deluded dreamers with empty lives. I think that you’ll find that the majority of these people have shunned conventional religion, for various reasons, replacing it with Earth worship, holistic medicine and various other “new age religions”. They see themselves as gods. (See: Scientologists). 
In a bit of a hurry today; please excuse any grammatical errors………..
bobclive 
21 May 2008 at 17:56
Peter, some more on UHI, 
THE TAIL OF TWO CLIMATES, Baltimore and Phoenix. 
Baltimore and Phoenix differ considerably in their climate regimes, one is representative of a humid mid-latitude east coast climate, the other of an arid sub-tropical latitude environment. 
Look at the land use change of the phoenix region from desert and agriculture to Urban from 1912 to 1995. 
Peter the two RURAL stations of Baltimore and Phoenix, Woodstock and Sacaton show NO, I repeat NO warming from 1900 to 2000. 
http://www.esnips.com/imageable/medium/48ed5d38-f745-48a7-b1... 
THIS STUDY SHOWS THAT NO MATTER WHERE THE RURAL STATIONS ARE SITUATED THEY ALL SHOW NO I REPEAT NO WARMING TREND FROM 1900 TO THE PRESENT. 
All Hanson has to do is discard the urban sites but if he did that his house of cards would fall. 
Peter, forget the URBAN temps its the RURAL ones that are correct. 
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/15/c015p123.pdf
bobclive 
21 May 2008 at 18:23
Peter, read this and then inform me why Hanson needs Urban and Rural pairs to quantify the US temperatures, Is it not common sense just to discard the iffy data and use the data you know is correct. 
This is data manipulation gone mad. 
These people are trying to blind you with science, the more I read about this subject the more furious I become knowing these b~$$rds are fleecing me out of my hard earned cash. 
Efforts have been made to adjust temperature records for the bias caused by urban buildup around weather stations located in and near cities. One method for evaluation and adjustment of the urban heat island (UHI) bias of climatological temperatures requires "pairs" of urban and rural weather stations (Kukla et al. 1986; Karl et al. 1988). The majority of the research on the removal of UHI bias has occurred in the United States because of the availability of long-term urban and rural temperature records. A globally applicable methodology for assessing the UHI bias is needed to remove this bias from future temperature records in regions where pairs of urban and rural weather stations are not available. 
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/005-392/005-392.html
manacker 
21 May 2008 at 21:57
A note to Peter Martin on UHI 
Hi Peter, 
IPCC prefers to use the surface record for global average land and sea temperature anomaly (rather than the more comprehensive satellite record), claiming that the discrepancy between the records has been largely reconciled. 
Many studies have been made from all over the globe, which confirm a significant distortion of the global surface temperature record due to UHI effects. 
Anthony Watts has demonstrated that the majority of the United States Historic Climate Network stations that are used to measure global warming in the US have physical evidence of factors causing UHI (thermometers near buildings, AC exhausts, asphalt pavement, etc.). 
Using the official GISS records, Watts has quantified this distortion in the example of two nearby stations near Sacramento, CA. (Over the 70-year period 1937-2006, this effect caused the poorly sited station to show a temperature rise of 1.4C higher than that of the well sited station.) 
Contrary to IPCC claims, the satellite record shows slower and less warming than the surface record, although greenhouse warming should be faster in the troposphere than at the surface. 
IPCC does not ignore these UHI effects, but writes them off as causing less than 0.006C per decade. 
The IPCC rationale for discounting UHI is based on studies by Parker et al comparing “windy and calm nights” with reconstructed wind data, rather than actually comparing the temperature records of stations that have UHI distortion with nearby stations that do not. 
Why are there no studies of actual temperature records that “prove” that there is no UHI effect? 
I believe we all know the answer to that question. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
21 May 2008 at 23:41
Contrarians, 
A lot of comments on UHI again. Max, 'proof' is something that you'll find in mathematics, not science. Science is evidenced based. There's is no proof that Einstein was right, for instance. All the evidence tells us that he was though. 
The evidence that CO2 produces a global heating effect? Well , Max , himself showed that in the absence of any feedbacks that a doubling of CO2 will produce a rise in temperatures of 0.7degs. If the feedbacks are positive, as intuition would lead us to believe then this is amplified. Currently the scientific consensus is a factor of about 4. 
There are some scientists, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen are the best known, who have argued that simple intuition is not correct and that there is no positive feedback and the feedback may be negative. 
What they are NOT saying is that is that the earth has not warmed. Roy Spencer has said that the earth is "unusually warm". But maybe no warmer than the MWP. Most scientists believe it is actually now warmer than in the MWP. 
Contrarians are quick to seize on differences in satellite and ground based measurements. I'll come back to those in future. But, at present there is ample evidence that the earth is warming: 
Shrinking Arctic Ice, Melting permafrost, Northward (in N Hemisphere) migration of species. How do you explain these phenomena? 
Contrarians often point to Greenland and the colonisation by Vikings to demonstrate the warmth of the MWP. What about now? 
As the CS Monitor explains it 
"Perhaps nowhere else in the world are the effects of climate change as obvious as in Greenland, where warming temperatures have brought a mixed blessing to the 56,000 residents that live on this island, a self-governing territory of Denmark. As winter sea ice disappears, the traditional means that the indigenous Inuit people have developed to survive in the Arctic – sled dog mushing, seal hunting, ice-hole fishing – are rapidly becoming obsolete. Farming, an occupation all but unheard of a century ago, has never looked better. " 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1001/p01s02-wogn.html 
So , please, enlighten us all. How does your UHIE theory explain that?
manacker 
22 May 2008 at 02:01
Hi Peter, 
There are probably a few people who might deny that it has warmed over the past 150 years, as we are coming out of a colder period called the Little Ice Age. 
Some may deny that there even was a LIA or that it was preceded by a warmer period, called the Medieval Warm Period, which was a bit warmer than today. 
I don't fit into the above category, but I also fail to see that we are headed for alarming warming caused by emission of CO2. There is no physical evidence that this is the case. 
"Proof" of the gravity theory (or "evidence", if you prefer this word) is all around us, and it can be demonstrated physically. The greenhouse theory is a bit more nebulous (and evidence of causality has not yet been demonstrated) . The suggestion of "feedbacks" that are all positive, which result in multiplying the theoretical greenhouse warming by a factor of four is based on conjecture (with no evidence). 
These are the "shades of gray" in the argumentation. 
To damage or destroy the world's economy based on such thin evidence would be foolhardy, in my opinion. 
This is particularly true, now that it appears that the warming trend has stopped or is even reversing itself. If we enter another "Maunder minimum" period, we'll be thankful for any bit of greenhouse warming we can produce. 
The fact is that we do not know everything about what causes climate change and to deduce that the late 20th century warming was caused by AGW "because our models cannot explain it any other way" is an arrogant deduction, since it implies that we do know everything. 
My bet is that we know far less about specific causes of climate change than we actually do know. 
And if Greenland should really become green again (as it was during the MWP) and the Swiss glaciers really do recede to the levels where they were then, I say, so what? This is not the end of the world. It is probably more of a good thing than a bad thing. 
Beats another LIA hands down. 
Just my thoughts, and you have been unable to convince me otherwise, because you have no scientific evidence to support predictions of alarming AGW. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
22 May 2008 at 03:52
Contrarians, 
You guys are all over the place with your scientific theories. You can't even decide if the earth has or has not warmed! 
Maybe you guys fall into two camps. Those of you who say that the earth has warmed, like Stagazer, but that it's natural. 
And those who like Bob Clive who say that the earth hasn't warmed and the figures have been skewed by the UHIE. Having said that I seem to remember BobClive, too, arguing "of course its the sun" 
It doesn't make any sense to argue that the UHIE is real if you then go on to say that the warming is natural. You have to get your story straight. Maybe Max, Brute, and anyone else who has both argued that the UHIE substantially skewed the figures and that there has been no warming, and that the non-existent warming has been caused by the sun could decide too.
stargazer 
22 May 2008 at 08:17
"Maybe you guys fall into two camps. Those of you who say that the earth has warmed, like Stagazer, but that it's natural." 
I would say 'Mostly natural' 
of course the earth has warmed since the LIA. 
and of course it has warmed out of the 'ice age proper' 
some 10000 years ago, and gotten warmer and cooler periodically in-between then and now. 
and no-one realy knows why !!!!!!! except the sun is involved but the 'linking mechanism' has not been found.
stargazer 
22 May 2008 at 08:25
and yes i too also think that the surface figures have been skewed by the UHIE..... or more correctly the sizeof 'ajustment' made to correct for it !!!
Sven 
22 May 2008 at 10:16
For another size of adjustment (?) check the difference in temperature anomalies between RSS, UAH and Hadley vs. GISS. What is this, why are the first three pretty well in correlation and GISS, in a most peculiar manner, not. It manages to get 2005 as the warmest, 2007 (not warm at all by the other three) as the second warmest, 2008 March extreme jump back to the beginning of 2007. Then, coming out with April figures, changing March from 0,67 to 0,60 (?) and so on. If you have four sets of data, three of then in good correlation and one not, I guess the right thing to do would be to take the odd one out and not rely on it. Not wishing to plunge into conspiration theories, but somehow the only thing it correlates well with, is the activist rather than scientist behavior of their chief...
Black Wallaby 
22 May 2008 at 12:52
bobclive, Reur 20 May 2008 at 16:10 
You wrote in part: 
"...'Heat Island' Tokyo Is in Global Warming's Vanguard 
Over the last century, Tokyo temperatures have increased five times as fast as global warming,... 
...I wonder if this increase might be linked to population growth." 
Bob, I would say that your concluding remark was a CONCRETE statement
Black Wallaby 
22 May 2008 at 13:05
Sven, 
Fret not, for there is no error. 
It is but a parallel universe, or something to do with "string theory" or something new yet to be imagined by physicists. 
GISS is run by James Hansen: he who advised Al Gore, deriver of a great deal of money from making a popular movie and other stuff
Black Wallaby 
22 May 2008 at 13:12
Stargazer, in response to your two posts immediately above: 
1) Yep 
2) Yep 
Or, if you like: 
1) Absolutely 
2) Absolutely
Brute 
22 May 2008 at 14:04
Pete, 
I’ve brought this up before, but would you please review this information and remind me again why it is irrelevant? 
http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2007/02/extreme-temperature...
bobclive 
22 May 2008 at 15:38
Peter you don`t get it do you. 
To show global warming you have to have reliable temperature measurements, there were I believe no satellite measurements before 1985. 
Peter to show AGW you need a significant upward temperature trend and to make it look worse you need an average global temperature that starts at the bottom of that trend, my last post showed two rural stations situated in totally different environments with flat trends, what this indicates is that you do NOT need thousands of weather station pairs to show a GLOBAL TREND. 
All you need are a few equally spaced totally RURAL stations covering each continent, it does not matter whether they are on an arid plain or in a fertile valley because temperature is NOT what you are actually looking for from these stations, you are looking for a TREND. EVERY RURAL STATION THAT HAS A KNOWN RECORD THAT I HAVE FOUND ON THE NET SHOWS A MARGINAL OR FLAT TREND SINCE 1900, only the URBAN stations show a substantial upwards trend. 
Why would these AGWers want to tease out the UHI bias from the urban sites when they can acquire totally ACCURATE TEMPERATURES AND ACCURATE TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM THE RURAL SITES, answer, so thy can manipulate the data. 
Hanson needs these station pairs because it is the only way he can change the numbers to show AGW. But the grand reaper has appeared in the form of Anthony Watts. 
Mann did exactly the same with his Hockey stick graph by including the Graybill bristlecone chronologies, Mann knew that without the Bristlecones he did NOT get his hockey stick, as he had already tried it. They are all members of the same club. 
Peter, the late John L. Daly was ridiculed by the likes of Hanson and Jones but his rural temperature graphs show exactly the same flat trends as do the more illustrious studies I have previously posted. 
PETER, LOOK FOR YOURSELF, 
All algorithms and high maths are a blind, we have been stitched up. 
The UHI debate should Not be whether the urban areas are warmer than the rural areas, it`s blindingly obvious they are. The debate should be what the rural/urban temperature trends are, that is also blindingly obvious, rural shows flat tainted urban shows rising temps. 
If you had two compasses, one your trusty old one that you know is accurate and a newly purchased compass, they read differently, do you discard the new one, discard the trusty old one or take the average of the two, Peter I think you would take the average of the two, you might not arrive at your chosen destination with this choice but as you obviously consider as does Hanson that by manipulating good data with bad data will ensure you obtain to most accurate data it would be your obvious choice. 
By the way Peter, it is now accepted that the UHI effect has now saturated the majority of the major city areas, could this be the reason global temps have not risen over the past 10 years. 
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
manacker 
22 May 2008 at 19:02
Hi Peter, 
You are displaying your talent for inconclusive double-talk again, when (instead of responding to specifics with specifics) you write: “It doesn't make any sense to argue that the UHIE is real if you then go on to say that the warming is natural. You have to get your story straight. Maybe Max, Brute, and anyone else who has both argued that the UHIE substantially skewed the figures and that there has been no warming, and that the non-existent warming has been caused by the sun could decide too.” 
The story is “straight”, Peter. 
There has been warming. This occurred in three multi-decadal warming cycles since records started in 1850, and we have been coming out of the LIA. This fact is indisputable, based on the Hadley record. 
The observed record shows that the first two periods account for around two-thirds of the total recorded warming over the entire 150-year period, with the most recent period of warming accounting for a bit less than one-third.. 
UHIE has skewed the record with a spurious exaggeration of the warming trend. This bias has probably become stronger in the recent record, as the effects of rapid urbanization became more apparent. A comparison of nearby stations confirms this UHIE, as do many other studies that show the directly observed effect of urbanization. 
Another observed indication of this spurious bias can be seen in the comparison of the satellite record with the surface record. Over the time frame that satellites have been up there, this represents around 0.04C/decade, or a total of around 0.15C. Over this entire period the linear warming was around 0.4C, so the discrepancy is significant. 
If one believes that AGW is a primary cause for the latest warming, this discrepancy is even more significant, since the greenhouse theory tells us warming should be more rapid in the troposphere than at the surface, so the UHIE distortion is probably somewhat greater. 
And yes, Peter, the sun is indeed the major climate “forcing factor” (to use the pseudo-scientific jargon preferred by “AGW climate scientists”). 
Always has been. Always will be. 
And sorry, “climate science” does not know everything that is going on out there. Greenhouse theory is great, but maybe the CERN CLOUD program will point us into entirely new directions. 
And, then again, maybe solar cycle 24 will throw us a curve ball that no one expected and the whole AGW hysteria will go “poof”! 
So it is too early to “decide” (as you put it). 
And it is also too early to take draconian steps to “solve” a problem that may not ever become a problem or may have already “solved itself” naturally. 
So you see that, contrary to what you wrote, it does “make any sense to argue that the UHIE is real if you then go on to say that the warming is natural”. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
22 May 2008 at 22:37
Contrarians, 
Ok I know you dislike Dr Hansen intensely and you don't trust the GISS data. So whose data do you trust? It really makes little difference whether 1998 or 2005 were actually the warmest years. 
You say that " .......this fact is indisputable, based on the Hadley record." OK so you are saying that the Hadley record is untainted by UHIE distortion? 
So, can we agree that this graph based on the Hadley Global (Brute, please note the word is 'global' and not 'American') data is correct? 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2163/2440243665_63416a6212_o.... 
There seems to be an embarrassed silence about Greenland. How is it that Greenland is good evidence to show the warmth of the MWP but it is not good evidence to show that it is even warmer now?
Brute 
23 May 2008 at 01:00
Peter, 
(Brute, please note the word is 'global' and not 'American'). 
Alright, forget about just the US; here are the lowest lows and the highest highs GLOBALLY. 
7 of 8 record highs occurred in the first half of the 20th century, (87%). 
4 of 9 record lows occurred in the latter half of the 20th century, (44%). 
If the IPCC and Al Gore’s theory is correct wouldn’t there be a higher percentage of record high temperatures as the atmospheric CO2 concentrations grew higher later in the century? Wouldn’t it at least be an even split as are the record lows? If the Earth is getting warmer evenly and globally, wouldn’t more of the record highs be recorded after 1950? Hundreds of places, thousands of days since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution CO2 has been rising and the record highs occurred occured when CO2 concentrations were lowest? 
You’re an intelligent guy……seriously, tell me why this is irrelevant. 
Manaker? Bob Clive? Robin? Stargazer? Wallaby? Why wouldn’t a higher percentage of record high temperatures be recorded after, let’s say, 1950? At least a few? Why is this irrelevant? 
Continent High Temp. (deg F) Place Date 
Africa 136 El Azizia, Libya 1922 
North America 134 Death Valley, CA 1913 
Asia 129 Tirat Tsvi, Israel 1942 
Australia 128 Cloncurry, Queensland 1889 
Europe 122 Seville, Spain 1881 
South America 120 Rivadavia, Argentina 1905 
Oceania 108 Tuguegarao, Philippines 1912 
Antarctica 59 Vanda Station, Scott Coast 1974 
Continent Lowest Temp. (deg F) Place Date 
Antarctica –129 Vostok 1983 
Asia -90 Oimekon, Russia 1933 
Asia -90 Verkhoyansk, Russia 1892 
Greenland -87 Northice 1954 
North America –81.4 Snag, Yukon, 1947 
Europe -67 Ust'Shchugor, Russia January* 
South America -27 Sarmiento, Argenti 1907 
Africa -11 Ifrane, Morocco 1935 
Australia –9.4 Charlotte Pass, NSW 1994 
Oceania 14 Haleakala Summit, Maui, HI 1961 
(Courtesy of National Climatic Data Center/NOAA.)
Brute 
23 May 2008 at 01:07
Peter, 
Straighten me out here.....averages? Wouldn't the extremes highs rise along with the averages as the CO2 rises and the entire planet warms? I know you're awake; it's mid-day in Australia. 
No sarcasm, explain this to me.
Peter Martin 
23 May 2008 at 02:36
Brute, 
I do happen to know that the Australian record figure that you refer to of 128 deg F in Cloncurry is not officially recognised as a record due to doubts about the accuracy of the measurement, particularly the degree of shade that the thermometer was given. 
In principle, what you are saying is true. If the measurements were perfectly accurate then you would expect that the recorded maxima would increase in line with the average figure. 
But, no measurements are perfectly accurate whether or not they do qualify for a 'record'. The older the measurement, the bigger the error bars, and I would expect that there would be more 'records' of both high and low temperatures in the first half of the 20th century, and earlier, than in the second half of the 20th century, and later.
Brute 
23 May 2008 at 02:46
Ok, I can accept that answer. I thought that it possibly was an illegitimate question, (I’m not a weatherman). Thought maybe there was something that I was unaware of. 
Thanks, I wouldn't have been able to sleep tonight...would've laid in bed thinking about a good "Real Climate" side step answer/excuse. (I worry and ponder about stuff like that). Yep, I'm officially a nut.
Peter Martin 
23 May 2008 at 03:43
Contrarians, 
Rather than argue endlessly about the IPCC, Bob Hansen , Al Gore etc it might be useful to look at what changes we can see happen ourselves independently of all the scientific data which you are so sceptical about. 
For some industries the climate change/global warming issue is about more than just a debate, its something that has to be correctly taken into account , otherwise there will be severe economic consequences. 
Forestry is one example. The guys, who I would imagine are hard headed realistic types, who manage forestry plantations have to plant the right trees in the right places. At pesent they are certainly planning to change things to reflect a warming climate over the next 30 years, or however long it takes to grow a tree. 
See for example: 
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/newsrele.nsf/web-allbysubject/EDF... 
Would you advise them to ignore all this climate change nonsense? Would you say that its all down to the UHIE and that, if anything, we might be going back into LIA conditions?
Black Wallaby 
23 May 2008 at 11:02
Max, you quoted some numbers somewhere on relative albedos of snow and water, which have significance in the debate. There are various sources of data. You (and any rationalists) might find my recent response to Robco1 at Gristmill below interesting! 
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/05/07/alaska/index.html#comment98
Black Wallaby 
23 May 2008 at 11:09
Bugger.... My link above is corrupted but does take you to the top of the thread.....just scroll down to the bottom and it should be close!
Brute 
23 May 2008 at 11:58
Max/Bob Clive, 
How do the boys over at Real Climate or other Alarmist sources come to terms with my most recent question, (May 23rd 01:00)? My posts regarding this were deleted (censored) on other Alarmist's sites. 
Please tell me if I'm barking up the wrong tree.
bobclive 
23 May 2008 at 20:39
U.N. Reports That Global Warming May Heap Disasters on Africa 
By REUTERS 
NAIROBI, Kenya - Africa may face more natural disasters if the world's main economic powers do not ratify a key protocol on climate change as soon as possible, the top United Nations environmentalist said Tuesday. 
Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), was speaking after scientists released a report this week warning that average global temperatures could rise 5.8 percent in the 21st century. 
``It is a very dramatic situation,'' he told a news conference in the Kenyan capital Nairobi, where the UNEP is based. ``The evidence is absolutely clear that the speed of global warming is going faster and faster.'' 
Posted January 24, 2001, what do they say, a weeks to long in politics. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/24/science/24reuters-climate....
manacker 
23 May 2008 at 22:25
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “I know you dislike Dr Hansen intensely and you don't trust the GISS data. So whose data do you trust? It really makes little difference whether 1998 or 2005 were actually the warmest years. You say that " .......this fact is indisputable, based on the Hadley record." OK so you are saying that the Hadley record is untainted by UHIE distortion?” 
Let’s see if I can respond to your statements and questions. 
I do not “dislike Dr Hansen intensely”. I have just observed that he has become less rational and objective over time, drifting from being fairly objective back in the early 1990s to being rather hysterical lately. He is not that awfully old, so I suspect his agenda is driven by something else. 
The GISS data are what they are. Some glitches were identified that erroneously showed recent record temperatures, when the actual record occurred back in the 1930s. To paraphrase your statement: “It really makes little difference whether 1998 or 1934 were actually the warmest years.” 
Then there are the systematic problems with the weather stations identified and partially quantified by Anthony Watts, in particular those urban stations being used to calculate the global anomaly. These problems were specific to GISS, since Watts has only looked at US stations (so far). 
And there are, of course, all the studies out there from all over the globe that have identified an upward bias in the surface record due to urbanization and land use changes. These problems affect both GISS and Hadley (plus any other surface record). So I do not see any particular reason why Hadley would be immune to the UHIE distortion. It is a fact of life that urban areas show significantly higher temperatures than rural areas. And cities have grown, rural stations have been shut down, etc. 
But again, the record is all we have. We can take the published data (which have enough “adjustments” already made) and start making additional “adjustments” for UHIE, etc., but this would be a bit judgmental. 
So, with all its imperfections, I still prefer to use Hadley over GISS. I know the “Met Office” also likes to give out alarmist “next year forecasts” and op-eds occasionally (so they may not be wholly objective in this matter), but I have a bit more faith in the accuracy of their numbers than of those from GISS. 
Hope this provides some clarification to your query. 
Regards, 
Max
bobclive 
24 May 2008 at 01:08
I believe, certainly in the northern hemisphere, that the UHI effect within urban station temperature data is now pretty much saturated, and will have NO further influence on future temperature data obtained from those stations. I also believe this has been the case for possibly 10 years or more. Steve Mcintyre is I consider suggesting this in his small study of the Peterson station groups, where he splits rural from urban by suggesting that urban sites have a senior league football stadium and rural sites have not. Steves rural sites show little or no discernible upwards trend, see graphs, yet the urban sites as expected do show a marked upwards trend but leveling off from 1998. 
This level trend for BOTH rural and urban since 1998 would appear to me to indicate that as stated, the UHIE is now saturated within the urban temperature data, if this were not the case and the leveling of temperatures since 1998 were down to just natural causes such as PDO, a FALL in the rural data would be expected, looking at Steves temperature graph of the rural stations shows clearly there is certainly NO temperature fall. 
If there is a natural decline in temperatures you must see this in BOTH data sets, rural and urban, Steve has shown that the leveling of temperatures from 1998 is showing in only one data set. 
Again this is I believe why Hanson Giss need station pairs and their secret algorithm. Its called smoke and mirrors. 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=51
Peter Martin 
24 May 2008 at 02:48
BobClive, 
Ok lets leave Bob Hansen and GISS to oneside at the moment. 
In 2004, David Parker, of Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, settled the UHIE question emphatically by comparing measurements taken on calm and windy nights. 
If urbanisation is making the planet look hotter than it really is, the effect should be more pronounced when there's no wind to dissipate the heat from sweltering cities. But rates of warming were the same whether the wind was blowing or not. 
The satellite data, and which everyone agrees is free of UHIE distortion, has shown some discrepancies from surface measurements, largely in the early years of measurement, but the agreement is now much better and can be used to disprove significant UHIE distrtion to the surface record. 
For more information see: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png
Brute 
24 May 2008 at 03:45
Please take a moment to remember why we are celebrating Memorial Day this weekend......... 
It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press. 
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech. 
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. 
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag. 
- Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC
Peter Martin 
24 May 2008 at 05:03
And he's fighting for Canada, 
He's fighting for France, 
He's fighting for the USA, 
And he's fighting for the Russians, 
And he's fighting for Japan, 
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way. 
He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain, 
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew. 
And he knows he shouldn't kill, 
And he knows he always will. 
Universal Soldier. Buffy St Marie. Full lyrics. 
http://www.creative-native.com/lyrics/univelyr.htm 
Brute, This is getting well off topic but since you've started it!
manacker 
24 May 2008 at 09:21
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “The satellite data, and which everyone agrees is free of UHIE distortion, has shown some discrepancies from surface measurements, largely in the early years of measurement, but the agreement is now much better and can be used to disprove significant UHIE distrtion to the surface record.” 
Not really, Peter. 
The difference between the satellite and surface records is significant. 
The satellite record shows 0.04C/decade slower warming than the surface record. 
Over the 29 years that satellites have been measuring temperatures this represents around 0.12C. 
Doesn’t sound like much, but the linear increase over this period was only 0.37C, so this is around 1/3 of the increase. 
This is even more significant since greenhouse warming should actually be more rapid in the troposphere (satellites) than at the surface. 
Face it, Peter, the UHIE distortion is real. 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
24 May 2008 at 14:19
Mr. Martin, 
I wouldn’t figure you’d be one to dishonor/mock patriots……..Beneath contempt......shameful. 
The injustice of it all is that these men sacrificed their lives so that you would have the freedom to write such twisted obtuse drivel. 
Enjoying your day? Maybe you should take a few moments and consider the men who sacrificed their lives to make that possible......Ingrate.
Peter Martin 
24 May 2008 at 15:32
Max, 
There was problem with the link in my last posting. There can be a problem with them on this forum and you have to copy and paste it into a browser rather than just clicking on it. 
If you do that you can see that there is not total agreement between the satellite data and the ground data as you suggest. I'll just quote the following " The slope of these lines are 0.187°C/decade, 0.163°C/decade, and 0.239°C/decade for the surface, UAH, and RSS respectively" 
In other words, the surface record shows a temperature rise which is higher than one satellite record but less than another. 
Brute, 
There is no mocking. There are times, unfortunately, when war is necessary, but I don't go for all that nationalism, saluting the flag, and my country, right or wrong, nonsense.
manacker 
24 May 2008 at 20:30
Hi Peter, 
Don’t know where you are getting your anomaly figures from, but the official records show (1979-2007): 
UAH (satellite): 0.136C/decade 
RSS (satellite): 0.175C/decade 
GISS (surface): 0.187C/decade 
In other words, the surface record shows a temperature trend which is higher than both satellite records. 
It’s always best to go to the original source of the data rather than relying on someone’s rehash of the data. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 May 2008 at 20:41
Hi Peter, 
The Parker “calm/windy night” study was a feeble attempt to disprove (with reconstructed wind data) the many studies showing that there is an observed and recorded UHIE. It has since been de-bunked. 
The studies out there that actually compare nearby urban/rural stations all show the UHIE bias. 
This is what must be compared: not “calm/windy night reconstructions” that do not prove anything. 
Face it, Peter, the evidence for a significant UHIE distortion is overwhelming. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 May 2008 at 21:02
Hi Peter, 
You once advised me that a "picture is worth 1000 words". 
Here is one that shows clearly that there is a significant UHIE (long-term GISS temperature records from two nearby stations, one with major UHIE distortion, the other with significantly less UHIE distortion). 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/2519436176_1d6631532e_o.... 
Anthony Watts posted pictures and descriptions of both stations along with the official GISS record on his blog site. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
24 May 2008 at 21:37
Hi Peter, 
Forgot to post you the links to the Parker debunks. 
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=51&paged=2 
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
25 May 2008 at 03:26
Mr. Martin, 
Taking a day to out of the year to honor heroes who have given their lives to protect your freedom and liberty is NOT nonsense and is NOT blind allegiance; it IS common courtesy and gratitude and speaks volumes about YOUR character. 
I've lost any shred of respect for you...........I didn’t think anyone could sink so low…….
Peter Martin 
25 May 2008 at 05:07
Max, 
You should know where I got the figures from. Unlike you, I posted a link which contained them. 
How about a link showing where yours came from? 
Brute, 
You'd be better finding another forum to discuss questions of militarism and politics. I'd just say that if you really feel that American foreign policy since WW2 has been motivated by a desire to spread democracy, increase press freedom, and increase individual liberty you might like to read Robert Macnamara's book " In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam". 
I like Muhammad Ali's explanation of why he wouldn't fight in Vietnam. ""I Ain't Got No Quarrel With The VietCong. No VietCong Ever Called Me Nigger" . Most US soldiers would have had no prior quarrel with the Vietcong either. So why the war? Its getting on for 40 years since that conflict ended. Its probably too soon to make the same argument for the Iraq war, at least in the West, but it is now time to commerorate all the Vietnamese war dead, on both sides of the conflict, equally.
manacker 
25 May 2008 at 06:07
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: "How about a link showing where yours came from? " 
Looks like our posts crossed, since I have sent you these links earlier today. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
25 May 2008 at 06:54
Hi Max, 
Can you give me the links to these figures? 
UAH (satellite): 0.136C/decade 
RSS (satellite): 0.175C/decade 
GISS (surface): 0.187C/decade 
The data from UAH has been out of step with the others for quite a while. But, I guess you trust Roy Spencer and team more than most? 
So if we take the two satellite series as being accurate, and using your figures, the surface temperature anomalies , due to UHIE, work out to be either 24% or 6.4% too high. Is that your position? 
Either way, I can't see how you can claim either of the references you have given can be classed as a 'debunking' of the Parker paper.
manacker 
25 May 2008 at 21:31
Hi Peter, 
Links to temperature records: 
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anoma... 
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt 
As far as the Parker debunks are concerned, they were pretty effective as far as I could see. Parker did not do the obvious thing to refute UHIE, i.e. measure actual temperatures at several urban and nearby rural stations to show there is no difference. The reason for this is obvious. Studies using this direct method from all over the world to determine whether or not there is a substantial UHIE all confirm that this is the case. 
So he uses an indirect “windy/calm nights with reconstructed wind data” as a sort of “proxy” for going out with a thermometer in his hand to see if there really is a UHIE. 
It got shot down, but it was a good try (and IPCC liked it). 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
25 May 2008 at 22:34
Hi Peter, 
For a chart and analysis comparing observed 21st century temperature trends from 5 different records with IPCC projections see: 
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-contin... 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
25 May 2008 at 23:13
Max, 
The Parker paper is evidence. Maybe not conclusive evidence, I would agree. 
I seem to remember someone making the following argument in favour of satellites 
"Now if I want to establish the “globally averaged land and sea temperature”, I would prefer to use the satellite temperature readings of the troposphere for several reasons. 
· Coverage is uniform and universal over land and sea 
· Human error is eliminated 
· Effect of land use changes and urbanization is eliminated 
· Effect of poor siting of surface stations (near AC exhausts, parking lots, etc.) is eliminated " 
I'm still can't see where your figure of 0.187 degC per decade has come from. I think the IPCC have used 0.17 and 0.18 deg C per decade in the past. But, the difference is too small to argue about. 
So what's all this about there being a huge discrepancy between satellite and surface measurements? 
The difference between the RSS results and the surface temperature record is also too small to argue about. As you have argued, satellite measurements are free of the UHIE effect, so this is even better evidence than the Parker paper that it has been corrected handled and calibrated out in the surface records. 
OK, maybe you are going to point to the UAH satellite record which shows a lower figure. A few years ago, this was way of line with both RSS and the surface figures. The UAH team seem to discover errors in their algorithms every few years and each time they fix them the gap seems to shrink. It is really quite small now, but maybe they have a couple more small errors to find yet.
Peter Martin 
26 May 2008 at 00:13
Max, 
Now that we have agreed that the rate of change of temperature is about 0.17degC per decade we can use the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature rise which you have previously referred to, to calculate the climate sensititivity of CO2. 
Each decade has produced an increase of CO2 levels of approx 15ppmv 
So the climate sensitivity CS ( the increase in temperature we can expect from a doubling of CO2 levels) is given by: 
CS = dT / (3.22 x log (375/360)) = 2.75 deg C 
This compares with your figure of 0.7 deg C calculated using the S-B equation and is consistent with a positive feedback factor of approximately 4 as we previously discussed. 
If you prefer the Christy/Spencer UAH satellite records, CS works out to be 2.4deg C which still implies a positive feedback factor of 3.5
manacker 
26 May 2008 at 00:16
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “I'm still can't see where your figure of 0.187 degC per decade has come from” 
It’s actually your figure, but it agrees with GISS. Check your post 24 May 15:32 (or the GISS record). 
Regards, 
Max 
PS Believe UAH has corrected for several errors, but there is still a substantial gap between the tropospheric and the surface records. Since greenhouse warming should be more rapid in the troposphere than at the surface, this presents a real dilemma. Do not recall that the surface record has yet been made transparent enough that systematic errors could be identified and corrected. There are only all those UHIE studies out there, but no correction has yet been made to the record for this.
manacker 
26 May 2008 at 02:16
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: “Now that we have agreed that the rate of change of temperature is about 0.17degC per decade we can use the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature rise which you have previously referred to, to calculate the climate sensititivity of CO2. Each decade has produced an increase of CO2 levels of approx 15 ppmv. 
So the climate sensitivity CS ( the increase in temperature we can expect from a doubling of CO2 levels) is given by: 
CS = dT / (3.22 x log (375 / 360)) = 2.75 deg C” 
Sounds good for the warming cycle 1976-1998, where we have 0.17degC per decade. 
Now let’s run your calculation for other cyles in the Hadley record. 
Let’s look at what IPCC calls the 20th century: we had 0.74K from 1906 to 2005, while CO2 rose from around 290 to 379. With a sensitivity of 3K we should have had 1.2K. So maybe the sensitivity we cranked in was a bit on the high side (looks like 1.65K would have been closer), but we have a rough check. 
As we bring in a bit more granularity, the picture starts to look a little more uncertain. 
Using the inflated “sensitivity” of 3K, let’s do the more granular look at what happened. 
Late 19th century warming (1858-1879) 
CO2 increased from 286 to 288ppmv 
Theoretical dT +0.03K; actual dT +0.38K 
Poor fit 
Early 20th century warming (1910-1944) 
CO2 increased from 292 to 307ppmv 
Theoretical dT +0.05K; actual dT +0.53K 
Poor fit 
Mid-century cooling (1944-1976) 
CO2 increased from 307 to 330ppmv 
Theoretical dT +0.07K; actual dT –0.02K 
Poor fit 
Late 20th century warming (1976-1998) 
CO2 increased from 330 to 363ppmv 
Theoretical dT +0.41K; actual dT +0.37K 
EUREKA! We’ve got a good fit! 
Here’s where we, indeed have a CS of 2.75K, as you calculated!! 
Most recent “plateau” (1998-2008) 
CO2 increased from 363 to 383ppmv 
Theoretical dT +0.23K; actual dT -0.02K 
OUCH! 
So we see that a “cherry picked” analysis of only one cycle may look nice but does not really tell us very much. 
The overall record shows no apparent correlation between CO2 and temperature, with only one 20+ year period fitting the assumed 3K sensitivity and the overall 20th century confirming a sensitivity of around half of the assumed value. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
26 May 2008 at 02:42
Max, 
OK I see! You are accepting the figure I referenced for surface temperature, but you've come up with your own, and reduced, figures for the satellite records! 
I think what our recent exchange has established is that, within experimental errors, there is really no difference between the satellite and surface measurements. So, any paper claiming to debunk Parker's debunking of the UHIE thory of distortion to the surface record, is itself debunked. 
The troposphere is actually the bottom few km of the atmosphere and does include the surface and nearly all of the water vapour in the atmosphere. There may still be some small discrepancies between the surface and satellite measurements but these, even including those from the Christy/Spencer UAH team, seem to be decreasing over time, as more work is done to resolve these questions. 
Did you check my CS calculations? I should have mentioned a possible flaw. I did not take into account that the earth's temperature is not currently in equilibrium. There is a huge mass of ocean which will take a time to warm up. For this reason, the calculated values of CS could well turn out to be too low.
Peter Martin 
26 May 2008 at 03:11
Max, 
I think our posts crossed. Its good that you agree that somewhere 2.4 degs and 3 degs is a good fit for late 20th century data and early 21st century data, for a doubling of CO2 levels. I've used your figures so presumably they do go up to 2007? I've taken them to be the averaged decadal gradients since satellite records began not just a single decadal result. Is that right? 
No-one is suggesting that you can apply the calculations before 1975 -1980. There are no satellite records available for this period. Besides that, CO2 was not the main climate driver then.
manacker 
26 May 2008 at 06:42
Hi Peter, 
You wrote: "No-one is suggesting that you can apply the calculations before 1975 -1980. There are no satellite records available for this period. Besides that, CO2 was not the main climate driver then." 
Hmmm... 
So, if "CO2 was not the main climate driver" prior to 1976, how can we assume that "CO2 is the main climate driver" for the period 1976-1998? 
BTW the early 21st century shows cooling despite rapid CO2 increase. 
There just is not a fit for CO2 and temperature, except for the period 1976-1998. This is a relatively short increment in the overall scheme of things, don't you agree? 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
26 May 2008 at 06:48
Hi Peter, 
You erroneously stated, "you've come up with your own, and reduced, figures for the satellite record". 
Sorry, this is not correct. 
The UAH satellite record states very clearly what the linear trend has been since the record started, and it is 0.136C/decade. 
GISS and Hadley are a bit less transparent. You have to download the data and draw your own linear curve. 
Sorry, Peter, you are wrong again. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
26 May 2008 at 10:12
Max, 
Nice try, but I'm just trying to work out where your figures ( not mine) came from. So, you won't be able to bog me down in petty quibbles! 
I did make three claims, on the basis of your figures (not mine): 
1) that UHIE distortion , if it does exist, is really quite a small small percentage of the total. 
2) that any discrepancy betwen the satellite and surface data is well within the limits of experimental error. 
3) that your figures show that there is a positive feedback factor of at least 3.5 to be applied to your calculation of a 0.7 deg C climate sensitivity for CO2. 
I did notice on another forum that you had made the claim that it wouldn't matter much if CO2 levels went as high as 1000 ppm by doubling and redoubling from pre-industrial levels. If the pattern of the 21st century repeats the 20th century , with continued exponential increases in CO2 emissions, this could possibly happen. 
But, if it did, the temperature increase due to CO2 would also double and redouble. Not at the base level of 0.7 deg C going to 1.4 deg C, as you have calculated, but at 3 deg C going to 6 deg C as your data conservatively shows. 
"6 degrees of warming". What a good title for a book!
Brute 
26 May 2008 at 14:46
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/19052008news.shtml 
Cold snap arrives in Victoria, South Australia by Steph Ball 
A cold front moved across Victoria over the weekend bringing heavy rain, snow and falling temperatures. 
While much of Australia has been suffering its worst drought in over a century, the recent rain brought a relief to farmers. For many it was the heaviest rain experienced in months. Victoria’s wettest place, Weeaproinah (in the Otways), bore no surprises as it totted up the most rainfall over the weekend, 57mm (2.24 inches). 
Skiers and snowboarders also had a good reason to celebrate with snow falling at all three major ski resorts and with less than three weeks to go to the start of the winter season. As much as 30cm (11.8 inches) fell at Falls Creek. 
On Saturday, Melbourne failed to reach double figures with a high of 9.5C (49F), giving it its coldest May day since 1977. Today though, temperatures have returned to nearer average for May which is 17C (63F). 
Showers are forecast still over the next couple of days as further cold fronts cross the state. However, high pressure over South Australia is expected to move in late Wednesday bringing drier conditions to end the week.
Brute 
26 May 2008 at 16:33
Interesting................ 
Exodus From Drying Sahara Gave Rise to Pharaohs, Study Says 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060720-sahar... 
Abrupt climate change and collapse of ancient civilizations at 2200BC—2000BC 
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tpns/2005/000000...;jsessionid=304qtqnou4kke.alexandra 
Climate change fueled ancient wars in China 
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0710-china.html 
Climate Change Killed off Maya Civilization, Study Says 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0313_030313_...
bobclive 
26 May 2008 at 16:59
Record high US temperatures State by State, 
39 highest temperatures out of 51 States before 1960 
about 76% highs before 1960?. 
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html 
Record low US temperatures State by State, 
29 lowest temperatures out of 51 States before 1960. 
about 57% lows before 1960? 
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0113527.html 
Do these high/low temps show AGW, if there was global warming surly you would expect to see considerably more HIGHS after 1960 than before, seems to be the reverse here. 
You would also expect to see considerably LOWS before 1960 than after, seems almost even on this one. 
Looking at these US high/lows there appears to be more warming pre-1960. 
Record Monthly High and Low Temperatures in the United States, 
HIGH LOW 
Jan 1936 1954 
Feb 1963 1985 
March 1954 1906 
April 1898 1945 
May 1896 1945 
June 1902 1907 
July 1913 1911 
Aug 1933 1910 
Sept 1950 1926 
Oct 1917 1917 
Nov 1906 1954 
Dec 1939 1924 
Only 25% highs after 1960 does not appear to be any substantial AGW warming here either. 
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762182.html
bobclive 
26 May 2008 at 17:31
Sorry I counted 1896-1898 as 1996-98 that means over 90% of the hottest months in the US occurred before 1960.
bobclive 
26 May 2008 at 18:43
Just something I found, 
The inability of the climate models to accurately predict historical temperatures based on earlier, historical temperatures was a feature of a court case tried a few years ago. A citizen watchdog organization called the Center for Regulator Effectiveness objected to the use of the National Assessment on Climate Change largely because the two data models on which it was based could NOT outperform a random number generator in predicting US ground temperatures. 
Neither the Canadian model nor the British can beat a table or random numbers when it comes to predicting U.S. temperature for the last century. 
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/ind... 
=&Title=Industry%20to%20OMB%3A%20Yank%20National%20Assessment%20
manacker 
26 May 2008 at 20:51
Hi Peter, 
‘“6 degrees of warming”. What a good title for a book!’ 
Yes, Peter, but obviously a work of fiction. 
The “3.5 multiplier” for feedbacks translates into a CS of 0.683K*3.5 = 2.4K (for doubling of CO2. 
This CS is totally unproven. It can only be shown to fit for the period 1976-1998, not for any other warming/cooling cycle since records started. (Please refer to my 26 May 02:16 to see how poor the CO2/temperature correlation is for the rest of the 150+ year record.) 
If we look at the entire long-term Hadley record, the global anomaly showed a linear increase of 0.65C over 158 years. 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3189/2525579788_79895ced0f_o.... 
IPCC gives solar forcing an estimated RF of +0.12 W/m^2, but admits that the “level of scientific understanding” (LOSU) of this is “low”. Studies have shown that solar forcing since 1850 has contributed about 40% to the global warming over the entire period since then. 
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Solar_Changes_and_the_Climat... 
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=12 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V... 
If we accept the conclusion of these studies rather than the IPCC figure (based on a low LOSU) and ignore all other natural factors, this leaves 0.39C for GHGs (assume all CO2, since other GHGs are cancelled out by aerosols, land use changes, etc., according to IPCC). 
285 ppmv CO2 in 1850 
384 ppmv CO2 in 2007 
ratio = 1.35 
ln (ratio) = 0.2982 
5.35 * ln (ratio) = 1.69 (= RF in W/m^2) 
4 * 5.6705E-08 * (288.16^3) = 5.427 (Stefan-Boltzmann) 
dT = 1.69 / 5.427 = 0.31K (theoretical dT from CO2 alone, no feedbacks) 
actual dT = 0.65K (linear increase 1850-2007, see graph of Hadley record) 
solar = 0.26K (40%) 
balance = 0.39K (increase from CO2 with feedbacks) 
For a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv (expected by year 2100), we get 0.86K. 
For another doubling to 1120 ppmv we would get another 0.86K (but there is not enough carbon in all the fossil fuels on Earth to reach this level, as I showed earlier). 
So all the fossil fuels on Earth would cause a temperature rise of 1.7K, of which we have already seen around 0.4K to date, leaving us 1.3K from today until all fossil fuels are consumed (maybe by the year 2180). 
So your title should read “1.3 degrees of warming by 2180 if all fossil fuels on Earth are consumed”. (Problem is, nobody would purchase it, since it would be a real “yawner”.) 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
26 May 2008 at 21:20
Robin, Max, Wallaby, Clive, 
I was outside this morning increasing my carbon footprint, (mowing the yard) and I had this brain storm, (for some reason that’s when I do my best thinking). You’re business men; I have a pitch…… 
I could start out by saying that I’m a “reformed Skeptic/Denier”…….(adds an air of credibility). 
I’ve had a change of heart and now fully embrace the IPCC and Al Gore’s climate change prophecies. I’ve decided to create “awareness” of the dire situation our planet has recently and is currently enduring in order to “pay penance” for my years of skepticism and “wanton wastefulness” or “complete disregard for the welfare of Mother Earth”(even better). To that end I have decided to enlist the assistance of various financial interest in developing “Eco-Tours” offering vacation and travel to the most sensitive environmental habitats on the planet! 
Sample Tour: 
The Galapagos Island tour will offer jet skiing and diving expeditions to the most sensitive environmental areas of the islands offering gourmet meals at a planned 500 room hotel featuring popular local delicacies, such as Marine Iguanas, Flightless Cormorant and Sea Lion prepared to your liking by our resident gourmet chef! 
Sample Tour: 
Our Arctic wildlife refuge tour will offer rare glimpses of soon to be extinct mammals, (notice the sense of urgency, “the hook”), as well as “sun and fun” on the balmy beaches of the vast northern Arctic coasts. Fully enclosed air conditioned motor boat tours of the rocky coasts complete with complimentary sunscreen are included in this guided tour. 
My best idea…..ECO-LAND 
In a similar vein, development plans are underway in Northern Siberia for our new ecologically informative and relaxing theme park “Ecoland”. Visitors will be invited to enjoy the newly opened water park and informative lectures provided by various Global Warming/Environmental activists in our newly constructed lecture hall and conference center complete with indoor sauna, 5 star restaurant, Olympic size swimming pool and casino. Sharpen your activists skills at our competitively priced workshops complete with facilities to design and build your very own customized picket signs and “die in” tips from our experienced staff. For the kids we offer….Pin the Tail on the Oil Executive, Duck, Duck, Polar Bear…..etc. 
Make your reservations now for these exciting tour destinations before these exciting attractions disappear! 
Sincerely, 
Brute 
Concerned Environmentalist “Authority” 
What do you think? These Rubes will fall for it, don’t you think? They’re so gullible we could sell them a sack full of nuclear waste, put a “Green” label on it, and they’d pay top dollar. Al Gore and various other Alarmists and corporations are making BILLIONS from this hysteria….selling nothing but hype! They may as well have been given a license to print money! Think of it, we could buy, (better to lease and increase the profit margin), some tramp steamer and load these suckers onto it……we wouldn’t have to fix the ship up…..we could tell them it’s the “Spartan lifestyle preferred by your top environmentalists/activist groups”. Then we could dump them off at some deserted locale and pick up another group of dupes on the return trip. 
We could expand into “Recyclable Clothing” or “Disposable Clothing”. We could gather up a bunch of old milk jugs, ship them over to China, grind them up and make clothes out of them, (newspapers would probably work to). The Chinese work for next to nothing and have no environmental restrictions. Hell, recycling companies are being PAID to take this stuff away by local and state governments because it’s so inefficient to recycle and nobody wants it; we’d take the stuff away for nothing or we could charge the government to take it away, free raw materials). We’d be making money for collecting the stuff, turning it around by making clothes and selling it for a profit! We could call it “Eco-Wear”. We could change the colors and patterns for spring and fall, we could make prints of polar bears and whales, penguins, owls, etc……..If they complain about the quality or something we could simply lay the “guilt trip” on them…..You know….aren’t you willing to sacrifice yourself for Mother Earth? We could sell Eco T-shirts with catchy slogans like the environmentalists have on their bumper stickers……”Polar Bears Never Have a Nice Day” or “Save a Seal, Club an Environmentalist” or something like that…..you get the idea. 
We’d need a celebrity endorsement……shouldn’t be too hard to do……Movie Stars and Rock Stars are pretty vapid and wealthy and love to throw money at stuff like this. We’d also need to shakedown some corporations as The Government, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense do. Although most are busy running the same scam…..they collect money for “Rainforests” and other “worthy causes” and pocket most of it…….I posted an article about that……… 
We’d have to set up headquarters somewhere off shore for tax purposes like Gore. We’d have to time it right so that when the fad eases we could unload it all quickly. Think of the possibilities! So, what do you say; are you in? 
Keep the creative juices flowing….I always say.
Brute 
26 May 2008 at 21:25
Max, 
Forget the book....nickel and dime stuff. THINK BIG! 
Remember, this is GLOBAL warming, and could result in GLOBAL amounts of money for us! 
Sleep on it; and just remember......ECO-Land, ECO-Land. 
We could drain some God forsaken, mosquito infested, swamp somewhere and build it, just like Disney.
manacker 
26 May 2008 at 22:44
Hi Brute, 
I like your ECO-land proposal. 
But it looks like Al Gore’s eco-friend, Bruce Poon Tip, has beaten us to the draw. 
Unfortunately his shipload of eco-tourists had to abandon the MS Explorer when it hit ice off the coast of Antarctica, dumping a load of diesel fuel into the pristine waters. 
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/news/enviro... 
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_112707/content/0... 
But wait, the real villain here is not Bruce Poon Tip or the ship's captain, but Exxon-Mobil, who produced the diesel fuel in the first place! 
Count me in on the ECO-land scam. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
26 May 2008 at 22:47
Max, 
To avoid endless quibbling over figures I've taken the ones you have given me which are: 
(1979-2007): 
UAH (satellite): 0.136C/decade 
RSS (satellite): 0.175C/decade 
GISS (surface): 0.187C/decade 
and the answers I gave you were calculated using them, which are: that the positive feedback factor works out to be between 3.5 and 4, depending on which you choose, over the period 1979 to 2007. Again, this is the timespan you specified. Of course , if you disagree, I'd be happy to see your calculations and discuss the matter further. 
If you want a calculation based on the timespans in your later email, you'll need to give me temperature anomalies for these ranges too.
manacker 
26 May 2008 at 23:03
Hi Peter, 
For the other warming/cooling periods, check my post of 23 May 02:16. The linear warming per period is based on the Hadley record. 
I have already calculated the theoretical change from added CO2 using your 3K sensitivity (for doubling CO2), and compared this with the actual linear change over the period. 
As I said earlier, the only period that "fits" is the late 20th-century warming period (1976-1998). 
None of the other periods fit. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
26 May 2008 at 23:06
Sorry, Peter, that should read 26 May 02:16 
Max
Peter Martin 
26 May 2008 at 23:48
Max, 
Have you checked the period 1979 -2007 which, after all, is the time scale you originally specified? Other periods may, or may not, fit. I'm not making any claim one way or another. 
If you are saying that you disagree with my conclusions , maybe we can see your calculations and we can compare them?
manacker 
27 May 2008 at 01:52
Hi Peter, 
IPCC talks of a warming period that started in 1976. 
IPCC uses the official Hadley surface record as its basis, rather than the satellite record. 
IPCC uses linear trends over the entire 20th century as well as over smaller increments during the 20th century for comparing linear increase over the period. 
For this reason, I used 1976 as the starting point when discussing the warming/cooling cycles as observed and recorded by the Hadley record. 
Satellite readings did not start until 1979. 
That is why the official UAH record (as well as the RSS record) starts then. 
So for comparing surface with satellite, one has to start in 1979. 
Since both UAH and RSS state the decadal linear trend of increase from the 1979 start to the current date, that is why these values were used. 
For comparing the actual linear temperature change over a period with the theoretical change from increased CO2 concentration over the same period, I used the multi-decadal warming/cooling cycles as observed in the Hadley record: 
1858-1879: late 19th century warming cycle 
1879-1910: turn of the century cooling cycle 
1910-1944: early 20th century warming cycle 
1944-1976: mid-century cooling cycle 
1976-1998: late 20th century warming cycle 
1998-2008: current "plateau" 
Believe the calculations in my earlier post are self-explanatory. 
I simply calculated what the AGW theory (with a sensitivity of 3K for doubling CO2) would show as the theoretical warming for that period (based on the observed CO2 concentration at the beginning and end of the period). Then I compared this theoretical value with the linear temperature change that was actually observed over the period. 
I found one period that checks fairly closely (2.7K sensitivity rather than 3K). This is the period 1976-1998. 
None of the other periods validate the AGW theory with feedback. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
27 May 2008 at 02:30
Max, 
You are wriggling and squirming! 
You've made the case for the advantages of satellite data over ground based data. Remember? This is available for the period 1970 - 2007 as you have said. I've taken you at your word and used all the figures you've suggested. 
I've used essentially the same equations as you but the results that emerge blow your arguments out of the water. You don't like that, of course. Now, you are trying to muddy the waters with talk about 1858- 1879. Hello! but has anyone told you that artificial satellites hadn't been invented then ? 
I challenge you to either disprove my calculations, if you disagree with them, or it can only be assumed that you do accept them, but don't like them.
manacker 
27 May 2008 at 02:44
Hi Peter, 
What in hell are you talking about when you make the stupid statement, "You are wriggling and squirming!". 
You want all records to start in 1979 and end in 2007 for easier comparison. You already have the decadal linear trend for GISS, UAH and RSS: 
GISS: 0.187C/decade 
UAH: 0.136C/decade 
RSS: 0.175C/decade 
Here is the one for Hadley. It is 0.161C/decade: 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2525763225_b212fe3294_o.... 
If we average the two surface records we have: (0.187C + 0.161C) / 2 = 0.174C/decade 
If we average the two satellite records we have: (0.175C + 0.136C) / 2 = 0.1555C/decade 
So the surface record shows more rapid warming than the satellite record, while the greenhouse theory tells us it should be the other way round (troposphere should warm at around 30% faster rate than surface). 
If we average the whole bunch we have: (0.174C + 0.156C) / 2 = 0.165C/decade 
If we multiply this by 2.8 decades, we have a linear increase of 0.46C over the period. 
All of this just covers the "late 20th century warming period", where (by coincidence?) the AGW theory (with feedbacks) and the actual observations match. I have no problem with this. 
But you have to admit based on all the info I have sent you that the AGW theory (with feedbacks) does not match any other period in the 150+ year record. 
And that is exactly my point. 
Got it? 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
27 May 2008 at 03:03
Here’s a graph of solar cycles vs. temperature 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/essifigur... 
Here’s a graph of CO2 vs. temperature 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Since_2002.jpg 
Which lines up better against temperature, solar or CO2.
manacker 
27 May 2008 at 04:58
Hi Brute, 
Gotta admit that your two curves tell the whole story in a pretty straightforward way. 
Peter is trying to "force fit" a causality between CO2 and temperature, based on a 20+ year segment of the entire 150+ year record, where there appears to be a correlation. 
As you can see from our exchange, he is having a hard time with any other parts of the record, so is beginning to waffle with statements such as "there were no satellites in the 19th century". 
Your two simple pictures are worth 1,000 words, though. 
As they say: "correlation does not necessarily provide evidence of causation", but "lack of correlation definitely does provide evidence for lack of causation". 
And that is the dilemma that Peter is struggling with. 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
27 May 2008 at 05:14
I don't think it's so much struggling; more along the lines of the ends justify the means........ 
I posted that for Mr. Benson also. I doubt it will make it past Joe Goebbels over at the other site........we'll see....
Black Wallaby 
27 May 2008 at 07:23
Hi Brute, 
Benson and Goebbels? 
(Not THE Goebbels?) 
Where are they? 
Might I enjoy joining in?
Peter Martin 
27 May 2008 at 12:40
Max, 
So how big would you say the UHIE distortion actually is? 
Taking the difference between the averages of the surface and satellite records, according to your figures, gives 0.02 deg C/ decade 
Multiply by 2.8 decades = 0.056 degC 
So, according to your figures, the surface record overstates temperatures by 0.056 deg C. Is this what you are saying?
Brute 
27 May 2008 at 13:11
Max, 
Yep, arrived at work and my post isn't there. After I submitted it last night at my home computer it was "awaiting moderator approval" or whatever the phrase is, (censored). 
Hmmmm, more than one way to skin a cat.........I'll have to devise a plan but I can't get past the gatekeeper....what to do......... 
Wallaby, 
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winnin...
Robin Guenier 
27 May 2008 at 13:28
Re the graph posted by Brute (temp/CO2) the pdf is interesting: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_of_Carbon_Dioxid...
Brute 
27 May 2008 at 13:54
Robin, 
Not a word about Eco-Land, Eco-Tours or Eco-Wear.......I'm hurt.
Robin Guenier 
27 May 2008 at 16:28
Sorry, Brute - how about Eco-financial services? Huge potential there.
Brute 
27 May 2008 at 18:55
Curses! I think Gore beat us to that one also; it’s titled Generation Investment Management…… a huge money laundering operation. 
Media Ignore Al Gore’s Financial Ties to Global Warming 
http://newsbusters.org/node/11149
manacker 
27 May 2008 at 21:05
Hi Peter, 
You asked me: “So how big would you say the UHIE distortion actually is? Taking the difference between the averages of the surface and satellite records, according to your figures gives 0.02C/decade. 
Multiply by 2.8 decades = 0.056 degC. 
So, according to your figures, the surface record overstates temperatures by 0.056 deg C. Is this what you are saying?” 
No, Peter, that is not what I am saying. 
There are many studies from all over the world, which show that the UHI effect is substantial (median value of 0.06 deg C per decade), not local and would reduce the temperature anomaly by 0.3 to 0.5 deg C. So, rather than second-guessing these studies, I would stick with what they show. 
I trust the official UAH record as it is now being reported, but have a bit more reservations about the RSS record from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. 
I have also read that temperature in the troposphere should be warming at a rate about 30% higher that at the surface (if warming is coming from the greenhouse effect), so this means that the satellites should be at 1.3 * (0.177 + 0.162) / 2 = 0.220C/decade. 
UAH only shows 0.136C/decade, and the average between UAH and RSS shows 0.155C/decade. 
So using the average satellite reading we are off by 0.220 – 0.155 = 0.065C/decade. 
This is pretty close to the figure which all the studies show. 
So I’d say that’s probably a better estimate than your figure. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
27 May 2008 at 22:53
"This is pretty close to the figure [0.65 deg C] which all the studies show" All which studies? As usual you have to be asked to give references. 
Maybe I shouldn't be too critical of you for that. I keep forgetting that you don't have any scientific background. But, if you have ever read a scientific paper, you may have noticed those little numbers in the text? At the bottom of the paper each little number shows a reference to support any statements made. 
It doesn't have to be little numbers of course, an inserted link is quite acceptable. 
So how many decades do we go back with this UHI distortion effect? Has it been the same for each decade? 
PS You're not an accountant are you? They are pretty good at arriving at producing whatever figure is required on the bottom line.
Brute 
27 May 2008 at 23:41
Robin, 
Is everything alright over there? Seems as if the voters aren’t going along with this “saving the planet from imminent doom” thing. 
Brown faces rebellion over 'green' road tax 
• MPs will urge chancellor to rethink two levies 
• Lorry drivers to stage go-slow protest in London 
• Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent 
• The Guardian, 
• Tuesday May 27 2008 
Gordon Brown is facing a fresh tax rebellion as Labour MPs demand the repeal of a £200 increase in vehicle excise duty on environmentally unfriendly cars purchased in the past seven years. 
As lorry drivers prepare to stage a slow-moving protest through London today against rising fuel duties, a ministerial aide broke ranks to brand the levy an unacceptable retrospective tax that would discredit green taxes. 
More than 30 Labour MPs have signed a Commons early day motion demanding repeal of the £200 increase in duty, due to be introduced next year. 
Rob Marris, parliamentary private secretary to the Northern Ireland secretary, Shaun Woodward, is to join a group of backbench MPs who will tell the chancellor, Alistair Darling, in a meeting next week to rethink the duty. 
Marris, Labour MP for Wolverhampton South West, told Radio 4's PM programme last night: "It will hit a vehicle which produces 180g of CO2 per km by a 50% increase. That is for a car which has already been in the fleet for up to seven years. In that sense it is retrospective taxation. That is undesirable. 
"Millions of people could be affected. Medium sized family cars, depending on what sort of engine and CO2 emissions they have got, could be hit very hard." 
He warned of a repeat of the rebellion over the abolition of the 10p tax rate which prompted Brown to sanction a £2.7bn tax giveaway. "Just as with the 10p proposals, it is something which is announced in one year's budget and is not to take effect until the following year's budget. So there is a long time for people to come to grips with the implications of this tax increase. 
"It is not about changing future behaviour because these cars already exist in the fleet. Therefore it is retrospective tax. I am in favour of prospective green taxes to change people's decisions when buying a new car. But taxing them heavily on a car which may have been bought seven years ago does not seem a good way to go and will discredit the concept of green taxes." 
Ronnie Campbell, the Labour MP who tabled the Commons motion attacking the increased levy, told Radio 4's The World at One: "It is unfair [on] people who bought their cars a few years ago not knowing that the government were going to put this road tax on. When people get their road tax letter through the door next year and find they have got an extra £200 to pay - well, I don't have to say any more, do I?" 
Campbell also called on the government to drop a planned 2p increase in fuel duty due in October. "I think people just at this moment can't afford it." 
Ministers are looking at postponing the two measures. But Robin Oakley, head of Greenpeace's climate team, said: "Rewarding drivers who choose more efficient vehicles makes sense. The cost of motoring now is lower than for years." 
Lorry drivers will stage a go-slow protest in London this morning to demand a rebate on fuel duties. Part of the eastbound A40 into London between White City and Edgware Road will be closed between 10am and 3pm to allow protesters to park their lorries. Hauliers say fuel for an average articulated lorry now costs £1,000 a week. 
Mike Presneill of Transaction 2007, who helped organise the protest, told the BBC: "Foreign hauliers are entering the UK with cheaper fuel purchased abroad. They contribute nothing to our economy. We are paying the highest rate of fuel duty in the UK. All we are asking for is that the government introduce an essential user rebate so that we can compete on a level playing field with continental hauliers."
Brute 
28 May 2008 at 01:20
Solar Activity and Climate 
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
manacker 
28 May 2008 at 04:38
Hi Peter, 
You asked for some references to studies showing a significant UHI effect. Here are some examples: 
(Beijing/Wuhan, China) 
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL027927.shtml 
“annual urban warming accounting for about 65-80% of the overall warming in 1961-2000 and about 40-61% of the overall warming in 1981-2000.” 
(Southeastern China) 
http://tinyurl.com/5fgnaj “Our estimated warming of mean surface temperature of 0.05°C per decade attributable to urbanization is much larger than previous estimates for other periods and locations.” 
(India) 
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=229978 
“Urban heat islands are areas significantly warmer, by 2 degrees Celsius to 6 degrees Celsius in summer, than their surrounding countryside.” 
(Southern India) 
http://www.hindu.com/2007/04/11/stories/2007041120840500.htm 
“On April 1, the temperature recorded on the centrally located Palace Road was 36 degrees Celsius, while the thermometer at the airport recorded 34.6 degrees Celsius. This is a classic example of the "urban heat island" effect, says G.S. Bhat, Professor, Centre of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. "Bangalore's green cover is being replaced by concrete structures that absorb solar radiation very rapidly." 
(USA) 
Two studies made for the USA show that between 0.4 and 0.5C of warming of the record can be attributed to the UHI effect: 
Kalnay, E. and Cai, M., 2003. Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate. Nature, 423:528-531 
Karl, T.R., Diaz, H.F. and Kukla, K., 1988. Urbanization: its detection and effect in the US climate record, Journal of Climate, 1: 1099-1123 
Some world-wide references provided by Douglas Hoyt on Roger Pielke’s site: 
Gonzalez et al find an urban heat island of as much as 3 C in San Juan, Puerto Rico and state “a recent climatological analysis of the surface temperature of the city has revealed that the local temperature has been increasing over the neighboring vegetated areas at a rate of 0.06 C per year for the past 30 years.” 
De Laat and Maurellis state “the ‘real’ global mean surface temperature trend is very likely to be considerably smaller than the temperature trend in the CRU data.” 
Oke finds urban heat islands of 2 to 2.5 C in towns with populations of 1000 people. 
Hinkel et al found that Pt. Barrow is 2.2 C warmer than the surrounding countryside in winter and its population is 4600 people. The formula for this town in winter would be 1.85*log(pop). It also corresponds to about 0.22 C/decade warming from 1900 to 2000. 
Streuker finds that “over the course of 12 years, between 1987 and 1999, the mean nighttime surface temperature heat island of Houston increased 0.82 ± 0.10 C”. 
Bottyan et al find that in Debrechen, Hungary, with a population of 220,000, has “the strongest developments of UHI occurring in the warmer and colder periods were 5.8 C and 4.9 C respectively.” 
Bohm finds in Vienna that suburban areas had an excess warming of 0.11 to 0.21 C compared to rural areas over 45 years or 0.025 C /decade to 0.047 C/decade. In the urban center there was no warming, but in areas with intensive urban development there was a 0.6 C warming or 0.13 C/decade. 
Looking at Shanghai, Chen et al a 1 C greater warming in the city compared to the countryside for 1977 to 1997 or 0.5 C/decade. They conclude “the main factor causing the intensity of the heat island in Shanghai is associated with the increasing energy consumption due to economic development.” 
Zhou et also looked at Chinese data and “estimated warming of mean surface temperature of 0.05 C per decade attributable to urbanization,” which they say “is much larger than previous estimates for other periods and locations, including the estimate of 0.027 C/decade for the continental U.S. (Kalnay and Cai, 2003).” They qualify it by saying the numbers apply to winter and China is rapidly developing. 
In Seoul, Korea, Chung et al find the change of annual mean daily mean temperature at Seoul was an increase of 0.55 C, or 0.275 C per decade (indicative of an urban-induced warming of 0.2 C per decade in addition to the regional background warming of 0.075 C per decade). 
In Mexico, Jáuregui finds the average trend for the seven large cities was 0.57 C/decade, while the average trend for the seven mid-sized cities was 0.37 C/decade, so large cities have at least a 0.2 C/decade spurious warming due to urban effects. 
Frauenfeld et al. report that over the period 1958-2000, “time series based on aggregating all station data on the Tibetan Plateau show a statistically significant positive trend of 0.16 C/decade,” as has also been reported by Liu and Chen (2000). However, they report that “no trends are evident in the ERA-40 data [i.e., the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) re-analysis] for the plateau as a whole.” Land use changes and urban heat islands seem to be causing a 0.16 C/decade warming here where the surface thermometers are placed. 
The above articles give 13 cases where the UHI warming per decade is reported. The numbers in increasing order are 0.00, 0.025, 0.027, 0.047, 0.050, 0.060, 0.13, 0.16, 0.20, 0.20, 0.22, 0.50, and 0.82. The mean value is 0.187 C/decade. The medium value is 0.13 C/decade. The two high values of 0.50 and 0.82 C/decade for Shanghai and Houston seem like outliers. Removing them gives a mean warming of 0.10 C/decade and a median value of 0.06 C/decade. 
Bottom line: Urban heat trends are significant and can contribute significantly to the reported global warming of 0.06 C/decade. In fact, it could very well explain all the warming. 
References: 
Bohm, R. 1998. Urban bias in temperature time series - A case study for the city of Vienna, Austria. Climatic Change, 38, 113-128. 
Bottyan, Z., Kircsi, A., Szeged, S. and Unger, J. 2005. The relationship between built-up areas and the spatial development of the mean maximum urban heat island in Debrecen, Hungary. International Journal of Climatology, 25, 405-418. 
Chen, L., Zhu, W., Zhou, X. and Zhou, Z. 2003. Characteristics of the heat island effect in Shanghai and its possible mechanism. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 20, 991-1001. 
Chung, U., Choi, J. and Yun, J.I. 2004. Urbanization effect on the observed change in mean monthly temperatures between 1951-1980 and 1971-2000. Climatic Change, 66, 127-136. 
De Laat, A.T.J. and Maurellis, A.N. 2004. Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends. Geophysical Research Letters, 31,1029. 
Frauenfeld, O.W., Zhang, T. and Serreze, M.C. 2005. Climate change and variability using European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts re-analysis (ERA-40) temperatures on the Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, 1029. 
Gonzalez, J.E., Luvall, J.C., Rickman, D., Comarazamy, D., Picon, A., Harmsen, E., Parsiani, H., Vasquez, R.E., Ramirez, N., Williams, R. and Waide, R.W. 2005. Urban heat islands developing in coastal tropical cities. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 86, 397, 403. 
Hinkel, K.M., Nelson, F.E., Klene, A.E. and Bell, J.H. 2003. The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska. International Journal of Climatology, 23, 1889-1905. 
Jáuregui, E. 2005. Possible impact of urbanization on the thermal climate of some large cities in Mexico. Atmosfera,18, 249-252. 
Liu, X. and Chen, B. 2000. Climatic warming in the Tibetan Plateau during recent decades. International Journal of Climatology, 20, 1729-1742. 
Oke, T.R. 1973. City size and the urban heat island. Atmospheric Environment, 7, 769-779. 
Streutker, D.R. 2003. Satellite-measured growth of the urban heat island of Houston, Texas. Remote Sensing of Environment, 85, 282-289. 
Zhou, L., Dickinson, R.E., Tian, Y., Fang, J., Li, Q., Kaufmann, R.K., Tucker, C.J. and Myneni, R.B. 2004. Evidence for a significant urbanization effect on climate in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 9540-9544. 
For a good summary on how the UHI effect works see: 
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/URBAN_HEAT_ISLAND.pdf 
(Northern California, USA) 
Anthony Watts cites the example of two mearby stations near Sacramento, CA, with photographs of the stations. A comparison of the official NASA GISS temperature records of the two stations over the 70-year period 1937-2006 shows that the improperly positioned station at Marysville (AC exhaust, paved area, buildings nearby) shows a spurious linear increase in temperature of around 0.20 deg C per decade higher than the well-positioned station at Orland (1.4 deg C over the 70-year period), confirming a significant “urban heat island” (UHI) distortion. 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py... 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py... 
The graph showing this UHI distortion can be seen on: 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/2488845702_5a65c41ec0_o.... 
Around two-thirds of the weather stations, mostly in remote and rural locations in northern latitudes and many in the former Soviet Union, were shut down between 1975 and 1995, with over 60% of these shut down in the 4-year period 1990-1993. This coincides exactly with a sharp increase in the calculated global mean temperature (particularly in the Northern Hemisphere), giving additional credence for a significant UHI distortion of the surface temperature record. There is good reason to believe that, prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, these remote Siberian locations systematically reported lower than actual temperatures, in order to qualify for added subsidies from the central government, which were tied to low temperatures, so as this distorted record was removed, it resulted in a spurious warming trend. For a graph showing this correlation see: 
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html 
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/intellicast.essay.... 
(Winnipeg, Canada) Average low temperature recorded in the center of the city due to the urban heat island was 2.7°C warmer and the average high temperature was 1.6 degrees warmer than that recorded at the more isolated and exposed Winnipeg airport location. 
http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=1884 
A 2006 study on land use/land cover change effects on temperature trends at rural U.S. weather stations showed that there was no significant temperature trend prior to the period of greatest land use changes; “in contrast, after the period of greatest LULC change was observed, 95% of the stations that exhibited significant trends (minimum, maximum, or mean temperature) displayed warming trends”. 
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026358.shtml 
All of these studies from all over the world show a significant UHI effect by direct comparison of stations. 
Face it, Peter, the evidence for a significant UHI effect is overwhelming. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
28 May 2008 at 06:32
Max, 
What a long posting! To save me trudging through it all, maybe can you tell me which are the scientifically peer-reviewed papers which support the theory of distortion to the surface record? We know that the UHIE effect exists - its the way its handled in the surface record that is at issue. 
Correct me if I am wrong but the theory often put forward by you guys is that the increased temperature which appears in the graphs since 1975 is largely not real but is a a distortion caused by the UHIE being inadequately calibrated out. 
You are really priceless! You give me a long list of reasons why we must abandon the surface record and how much better the satellite record is, which incidentally, started off at around the same time as temperatures started to increase due to CO2 emissions (or the UHIE , depending on your point of view) 
You also gave me a whole load of figures, you rejected most of mine, but I didn't quibble. And yet the best you are able to show using YOUR figures is that the surface record overtstates the true temperature by 0.056degC. 
But then you say, yes but, yes but, yes but ..... I've got all these dodgy references to show its bigger than that. 
It's just a pathetically blinkered non-argument. 
Peter
Brute 
28 May 2008 at 11:12
I may have to rethink my Eco-Tours strategy. I've decided to offer a "repositioning cruise" to San Juan. 
Cold Irony: Arctic Sea Ice Traps Climate Tour Icebreaker 
27 
05 
2008 
Stuck in the arctic ice that doesn’t exist. (file photo) 
Last year as arctic sea ice melted to record levels, panic set in for many. But then, as the sea ice rebounded and froze again quickly in the 2007/2008 winter, making up for that record loss and reaching heights not seen for several years, many exclaimed that even though the ice areal extent had recovered, this new ice was “thin” and would likely melt again quickly. There were also many news stories about how the Northwest Passage was ice free for the first time “ever”. For example, Backpacker Magazine ran a story saying “The ice is so low that the photos clearly show a viable northwest passage sea route along the coasts of Greenland, Canada, and Alaska.” 
Cashing in on the panic that has set in with the help of some climate alarmists, tour operators like Quark Expeditions of Norwalk Connecticut are offering polar expeditions catering to that “see it before it’s gone” travel worry. One of them is in fact a trip though the Northwest Passage on a former Soviet Icebreaker called the Kapitan Khlebnikov which is a massive 24,000 horsepower Polar Class icebreaker capable of carrying 108 passengers in relative luxury through the arctic wilderness. Here is some background on this icebreaker: 
Kapitan Khlebnikov - The Kapitan Khlebnikov was built in Finland in 1981 and is one of three vessels of this class. Not simply an ice-reinforced ship, the Kapitan Khlebnikov is a powerful polar class icebreaker, which has sailed to extremely remote corners of the globe with adventurous travelers since 1992. It was the first ship ever to circumnavigate Antarctica with passengers in 1996-97. See more on this vessel at Wikipedia 
According to Quark Expeditions, they’ve even fitted this icebreaker with a heated indoor swimming pool, exercise room and sauna, and a theater-style auditorium for “Expedition Team presentations” ( presumably so you can watch Gore’s AIT polar bear tears while in situ ). It is quite a difference from the travel conditions that Robert Peary experienced just 99 years ago when he reached the North Pole. 
One of my alert readers, Walt from Canada, pointed out this story in the Globe and Mail on may 24th in the travel section. It seems the irony of a polar expedition to see such things as record sea ice loss being stopped cold by the very ice that doesn’t exist was not lost on the editors. 
From the Globe and Mail article: 
I am on the bridge of the massive Russian icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov, and the tension is palpable. We have hit ice - thick ice. 
The ice master studies the mountains of white packed around the ship while the 24,000-horsepower diesel engines work at full throttle to open a path. The ship rises slowly onto the barrier of ice, crushes it and tosses aside blocks the size of small cars as if they were ice cubes in a glass. It creeps ahead a few metres, then comes to a halt, its bow firmly wedged in the ice. After doing this for two days, the ship can go no farther. 
The ice master confers with the captain, who makes a call to the engine room. The engines are shut down. He turns to those of us watching the drama unfold, and we are shocked by his words: “Now, only nature can help this ship.” We are doomed to drift. 
What irony. I am a passenger on one of the most powerful icebreakers in the world, travelling through the Northwest Passage - which is supposed to become almost ice-free in a time of global warming, the next shipping route across the top of the world - and here we are, stuck in the ice, engines shut down, bridge deserted. Only time and tide can free us. 
What irony indeed. 
They eventually had nature on their side, and on the seventh day of being trapped in the ice, winds and tide moved the ice pack enough that they could continue. But, I have to wonder, will the pampered eco-tourists on this trip see the irony that we do?
Robin Guenier 
28 May 2008 at 12:27
Brute: you asked if things were alright here in the UK. Well, there’s been no change of opinion – although the media and most politicians pay lip service to AGW, polls have consistently shown that most people either don’t care or think it’s a hoax. And few of those who consider it important put it high on their priority list. Therefore, now people are coming under increasing economic pressure and are having to make choices, it’s no surprise that “green” issues get little priority and that politicians are having to take notice.
Robin Guenier 
28 May 2008 at 12:44
Further to my last post, see: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2...
Black Wallaby 
28 May 2008 at 14:02
Hey Brute, 
Thanks for your advice on where to find Bensen and Goballs, but im put-off because that is Joseph Romm's blog, I do believe. I can debate him on Gristmill where he regularly appears with less risk of being blocked or edited out. 
Although.... I don't know if you noticed, but two of my posts were chopped from Alas Alaska. I re-posted that photo of the shot Grolar bear (hybrid) for the benefit of one of the greenie loonies there, Canis Candida, or Robco1, I'm not sure now. A Lady (Beth?) responded with horror, and I gently explained that I did not know why the bear was shot, but that it was evidence of grizzly-polar hybridization, and genetic diversification etc. However, someone on site decided to remove not only my two posts but also hers. I don't understand why because some of my other posts might be described as written by a real Brute! 
BTW Brute, I enjoy your stuff including ECO-Tours
Brute 
28 May 2008 at 14:27
Wallaby, 
It really is enjoyable to tease these nuts. Until recently, I didn't engage in this "commenting" thing. It is very interesting for me to read opinions and comments from every corner of the globe. I didn't realize that the censorship aspect of some of these sites was so pervasive. This site at least lets everyone have a say, (as long as it isn't vulgar), which is how it should be. I suppose it really is the “new media”. 
Robin, 
Insightful article. It's much the same here. Environmentalist Charlatans drone on and on about the poor, pitiful polar bear or how the imminent threat posed by consumerism will cause irrevocable consequences, etc, etc……but do little or nothing to arrest the perceived problem. At my firm we can’t even get employees to recycle, (which amounts to placing the correct trash into the correct bins), how difficult is that? They simply don’t feel that it’s important….actions speak louder than words. 
Meanwhile, politicians use this hoax as an excuse to levy taxes and divert the money to special interest groups having nothing to do with the subject of the tax increase. A merry go round of incompetence, hyperbole and fraud. 
This to shall pass; this is another fad that will simply fade away as have others. The important thing is to curtail the damage caused by the environmental cults until public interest fades away. I joke and post sarcastic comments as an outlet to my frustration and impatience with nonsense....I don't suffer fools gladly. The ultimate goal of these fanatics is to alter society subliminally into a form that they approve of….very dangerous if a person researches what they are really about politically. Fortunately, public opinion has turned away and rejected this fanaticism when they realized what it is doing to their livelihoods and their future economic security. Common sense is prevailing.
Peter Martin 
28 May 2008 at 15:08
Brute, 
I guess one of the things we might agree on, is the superiority of Republicanism over the more Royalist, Monarchistic and class-based political culture which is prevalent in the UK. And yet we are both seem to be incapable of totally ignoring what goes on there, and, in a perverse sort of way, maybe we still do look to them for endorsement of our viewpoints. 
I must say that I feel a little uneasy aligning myself with Margaret Thatcher but I do have to admit that her warnings in the 1980's that the mankind cannot rely indefinitely on the burning of fossil fuels, has turned out to be absolutely correct. 
Similarly, Sir David King,as the UK government's Chief advisor, has made a telling point in saying that " Climate change is a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism" 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3381425.stm
Robin Guenier 
28 May 2008 at 16:13
B Wallaby: In a post this morning on the Joe Romm blog, I noted that “Manacker [Max] has seemingly given up because of the childish, high-handed and offensive behaviour of Joe, the site editor”, adding that “If the [AGW] hypothesis is valid and if it’s true that mankind is doomed if CO2 emissions are not radically reduced, Joe and people like him are doing a vital cause a grossly irresponsible disservice.” The post was edited out. I wonder why. 
Peter: David King’s specialty is physical chemistry, so perhaps his pronouncements on climate change do not have the authority you might imagine.
Robin Guenier 
28 May 2008 at 18:20
Interesting - Romm kindly allowed my post after I had expurgated it. In his comment, he accused Max of "repeating over and over and over and over again nonsense like “warming stopped in 1998″, saying that he "would have taken him more seriously" had he not pulled out "one study that seems to support what [he is] saying while ignoringhundreds that refute it." Nonetheless, "informed debate is welcomed by everyone here". So much for an ignoramus like Max!
bobclive 
28 May 2008 at 19:33
Warm winds comfort climate change models: study 
Climate scientists Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood from Yale Universitry have used a new technique to show temperatures changes in the upper troposphere (7.5-10 miles up) since 1970 are clearly in sync with most of the climate change models in showing a general warming of 0.65 degrees celsius per decade. Over the past two decades, temperature data directly gathered by satellites and balloons had showed little or no increase in upper troposheric temperature during that period, but researchers suspected these discontinuities with the model projections were due to unknown changes in instrumentation and data processing. 
First the satellite temps were massaged to match the doggy ground temps now we have a study that attempts to massage the ballon/satellite data to match the climate models, will these zealots never stop. 
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gZWxTxZyCvRSo4uPvh6LDgaM...
bobclive 
28 May 2008 at 19:43
I found this, it sums up this study. 
So, if I understand this correctly, we should infer temperature from balloon wind information because we can't measure temperature correctly, nor can we process data correctly. If NOAA/NASA can't make the most basic measurements correctly, why should we trust them to report or predict climate change? A proxy using wind to infer temperature is more accurate than direct temperature measurements due to "unknown changes in instrumentation and data processing"? Can these guys keep a straight face while saying this? If a wind proxy to represent temperature is more accurate than NASA satellite measurements, or balloon temperature measurements, why are we spending the money? De-orbit all the satellites, the wind and the computer models will tell us all we need to know. To paraphrase, "data are like people; torture them long enough and they will tell you anything you want". 
Posted by AZ Bob | May 27, 2008 9:06 AM
manacker 
28 May 2008 at 21:06
Hi Peter, 
Some facts: 
The satellite record shows slower warming in the troposphere than the surface record shows at the surface. 
Greenhouse theory says the troposphere should warm at a rate around 30% higher than the surface, if (as you assume) the warming is coming from GHGs. 
Three possible explanations for this dilemma. 
1. The satellite record is too low due to some unexplained distortions 
2. The surface record is too high, due to UHIE distortion. 
3. The surface record is too high, due to on some unexplained distortions 
4. The warming is not coming from the greenhouse effect. 
Rather than waffling around with: 
"But then you say, yes but, yes but, yes but ..... I've got all these dodgy references to show its bigger than that. It's just a pathetically blinkered non-argument." 
Pick the alternate above that you feel best explains this dilemma. 
I have given you links to many studies from all over the world that conclude that the surface record is distorted by the UHIE to the tune of around 0.06C/decade. 
This is very compelling evidence coming from many sites all over the world, so I say that "explanation 2" above is most likely. 
And you come with hypothetical calculations and silly talk of "pathetically blinkered non-arguments". 
Sorry, Peter, that's not good enough. 
UHIE is real and it is significant, accounting maybe for 1/3 to 1/2 of the "warming" observed at the surface. 
Regards, 
Max
Peter Martin 
28 May 2008 at 23:09
"Hypothetical Calculations?" Please define. As I keep having to say, all the data was supplied by your good self so I have no reason to doubt its accuracy ! 
And, with it, I have been able to show that UHIE distortion to the surface record , if it exists at all, is very small, and also that your calculation ( was that hypothetical too ?) of 0.7 deg C for the climate sensitivity of CO2 needs to be multiplied by a factor of between 3.5 and 4 due to positive feedback effects in the atmosphere. 
So, what were you hoping to show with the data? It's your turn now , lets see you do some calculations using it. Even if they are hypothetical. 
But maybe not. It's a good idea if you really want to find out what is going on , but as you've found out , scientific data, and scientific equations and formulae can show the opposite case from the one you have been arguing. That is why there is not a single scientific institute in the world that supports the line you are peddling. 
You'd be much better off sticking to arguments along the lines of 'the Vikings grew grapes in Greenland during the MWP, so what's the problem now?'
David B. Benson 
29 May 2008 at 00:03
Rob Guenier suggested that I start commenting here. Since it seems that poster manacker is peddling his stuff here, it looks as if I might be able to help out. 
To begin, take climate sensitivity to a doubleing of CO2 to be about 3 K. About 60% of that is an immediate (less than five years) effect, the rest very long term due to the warming of the oceans, etc.
Brute 
29 May 2008 at 01:15
Robin, 
“Slight” problem with development plans for the ECO-Land Theme Park. It seems that Al Gore was not completely forthright about this global warming thing. Northern Siberia is actually still a frozen desolate wasteland. (I should’ve suspected something when the guy who owned the property started chuckling as I wrote the check and he handed over the deed). 
Unfortunately, this has created a slight “hitch” in my Grand Opening previously scheduled for February 2009. It seems that the water park with water slide will now have to be completely reconfigured into a Luge run and ice skating rink. 
The tropical animals that I had airlifted from the Brazilian rainforest for the Jungle Animal Exhibit have all frozen to the pines. 
My first group of visitors/investors are complaining of hypothermia and frostbite; however, our Inuit hosts built a makeshift snow cave and re-ran Inconvenient Truth on a continuous loop…..now they are complaining of boredom. 
More later………….
manacker 
29 May 2008 at 01:16
Hi David, 
Nice to see you “peddling your stuff” (as you put it) on this site. 
As far as the “climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3K”, there is a bit of controversy on this number. 
The greenhouse theory according to Arrhenius + Stefan-Boltzmann, with RF for CO2 as estimated by Myre et al (IPCC), tell us that the “climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2” is 0.68K (without any feedbacks). 
So to get to 3K you have to assume (or program in) unproven “positive feedbacks” from water (vapor, liquid droplets in low altitude clouds, ice crystals in high altitude clouds), which multiply the warming from CO2 by 4.4. 
Now we all know how to spell ASS-U-ME. 
Looks like scientists are finding that these assumed positive feedbacks are not observed out there in real life. 
The latest IPCC SPM 2007 report did concede (p.12), “Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”. 
Fortunately, a recent study published in Geophysical Research Letters in August 2007 (after the last IPCC report came out) has shed some light on this “source of uncertainty”, and the news is good. 
What had been assumed to be a “positive feedback” (warming) from an increase in heat trapping high altitude clouds resulting from warmer temperature turns out just the opposite. Low altitude clouds (which reflect incoming radiation and thereby contribute to cooling) are increased with warmer temperatures, while the high altitude clouds (which absorb outgoing heat and thereby contribute to warming) are reduced. Overall, this results in a significant “negative feedback”, rather than the previously assumed “positive feedback” 
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf 
This observed phenomenon validates the “infrared iris” theory of Richard Lindzen, which postulates that such a “negative feedback” would act as a natural thermostat to slow down warming. 
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/82/3/pdf/i1520-0... 
The magnitude of this observed feedback could be very significant, resulting in a reduction of the warming by over 75%, according to the authors of the study. 
This would, in effect, cancel out almost all of the assumed 4.4 to 1 multiplier that has previously been programmed into the computer models, and put the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 back to the level without the assumed positive feedbacks or around 0.7K. 
Just to help clear things up a bit. 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
29 May 2008 at 01:20
Postscipt: 
Robin, 
Don't worry, your money is safe.....this is a SOUND investment. Things will turn around....Al Gore said that we'll be raking in the dough as the planet heats up and the tundra melts. One of the monkeys is starting to thaw….gotta go………
manacker 
29 May 2008 at 02:15
Good news on the theme park, Brute. 
I think you could get maximum environmental awareness out of the park with a "before/after" theme, demonstrating the disastrous consequences from which (an overwhelming consensus of scientists predict) we are certain to suffer due to anthropogenic global warming. 
The "before disastrous AGW" exhibit would show the refreshing Arctic briskness in an ecologically friendly natural outdoor environment. You can haul in a couple of truckloads of polar bears from the US Arctic, where they are now a protected "endangered species" under US Law. 
The Siberian Inuit park attendants won't mind either; they will continue to live in natural symbiosis with one of their principal sources of high-quality protein, since the bears lose the protection of their "endangered" status when they leave the USA. 
And to keep the cuddly, fuzzy carnivores from gobbling up too many theme park visitors, you can always haul in some seals, or better yet, some penguins from down south. Should be fun for one and all. 
The tropical part of the exhibit with rain-forest denizens would demonstrate the oppressive tropical heat from which we can all expect to suffer "after disastrous AGW" has reaped havoc on our planet. 
This part could be housed in a solar- and wind-powered eco-friendly mammoth "Superdome" structure. 
Heck, if Dubai can have an indoor ski resort complete with half-scale copy-Matterhorn when it's 45C outdoors, you ought to be able to have a rain forest when it's -45C outdoors, right? Attendants for this section of the park could be Yanomamo Indians, recuited from the Amazon rain-forest. 
And in the visitors' center we can have a few climate scientists giving Powerpoint slideshows, next to the souvenier stand, where we sell the informational booklets ( including a 2-page synopsis of the 1000+ page IPCC report) plus stuffed polar bears, penguins and dusky titis and red-handed howler monkeys (from the Amazon). 
Just some thoughts for your project. Count me in! 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
29 May 2008 at 02:16
manacker --- Turns out it is posssible to use paleoclimate data to estimate climate sensitivity. Doesn't depne in the slightest, not the least bit on computerized climate programs, just some (quite obvious) so-called zero-dimensional models. You know, the kind you repeatedly bring up, Arrhenius+Stefan. 
Guess what? The climate sensitivity is almost surely greater than 1.5 K, possibly as high as 5.5 K. So there are certainly some postive feedbacks. 
There are two obvious ones: (1) water vapor provides an immediate positive feedback; (2) warming the oceans provides a very slow positive feedback. 
Clouds, etc., are certainly tertiary effects. 
Now Annan & Hargraves, in a recent, quite elegant paper have shown that from observations together with priors set by the physics (no computer programs involved) that climate sensentivity is very unlikely to be less than 1.6 K nor greater than 5 K. 
This justifies the IPCC range of 2--4.5 K for climate sensitivity. 
As much as you might like it to be otherwise, the climatologists have actually worked it all out. 
P.S. You might care to go read my offerings for today at our previous 'debating' location. If you care to comment on those, kindly do so here.
Peter Martin 
29 May 2008 at 02:40
Max, 
You are wrong to say that feedback levels are just assumed. We know how much increase in temperature we are experiencing due to extra CO2 concentrations. We know how much CO2 concentrations have increased since pre-industrial times. We know that your assumptions of no or negative feedback don't fit either the ground or satellite record over the last 30 years. 
What does fit is a mutiplier value of approx 4 applied to your 0.68 calculated value. If anything this will turn out to be an underestimation, because as David correctly says, the effects of AGW are not everywhere immediate. The oceans delay, but do not prevent warming, so even if CO2 levels were stabilised at current levels there is still more warming in the pipeline. 
It's curious that the Arctic and parts of Siberia have had levels of warming which are much higher that the rest of the world. If it is the case that this warming is also due to happen to the rest of the world, it is just delayed by the thermal inertia of the oceans, then the prospects aren't looking too good.
Brute 
29 May 2008 at 02:43
ECO-Land Update: 
Max/Robin, 
More great ideas Max! It’s ALL about MARKETING………… 
Another “minor” issue…..The bonfires that we built beneath the pine trees to dislodge the monkeys quickly spread to the surrounding forest and caused quite an incident here with the locals. As the primates thawed they began to rain down on their would-be caretakers and caused some “slight” head injuries. The next trip I’ll have to remember to bring hardhats. 
The elephants seem to be getting along nicely. I had no idea they were such sedentary animals. They have stood exactly in the same place, motionless, knee deep in the ice for the last three days. If I recall, the elephants that I’ve viewed in the local zoos back home moved around quite a bit more…..this must be a different breed. Don’t worry, we can recoup the money that we’ll have to turn over to the local fire department to extinguish the forest fire through our savings in elephant feed. I was told by the man that I bought them from in Tanzania that they ate upwards of 250 pounds of feed a day….boy was he wrong! These elephants haven’t eaten a thing for the last three days……they just stand there, motionless. If this keeps up with the elephants we won’t have to build the paddock and pocket the savings. The local polar bears are beginning to look at the elephants with increased curiosity….Gore assured me that they were gone…...shouldn’t be a problem though…. 
Chin up! The mercury climbed to -45 today……I know that global warming is going to kick in any day now…….I have absolute confidence in the IPCC and Gore’s predictions. 
Don’t worry…….you guys have made the investment of a lifetime. Sun and fun at ECO-Land!….. (I’m having trouble locating the beach….there’s all of this damn ice in the way….. Covers everything for miles and miles…..) Any day now this thing is gonna turn! Don’t forget to pack your sunglasses, swim trunks and suntan lotion!
Brute 
29 May 2008 at 03:20
Max, 
By the way, you post your comments at odd times. Aren't you in Switzerland, Austria or somewhere? Isn't it the middle of the night? (that's how I got my post by Romm). 10 PM here............
Black Wallaby 
29 May 2008 at 12:09
Hey Brute, 
Is it too late to buy-into your ECO-land? 
Bugger, I always miss the opportunities! Like back about 1985, I had an opportunity to buy a large vacant block of land next to my house at $36,000, but I thought it was too dear, because I only paid $25,000 for mine at twice the size in 1980. I won't tell you the estimated value it would have now, because you would think I'm exagerrating. 
Life is full of: "if only I had...." 
On the other hand, if your ECO-land is fully subscribed, I notice that Gristmill were recently advertising "welcome to warm Antarctica". Might there be an opportunity there?
Black Wallaby 
29 May 2008 at 12:20
Hi Robin, 
I understand from reliable intellegince that Joseph Romm makes a living from being an AGW alarmist. 
That is to say, he earns a profit from his website and from other payments. His methods may not be entirely truthful as were the methods adopted by the Heads of State of the invaders of Iraq 
My sources are confidential
Robin Guenier 
29 May 2008 at 13:35
Black W: well, I criticise him for many things, but making a profit is not one of them. Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work? Check with Brute.
Brute 
29 May 2008 at 14:25
ECO-Land Update: 
ECO-Land is no more. The conditions prophesized by Al Gore and the IPCC were incorrect.....but the Arctic would have frozen if the Sun and the Pacific Decadal Oscillations wouldn’t have conspired against us…..just didn’t cooperate. The non-existent polar bears ate the elephants and the monkeys froze to death in the heat. 
Well Robin/Max your money is now gone, but you’ve learned a valuable lesson haven’t you? You’ve raised awareness regarding the plight of the environment; don’t you feel good about that? So the non-refundable money that you invested went to a good “cause”. 
Now…..even though the money you invested is gone, I seem to have retained a small portion. I’ll be relocating ECO-Investment headquarters to the newly acquired headquarters, (and personal residence) in the south of France aboard my private jet and working on my next book. You guys keep riding those bicycles and remember……. IT’S FOR THE PLANET.
Brute 
29 May 2008 at 14:27
Robin, 
Your most recent post; I was going to ask you about that.....you're a smart fellow.....I don't rember seeing any advertising on that site, do you? I'll have to go back and check.
Brute 
29 May 2008 at 17:01
Seems as if the commitment to “saving the planet” isn’t that stalwart after all……. 
-Fruitcake 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/trouble-in-t... 
Trouble in the UK - A Green Tax Rebellion is Afoot 
28 05 2008 
The new tipping point: UK motorists rebel against additional taxes by shutting down highways. 
After hundreds of angry drivers shut down highways in England Tuesday in protest against green automobile taxes, and drivers and fishermen in France and Spain paralyzed their ports and roads in a fuel-tax protest, politicians began to signal Europe’s ambitious emission-control policies may soon have to be abandoned. While Europe has led the way in using tax incentives to encourage people to buy low-emission cars and to build carbon-neutral houses in order to meet Kyoto targets, it has become increasingly apparent that inflation-battered voters are no longer willing to go along. Political leaders in Britain and France are seeking the reversal of tax policies designed to make polluting vehicles more expensive, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and some British ministers calling on their own governments and the European Union to relax ecologically friendly taxes in order to give relief to citizens suffering from fast-rising food and fuel prices. 
–Doug Saunders, Globe and Mail, 28 May 2008 
The fuel protests hammer home a clear message. After the 10p tax rebellion, the local elections, and the Crewe by-election, no one can doubt the mood of the country any more. There is insurrection in the air. The British people are ready for change and they don’t believe Labour can deliver it. 
–Nick Clegg, The Daily Telegraph, 28 May 2008 
Gordon Brown has been urged to stand firm against calls to abandon green tax rises on fuel as environmentalists warned that scrapping the proposals would risk undermining Britain’s drive towards a low carbon future and send the wrong message about the Government’s commitment to tackling greenhouse gas emissions. Amid fears that the gloomy financial outlook could sap the political will needed to combat climate change, Charlie Kronick, senior climate adviser at Greenpeace, said: “When they are willing to spend millions of pounds shoring up their vote in a by-election they can do this as well. How serious can they be about using the tax system to try to affect environmental outcomes when, if they are under political pressure, it is the first thing that goes?” 
–Ben Russell, The Independent, 28 May 2008 
Drivers should not be “hammered” by the Government, Cabinet Minister John Hutton declared yesterday in a clear sign of a road tax climbdown. The Business Secretary spoke out as senior Labour sources admitted planned increases of up to £245 a year that could hit millions of family car drivers were a “mistake”. 
–Bob Roberts, The Mirror, 28 May 2008 
Huge rises in road and petrol taxes for millions of motorists could be scrapped after two Cabinet ministers hinted at another U-turn in government policy. 
After warnings from MPs that the party was alienating ordinary voters, Jack Straw and John Hutton suggested that the Pre-Budget report in the autumn would contain changes to plans set out by the Chancellor in March. But, in a further sign of government confusion, Downing Street and the Treasury insisted that no plans were being considered to revise the vehicle excise duty changes announced in the Budget. 
–Philip Webster, The Times, 28 May 2008
Robin Guenier 
29 May 2008 at 18:32
Wow - some great news: 
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/05/an-inconvenie...
manacker 
29 May 2008 at 18:36
Hi Rob, 
I’m through messing around on JR’s site. It is just too silly to try to carry on an exchange with an educated person like David Benson if JR censors out any comment he does not personally endorse. 
A good example is the currently observed lack of global warming, any mention of which is immediately deleted from his site as “lies”. 
JR has stuck his head firmly in the sand regarding this latest temperature “plateau” (i.e. no warming since 1998 or 2001, whichever you prefer), even though Dr. Pachauri of IPCC has acknowledged it, said he would look into the reasons for it and commented he hoped people would not think global warming is ”hogwash” because of it. 
I downloaded the Hadley monthly data and plotted the attached graphs. 
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2364/2534446586_9920c10872_o.... 
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that the observed “global” temperature as recorded by Hadley has not been warming for the past decade or so, and has actually been cooling slightly since the beginning of the 21st century. 
To say this is not true is simply denying the physically observed facts. 
Whether or not this trend will continue or reverse itself is a matter of conjecture. 
Hadley scientists (who are strong supporters of the alarming AGW postulation), think it will reverse itself after 2009, as greenhouse warming again takes over from a temporary La Nina period. 
Many solar scientists believe this could be the beginning of a longer cooling trend driven by (among other things) a solar cycle 24 with very low activity and a cooling PDO cycle. 
Who knows? 
Unfortunately there are a few avid AGW supporters (like JR) who claim the mantle of scientific objectivity, yet deny that the current temperature plateau exists because it is “inconvenient” or because the AGW dogma says it should not exist. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
29 May 2008 at 18:42
Hi Brute, 
Yes, I live in Switzerland but am currently in the USA. 
Max
manacker 
29 May 2008 at 19:36
Hi Peter, 
You stated, “You are wrong to say that feedback levels are just assumed. We know how much increase in temperature we are experiencing due to extra CO2 concentrations. We know how much CO2 concentrations have increased since pre-industrial times. We know that your assumptions of no or negative feedback don’t fit either the ground or satellite record over the last 30 years.” 
Let’s analyze your statement more closely: 
1. “You are wrong to say that feedback levels are just assumed.” 
Please provide scientific evidence based on physical observations, which clearly demonstrate that the assumed feedback levels are correct. 
I have given you a link to a study, which provides physical evidence that clearly demonstrates that the cloud feedback is negative, rather than positive. 
2. “We know how much increase in temperature we are experiencing due to extra CO2 concentrations.” 
Incorrect. 
If you reword your sentence as follows it would be correct: “We know how much increase in temperature we are experiencing. We also know how much increase in CO2 concentrations we are experiencing.” 
3. “We know how much CO2 concentrations have increased since pre-industrial times.” 
A minor correction to your essentially correct statement: We know how much CO2 concentrations have increased at Mauna Loa since 1958. and we have some data based on reconstructions that give us an idea of CO2 concentrations prior to 1958 and, based on these, we can estimate CO2 levels of pre-industrial times, which we will define as 1750. 
4. “We know that your assumptions of no or negative feedback don’t fit either the ground or satellite record over the last 30 years.” 
This is essentially a rewording of the IPCC argument in AR4 that “our models cannot explain the global warming since 1976 without including anthropogenic warming effects from CO2 (plus feedbacks)”. 
It is true that, out of the 150+ year Hadley temperature record the 20+ year period from 1976 to around 1998 “fits” the AGW theory with positive feedbacks. 
It is also true that the ensuing 10-year period 1998-2008 does not fit (record increase in CO2, no increase in temperature). 
It is also true that the preceding period 1944-1976 does not fit (significant increase in CO2 with slight cooling). IPCC suggestions that this was caused by “global dimming” due to aerosols are postulations, which are not based on physical evidence. 
It is also true that the preceding period 1910-1944 does not fit (minor increase in CO2 with significant warming). IPCC acknowledges that there are “uncertainties” concerning the causes for this warming. 
The same can be said for a warming period during the late 19th century, when there was essentially no increase in CO2. 
So the CO2 (with 4X feedbacks)/temperature causality argument is weak. It only fits for a relatively small portion of the record. 
All in all, the physical evidence speaks against the assumed 4+ times increase in climate sensitivity of doubling CO2 due to positive feedbacks. 
Until these can be demonstrated by physical evidence (as has been done for the negative feedback from clouds), they should be dismissed. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
29 May 2008 at 20:08
Hi David, 
You wrote: “This justifies the IPCC range of 2-4.5 K for climate sensitivity. As much as you might like it to be otherwise, the climatologists have actually worked it all out.” 
I’ll bet they have. 
It’s just nature that’s not following their model projections. 
How inconvenient that clouds have been shown by physical observations to cause a major negative feedback rather than the positive feedback that “climatologists worked out” and IPCC models programmed in. 
And this negative feedback will wipe out around 75% of the projected warming coming out of the climate models. 
Drat! 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
29 May 2008 at 20:10
manacker --- You still are in serious denial of physics. 
First of all, a presumed negative feedback from clouds must be very small, for: the Holocene is termination 1, the Eem/Sangamon is termination 2. Terminations 2, 3, 4 were warmer that termination 1, from the Vostok ice core record, termination 4 very much so. So 'cloud feedback' did not prevent substantially higher temperatures than at present. 
Second, John Tyndall demonstrated the global warming (so-called greenhouse) effect of water vapor already in the 1850s. The experiments are simple enough you can do them on your kitchen table. Indeed, you could probably learn more about the postive feedback due to water vapor from Ray Pierrehumbert: 
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.htm... 
I have it on good authority (Gavin Schmidt) that CO2 is about 20% and water vapor about 50%. So for a doubling of CO2 we obtain 
direct: 0.7 K 
water vapor feedback: (50/20)(0.7) = 1.75 K 
total fast response: 1.75 ~ 1.8 K 
That's about 60% of the total climate sensitivity of 3 K obtained by paleoclimate physical evidence (which you obviously have not bothered to try to read). 
The right scale to fit is the last 100 to 140 years. That fits well. Over on JR's page I left a link to a page indicating errors in the temperature record from 1939 CE to 1945 CE. You really ought to read it. 
Indeed, there is much you ought to read if you intend to follow the scientific method instead of just continually repeating the same partially-digested refrain.
David B. Benson 
29 May 2008 at 20:33
Global top 10 warmest years 
Year Difference from average (°C) 
1998 +0.52 
2005 +0.48 
2003 +0.46 
2002 +0.46 
2004 +0.43 
2006 +0.42 
2007 (Jan-Nov) +0.41 
2001 +0.40 
1997 +0.36 
1995 +0.28 
from 
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/the-strange-case-of-dr...#comment-13315
manacker 
29 May 2008 at 20:50
Hi Brute, 
Sad news about the ECO-land project. 
At least I know that the money I invested has gone to support a worthy cause, i.e. saving our planet. 
Makes me feel warm and cozy all over (or is that "warm feeling" due to AGW?). 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
29 May 2008 at 21:00
Hi David, 
Thanks for interesting info on temperatures. 
This is very informative, but even more pertinent (as IPCC advises us) is the trend. 
This is currently flat to slightly cooling, despite record CO2 emissions. 
Just to help fill in the picture a bit. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
29 May 2008 at 21:08
Hi David, 
“Indeed, there is much you ought to read if you intend to follow the scientific method instead of just continually repeating the same partially-digested refrain.” 
Now David, you are beginning to sound a bit testy and losing your otherwise impeccable manners. 
Did you read the Spencer study on clouds for which I posted the link? 
You know, the one that validated Richard Lindzen’s “infrared iris” hypothesis based on actual observations? 
Interesting, no? 
Why no comments on this? 
Is Gavin Schmidt more knowledgeable than Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen? 
Please explain. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
29 May 2008 at 21:25
Hi Peter, 
Some interesting reading: 
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2217 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
29 May 2008 at 21:40
manacker --- I repeat, these are not 'model projections' but based on paleoclimate observations. Your 'major negative feedback' is non-existent. 
Regarding modeling and the recent temperature record, read 
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2008/05/oops.html
manacker 
29 May 2008 at 21:41
Hi David, 
You referred to a warming period in the geological past, with: “So 'cloud feedback' did not prevent substantially higher temperatures than at present.” 
A bit of a stretch, David. 
You have no notion what “could have” or “would have” happened “with” or “without cloud feedback”. Nor does anyone else. 
What Roy Spencer has observed and reported, though, pertains to today’s situation. 
We all know that clouds are net coolers of our planet. 
And Spencer’s observations have shown that, in a warmer world, cooling low-altitude clouds increase while warming high-altitude clouds decrease, resulting in a significant negative feedback, which he estimates would eliminate around 75% of the warming as projected by climate models with assumed positive feedbacks programmed in. 
As far as the theory that warmer temperature automatically results in higher water vapor concentrations on a global scale, where is the physical evidence for this? 
Observed and quantifiably measured physical evidence, not climate model studies, please. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
29 May 2008 at 21:49
Hi David, 
You wrote: "Your 'major negative feedback' is non-existent." 
Denying something does not make it go away, David. 
Tell it to Roy Spencer and explain to him why his physical observations on the net cooling effect of clouds are "non-existent". 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
29 May 2008 at 22:10
manacker wrote "Is Gavin Schmidt more knowledgeable than Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen?" Briefly, yes. 
But I only need to look at the paleocliate record, for myself, to see that 'cloud negative feedback' can only be small. 
As is determined by the climate sensitivity paleoclimate studies. Which you ought to read and understand. Hmm? 
Many climatologists are comfortable with 10--12 years to determine a trend. I'm not. But I'll consider 30 years in certain circumstances. Those where there is lots of good data. (See the oops link above.)
David B. Benson 
29 May 2008 at 22:24
mamacker wrote "As far as the theory that warmer temperature automatically results in higher water vapor concentrations on a global scale, where is the physical evidence for this?" You are being tendentious. Do the labratory scale experiment yourself and just extrapolate. Water is water; its properites don't change just because there is a lot of it. 
Alternativity, learn about from Professor Pierrehumbert's book. 
It's good to be critical, but this is rediculous.
David B. Benson 
29 May 2008 at 22:42
manacker wrote "... why his physical observations on the net cooling effect of clouds are 'non-existent'." That was not what I wrote. The point is that this effect, if it exists, can only have a minor role. 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to... 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropic... 
Regarding paleoclimate and reading the record, a Jananese tema ran their GCM all the way from the Eem to the Holocene. The program did a credible job of matching the records with no cloud modeling at all.
David B. Benson 
29 May 2008 at 23:28
And another warning about Spencer/Christy: 
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-any...
David B. Benson 
29 May 2008 at 23:30
Oops. 'Japanese team'
Brute 
29 May 2008 at 23:58
This is moving along more smoothly here than over at Joe Goebbel’s site. 
Max, 
The elephants weren’t really the "sedentary" variety as I presumed. Turns out they were frozen solid from all of the global warming. Now I have 6 1/2 Tons of elephant meat for sale...... 
Hmmmmm………ECO-Land, The Restaurant. 
Good old Yankee ingenuity…….. 
I’ll stop with the bad jokes now.
bobclive 
30 May 2008 at 00:00
It looks like we have a new RC glove puppet.
bobclive 
30 May 2008 at 00:28
For you David B 
There are thousands of high quality rural weather stations throughout the world and especially in the US and the northern hemisphere that have long histories and NO UHI bias. These stations are totally uncontaminated and provide temperature data from a totally natural environment, they are accepted as the gold standard throughout the world. 
Hanson/Giss use station pairs and compare data from highly UHI contaminated urban city weather stations with CLEAN data from neighbouring RURAL stations. They then Use their secret algorithm put all the data through a computer which then gives them the result in degrees C. The odd thing is that the results always show a steep rising temperature trend compared to the neighbouring RURAL CLEAN data which shows only a flat or a slightly rising trend. 
Why do they do this David, would it not be more accurate to discard the contaminated urban stations and use only the clean rural data.
David B. Benson 
30 May 2008 at 00:58
bobclive --- Of course I'll simply not believe you. Cite a reference to a peer-reviewed paper. That is just the first cut, but it is a start. 
Instead let us consider the HadCRUTv3 global temperature record, entirely a British product. This includes not only land surface temeprature records, but alos sea surfact temperatures (SSTs) as close to the temperature of the air just above the sea surface. Guess what, rising global temperatures: 
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/t3v.jpg 
with 10 year averages in the linked graph. 
But you don't need any of this to see for yourself that the temperatures are rising: glaciers melting back world-wide, arctic sea ice melting, biological material melt-outs, and on and on. 
As for your specific question, while I have read an explanation, I didn't follow it very well. But in general it seems that better statistical control can be maintained by adjusting urban stations for the time UHI.
David B. Benson 
30 May 2008 at 00:59
Oops. 'tiny', not 'time'.
manacker 
30 May 2008 at 01:29
Hi David, 
You have sent me several posts, so I will try to respond to them one by one. 
First, just to remind you what you wrote: “Your 'major negative feedback' is non-existent.” 
Then you seem to have reversed yourself with, “That was not what I wrote. The point is that this effect, if it exists, can only have a minor role.” 
Roy Spencer’s study shows that the ‘major negative feedback’ from clouds is equivalent to 75% of all the warming expected from CO2 plus feedbacks, putting the climate sensitivity back to around 0.7K rather than the assumed 3K, so this negative feedback is neither “non-existent”, nor does it “only have a minor role”. 
“manacker wrote "Is Gavin Schmidt more knowledgeable than Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen?" Briefly, yes.” 
Please explain the basis for your suggestion (other than that he happens to agree with you). 
“manacker wrote "As far as the theory that warmer temperature automatically results in higher water vapor concentrations on a global scale, where is the physical evidence for this?" You are being tendentious. Do the labratory scale experiment yourself and just extrapolate.” 
No, David, I prefer physical evidence to “extrapolations of laboratory experiments” when dealing with something as complex as global climate. The studies I have seen out there from the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) have produced a combined satellite and in situ global precipitation estimate, covering the period 1979–2004. Mean global precipitation has not changed significantly over this period. If there had been a higher atmospheric concentration of water vapor, then global precipitation would have also shown an increase over such a long period. 
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025393.shtml 
Bring me a link to a study showing physically observed evidence of globally increased water vapor content as a result of increased temperature. Otherwise concede that such a study does not exist. 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
30 May 2008 at 02:14
This just gets better and better. 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ 
Surprise - UN Carbon Credits Being Abused 
29 05 2008 
See related articles from the Guardian: Billions Wasted On UN Climate Programme and Discredited Strategy 
“It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts.” — David Victor, Stanford University and co-author of a study examining 3000 UN funded offset programs 
This article below was reposted from TriplePundit 
World’s Largest Carbon Market Facilitates Pollution 
An article in the Guardian newspaper reveals that billions worth of ‘clean’ investment on the world’s largest carbon offsets market ends up polluting the environment. The article cites researchers who’ve reviewed the participating companies in the Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). They issued a report which seriously undermines the credibility of the CDM. 
The CDM certificates facilitate the funding of clean technology investments by Third World companies that are expanding their operations. Western companies can buy the certificates to offset their own pollution. But it turns out that in reality most of the funds go to coal and oil companies, builders of destructive dams and other enterprises that are not green in the slightest. 
The research that revealed the practices is of major importance not least because policymakers are set to review the CDM in the near future as the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. CDM credits are the world’s largest offset market, with annual trading last year totalling around EUR40 billion. Most credits are currently traded on the European Trading System (ETS) by European countries and companies but when the US starts to participate, something that’s more or less a given, trading will rise to over EUR 100 billion within two years easily. 
The Stanford scholars opened a can of worms. They say that “Much of the market does not reflect actual reductions in emissions, and that trend is poised to get worse.” They researched more than 3,000 projects that had been applying/granted for up to $10bn of credits for the next four years and said that most of the applications should be rejected. If the scheme operated in any way realistically, we’d see a much smaller market, they say cautioning that there’s hardly enough clean air available for the demand that will build up in the near future. That’s rather an important point to consider ahead of next week’s Warner-Lieberman cap and trade bill which proposes US companies are allowed to buy up to 15% of their needed carbon credits from the (successor to the) CDM.
David B. Benson 
30 May 2008 at 02:14
The Spencer/Christy peer-reviewed paper makes no claims that this effect is that large. Spencer might have said so, but that does not make it true. Indeed, what little they do have will require replication before being accepted. But at least I see you are now admitting to the existence of feedbacks to the radiative forcings. That's a bit of progress. 
From the abstract in your link (paper behind a paywall for me): 
"There are also tropical trend-like changes over the period, correlated with interdecadal warming of the tropical SSTs and uncorrelated with ENSO." 
What about that sentence do you not understand? Put more simply, it rained harder as time went by. As for understanding this, I already providied a link to "The Climate Book" which surely will explain it to you. Its not exactly new stuff. If you prefer a diferent take, an advanced meterology book might do it, and a graduate textbook on atmospheric physics surely will. You could even try web trawling on the search phrase "water vapor atmospheric physics", hmmm? 
Whatever, this physics in the GCM experiment by Reto Knutti et al., which you (naively) dismissed, demonstrates a positive feedback, of the size I indicated, due to short term effects, which clearly includes water vapor. 
I repeat that climate sensitivity is well researched and the equilibrium cilmate sensitivity has to include both water vapor and ocean heating; that is very simple physics. 
I certainly agree that negative feedbacks exist in climate; a good example is relative humidity. And so, despite the links I previously provided regarding Spencer and Christy, if it should somehow be the case that cloud negative feedback is as large as Spencer claims, then this implies that the positive feedback due to water vapor and ocean warming is rather fantastically large; a laboratory experiment, without clouds, ought to settle, at least, whether it is very large or not. 
With regard to Gavin Schmidt: he doesn't go around making wild, at best partially substantiated, claims. So I respect what he states far more than the wild men. Of course, on some matters, I don't agree with him, either.
manacker 
30 May 2008 at 02:19
Hi David, 
To my question, "Is Gavin Schmidt more knowledgeable than Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen?", you answered, “Briefly, yes.” 
Let’s check that one out a bit more closely (Wikipedia, other biography sources): 
Gavin A. Schmidt was educated at Corsham Comprehensive School, earned a BA (Hons) in Mathematics at Oxford University, and was granted a PhD in Applied Mathematics at University College London. He is a climatologist and climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). He works on the variability of the ocean circulation and climate and how changes related to varying forcings relate to variations due to intrinsic (unforced) climate variability, using general circulation models (GCMs). 
Richard S. Lindzen is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist (PhD) and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his research in dynamic meteorology. He has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres. hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, and their roles in climate change, ice ages, seasonal atmospheric effects. 
Roy W. Spencer received his PhD in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He has been a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville since 2001, before which he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.. Spencer is a recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement. 
Hmmm… 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
30 May 2008 at 02:27
Hi David, 
Looks like our posts crossed. 
Your statement caught my attention, “With regard to Gavin Schmidt: he doesn't go around making wild, at best partially substantiated, claims. So I respect what he states far more than the wild men.” 
That’s nice. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
30 May 2008 at 05:20
Hey David, 
As a guy who knows a lot about statistics, I’m sure you’ll appreciate this one. 
IPCC (SPM 2007, p.5) tells us: 
“Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).” 
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf 
This is a point that you recently emphasized. 
The report goes on to state, “ The up-dated 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].” 
A closer look at the Hadley record (upon which the IPCC statement is based) shows that 1901 to 2000 actually showed an increase of 0.65°C (rather than 0.6°C), so “shifting” the 20th century by five years added around 0.09°C, rather than 0.14°C, as stated by IPCC. 
OK. This is just a small error, so hardly worth quibbling about. 
More troubling is the insinuation (especially with the word “therefore”) that this apparent increase was due to the galloping temperatures after 2000. 
Looking at the record more closely reveals that the increase from this shift (of around 0.09°C) came primarily from removing a cooling trend from 1901 to 1905, rather than from adding a flat to slight warming trend from 2001 to 2005 (despite the misleading use of the word “therefore”). 
Now we come to another example of the use of “statistics” to get a message across. 
IPCC goes on to state: “The linear warming trend over the last 50 year (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.” 
Wow! Sounds like we are approaching runaway conditions. 
In the AR4 WG1 Report, (Chapter 3, FAQ, p.253) IPCC even shows a chart, which purports to demonstrate this acceleration graphically: 
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-cha... 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/2534926749_f2be35e86f_o.... 
Wow! The shorter the time period (as we move from the past to the present) the steeper the curve (i.e. the more “drastic” the warming trend). 
As someone who understands statistics, can you see the obvious “smoke and mirrors” in this whole argumentation? 
Let’s say we started at the other end of the curve, for example with the late 19th century warming period, and then plotted linear trend lines for longer periods, always starting with the same 19th century starting point. 
Voila! The linear trend lines keep getting flatter the more we lengthen the line, as we move to the most recent period, showing an apparent “deceleration” in warming as we move from the 19th century to the present. 
As an expert in this field, I’m sure you will agree, “ain’t statistics grand?” 
In responding to this, please try to stick to the topic without getting sidetracked on other interesting, but less relevant, issues. Thanks. 
Regards, 
Max
Robin Guenier 
30 May 2008 at 09:08
Max: re your link yesterday (21:25) to Fred Singer's critique, you may not know that David B says Singer "has completely destroyed what reputation he once had; he is a fool." Mind you, he also thinks Brute appears to be "a deluded fool" and has implied that you are "just part of the web of fools". Maybe you're in good company.
Black Wallaby 
30 May 2008 at 10:03
Hey Brute, 
How many frozen elephants do you have? 
A few years ago whilst in Sydney, (The Rocks area), I really enjoyed a crocodile pizza, and that exotic meat must have been imported from the northern states of Oz. 
You could probably find market for quite a lot of Elephant pizzas somewhere. What do you reckon?
Robin Guenier 
30 May 2008 at 10:57
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." (Eric Hoffer, quoted in The New Yorker.) Hmm...
Brute 
30 May 2008 at 11:17
Robin, 
Good quote; I'll have to save that one. 
-Deluded Fool (Isn't that redundant?)
bobclive 
30 May 2008 at 15:43
David, 
It has taken many months for RC to pluck up enough courage to attack Roy Spencers paper, the reason for this I believe is that Roy did not go down the warmers route and have his paper peer reviewed by his supporters, he went directly to the opposition, the warmers themselves, his paper was as you must be aware peer reviewed by Isaac Held and Piers Forster. 
As for Gavin Schmidt being smarter than Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen, well the only time Schmidt dared venture off campus was to an open debate with with some skeptics, Schmidt was devastated when he lost and has not dared repeat the exercise since. 
Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.B... 
David, I asked you a simple question, why do Hanson/giss use station pairs when there is enough rural stations available with clean data and long climate histories, Keep this to LAND TEMPS and the US only. This is not to catch question. 
By the way glaciers have been melting since 1850, heres one example I have posted many more on the previous blog. 
On her second visit to Glacier National Park in 1894, Mary Vaux was aghast at how the Illecillewaet Glacier had retreated since her previous visit seven years earlier. These are historical facts not climate models. 
http://www.cmiae.org/glacier-lichen.htm 
Glaciers Growing. 2007. 
CANADA Helm Glacier Place Glacier 
FRANCE Mt. Blanc 
ECUADOR Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier 
SWITZERLAND Silvretta Glacier 
KIRGHIZTAN Abramov 
RUSSIA Maali Glacier (This glacier is surging. 
GREENLAND Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker 
INDIA Sikkim has the largest number of glaciers in India, The rise in the number of glaciers belied the impact of the global warming phenomena. 
NEW ZEALANDAll 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year 
SOUTH AMERICA - Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier (the largest glacier in Patagonia) is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. 
UNITED STATES - Colorado - Washington (Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier* and Mt. Shuksan) Mt. Baker) - California (Mount Shasta - Montana - Alaska (Mt. McKinley and Hubbard). 
Antarctic ice grows to record levels 13 Sep 07 - While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting. 
A Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming. 
Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking. 
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/glaciers-and-se...
Robin Guenier 
30 May 2008 at 16:58
This is interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7426356.stm 
The EU Commission wants to recalibrate its emission targets from Kyoto's 1990 baseline to a new 2005 baseline (thereby making them easier to achieve) - but ex-Soviet bloc members, whose emissions fell with the Soviet collapse and subsequent economic decline, want 1990 to be retained (thereby making them easier to achieve). As I try to remind contributors from time to time (with little success), in practice the politics matter more than the science.
Brute 
30 May 2008 at 18:26
Robin, 
The photo accompanying the article posted above is interesting in itself. The structures behind the power lines are cooling towers and emit nothing but water vapor, (to dissipate heat). The "smoke" in the photograph is steam. 
I've always found it interesting that global warming sycophants attach photographs of power plants emitting steam/water vapor. I suppose it adds to the “drama”. It’s all about appearances……..and marketing. Not really important, just an observation.
Brute 
30 May 2008 at 18:38
Gore Responds to NewsBusters, Denies Global Warming His Meal Ticket 
Written by Matthew Vadum 
Monday, 07 April 2008 
Al Gore, who famously claimed to have invented the Internet, now denies –in the face of powerful evidence to the contrary— that he is in a position to make an immense fortune from global warming-mitigation efforts. Ian Wilhelm, a Chronicle of Philanthropy reporter, asked the private equity firm Generation Investment Management LLP (GIM) to respond to my latest post, The Media Ignore Al Gore's Planned Global Warming Profiteering. 
In the post, I noted that Gore’s nonprofit Alliance for Climate Protection plans to spend $300 million on an advertising campaign aimed at convincing the American public that they urgently need to embrace (economy-crippling) controls on carbon emissions and press politicians to act. Gore happens to be chairman and founder of GIM, a firm that invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are becoming environmentally-friendly, to use green parlance. 
Wilhelm received what certainly seems like a snotty response. On behalf of Chairman Gore, GIM spokesman Richard Campbell said my statements were a “nonsense story.” Campbell said neither Gore nor any other members of GIM’s board will make a buck from the expansion of carbon trading. “To suggest then that they are somehow benefiting from the growth of this industry betrays a complete lack of knowledge of the carbon offset industry,” Campbell said. But why on Earth wouldn’t Gore, as head of an investment firm focused on green products, want to make money from climate change mitigation efforts? It’s his job, and he is already deeply involved in the global warming business. He has enjoyed great success in business and made oodles of money for boldly seizing the initiative in a series of successful business ventures, including green ventures. He now has a net worth greater than $100 million. As Fast Company notes: 
He has made an enormous amount of money and achieved positions of influence from technology to financial services to media. He and Tipper are even setting themselves up as angel investors for a few early-stage tech companies they believe in. In doing one end run after another around the status quo, he has created a new life: a perfect amalgam of environmental activism and a new type of capitalism in which there is more than one bottom line to consider, more than one master to serve. 
Gore’s partner at GIM, David Blood, told MarketWatch last year that “we really are focused on delivering outstanding customer results for our clients. We’re also clear, avowed advocates on climate change or on sustainability.” The article also states that 
Blood sees climate change creating an entirely new business stratum, he said, similar to that surrounding the so-called Internet economy -- though he'd prefer that it bypass the latter's bubble phase."If you think about the challenges the world faces over the next 25 years," Blood said, "these factors will be integral to how business operates, and by extension how the media thinks about challenges, how civil society thinks about challenges, and how we all operate." 
The way Blood and Gore are talking, they sure sound like they plan to make a lot of money off global warming. 
And let’s not forget that Gore now makes $175,000 a speech. Are people paying Gore not to talk about global warming, his policy forte, in his speeches? He sure isn’t making that kind of money for his oratory by enthralling crowds with fascinating tales from his time as Vice President of the United States, an office a previous holder once described as not being worth “a bucket of warm p---.” By comparison, the rhetorical gifts of both Dan Quayle and Walter Mondale go for a more affordable $30,000 (per speech), or less. 
Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his global warming Chicken Little routine, is the most famous environmental activist in the world. His (so-called) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, won two Academy Awards and was one of the highest-grossing documentary movies of all time, earning $49.7 million at the box office. Gore is also America’s most prominent advocate for legislated carbon emissions controls in the form of the so-called cap-and-trade system. In a cap-and-trade system, the government creates by fiat an artificial scarcity in the right to generate carbon emissions. The idea is that there would be a fixed quantity of carbon dioxide (CO2) production allowed and that businesses or industries that wanted to exceed their allowance (in order to do the things that make them money) would have to buy the unused portions of others’ allowances. These carbon credits could be traded on an exchange, as is currently done in Europe. 
When a financial instrument is traded in a market, people make money off it, whether directly or indirectly – investors, sellers, brokers, dealers, financial advisors – even investment executives like Al Gore. As for carbon offsets, the U.S. market for such products and its attendant “feel-good hype” could be “as high as $100 million…up from next to nothing just a couple of years ago,” reports Business Week. If you consider that global warming only arrived on the scene as a major political issue relatively recently and that it may remain an issue for years, possibly decades, to come, it appears we are only at the beginning of what may turn out to be a long period of global warming consciousness-raising (to borrow a phrase from the left). If CO2 limits become the law of the land --as John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have all promised on the campaign trail-- the market for carbon emissions rights will be huge as soon as the restrictions are signed into law. Of course the market for carbon offsets would probably grow exponentially. 
There’s the article by Marc Gunther and Adam Lashinsky, “Al Gore’s next act: Planet-saving VC,” [VC stands for venture capitalist] that ran in Fortune on February 12, 2008. The subtitle is “The recovering politician is teaming with a legendary venture capitalist and bigtime moneyman to make over the $6 trillion global energy business.” The authors note that Gore has joined Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. That venture capital firm says right on its website’s homepage that: 
KPCB is actively working with entrepreneurs to solve our climate crisis. To accelerate our solutions, Al Gore has joined KPCB as a Partner, and KPCB has formed an alliance with Gore's Generation Investment Management. The combined network, expertise, vision and global reach of Gore, Generation and KPCB will help our entrepreneurs change the world. 
So, KPCB has hopped on Gore’s potentially very lucrative global warming bandwagon. Did Gore get involved with KPCB to not make money? The Fortune article implies that GIM has invested in carbon trading companies: GIM “came across a small company engaged in carbon trading that [KPCB] is analyzing, and [KPCB] has shared intelligence about which startups could threaten the established companies in [GIM]’s portfolio.” 
Gore has incredibly ambitious plans for the people of Earth. He wants to lead a revolution in how people and industry use energy and, in his own words, is calling for something “bigger than the Industrial Revolution and significantly faster.” Gore proclaims: “What we are going to have to put in place is a combination of the Manhattan Project, the Apollo project, and the Marshall Plan, and scale it globally. It’d be promising too much to say we can do it on our own, but we intend to do our part.” 
So, Gore flaunts his prowess as a savvy investor-entrepreneur by appearing in glossy business magazines, but when someone points out the obvious, that his business interests and environmentalist crusade overlap, he gets indignant?
bobclive 
30 May 2008 at 18:52
David, 
The single and most unequivocal difference between the skeptical camp and the warmers is the skeptical studies are totally transparent and the data fully archived for all to see, the skeptical blogs are also not censored. 
If the science is solid there is no need to fear audit, for that reason alone the warmers should be treated with extreme caution.
Patrick49 
30 May 2008 at 19:28
Mr. Benson, 
Thanks to Brute and Max here is my reply to you which JR deleted from his site: 
Mr. Benson, 
As President Reagan might say' There he goes again" when you wrote "Patrick49 wrote “… as the 1930s were warmer than today …” Only true in the United States, for one year, and the difference is not statistically significant." 
Even a cursory search of the Internet would put the lie to both your "one year" claim and that changes in the US temperatures are not statistically significant as per the examples below" 
Global Warming Debate Reignited After NASA Quietly Corrects Temperature Data Posted Aug 13, 2007 
click here 
"A Toronto blogger discovered a problem with how NASA records U.S. temperatures, concluding that 1934 is actually the hottest year on record, not 1998. The climate change controversy is heating up once again..... Last week, NASA corrected an error in its data of temperature records, apparently caused by a Y2K bug. Global warming alarmists are now enduring a fault line in their argument, and anti-warmers have another arrow in their quill. 
The problem was discovered by Toronto-based Steve McIntyre, who runs the blog climateaudit.org 
. He found that the hottest year on record in the U.S. is 1934, not 1998 as NASA previously claimed. After making adjustments to NASA’s data, McIntyre concluded about the hottest years in the U.S.: 
Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. 
As the National Post wrote, NASA quickly made corrections when McIntyre pointed out the faulty data." 
As for the role the USA weather stations play in the grand scheme of things it is not only significant but a major source of global temperature reporting: 
Weather Stations Disappearing Worldwide 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/weather-stat... 
No doubt you are aware that a major review of the USA weather stations' location, condition, and adjustment factors is underway to determin the reliability and accuracy of the reported temperatures. Some reported findings to date are station sited next to air conditioning hot exhaust fan and in asphalt covered lots.
bobclive 
30 May 2008 at 19:47
Climate change threat to US crops and water 
Thursday May 29 2008 
The paper, commissioned by the US department of agriculture, looks at the likely impact of rising temperatures caused by higher emissions of CO2 during the next 25 to 50 years on America's agriculture, land and water resources and biodiversity. It warns that the country will be affected in strikingly different ways, with most of the negative impacts falling on the south-western and western US. 
The message is particularly worrisome for a region that happens to have some of the highest population growth rates in the US. Some 50 million people live in the south-west and towns such as Las Vegas and Phoenix are expanding rapidly with an influx of retiring baby-boomers attracted by the relatively cheap cost of land and the warm winters. 
Water levels are already falling in some parts through rising demand, and according to the report, that pressure can only increase, as it predicts that by 2060 rainfall will be down by a fifth. How can the predict that. 
Las Vegas and Phoenix , Phoenix averages 85% of possible sunshine and receives scant rainfall, Las Vegas is I believe just an oasis within the surrounding desert. 
So there is a mass population influx into areas that have a very limited water supply and they blame the known future water shortages due to over population on AGW. It is a good job Las Vegas and Phoenix were not the size they now are in the 1930`s.
manacker 
30 May 2008 at 20:09
Hi David, 
Just a bit more input on my recent post re: IPCC and temperature trends. 
IPCC SPM 2007 defines the 20th century as the period from 1906 to 2005. It goes on to inform us that the 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) was 0.74°C and then tells us that “the linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years”. 
In the FAQ section of AR4 WG1 (Chapter 3, p.253), IPCC shows us how this looks graphically, as the linear trends for shorter and longer intervals are compared. 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/2534926749_f2be35e86f_o.... 
Taking a look at the “20th Century”, starting with 1906, and breaking it into the first 25 years (1906-1930), the first 50 years (1906-1955) and the whole 100-year period, shows a different picture: 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2295/2536244611_d817a54dea_b.... 
The steepest linear trend was for the first 25 years at 0.11°C/decade, followed by the first 50 years at 0.08°C/decade. The slowest rate of increase was observed over the entire period, (including the most recent warming period) at 0.07°C/decade. 
Just goes to show how figures and graphs can be manipulated to get any story across. 
As an expert in statistics, I’m sure you have spotted the “smoke and mirrors” in both analyses above. 
Regards, 
Max
bobclive 
30 May 2008 at 20:14
Everyone knows I bang on about the UHI effect, surely these two graphs should to convince you. 
Armagh totally RURAL v Central England. 
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Armagh_an.htm 
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Armagh_vs_CET.htm 
Now Phil Jones uses station pairs to tease the UHI effect out of the urban data, the problem is that CET is one big heat island, see link below, rural/urban where. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5211592.stm 
BBC is useful sometimes.
bobclive 
30 May 2008 at 20:39
David, you say melting ice proves AGW warming. 
Dr. Craig Loehle is succinct: 
How do we reconcile one report showing increased dumping of ice from Greenland into the ocean (which supposedly means the ice is melting) with another showing the ice sheet thickening? Simple. Glaciers move because of increased pressure from above. If you increase the amount of snow in the interior, it will increase movement downslope. It can be simultaneously true that there is more loss at the ocean and more build up in the interior because the snow input is large enough for both. We would not conclude from increase river flow that an upstream lake was draining–usually both lake levels and river levels rise together (in extreme cases we call this a flood). The same is true for rivers of ice. 
Greenland shows a warming trend 1880-1938 (CO2 increased by 20ppmv), 1938-2004 shows virtually no warming trend, but a cooling followed by a recovery, despite a CO2 increase of 60ppmv. So excuse me for not shaking in my boots. 
Its all about gravity, if you purchase some old window glass say 250 years old you will find that it is thicker at the bottom than at the top. 
David if you don`t understand the reasoning behind the use of station pairs how can you trust the data thats produced by this method, do you just take this on trust.
Brute 
30 May 2008 at 20:41
Patrick, 
Welcome.....your posts are safe here. 
If 1934 was the hottest year on record that that mean that we have been in a cooling trend ever since?
manacker 
30 May 2008 at 21:33
Flashback 
The lead-in to Lynas’ article on this site started out: 
“On 19 December the New Statesman website published an article which, judging by the 633 comments (and counting) received so far, must go down in history as possibly the most controversial ever. Not surprising really – it covered one of the most talked-about issues of our time: climate change. Penned by science writer David Whitehouse, it was guaranteed to get a big response: the article claimed that global warming has ‘stopped’.” 
Since then there have been 1489 comments (and counting) to Lynas’ rebuttal of the Whitehouse article (which “claimed that global warming has stopped”). Over the 136 days since Lynas’ article came out, this represents 11 comments per day. 
In the meantime the first site with Whitehouse’s article received 1289 comments, or 8 comments per day over the 163 days since that article was posted. 
From the blogger response it looks like Lynas’ rebuttal was even more “controversial” than the original Whitehouse article! So Whitehouse’s article can no longer “go down in history as possibly the most controversial ever”; it looks like this distinction will have to be given to the rebuttal by Lynas instead. 
(But of course “New Statesman” may not quite see it that way.) 
Max
manacker 
30 May 2008 at 22:03
Hi David, 
You wrote (referring to the water vapor / precipitation study for which I posted the link): “There are also tropical trend-like changes over the period, correlated with interdecadal warming of the tropical SSTs and uncorrelated with ENSO." What about that sentence do you not understand? Put more simply, it rained harder as time went by.” 
Harder (in some tropical regions): maybe. More (globally): no. 
“The annual average GPCP estimates are here analyzed over 1979–2004 to evaluate the large-scale variability over the period. Data inhomogeneities are evaluated and found to not be responsible for the major variations, including systematic changes over the period. Most variations are associated with El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) episodes. There are also tropical trend-like changes over the period, correlated with interdecadal warming of the tropical SSTs and uncorrelated with ENSO. Trends have spatial variations with both positive and negative values, with a global-average near zero.” 
Is there some part of that sentence that you do not understand? 
No global increase in precipitation was observed from 1979 to 2004, indicating that there was also no global increase in atmospheric water vapor concentration over the same period. 
And, David, that is what we were discussing, not “tropical trend-like changes”. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
30 May 2008 at 22:16
Hi David, 
I think we can cap off our exchange on the assumed water feedbacks (vapor, liquid, solid) that are projected to cause greenhouse warming from increased CO2 to be 4.4 times as high as the greenhouse theory says, i.e. a climate sensitivity (from doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations) of 3K, rather than 0.7K. 
I have provided links to studies based on physical observations that show that water vapor has not increased globally over the period 1979-2004, and that overall cloud feedbacks are negative, rather than positive. 
In other words, the observed physical facts do not support the climate models on feedbacks. 
Now you may still "believe" the models and have "faith" in the feedbacks, despite the fact that the physical evidence speaks against your "belief", and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. 
Just don't try to sell it as "scientific fact". 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
30 May 2008 at 23:38
manacker --- It only took moments to find 
http://cics.umd.edu/~yin/GPCP//ASSESSMENT/assessment.html 
in which the so-called Executive Summary makes clear, based on the physics, why their 'precipitation product' shows no secular trend. Your link, as well as this one, says nothing about water vapor. 
While it might be that cloud feedbacks are negative, the sum of all feedbacks is positive. Follow the 'this' link of the page linked below to see how climate sensitivity ranges can be sharpened using satellite observations. 
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2008/05/once-more-into-bre... 
Assuming you are actually interested in science, that is. 
I suppose you 'believe' the Arrhenius+Stefan model since you post it so often. Don't you 'believe' there is more physics than just that? Learn something about water vapor before attempting to post about it, hmm?
David B. Benson 
30 May 2008 at 23:51
bobclive --- In modern science, nothing is 'proved'. That is only in mathematics. Instead it is the weight of the evidence tends to confirm some hypotheses and disconfirm others. With regard to glaciers, I pay attention to glaciologists. For example, the Swiss glaciers continued to grow until about 1885 CE; from 1955 CE to 1980 CE these were in retreat at 4 m/y; after that at 12 m/y. This provides evidence of warming in that locality. Similar retreats are visible in South America and Asia; evidence of warming in those localities. And so it goes.
David B. Benson 
30 May 2008 at 23:55
manacker --- You cerainly parsed the IPCC AR4 to a fare-thee-well! You're reading too much in a reprt written by about a thousand authors and reviewed by another thousand or so. It makes for, IMO, a rather muddy, nay, turgid, document. 
It is also already obsolesent. A better use of your time would be "The Climate Book".
manacker 
31 May 2008 at 00:22
Hi David, 
"The Climate Book" or "Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years". Both interesting books for bedtime reading. Neither has made the "best seller" list, but I agree that each is a good read. . 
Unfortunately the already out-dated 1,000+ page (groan!) IPCC AR4 WG1 and SPM 2007 reports, which were paid for by several billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to give the world an honest and unbiased report on global climate developments, is a different matter. 
It's ulterior intent is to convince the public and the policymakers of this world that we need to endorse a program of carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes that will cost everyone dearly, particularly the ones at the bottom of the pyramid, in order to save our planet from alrming climate changes caused by AGW. 
You say (and I can agree with you on this) that it is "a rather muddy, nay, turgid, document." that is "also already obsolesent". 
If the first two books you and I have mentioned (above) are less than 100% correct, who cares? They are, in effect, just op-eds that will have very little impact on the world. 
However, if the publicly funded multibillion-dollar IPCC report is a hoax, we have all been bamboozled. 
And if it is used by politicians and bureacrats as a justification to "tax the air we breathe" so that they can have hundreds of billions of dollars to "shuffle around", it is an out-an-out scam. 
This is why it must be critically, objectively and skeptically challenged in order to expose every weak argument, distortion, exaggeration or downright untruth. 
Get the difference? 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
31 May 2008 at 00:35
manacker wrote "'The Climate Book' or 'Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years'. Both interesting books for bedtime reading." The first is an advanced textbook. Not my idea of bed-time reading. The second is a fantasy dressed up as 'fact'. Sorry, I prefer honest science fiction. 
The IPCC AR4 did not cost billions of dollars. Quit MSU. Getting scientists to come to a 'concensus' is like herding cats. Quit MSU regarding motives, as well. 
If you actually knew some climate science beyond the one equation, and follow the scientific method (instead of just MSU), you might, just might, come to the conclusion that the vast majority of climatologists are correct (this is what ever major scientitific and technical organization in the world has done, now even the Association of Petroleum Geologists). 
Oh, you mean even they are in-on-it-too? Perhaps you need some mental health conseling. 
Or is ignorance bliss?
manacker 
31 May 2008 at 00:53
Hi David, 
You wrote: “With regard to glaciers, I pay attention to glaciologists. For example, the Swiss glaciers continued to grow until about 1885 CE; from 1955 CE to 1980 CE these were in retreat at 4 m/y; after that at 12 m/y.” 
Swiss studies on the glaciers confirm what you have written in principle, although the rates are a bit different. 
These studies have shown: 
· Swiss glaciers reached their largest extent for the past 10,000 years around 1850 
· They have been receding since then 
· The average rate of retreat has increased by around 50-60% in the latter part of this period, as compared to the earlier part (not 3:1, as you indicated) 
· There were two periods in recent history where the glaciers were smaller than today: the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Optimum 
· Physical evidence under the receding ice (ancient forests and vegetation plus, more rarely, signs of earlier civilizations) as glaciers now recede confirm that they were smaller during the MWP and RO 
· Written records of human migrations during the MWP, mines being covered by advancing ice and snow at the end of the MWP, etc. provide additional historical evidence 
· The glaciers were even smaller some 7,000 years ago, when they had essentially disappeared almost completely 
The studies also conclude that the receding of glaciers is not always a sign of warmer weather, but is sometimes also caused by cold, dry winters with reduced snowfall. 
I think I have already provided you the link to these studies, but will be glad to do so again. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
31 May 2008 at 01:05
Hey David, 
You’re losing your cool (and your manners). For shame! 
I am sure that you are aware that “climate research” costs billions of dollars each year. It’s “funded” to a large extent by taxpayer money. It is what the IPCC reports are all about, and a lot of it is “agenda driven”. No “climate research” = no content for the IPCC reports. 
And IPCC is not trying to peddle a bill of goods to justify carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes? 
Gimme a break, David, you can’t be that naïve. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
31 May 2008 at 01:18
Hi David, 
Just coming back to your last post where you said you preferred "science fiction". 
Does that mean you enjoyed Al Gore's award-winning sci-fi horror flick "AIT"? 
I guess not, because you did specify it had to be "honest science fiction". 
I'll have to admit that I did enjoy Al's flick. It was so ridiculous that it was a real knee-slapper. 
I just don't think it should be shown to frighten school children, because they are so impressionable and often can't tell the difference between reality and "just a movie". 
What do you think? 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
31 May 2008 at 01:24
manacker --- No, you didn't provide the link regarding Swiss glaciers. 
Climatology is funded by several governments, yes. The reports of that research appear in the scietific literature in the usual way. That's quite different than the IPCC assessment process, once each six(?) years, which costs rather little. In any case, the world total climatology research budget is only a tiny fraction of, say, NASA's budget, not to mention DoE's or worse, Dod's. Climate research would have occurred without AGW, I assure you. 
IPCC periodically assesses the state of knowledge about climate. It's certainly not a 'bill of goods' as you put it. 
Various governments (not all) now recognize the serious consequences of rapid climate change. Some are attempting to adjust their economies accordingly. More are being forced to adjust due to peak oil and the increasing costs of commodities in general. 
So is ExxonMobil in-on-it too?
David B. Benson 
31 May 2008 at 01:54
manacker --- I pay very little attention to Al Gore. 
However, his documentary, from the reports I have read, was largely factual, if a bit misleading in a few places. 
A far better use of time is to actually study climatology. I find it to be quite a fascinating subject, even if the policy implications does seem to attract a number of people with some sort of mental deficiency...
David B. Benson 
31 May 2008 at 02:18
Once again, GCMs, which are all physics-based, gets it right once the instrumentation errors are corrected: 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080530144943.ht...
David B. Benson 
31 May 2008 at 02:35
More instrumentation errors, this time regarding 1945 CE and thenabouts: 
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/full/nature0... 
once this systematic bias is removed, it will be interesting to see how well the GCRs perfom from, say, 1900 CE to 1975 CE.
Brute 
31 May 2008 at 03:35
Mr. Benson, 
You wrote: 
I pay very little attention to Al Gore……However, his documentary, from the reports I have read, was largely factual, if a bit misleading in a few places. 
Al Gore told there are nine inconvenient truths in his film 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2632... 
Gore Used Fictional Video to Illustrate ‘Inconvenient Truth’ 
http://newsbusters.org/node/20680?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2008... 
You wrote: 
Climatology is funded by several governments, yes. 
I’m writing: 
What constitutes a government? Where do you think the money comes from to fund a government? Do you think it simply falls from the sky? What does a “government” produce? More government, that’s what. 
When are the Oil Companies going to “investigate” the US Congress? That’s what I want to know. 
I’m glad that Max brought this up a couple of posts back…….it really pisses me off. This entire thread was started with an article written by David Whitehouse titled “Has Global Warming Stopped?” months ago. The GLOBAL temperature peaked (arguably) in 1998, (probably in the 1930’s and numerous times before then) and has been decreasing or “flattened”/“leveled off” since that time. The global warming theory, (promoted like carnival barkers by Gore and the IPCC), asserts that rising levels of CO2 cause global temperatures to rise; that ISN’T happening. You point to weak solar output, (out of one side of your face while stating that the Sun has no effect out of the other side of your face), and Pacific Decadal Oscillations but you and the IPCC have weak evidence or non-existent evidence that these factors are overcoming the effects of CO2 and continue to press on….. pushing a global tax on every working family in the world that will cost TRILLIONS of dollars because of your adherence to Earth Worship and some goofy ideology. 
This entire “initiative” is nothing more than a smokescreen to steal money from hard working citizens based on dodgy junk science, hyperbole and Hollywood special effects. Where the hell is your integrity? 
I don’t buy it……it’s a CONFIDENCE SCHEME…….obviously you’ve fallen for this ruse. 
Why don’t you, Al Gore, the IPCC and the rest of the tree hugging, guilt ridden, elitist phonies pay for it? When these kooks pony up their personal fortunes and global temperatures rise, then I’ll contribute. 
If the evidence is so overwhelming, why do you and the deadbeat, parasitic, politicians have to force taxpayers to reach for their wallets and take food out of my family’s mouths? Why don’t you organize a bunch of these Hollywood Weirdo’s, Limousine Liberals and Rock Stars and put the bite on them? They’d kick you down the stairs….. right after they tarred and feathered you laughing the entire time, that’s why……. 
You go ahead and study the weather, or "Climatology", but do it with your own money……Leave us the hell out of it.
Brute 
31 May 2008 at 03:48
And another thing……the proper terminology is A.D….. Anno Domini, not “CE”. What left wing secular, snobbery university did you attend anyway.........sheez......
manacker 
31 May 2008 at 07:24
Hi David, 
You wrote: "A far better use of time is to actually study climatology. I find it to be quite a fascinating subject, even if the policy implications does seem to attract a number of people with some sort of mental deficiency..." 
Hey, David, I don't think you've got a "mental deficiency", You're just a bit screwed up, as Brute has so eloquently expressed in his latest post. 
And, despite your exaggerated opinion of your own intelligence, you have no real scientific facts to bring to the table, just (as you put it) "made up stuff" or pseudoscientific blah-blah. 
I am truly disappointed, David. You should be able to do better. Really. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
31 May 2008 at 07:37
Hi David, 
Since you appear to have a short-term memory problem, I will re-post a message I posted to you on May 20 regarding the Swiss glaciers. Some of the cited references are in German, but I am sure this will be no problem for a super-intelligent bloke like you. 
Some info for David B. Benson on Swiss glaciers 
You wrote: “Hint: until 1885 CE the Swiss glaciers were all growing. From 1980 CE onwards all those glaciers were retreating an average of 12 m/y, quite an increase from 1955–1980 CE when the retreat was just 4 m/y, on average.” 
My, my. We are switching topics from unexplainable inconsistencies in the AGW logic regarding the observed multi-decadal temperature cycles to Swiss glaciers, a topic dear to my heart. 
The glaciers in the Swiss Alps are currently receding. They have been receding since around 1850. Records show that some of the larger glaciers have lost as much as one-third of their maximum volume over these 150+ years, while some smaller ones have lost an even higher percentage of their 1850 volume and a few others have lost less volume. Some smaller, lower-lying glaciers have disappeared entirely. 
http://www.pronatura.ch/aletsch/de/natur/aletschgletscher.ht... 
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/docs/climdyn_2006_Steiner_et... 
As I am sure you know, a glacier is a river of ice that is constantly flowing. If there is less winter snow than there is summer run-off, the glacier recedes. That is what is happening in Switzerland. This year may show a reversal of this trend, but it is not expected to represent a long-term change in trend. 
Based on the measurements made for the largest Swiss glacier, the Aletsch, it is true that the most recent rate of retreat (since 1980) is higher than it was earlier this century and around 50% higher than the overall average rate from 1886 to today. The year of fastest retreat was 2005/2006. Twelve (12) of the twenty-five (25) years of fastest retreat occurred in the 26-year period after 1980, with the other thirteen (13) occurring in the 94-year period prior to 1980. So we can say that the rate of retreat has increased, although the figures you cited are not correct. Only one Swiss glacier is currently growing. 
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glacierlist.html 
I could not find any scientific evidence that the current rate of retreat of the glaciers is “unusual” compared to other periods in the paleoclimate record that preceded the Little Ice Age. Since records were not taken then, these data probably do not exist. 
In 1850, the Swiss alpine glaciers reached their highest stand in 10,000 years. Since then, they have been retreating, as they have many times in the past. It looks like this will be the case at least for the near future, as long as the milder climate with fewer harsh, snowy winters continues here. 
As the glaciers recede, they provide evidence of periods when they were smaller than they are today. This evidence is in the form of remains of trees, other vegetation and insects, which lived at an earlier time, as well as, more rarely, of evidence of early medieval civilization (remnants of huts, mine shafts, etc.) before they were covered by the advancing ice. 
In a recent interview, Reid Bryson, the now-retired climate professor from the University of Wisconsin, makes mention of one of these finds from a few years ago, where in addition to remains of a mature forest the remnants of an old silver mine were found. 
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html 
Such physical evidence is rare but old local records of alpine gold and silver mines shutting down due to advancing ice at the end of the MWP can be found. 
The cited study (by Christian Schlüchter and Ueli Jöri of the Institut für Geologie, at the University of Bern) was made to determine the historical extent of the expansion and retraction of Swiss alpine glaciers, using the evidence provided by remains of trees, etc. 
http://alpen.sac-cas.ch/html_d/archiv/2004/200406/ad_2004_06... 
Some excerpts below: 
The two most recent time periods that were identified by these remains were the Medieval Warm Period and the climatic period called the "Roman Optimum". In both periods the glaciers were smaller than they are today, as shown by this evidence. Similar evidence of other more distant periods of glacial retreat and smaller glaciers than today were also found. 
The study found that during the "Roman Optimum" the glacier "tongues" were actually 300 meters higher than today, which may help to explain why Hannibal was able to cross the Alps with elephants. 
The lowest level of glaciation in the Alps apparently occurred during a period around 7,000 years ago, according to the study. At that time the glaciers had apparently disappeared almost completely 
The study showed that the maximum extension of the Swiss alpine glaciers in the past 10,000 years was around the year 1850, at the end of the Little Ice Age. 
The study concluded that the expansion and retraction of glaciers is a far more dynamic process than had been assumed to date, with a concluding comment that glacial retreat is not necessarily a result of warming, since periods of dry, colder weather can contribute to glacial retreat just as much as a general warming can. 
Hope this info helps give you a better insight on the Swiss glaciers. 
But I am still interested in how you explain the AGW dilemma with the unexplained multi-decadal warming/cooling cycles. 
Regards, 
Max 
Hope this refreshes your memory, David. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
31 May 2008 at 08:12
Hi David, 
On another site I believe you erroneously made the ludicrous claim that the current warmth exceeds that of any period in the Holocene. 
The study on Swiss glaciers shows that this is not correct. 
Don't believe all the stuff Hansen has "made up" to prove his "tipping point" BS. He is no longer an objective scientist (even though he is being paid by taxpayer money to be one), he is an activist that will lie through his teeth to peddle his message, just like the self-serving politician, Al Gore, whose junk science flick you apparently endorse. 
A question: are you really that naive, or do you also have a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with finding the scientific truth? 
Just curious, David. 
Regards, 
Max
Black Wallaby 
31 May 2008 at 08:13
Hi Brute, 
My usual blogs seem to have gone quiet at the moment, and I’ve remembered a little niggle. I’m wondering if you could ask Peter Martin a question for me, the same as you enquired of me a few weeks ago. Could you please ask him what his profession is. My deduction is that he might be a school teacher, which is a worry. 
After I said here that I was a retired engineer, he announced over at Gristmill (Alas Alaska), that I was not scientifically qualified. He does say puzzling things sometimes though…. Confused about something again…. this time between Profession and Trade maybe? 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
This David B is a busy little B, what! Looks like you guys can handle the volume of traffic OK though.
Black Wallaby 
31 May 2008 at 08:32
Hi David B. 
Further to Brute’s comments on your use of the confusing CE ilo the normally accepted AD, I’m rather curious about your method of thinking on this, because I wonder what this might reflect on your logical thought processes on other matters. As I understand it, the total world population of Jews is ~13 million or about 0.2% of the world population. Furthermore, other religions and atheists/agnostics comprising peoples in their billions seem to be quite happy with AD. 
Presumably you live in a democratic country. Would it not be more logical to use the democratic choice? (Does not the use of CE insult over 2 billion Christians?) Not long ago some few people used to call the musical composer Schumann, out of political correctness; Schuperson. These minority fads come and go as I thought CE had. 
Let me guess; you’re a physicist
manacker 
31 May 2008 at 08:50
Message to Peter Martin 
Hey Peter, 
Have you dropped out of sight, or are you letting David B. Benson represent you on this site? 
A tip: he is a poor representative, since he avoids difficult questions and is a bit confused on the facts, despite a rather inflated ego and an arrogant personality. 
Hope to see you back some day. 
Regards, 
Max
Black Wallaby 
31 May 2008 at 09:40
David B, 
Things are quiet on my usual blogs, so I've been browsing through your great expanse above. 
This you wrote which caught my eye in it's stand-out crappyness: 
“Alternativity, learn about from Professor Pierrehumbert's book.” 
I don‘t think I will cut-across Max or others if I say this: 
I would not want to read Pierre’s book, but have been referred to some of his articles on RC. The fact that he posts there signifying that he is of the ilk of Mann et al, is enough to confirm that he must be a fundie fruitcake. I've sometimes felt that I should dismantle some of his silly presentations such as measuring CO2 effects in little glass cylinders in the lab etc. but it would take a lot of work, and RC are famous for editing out anything they do not like. Also, when it comes to fundies, I've had no success with much easier stuff talking face-to-face with some of the Christadelphian variety, that for example, the Grand Canyon is much older than the legendary time of Noah's flood some 4,000 years ago. I must say though that Pierre is very successful at getting funding. He’s a real character, with an interesting beard and hairstyle last I looked. I loved his article when he talked about counting yellow versus green jelly-beans in some allegedly scientific topic…..not sure what it was about really though! 
I guess he made money from his book too? 
Laughs all the way to the bank?
Black Wallaby 
31 May 2008 at 10:06
David B 
I don’t like being at home on a Saturday evening but this is beginning to be fun! 
You wrote: 
Many climatologists are comfortable with 10--12 years to determine a trend. I'm not. But I'll consider 30 years in certain circumstances. 
Gee, that’s good of you David…..you’ll consider 30 years in certain circumstances….wow. (is that 30 years CE or 30-years AD?) 
Hey, take a peeka-boo at this graph that I’ve marked-up from Hadley 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_1701416471_o.... 
Why not offer your wisdom….don’t just dismiss it as reactionary crap….. Study it with care, and notice the green stuff. 
If the link fails, paste it into your browser; It should end with _o.jpg, which sometimes is chopped off on posting
Black Wallaby 
31 May 2008 at 10:22
Oh, and another thing David B, 
Reur: 
“Many climatologists are comfortable with 10--12 years to determine a trend. I'm not. But I'll consider 30 years in certain circumstances.” 
Bully for you! 
Although I do not like GISS data, even this sus’ source shows a VERY CLEAR flat trend at about 0.6 C anomaly for the past decade with their following graph of monthly data 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif 
Do you disagree?
bobclive 
31 May 2008 at 10:36
David, 
First you ignore my question on station pairs and why you have blind faith in the temperature data derived from them. 
Second you ignore historical evidence I posted that clearly shows the extent of glacier Illecillewaet`s retreat though the decades starting at 1887. 
Third, you now discard any instrumental evidence as flawed in preference to wind as a proxy for temperature. 
David, humour an old (Saggar makers bottom knocker), tell me you don`t believe in fairies, by the way ,have you watched the documentary, Lord of the rings. 
http://www.cmiae.org/glacier-lichen.htm
Black Wallaby 
31 May 2008 at 10:40
Robin, you wrote: 
Black W: well, I criticise him [Jo' Romm] for many things, but making a profit is not one of them. Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work? Check with Brute. 
Yeh right, yeh, I guess I'm reflecting the attitude of my particular socio-eco-victim group....The relatively poor. 
(But wealthy compared with most of the world)
Black Wallaby 
31 May 2008 at 11:11
David B, 
On another re-browse of you stuff above, (20 minutes before some maybe OK TV) I nearly fell-off my chair upon reading your words thus: 
“…Once again, GCMs, which are all physics-based, gets it right once the instrumentation errors are corrected…” 
Uhm sorry David, these computer programmers; do they make-up their own assumptions, based on some knowledge of physics, or are they advised what to put-in by real live physicists? 
Have you heard of that rule, #@^& in = #@^& out?
Robin Guenier 
31 May 2008 at 11:54
One for Brute: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05...
Brute 
31 May 2008 at 13:52
Ah yes, lovingly referred to as “The Washington COMpost” here. Our local Pravda bureau……..all the trash that’s fit to print. We use it to block the weeds from growing in the garden. (Another example of oppressive discriminatory environmental practice condoned by insensitive, exploitive humans …..weeds have rights too you know!) 
Krauthammer is the token conservative guest editorialist and I really like him, despite his Canadian lineage, (that was a joke). He’s a level headed guy and quite sensible and usually dead on with his opinions. 
This excerpt is great…..says it all: 
“For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies -- arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).” 
Just read through some of Benson’s or Romm’s musings…the arrogance is palpable. Romm goes so far to quash any dissent by deleting comments that don’t fit the “Party” line…….how Orwellian. Guys like Romm and Gore mirror exactly the tactics of any repressive regime/movement throughout history…..ignoring or suppressing any evidence that refutes their claims and may poison the 'Global Warming" indoctrination well. 
From Wikipedia: 
“The adjective Orwellian describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being unfavorable to the welfare of a free-society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments.” 
I’ve seen this coming for sometime and “Environmentalism” is a clever strategy to realize a political goal. I don’t remember who said that “climate change” is the most dangerous situation faced by mankind today…..more so than radical Islamic terrorism, but I’m beginning to believe he was correct with one caveat……… 
The measures taken to “arrest” this non-existent condition are the real danger, as well as the social engineering and manipulation of society that it entails. 
Thanks for posting that Robin; I would have missed it. We don’t subscribe. 
Posted By Brute: May 31, 2008 A.D. 
One more: 
A construction tower crane collapsed in New York City yesterday. One of Benson’s fellow Alarmists attributed the failure to global warming. Apparently the excessive weight of carbon in the atmosphere causes increased “atmospheric pressure” compromising the integrity of the structure; makes perfect sense to me!
Brute 
31 May 2008 at 14:19
Wallaby, 
You wrote, (to Benson): 
Let me guess; you’re a physicist 
I say: 
I'll bet he has genuine artificial leather patches on the elbows of his Tweed jacket to add to his self-perceived aura of "enlightenment".
manacker 
31 May 2008 at 19:43
Hi David, 
For a real good summary of the scientific debate surrounding the assumed feedbacks in climate models, see this summary by one of the experts: 
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warmin... 
Maybe you can learn something from this. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
31 May 2008 at 19:52
Black Wallaby, Brute, bobclive, Robin Guenier 
Who’s David? 
Naw, he’s not a physicist (check Wikipedia), he’s a Professor of EE and Computer Science. 
I’m sure he is a very smart guy, that knows a lot about his specialty, but is just a bit confused about greenhouse warming, as this blog has exposed. 
Max
David B. Benson 
31 May 2008 at 20:25
Brute --- The proper term is CE, stating for Common Era, to avoid the religious connotations of A.D. 
manacker --- I'm a retired computer scientist and a long time amateur student of geology. Now I'm an amateur student of climatology. (I don't know much about how actual greenhouses warm, but now a fair amount about the feedbacks to radiative forcings, including global warming (so-called greenhouse) gases.)
David B. Benson 
31 May 2008 at 20:36
Black Wallaby --- The climatologists write the operative code themselves. Typically in Fortran. 
A year is a year, whatever one calls it.
bobclive 
31 May 2008 at 23:18
Case against climate change discredited by study. 
A difference in the way British and American ships measured the temperature of the ocean during the 1940s may explain why the world appeared to undergo a period of sudden cooling immediately after the Second World War. 
Scientists believe they can now explain an anomaly in the global temperature record for the twentieth century, which has been used by climate change skeptics to undermine the link between rising temperatures and increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. 
The record for sea-surface temperatures shows a sudden fall after 1945, which appeared to go against the general trend for rising global average temperatures during the past century. 
Skeptics have argued it supports the idea that rising temperatures have more to do with increased solar activity – sunspots – than increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide exacerbating the greenhouse effect. 
However, an international team of scientists has investigated the raw data from the period. They found a sudden increase from 1945 onwards in the proportion of global measurements taken by British ships relative to American ships. 
The scientists point out that the British measurements were taken by throwing canvas buckets over the side and hauling water up to the deck for temperatures to be measured by immersing a thermometer for several minutes, which would result in a slightly cooler record because of evaporation from the bucket. 
So the whole global temperature record is no longer down to the thousands of weather stations with long histories situated on land that clearly showed the lower temperatures at that time, its now down to the difference between a few US and UK ships sailing the oceans that may or may not have taken accurate temperatures. 
Are these people real, did they get their degrees off the Internet. Water evaporation in a bucket caused the temperature to drop to a level thermometers could detect and read by the sailors in the 1940`s, this must be a joke. 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/buckets-inle...#comment-16185
David B. Benson 
31 May 2008 at 23:31
bobclive --- WattsUp managed to garble it again (no surprise there). I already posted a decent link on this, at least once. 
Kindly just copy a short lead-in and then the link. Otherwise it is hard to follow this site. 
And by the way, the UHI was done to death over on Tamino's 'Open Mind'. I'm satisfied that the three different accountings for land-based air temperature readings are close enough; its not an issure of concern to me.
David B. Benson 
31 May 2008 at 23:38
Read the comment by Fred Moolten in 
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2008/05/oops.html 
for solid information regarding this very small correction to the sea surface temperature records.
David B. Benson 
31 May 2008 at 23:56
manacker --- There have been so many (overly long) posts on this thread that I missed your earlier posting regarding the Swiss glaciers. 
While I don't know much about warming greehouses, I assure you that I understand moderately well the climate sensitivity due to feedbacks added to the net radiative forcings. 
You, on the other hand, do not appear to be actually interested in learning climatology. Too bad.
manacker 
01 June 2008 at 00:10
Hi David, 
You made a rather flippant remark, “You, on the other hand, do not appear to be actually interested in learning climatology.” 
Don’t know about “climatology” (is this sort of like “astrology”?), but I am interested in what is going on in this whole debate, which covers a whole lot more than “climatology”. 
But let’s do a quick “sanity check” on your assumed 3K climate sensitivity from doubling CO2 due to feedbacks. 
We know that Arrhenius, Stefan-Boltzmann and Myhre (IPCC) tell us that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature increase of 0.68K, let’s say 0.7K, without any feedbacks. 
Let’s assume that water vapor is the major feedback, accounting for 2K of the assumed climate sensitivity of 3K. (Houghton et al only gave it around 60% of the forcing of CO2 or around 0.4K, but let’s use your higher value for now and do a “sanity check” to see if this is reasonable). 
Let’s ignore clouds for now, since physical observations show these will likely have a significant negative feedback on balance. Let’s also ignore other uncertainties in the hydrological cycle and just look at the greenhouse effect. 
The water vapor content of the atmosphere varies from near zero to about 4 percent, depending on the moisture on the surface beneath and the air temperature. The estimated average atmospheric water vapor content is 2.6 vol% or 26,000 ppmv, while CO2 is at 380 ppmv. 
The theory tells us that water vapor accounts for 20.6K and CO2 for 7.2K of current greenhouse warming. 
This tells us that the RF from doubling water vapor is around 2.7 times as high as that from CO2 or around 10 W/m^2 (= alpha of 14.4) 
With the 0.7K increase in temperature from doubling CO2 the atmospheric water vapor content should theoretically increase by around 5%, although there are studies (Zittel, Altmann) that say this estimate is too high by a factor of two to three, and actual observations show no measurable globally averaged increase. But let’s stick with the 5% increase anyway. 
This increase in water vapor (resulting from a doubling of CO2) should result in a greenhouse temperature increase of 0.13K 
Let’s assume the 5% increase in water vapor is too low. How much would water vapor have to increase to result in a 2K temperature increase? 
Using the same calculation we see that it would require an increase of over 2 times from 2.6% to 5.5% in order to cause a 2K feedback. 
This is obviously ridiculous, so let’s go back to Houghton’s estimate that water vapor feedback will have 60% of the impact of CO2 alone (= 0.6 * 0.68 = 0.41K): 
This would require an increase in water vapor of 17%, which is several times the theoretical increase for a 0.7K temperature increase caused by a doubling of CO2, so is also highly unlikely. 
So it looks like your 2K water vapor feedback impact is grossly exaggerated, and (if it exists at all) it should be closer to 0.1 to 0.2K, and should probably be dismissed as insignificant. 
In other words, forget it, David. 
See? I am interested in “climatology”. Are you? Or do you prefer “ideology”? 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
01 June 2008 at 00:35
manacker wrote "actual observations show no measurable globally averaged increase" (in water vapor). Either a well-documented reference to the peer-reviewed literature or else admit you are just MSU again. 
Of the approximately 3 K climate sensitivity, about 1.8 K is due to direct radiative forcing and short term feedbacks. While possibly albedo is such a feedback, surely water vapor and clouds are. 
What Arrhenius first calculated was the equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 (radiative forcing), using water vapor and water warming feedbacks. He obtained the too-high value of 6 K. The currently accepted value, via both paleo and satellite observations, is (about) 3 K. 
I'll have to say you have produced an under-referenced snow job. (You haven't provided adequate references by just tossing out (name) et al. So for all I know you are just MSU again.)
manacker 
01 June 2008 at 00:57
Hi David, 
I sent you the link to the study that showed no globally averaged increase in precipitation from 1979 to 2004. 
No increase in precipitation means no increase in evaporation (what goes up must come down). 
You have not provided a link to any study showing physical observation of globally averaged higher water vapor concentrations, so I have to assume that such studies do not exist. 
The rest is just plain old calculations using the greenhouse theory. The "currently accepted value" is of lesser interest to me, because I know that there are "currently" a lot of climate scientists (I have named two in earlier posts) that do not "accept" this value. 
And you have not been able to show me that this value is reasonable, either based on greenhouse theory or on physically observed facts. Nada. 
So you are presenting not an "under-referenced ", but a "totally unreferenced" snow job. 
Bring some evidence, David, not just double-talk. 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
01 June 2008 at 00:59
"One important consequence of the logarithmic dependence is that the relatively small amount of water vapor aloft nonetheless has a great inﬂuence on the radiation budget. Another consequence is that the degree of dryness of dry air also has a great effect on the radiation budget: reducing free tropospheric humidity from 5% to 2.5% in a dry zone has nearly the same radiative impact as reducing humidity from 40% to 20%, even though the former reduction involves a such smaller quantity of water. A related consequence of the logarithmic dependence is that the radiative effect of water vapor cannot be accurately determined on the basis of the mean speciﬁc humidity alone." 
from 
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/CaltechWater.pdf 
which was again an easy find. If Manacker were actually interested in climatology, he'd have found it himself and read the whole paper. 
Not to mention getting started on reading Ray Pierrehumbert's 
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.htm...
David B. Benson 
01 June 2008 at 01:03
manacker --- Your entire story is just MSU. 
I have repeatedly linked to "The Climate Book". You'll find correct information there. Quit MSU.
manacker 
01 June 2008 at 01:05
Hi David, 
Using your expression, you just "MSU" (made stuff up) with: 
"Of the approximately 3 K climate sensitivity, about 1.8 K is due to direct radiative forcing and short term feedbacks. While possibly albedo is such a feedback, surely water vapor and clouds are." 
I have given you a link to a study that shows that clouds are a strong NEGATIVE feedback, based on physical observations. You are still in the "MSU" mode of claiming that clouds are a positive feedback, without citing any reference to a study where this has been confirmed by physical observations. 
Face it, David, you have no evidence and are just "grasping at straws" with your "MSU" double-talk. 
Evidence, David. That's what is needed. Not computer hype. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
01 June 2008 at 01:09
Hi David, 
Linking to the "Climate Book" is about as convincing as a religious fundamentalist linking to the Bible. 
Bring facts based on physical observations, David, if you can. 
Otherwise, admit that you cannot. 
This discussion is getting repetitive and a bit tiring, as I am sure the unbiased observer will agree. 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
01 June 2008 at 01:49
manacker --- Professor Pierrehumbert is a recognized expert on climatology, in particular atmospheric physics aspects. I linked to a chapter by him with two co-authors which explains important aspects of the role of water vapor, after quoting a few sentences. I've now scanned the entire paper. Evidence is to be found there. 
Again you just MSU: I said just that clouds were certainly a short term feedback; I made no mention of whether positive or negative. Do try to read what I write. 
And the facts, based on physical observations, are indeed found in the prior two links. The CalTech Water paper makes abundantly clear why your derivation of the role of water vapor is just completely wrong. 
You could bother to learn some actual climatology, but as I said, it seems you are not interested. Too bad.
Black Wallaby 
01 June 2008 at 02:52
Max, 
If David B regards PierreH as a Messiah, just remember that other deciples include Mann et al, 
I don't understand why you engage with him. 
Remember too, the Grand Canyon is without question, only ~4,000 years old according to some other fundies. No amount of discussion can change that!
Black Wallaby 
01 June 2008 at 03:11
Brute, 
When I queried if David B might be a physicist, I was thinking well maybe he dreams a lot about string theory, or maybe he is a manifestation that has popped up through a wormhole from parallel universe. 
But leather elbow patches and tweeds? Yes, I could imagine that too.
Brute 
01 June 2008 at 04:31
Wallaby, 
I know the type well.....I deal with them everyday.....Best described as pompous blowhards…...Elitists. Humility and self-analysis are foreign concepts to people such as this. "Egotist "comes to mind also…… 
Elitist: (noun) one who believes that government or control should be in the hands of a small group of privileged, wealthy, or intelligent people, or the active promotion of such a system.
Robin Guenier 
01 June 2008 at 06:36
This is interesting: 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article403... 
(Remember Lomborg was Lynas the pieman's original target.)
manacker 
01 June 2008 at 08:29
Here's the rest of the post that got truncated: 
So this sort of confirms the upper limit of theoretical water vapor increase with a 
manacker 
01 June 2008 at 08:34
One last time (the site does not like the "less tan" symbol, so kicks everything out after it. 
Hi David, 
Yeah, I’ve seen the Pierrehumbert study you linked. 
He uses a somewhat lower RF for doubling water vapor of 6 W/m^2 (than I used in my rough calculation), but still confirms that ”the relative humidity increases with warming, but the coefficients are such that the changes are quite small for moderate values of dT. For example, with T = 260K, Tm = 240K and dT = 1K, the increase in relative humidity is only 0.014rh(0). Hence it is expected that moderate uniform warming or cooling should leave the PDF [probability density function] of relative humidity essentially unchanged.” And later “the relative humidity probability density function (PDF) will remain nearly invariant for small or moderate warming”. So this sort of confirms the upper limit of theoretical water vapor increase with a “less than” 1C increase in temperature, which I used in my calculation. 
He then goes on with some “4.x CO2” cases (i.e. 1200 ppmv CO2), which we know from the world’s total reserves of fossil fuels exceeds the theoretical amount that can ever be emitted by man. (Of course, he did not consider this limitation, since it is outside his scope.) 
But it is of course a “model study”, not based on physical observations, so it is interesting, but still a long way from observed physical evidence. 
I know this is your specialty, but I’m afraid that model studies leave me a bit cold, David, because of all the GIGO considerations. I know you like to equate “climatology” with GCMs, but I much prefer observed physical phenomena, and these whole feedback assumptions are unfortunately pretty weak in that area. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
01 June 2008 at 09:04
Hi Robin, 
You bring up a good point with your reference to Lomborg and the relative importance of the “global warming crisis” and human starvation on this planet. 
There are other good examples: According to the WHO some 4 million people in the poorest regions of this world die annually from the lack of clean drinking water and from indoor air pollution due to the lack of clean fuel or electricity for cooking. 
But, unlike “global warming”, which has become a “sexy” and trendy “rich man’s” pseudo-problem, that we “well-to-do” can cluck about, human starvation and death from lack of clean drinking water or electricity or clean fuel for cooking are “poor man’s (and woman’s or child’s)” problem, which is neither trendy nor sexy. 
Nor will it generate billions of dollars for “climate research” (enjoyed by already well-to-do “climate scientists”). 
Nor will it generate hundreds of billions of dollars in carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes for politicians and bureaucrats to shuffle around to increase their power and benefit the already wealthy and powerful at the expense of everyone else (particularly those already at the bottom of the pyramid). 
Maybe “the meek shall inherit the Earth” some day. But the UN, the IPCC and a bunch of self-serving politicians and confused fuzzy-headed pseudo-do-gooders are doing their best to prevent it. 
Hats off to Lomborg who sees the real priorities. 
Regards, 
Max
Black Wallaby 
01 June 2008 at 10:23
Yes Max, and Robin, 
That harrowing post by Robin, is but the tip of the ice-berg. 
We are talking of the deep suffering of millions of humans. (usually dark-skinned and not owning oil) 
Compared with how many suffering from AGW? (Excluding those that died from cold) 
How can people with tweed jackets and genuine leather elbow patches just ignore those awful pictures of malnourished children and more…. Bloated bellies and/or ribs almost bursting from their skin. I wish I could do more, but it requires the action of governments responding to real PRIORITIES and stimulating a response from more youthful human resources. 
Unfortunately it is a POLITICAL world
Patrick49 
01 June 2008 at 11:54
To shut down a gasoline or diesel engine without stopping the fuel flow it is simple, plug the exhaust pipe and in the old days a readily available potato or corn cob could be used. CO2 is the exhaust of the world's greatest economic engine ever imagined and stopping, rationing, taxing or controlling CO2 emissions will effectively place the world's economy in the hands of politicians and environmentalist wackos who think that ANWR is a prisitine wilderness but they don't vacation there. The future is '1984' in real time with the Big Brothers in power handing out 'carbon ration cards' to control your transportation choices. 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021983/Every-adult-... 
A more subtle form of birth control to boot as you can't fit two or more child cars seats in those tiny electric Smart car.
bobclive 
01 June 2008 at 12:46
David B. Benson, 
So UHI has been done to death at Tamino's 'Open Mind and because of this we have to accept his results. Well knock me over with a feather, thats like accepting the guarantee given by a boiler room trader who states that the stocks he is trying to sell will increase in value by 50% as soon as you buy them. By the way David, gullible people like yourself have lost hundreds of thousands, possibly millions because they accepted without question the information being fed them. 
Getting back to UHI, don`t you even question as to why when there can be as much as 8 degrees C difference between rural and urban station temperatures the warmers end up with 0.004C. 
Don`t you ever question why the warmers are reluctant to do a side by side study of rural/urban ground stations and compare the results. 
Anthony Watts is doing the ground work for this type of study, is this why you rubbish his work David, by the way Anthony`s blogg gets upwards of 1/3 million hits a month, not bad for a rubbish skeptical blogg, Steve Mc`s blogg was voted best climate blogg on the net.
Robin Guenier 
01 June 2008 at 15:12
Max/BW: yes, far too often (i.e. nearly always) AGW proponents completely ignore the harsh political, economic and ethical realities of the world. For example: 
Billions of the world’s poorest people live in China and India – but, because their governments are ignoring calls to reduce CO2 emissions and are instead prioritising economic growth, those people have a real prospect of vastly improved living standards. But there are another one billion desperately poor people (as you say BW, mainly dark-skinned) who live in places where the economy is a basket case (mainly in Africa) and who consequently have no such prospect. The “liberal” West’s solution? Well, it seems we propose to create a real disaster now to save them from possible disaster in the future: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/mic k_hume/article3613691.ece 
Another example: the director of the UK Soil Association (doubtless a most worthy person) suggested recently that, because of the “need” to cut CO2 emissions, there was “no case at all for global trade in food” – yet more punishment for these defenceless people. Biofuel production is, of course, yet another example. 
But the CO2 savings from these cruel actions are hardly even measurable compared with the vast and growing emissions from the likes of China and India. So it’s all completely pointless anyway. And the irony is that voters in the West are increasingly rejecting “green” proposals that are likely to harm them (and politicians are taking notice) – a trend that will only increase as economic realities bite. So we could get to the totally absurd situation where the only people actually bearing the pain of emission reduction are the poorest and most defenceless people in the world.
Brute 
01 June 2008 at 16:03
Climate Reality Bites 
May 27, 2008; Page A20 
The Wall Street Journal 
The global warming debate arrives in the Senate next week, and it's about time. Finally, the Members will have to vote on something real, as opposed to their buck-passing to courts and regulators, and their easy trashing of President Bush. 
The vehicle is a bill that principal sponsors Joe Lieberman and John Warner are calling "landmark legislation." They're too modest. Warner-Lieberman would impose the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s. 
Thankfully, the American system makes it hard for colossal tax and regulatory burdens to foxtrot into law without scrutiny. So we hope our politicians will take responsibility for the global-warming policies they say they favor. Or even begin to understand what they say they favor. For a bill as grandly ambitious as Warner-Lieberman, very few staff, much less Senators, even know what's in it. The press corps mainly cheerleads this political fad, without examining how it would work or what it would cost. So allow us to fill in some of the details. 
* * * 
Almost all economic activity requires energy, and about 85% of U.S. energy generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. For centuries, these emissions were considered the natural byproduct of combustion. As recently as the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, they were consciously not even described as a "pollutant." But now that the politicians want to decrease those emissions, the government must create a new commodity – the right to create CO2 – and put a price on it. This is an unprecedented tax that would profoundly touch every corner of American life. 
The policy preferred by the environmental lobby is called cap and trade. The government would set a limit on emissions that declines every year. The goal of Warner-Lieberman is to return to 2005 levels by 2012, and to reduce that by 30% by 2030. 
"Allowances" for emissions would be distributed to covered businesses – power, oil, gas, heavy industry, manufacturing, etc. If they produced less than their allotment, the companies could sell the allowances, or trade them. Cap and trade limits on energy are thus sometimes misleadingly described as a "free market" policy that would create the flexibility for CO2 reductions how and where they are least expensive. But the limits are still a huge tax. 
And for the most part, the politicians favor cap and trade because it is an indirect tax. A direct tax – say, on gasoline – would be far more transparent, but it would also be unpopular. Cap and trade is a tax imposed on business, disguising the true costs and thus making it more politically palatable. In reality, firms will merely pass on these costs to customers, and ultimately down the energy chain to all Americans. Higher prices are what are supposed to motivate the investments and behavioral changes required to use less carbon. 
The other reason politicians like cap and trade is because it gives them a cut of the action and the ability to pick winners and losers. Some of the allowances would be given away, at least at the start, while the rest would be auctioned off, with the share of auctions increasing over time. This is a giant revenue grab. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these auctions would net $304 billion by 2013 and $1.19 trillion over the next decade. Since the government controls the number and distribution of allowances, it is also handing itself the political right to influence the price of every good and service in the economy. 
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that this meddling would cause a cumulative reduction in the growth of GDP by between 0.9% and 3.8% by 2030. Add 20 years, and the reduction is between 2.4% and 6.9% – that is, from $1 trillion to $2.8 trillion. 
These estimates assume that electricity prices will increase by 44% above what they would otherwise be by 2030. They also assume that existing coal-fired power plants, which currently provide about 50% of U.S. electric power, will be shut down – to be replaced with at least 150% growth in new nuclear facilities, plus other "alternatives." Yet there are only 104 current U.S. nuclear plants, and the industry itself says it's optimistic to think even 30 more can be built by 2020. 
In fact, it is pointless to project so far out over multiple decades, since no one knows how markets and consumers would respond, whether the rules would remain constant, or what new technologies might come along. While moralizing about America, most of Europe has failed to meet its mandatory cap and trade goals under the Kyoto Protocol. But the U.S. isn't Italy; we will enforce our laws. So our guess is that these cost estimates are invariably far too low. 
In a bow to this reality, California Democrat Barbara Boxer last week introduced 157 pages of amendments to Warner-Lieberman. Most notably, she sets aside at least $800 billion through 2050 for consumer tax relief. So while imposing a huge new tax on all Americans, she vouchsafes to return some of the money to some people. Needless to say, the Senator will be the judge of who receives her dispensation. 
Ms. Boxer's amendment shows that cap and trade is also a massive wealth redistribution scheme – all mediated by her and her fellow Platonic rulers. Oh, and she also includes an "emergency off-ramp," should costs prove too onerous. This is really a political "off-ramp" to make Warner-Lieberman seem less dangerous, but you can imagine her reaction if some future Republican President decided to take it. 
The upshot is that trillions in assets and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and the bureaucracy, all for greenhouse gas reductions that would have a meaningless impact on global carbon emissions if China and India don't participate. And only somewhat less meaningless if they do. 
* * * 
Warner-Lieberman has no chance of becoming law this year with President Bush in the White House. But the goal of this Senate exercise is political – to get Members on the record early, preferably before the burdens of cap and trade become more widely understood; to give Democrats a campaign issue; and to pour the legislative foundation that the next Administration could cite as it attempts to regulate carbon limits while waiting for Congress to act. 
So by all means let's have this debate amid $4 gasoline, and not only on C-Span. If Americans are going to cede this much power to the political class, they at least ought to do it knowing the price they will pay.
manacker 
01 June 2008 at 21:15
Hi bobclive, 
Guys like David like Tamino’s “Open Mind” (even though they, themselves have anything but an open mind). Tamino is a good spokesperson for the AGW movement, so you have to take the site’s utterings with a grain of salt, since they constitute a “pitch” or “spin”, however you care to call it. 
And it is apparent that David is a bit gullible when it comes to accepting those things that he “likes” to hear, because it reinforces his “alarming AGW paradigm”. 
But as I showed Peter Martin earlier on this site, the evidence for a significant UHI distortion of the surface temperature record is overwhelming. This evidence comes in the form of reports from all over the world. In addition to links that you and others have posted, I posted around 20 links on 28 May 04:38, which concluded conservatively that the overall surface record is distorted by around 0.06°C per decade (i.e. one-third to one-half of the total warming can be explained by this effect alone). To this he has not specifically responded, except to come with that old saw, “how many of these were ‘peer reviewed’?” [i.e. rubber-stamped by like-thinking individuals, like the well-known Mann “hockey stick”]. 
Anthony Watts has done a magnificent job of pointing to the many problems with the U.S. weather stations. This work should be carried on to the whole global network, but there is no multibillion dollar taxpayer funding for this kind of work, and it has to be done on a volunteer basis.. 
The IPCC’s only very weak rebuttal has been the Parker “windy/calm nights” study, that does not do the obvious thing of comparing actually observed rural and urban temperature records, but instead relies on reconstructed wind data to make a comparison of windy and calm nights. This study has since been debunked, but IPCC is still sticking with it and with the conclusion that, “Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values.” 
To your question to David: “Don`t you ever question why the warmers are reluctant to do a side by side study of rural/urban ground stations and compare the results?” 
The answer is so obvious it hurts. Of course, David does not question this, because to do so would be to question his paradigm of alarming AGW. These studies have already been done (the 20 references I cited plus many more that you and others have linked on this site) and they ALL show a significant UHI distortion of the surface temperature record, so they are “cherry picked” out of the record by IPCC and ignored by David. 
Regards, 
Max
Robin Guenier 
01 June 2008 at 21:36
This is interesting: 
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
manacker 
01 June 2008 at 21:41
Hi David, 
So far, I have to admit that I have been very disappointed in your weak argumentation supporting your assumed 3K climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 (4.4 times the theoretical greenhouse value endorsed by IPCC without feedbacks). 
We have been talking about the feedbacks from water (vapor, liquid droplets, ice crystals). 
While I have cited reports of physically observed data showing negative feedbacks, you brush these off and counter with lovely computer model results that show strong positive feedbacks. 
I have challenged you to provide evidence for these strong positive feedbacks based on physical observations, and you have come up with nothing but general references to textbooks or model studies. 
I have asked you to walk me through the calculation how a 0.7C warmer atmosphere (warming expected from a doubling of CO2) would suddenly become 4.4 times warmer (3C warming), due to the immense increase in water vapor that this 0.7C warmer atmosphere could (and automatically would) hold, and you have had nothing to say. 
David, I have concluded that your belief in this 3K "sensitivity" due to overwhelming "positive feedbacks" is a matter of "faith" in your paradigm, which is supported by GIGO GCM outputs rather than evidence provided by physical observations. 
So rather than address the scientific issues under debate, you rely on condescending "MSU" accusations and bury your head in the sand. 
Disappointing for an intelligent person like yourself. 
Regards, 
Max
Robin Guenier 
01 June 2008 at 21:44
If above gets "error", try this: 
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ 
It's interesting to try various heights. Start with 30km & insert a few earlier years. Then go to 15km which has a 20-year average. I'd be interested in comments.
David B. Benson 
01 June 2008 at 22:15
manacker --- I'll get back to the climate sensitivity & water vapor, etc. matter later. Of greatest concern is your FOC (Fear Of Computers). I gather you: 
(1) Do not fly in modern airplanes (all designed with aid of computers); 
(2) Do not ride in or drive modern cars (all designed with aid of computers); 
(3) Do not enter or even go close to modern high-rise buildings (all designed with the aid of computers); 
(4) Etc., ad nausem. 
No, I certainly do not equate climatology with just GCMs. However, the GCMs provide a useful way to solve the physical equations, certanly faster and more accurate than Arrhenius's heroic pen-n-paper approach. 
The UHI issue has been done to death. There are three differnt global temperature 'products', each of which (probably) goes about resolving systematic errors in slightly different ways. There three 'products' essentially agree. Anyway, its not of interest to me.
David B. Benson 
01 June 2008 at 22:37
Just posting this quote from Gavin Schmidt so I can refer to it later. 
"For the current situation CO2 provides about 20% of the greenhouse effect (water vapour is about 50% and clouds about 25%, ozone and other minor gases make up the rest) (defined as the net reduction in the difference between longwave emitted from the surface and the longwave emitted to space, uncertainties are a few percent maybe)."
David B. Benson 
01 June 2008 at 22:58
manacker --- I just had a brief chat with Joe, who pointed out the the GOES satelite system shows water vapor. He suggested looking at these on Weather Underground, but probably one can find the direct NASA feed. He thinks these have been aloft about 10--15 years, so it might be there are already some preliminary papers regarding water vapor trends.
David B. Benson 
01 June 2008 at 23:57
"Water vapour in the atmosphere can change phase, which leads to more clouds, and greater cloud cover means that more sunlight is reflected straight out of the atmosphere. Crude calculations suggest that the two effects approximately balance each other, and that water vapour does not have a strong feedback mechanism in the Earth's climate." 
from 
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17402 
(page 3)
bobclive 
02 June 2008 at 00:20
David, you say, 
Of greatest concern is your FOC (Fear Of Computers). 
The record for the longest glide in a commercial aircraft happens to be a flight from Canada in an airbus. Human error and lack of AUTOMATED COMPUTER checks stopped the crew from realizing the cause of fuel imbalance was leakage via a broken fuel pipe caused by poor maintenance. The plane flew powerless for half an hour and covered 65 nautical miles (120 km) to an emergency landing in the Azores (Portugal). 
David, 
These programmers did not even allow for the now real possibility of a broken fuel pipe, how could they have missed that. 
F,O,C in the field of global warming, I should think so, by the way, if you patch a computer program there is a even chance this will cause a problem further along. It`s not the fear of computers it`s the fear of the programmers of those computers, RIRO.
David B. Benson 
02 June 2008 at 00:53
In 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity 
I will concentrate on the papers by Gregory et al. (2002) and Annan and Hargreaves. There are links on the Wikipedia page. 
Gregory et al. explains the (overly) simple equation in which the climate sensitivity S (lambda in their notation) appears. They use data from the record since 1850 CE to obtain their estimate. Annan and Hargreaves, by a fine use of Bayesian reasoning, sharpen a number of estimates to obtain essentially the IPCC range and most likely value of 3 K. A very fine piece of work and the closest in climatology to my current professional, as opposed to amateur, interests. 
Alas, based on (at least) two lines of evidence, the equilibrium climate sensitivity comes in two parts: a fast reponse part and a slow response part. There is not just a single characteristic time for the air temperature response function. 
One piece of evidence comes from the previously referenced paper by Reto Knutti et al. There one sees that their AOGCM has about 60% of the response within about 2+ years and the remainder taking centuries. (By the way, the climatologist James Annan agrees with me that 60/40 is about the right ratio.) 
The other is the observed global temperature change since 1850 CE: IPCC AR4 puts it as around 0.7 K, I believe. Anyway, that's about what I make it from the HadCRUTv3 temperature anomaly data. But using the appropriate concentrations of CO2 in the logarithmic sensitivity formula given in David Archer's text, with S = 3 K one obtains 1.23 K. Now 0.7/1.23 = 0.57, about 60%. I take this as physical evidence that the fast reponse part is about 60% and that the climate sensitivity is about 3 K. 
What causes these fast feedbacks? I would suppose albedo, water vapor and cloud changes. Dunno about the later two anymore, but in this sub-region of the world the water vapor has certainly increased in the last few years. 
I can't think of any other fast response physics, but that does not mean there isn't something being overlooked.
David B. Benson 
02 June 2008 at 01:15
bobclive --- I believe you are mixing up the gliding Air Canada airbus in the prairie provinces with the worst aircraft disaster ever in the Azores, involving two 747s. 
While appropriate design and v&v for control software still remains an issue, this is far removed from the GCM code. In the latter the physics is encorporating in the models in the most fundamental possible way; the code is then tested against observations. By now, the GCMs do better than some of the instrument records; indeed, finally figuring out a systematic error in satelite data, bringing it into line with GCM calculations, was what caused, IMO, AR4 to come out so much strongly for AGW than in the previous TAR. 
Another important difference is that there are over 40 different GCMs, all with slightly different aggregating techniques (and assumptions where the physics isn't completely clear yet). These can then all be assessed against each other; an NCAR group is doing so. 
One of the more interesting aspects of GCMs is there GIQO aspect; even when started with unrealistic ocean states, these are resolved after simulating 100 years or so (at 20--30 minutes per time step).
David B. Benson 
02 June 2008 at 02:14
"Prather: Another interesting global change to consider is that over the past 20 years, there has been a slow increase in lower stratospheric water vapor. This, by itself, results in another addition to the greenhouse effect. We don’t understand what is driving this trend, but it is presumably related to gradual warming and moistening of the tropical upper troposphere. Unfortunately, the data quality is inadequate for testing this." 
from 
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10787&page=13
Brute 
02 June 2008 at 03:24
Hmmmmm. Temperatures continue to drop, record cold winter, arctic ice at higher than normal levels and CO2 levels continue to rise....... 
As previously stated, maybe the observations are wrong and the computer models are correct? 
Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? - Goucho Marx. 
Jun 01, 2008 
May 2008 Was Another Cold Month 
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM 
For more than 75% of the nation, May was cooler than normal, as much as 6F below in the far North Central. 
See larger map here 
This is in sharp contrast to May 2007 which was warm in the same areas it was cold this year. May 2007 was the 11th warmest May for the US. 
See larger map here 
We will see in a few days where this May ranks. Clearly it will be colder than normal. UAH MSU daily data suggests the global average will be well below last year as well. Stay tuned for official updates. 
That should continue the downslide we have seen starting in 2002 which accelerated the last year with the Pacific cooling and La Nina. Meanwhile Antarctic ice remains at 1 million square kilometers ahead of last year at this time and ahead of the average since 1979. If it stays at this anomaly, we will surpass the record set late last winter there. The arctic ice is similar to late May at this time after recovering nicely this past winter from record low levels in September and October. Only time will tell whether the same flow patterns will develop in June that developed last year to rapidly diminish the ice. See more here.
Brute 
02 June 2008 at 03:42
This IS cause and effect....... 
Jun 01, 2008 
Our Spotless Sun 
By Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post 
You probably haven’t heard much of Solar Cycle 24, the current cycle that our sun has entered, and I hope you don’t. If Solar Cycle 24 becomes a household term, your lifestyle could be taking a dramatic turn for the worse. That of your children and their children could fare worse still, say some scientists, because Solar Cycle 24 could mark a time of profound long-term change in the climate. As put by geophysicist Philip Chapman, a former NASA astronaut-scientist and former president of the National Space Society, “It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age.” 
The sun, of late, is remarkably free of eruptions: It has lost its spots. By this point in the solar cycle, sunspots would ordinarily have been present in goodly numbers. Today’s spotlessness - what alarms Dr. Chapman and others - may be an anomaly of some kind, and the sun may soon revert to form. But if it doesn[t - and with each passing day, the speculation in the scientific community grows that it will not - we could be entering a new epoch that few would welcome. 
This was the case during the Little Ice Age, a period starting in the 15th or 16th century and lasting centuries, says NASA’s Goddard Space Centre, which links the absence of sunspots to the cold that then descended on Earth. During the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, a time known as the Maunder Minimum (named after English astronomer Edward Maunder), astronomers saw only about 50 sunspots over a 30-year period, less than one half of 1% of the sunspots that would normally have been expected. Other Minimums - times of low sunspot activity - also corresponded to times of unusual cold. 
During the Little Ice Age, the River Thames froze over, the Dutch developed the ice skate and the great artists of the day learned to love a new genre: the winter landscape. 
Glaciers advanced rapidly in Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia and North America, making vast tracts of land uninhabitable. The Arctic pack ice extended so far south that several reports describe Eskimos landing their kayaks in Scotland. Finland�s population fell by one-third, Iceland�s by half, the Viking colonies in Greenland were abandoned altogether, as were many Inuit communities. The cold in North America spread so far south that, in the winter of 1780, New York Harbor froze, enabling people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Read more here. See also earlier blog on cycle 24 and the significance of its delay here.
Robin Guenier 
02 June 2008 at 10:26
See:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/kavanag... 
This is important: Kavanagh is probably the UK's top political journalist and the Sun (owned by Rupert Murdoch) its biggest selling newspaper. Attitudes in the UK seem to be changing.
Black Wallaby 
02 June 2008 at 11:12
Robin, 
That's rather interesting if Murdoch gave it the nod! 
If he did, and thus there is no backlash........ 
Watch this space!
harmlesssky.org 
02 June 2008 at 12:51
Although The Sun may not be a particularly cerebral newspaper, Trevor Kavanagh has proved to be one of the UK's most astute political commentators during the last decade. 
Here are another couple of straws in the wind from a few weeks back that suggest a change in attitudes to global warming on the part of the public: 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=82 
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=83 
With the cost of mitigation beginning to hit people's pockets, the government's glib certainties about the strength of the scientific evidence are going to invite questions rather than passive acceptance. 
TonyN: www.harmlesssky.org
Sven 
02 June 2008 at 13:38
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494 
Really valuable reading. Freeman Dyson, in a review in The New York Review of Books, sums it all up rather nicely: 
...All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world. 
Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful. 
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the be-lief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
manacker 
02 June 2008 at 17:40
Hi David, 
You wrote: 
“manacker --- I'll get back to the climate sensitivity & water vapor, etc. matter later. Of greatest concern is your FOC (Fear Of Computers). I gather you: 
(1) Do not fly in modern airplanes (all designed with aid of computers); 
(2) Do not ride in or drive modern cars (all designed with aid of computers); 
(3) Do not enter or even go close to modern high-rise buildings (all designed with the aid of computers); 
(4) Etc., ad nausem. “ 
David, I have to admit that you have an uncanny knack for getting it wrong every time. 
I have no “fear” of computers. Nor do I “worship” computers. Nor do I believe everything that comes out of computers a priori. If garbage has been fed in, I am aware that garbage will come out. If “hype” or “alarmism” is the desired output, it can very easily be programmed in that way. 
As you point out, computers play a very important role in our daily lives and it would be hard to imagine going back to a pre-computer world. 
Using computer models to predict the weather a few days in advance has had moderate success. 
As Hadley has seen, using them to predict next year’s “average global temperature” is very risky (they missed their projection for both 2006 and 2007 and essentially gave up on 2008). 
Using them to predict the climate 50 or 100 years from now is absurd. 
I hope this has cleared up your obvious confusion on my position on computers. 
BTW, it would be just as ridiculous for me to say that I gather you have “FOPOF” (fear of physically observed facts). 
Regards, 
Max 
PS Am anticipating your reply on climate sensitivity with some physically observed facts to support your assumptions.
manacker 
02 June 2008 at 18:55
Hi David, 
You quoted from the report on water vapor feedback: 
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17402 
“Water vapour in the atmosphere can change phase, which leads to more clouds, and greater cloud cover means that more sunlight is reflected straight out of the atmosphere. Crude calculations suggest that the two effects approximately balance each other, and that water vapour does not have a strong feedback mechanism in the Earth's climate. “ 
This conclusion based on “crude calculations” appears to have been largely validated by the physical observations reported by Spencer et al regarding the observed strong negative feedback from clouds. 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
02 June 2008 at 21:48
"BTW, it would be just as ridiculous for me to say that I gather you have “FOPOF” (fear of physically observed facts)." 
Max, 
Hah. You get a gold star for the day for that sentence. 
-Brute June 2nd, 2008 AD
David B. Benson 
02 June 2008 at 22:22
EdGCM: Educational Global Climate Modeling 
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/ 
Roll your own.
bobclive 
02 June 2008 at 23:22
David, 
I am taking about the Air Canada airbus that ran out of fuel, that meant no no power no hydrolic`s, the onboard computer was powered by a small wind powered rotor that dropped down under the body of the aircraft. The Airbus glided for 60 miles and landed at a military air base, the runway was short and had a 200ft drop into the ocean, the crew and passengers were extremely lucky. The software could not differentiate between a leaking fuel pipe or one engine using slightly more fuel that the other. If one engine uses more fuel it causes an imbalance of the aircraft, the pilots can pump fuel from one tank to the other thus re balancing the plane, unfortunately the faulty software allowed the pilots to pump all the fuel from the good tank into to leaking tank and hence straight out of the aircraft. 
It`s the sofware that causes the problem NOT the hardware. I have no problem with computers but I DO have problems with the programmers. 
David, Microsoft with thousands of the worlds top programmers cannot get windows or Vista right first time/second time/ third time etc. As far as I am aware Vista is not a chaotic system. 
Theses AGM`s have NO reference point, not one single AGM predicted this present cooling, I am talking about the programs that were run prior to 1998. 
They can run their models a thousand times altering the code for each run, the problem is, they have no idea if any of the coding for any single run is correct. 
Every single time these models predict anything it is always after the fact. 
It`s all bloody nonsense because it`s all chaotic. 
I suggest they start on something simple like the stock market.
David B. Benson 
02 June 2008 at 23:35
bobclive --- The only Air Canada plane that ran out of fuel that I am aware of was over the prairie provinces. If you have a link to a story regarding the event you are mentioning, I would appreciate it. 
They are called GCMs, not AGMs. GISS's ModelE predicted the effects of the Mt. Pinatobo eruption before it occured. Also, the temperature differences between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Also the tropopause altitude change. 
By design, the GCMs do not project anything but average temperatures with associated error bars. The global temperature for the past ten years remains within the expected prediction range. 
It is not 'all chaotic'. I can estimate future temperature changes with just pen, paper, and a table of logs. I can predict the stock market as well: in the long run it will go up at x% per year. 
There is a book about the history of GCM development which goes into some detail about the points which seem to concer you. You'll have to either buy it or obtain it from your local lending library. In the meantime, Spencer Weart: 
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html 
presents a more summarized history of GCM development.
David B. Benson 
02 June 2008 at 23:50
"Reduced sea ice affects sensitivity in two distinct ways: (1) the local warming effect, which occurs primarily in winter when the ice insulates the ocean from the atmosphere, and (2) the albedo effect, which occurs only in the summer when there is sunlight. 
Northern hemisphere sea ice cover has been declining over the past few decades (~2.5 percent per decade in real annual-average sea-ice cover)." 
from 
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10787&page=15
manacker 
03 June 2008 at 01:11
Hi David, 
At 14.5 million sq km in April 2008, Arctic sea ice has recovered back to the same level as it was in April 1989 and is around 3.4% lower than the 1979-2000 mean of 15.0 million sq km. 
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png 
As a result of the cold winter, it has also gained in thickness, by about 10-20 cm over last year. 
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.htm... 
According to nsidc the linear rate of decline is 3.0% per decade (a bit higher than your 2.5% figure). If decline continues at this rate it will take 330 years for the entire Arctic sea ice to disappear. 
However, if the current cooling trend continues, it may again reach levels exceeding the 1979 level, when measurements started. 
Who knows what will happen? 
(At any rate, it looks like the polar bears have nother to worry about for now, contrary to James E. Hansen's fears.) 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
03 June 2008 at 01:21
manacker --- The sea ice decrease lowers albedo. That and the upper atmosphere increase in water vapor as in the Prather quote help to justify a climate sensitivity of about 3 K. (See my previous post on that topic.) 
On the other hand 
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008740.shtml
manacker 
03 June 2008 at 02:39
Hi David, 
So you no longer believe that troposheric water (vapor, liquid, solid) will result in a positive feedback? 
(Seems like that is what the physically observed facts are showing.) 
And it's all up to "upper atmosphere" water vapor and melting sea ice to do this? 
Looks like the sea ice in the Antarctic is growing steadily, and the Arctic sea ice is now also back to where it was in 1989. 
All looks kind of dicey to me, David. Almost looks like "we've got a number, and now we've got to figure out how to rationalize this number." 
Regards, 
Max
Black Wallaby 
03 June 2008 at 07:39
The loneliness of polar bears! 
"NDISC: May 5, 2008, Overview of conditions of Arctic sea-ice 
For the month of April, Arctic sea ice extent stood at 14.49 million square kilometers (5.59 million square miles), which is 0.61 million square kilometers (0.24 million square miles) greater than April 2007, but is still 0.51 million square kilometers (0.20 million square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average for April." 
Those poor polar bears! At ~500 square kilometres range per bear in April, (ignoring ice-shelves and a lot of land), how can they ever find any humpy? I bet they can't wait for August to come with a more sensible range of a mere 200 square kilometres or so!
manacker 
03 June 2008 at 07:45
Hi David, 
For a summary on what the sea ice albedo effect really is check: 
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-222.pdf 
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-256.pdf 
Looks like it’s not quite as simple and straightforward as you have pictured it once the estimates are weighted by solar insolation, especially since the latest physical observations show that net ice coverage (both north and south) does not appear to be shrinking in actual fact. 
Not a very strong validation for a large positive feedback from the sea ice albedo effect. 
We established earlier that it’s not water in the troposphere (vapor, liquid droplets, ice crystals), and now it’s not the sea ice albedo effect. Guess it’s all up to the high atmosphere water vapor, which may or may not be real. 
The rationale for a 3K climate sensitivity (4.4 times what the greenhouse theory stipulates for a doubling of CO2 concentration) is beginning to crumble, David. 
Regards, 
Max
Black Wallaby 
03 June 2008 at 08:12
David B wrote: 
"Reduced sea ice affects sensitivity in two distinct ways: (1) the local warming effect, which occurs primarily in winter when the ice insulates the ocean from the atmosphere, and (2) the albedo effect, which occurs only in the summer when there is sunlight.” 
WRT 1) Are you saying that the colder it is in winter, and the more ice there is, the warmer will the underlying water be? You do know that the underlying water is dynamic? Would this not be a negative feedback? 
WRT 2): 
Albedo, in high latitudes, Re: 
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_e ... ... 
Material........Percentage of light reflected 
Fresh snow......................80-95 
Old snow.........................50-60 
Water (Sun near horizon)...50-80 
Water (Sun near zenith).....3-5 
This source of data, (Udel), publishes what seems counter-intuitive, that water can reflect sunlight at about the same level, or even more than old snow, when the sun is low in the sky. 
Are you able to advise the relative amounts of heat energy that arrive at high latitudes from the heat engine of the tropics via air convection and also sea currents, versus the rather weak sunshine spread over a large unit area, and long travel through the atmosphere. 
Whoops Max, our posts crossed, 
Regards, Bob
Robin Guenier 
03 June 2008 at 13:48
This is interesting: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_cox/2008/06/coolin... 
– especially as it’s in the Guardian, house journal of the liberal-green establishment. As I said regarding the article in the Sun only yesterday, attitudes in the UK seem to be changing.
bobclive 
03 June 2008 at 16:24
David, 
Air Transat Flight 236 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236, 
Yes GCMs my typing error. 
Are you actually stating the climate is NOT chaotic. 
David You say , GISS's ModelE predicted the effects of the Mt. Pinatobo eruption before it occured. 
I think not. 
The obvious difficulty in verifying any particular climate model or climate-model run is the prospective nature of the results. For this reason, models are often run into the past, to see how well they reproduce trends that have already been observed. Hansen told the group that he was pleased with how ModelE had reproduced the aftermath of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, in the Philippines, which took place in June of 1991, (REPRODUCED). not (PREDICTED). 
The GCM`s didn`t predict anything, they just reproduced results that had already occurred, they have NEVER predicted future results with any accuracy. 
Whither U.S. Climate? 
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999 
In the meantime, we can venture two "predictions" on "whither U.S. climate". First, regarding U.S. temperature, we have argued (Hansen et al., 1999a) that the next decade will be warmer than the 1990s, rivaling if not exceeding the 1930s. 
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/ 
Hanson`s models got it wrong by predicting warming when it actually cooled somewhat, as I said they have NEVER reliably predicted anything.
bobclive 
03 June 2008 at 17:04
David, 
Those wonderful computer models, which tell us we're doomed, and the earth will turn into Venus in 100 years. They've been around for a while now, how well have they been able to predict the 90's and thus far into the 2000's? 
Apparently Demetris Koutsoyiannis (from the Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, National Technical University of Athens) has wondered that. So he did some digging and compared the output of a couple GCMs to observed temperature data. 
Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series 
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850, 
here's the conclusions 
Quote: 
• All examined long records demonstrate large overyear variability (long‐term fluctuations) with no systematic signatures across the different locations/climates. 
• GCMs generally reproduce the broad climatic behaviours at different geographical locations and the sequence of wet/dry or warm/cold periods on a mean monthly scale. 
• However, model outputs at annual and climatic (30‐year) scales are irrelevant with reality; also, they do not reproduce the natural overyear fluctuation and, generally, underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series; none of the models proves to be systematically better than the others. 
• The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model predictions are much poorer that an elementary prediction based on the time average. 
• This makes future climate projections not credible. 
• The GCM outputs of AR4, as compared to those of TAR, are a regression in terms of the elements of falsifiability they provide, because most of the AR4 scenarios refer only to the future, whereas TAR scenarios also included historical periods. 
Here's another quote found on page 18 
Quote: 
Climatic models generally fail to reproduce the long‐term changes on temperature and precipitation. 
I think this says it all, 
The trouble with climate models is that no one has been able to work out how to create one with any accuracy. They closely equate to weather forcasts. With a great deal of technology you can get weather forcasts for temperate climate about 80% accurate three days out . World average climate models have not yet been able to provide accuracy greater than chance even one year out. Eventually they will. Eventually a great deal of information will be available and will be fed in correctly but this is still years away. 
The simplest question you can ask is "Show me any global climate model that, without correction or tweeking or the like, has been accurate for three years in its predictions, or even two years. If you cannot then the model is not of any use except to tell you perhaps where you have gone wrong." 
It is these type of logically sound simple questions that can show up scientific research that often is cloaked in considerable complexity in the language usage or mathamatics for what they are. Guesswork wrapped up to look like research or worse actual reasonable assumptions as to what might happen.
bobclive 
03 June 2008 at 17:14
NEW SGI SUPERCOMPUTERS ENABLE NASA CLIMATE ASSESSMENTS. 
SGI (NYSE: SGI), Mountain View, Calif., has completed installation of the world's first 1,024-processor SGI Origin 3800 single-system image supercomputer at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., and a separate 512-processor SGI Origin 3800 supercomputer at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. The new SGI Origin 3800 supercomputers are helping NASA to objectively evaluate the effects of natural and human activities on global climate. 
What has altered, Nasa is able to feed the same old rubbish in but get it out a hell of a lot quicker.
manacker 
03 June 2008 at 18:52
bobclive quoted a NASA PR blurb: 
"The new SGI Origin 3800 supercomputers are helping NASA to objectively evaluate the effects of natural and human activities on global climate." 
Let's just pause a moment to think of the psychology here. Why did NASA inject the word `"objectively" in their blurb? 
Putting that word into their PR spin gives me the same queasy feeling I get when I hear a politician start off a speech with "Now let me be perfectly honest...". 
So the good ol' US taxpayer has coughed up millions and millions of dollars to pay for this supercomputer so a bunch of AGW-promoting computer nerds can crank out a bunch of computer model disaster forecasts in order to frighten these same taxpayers into coughing up even more (in carbon footprint taxes). 
It's great when you can get the sucker to finance your scam in advance. 
Max
manacker 
03 June 2008 at 19:18
Hi David, 
“The global temperature for the past ten years remains within the expected prediction range.” 
Hmmm... 
Based on 2005 data, IPCC 2007 SPM projected a temperature increase of 0.2C per decade for the next two decades. Over the 21st century they projected a “likely range” of 1.1C (best case minimum) to 6.4C worst case maximum). 
Taking the Hadley monthly record for the 3-year period from May 2005 to April 2008, we get a linear cooling trend of –0.53C per decade and a linear change over the period of –0.16C. 
OOPS! This is clearly outside the “expected prediction range”. 
If we take the “global temperature for the past ten years” as you say (1998-2008) we show a flat to slight cooling trend (-0.002C/decade). 
OUCH! This also looks to me like it is outside IPCC’s “expected prediction range”. 
The TAR predicted a temperature rise of 1.4C to 5.8C from 1990 to 2100, and of 0.4C to 1.1C from 1990 to 2050. 
Since neither 2050 nor 2100 have arrived yet, it is difficult to assess how well they did. After a “good start” from 1990 to 1998, the warming seems to have bogged down for the most recent 10 years, despite record CO2 emissions. 
Guess we’ll have to wait and see how well IPCC models have done in predicting temperatures longer term. If they do as miserably as they did shorter term, you can write this whole GCM stuff off as classical computer GIGO results. 
Both Hansen and Hadley have been notoriously off the mark with their climate model predictions (“2006 will be hottest year”, “2007 will be hottest year”, “first decade of 21st century will be hotter than previous decade”, etc.). 
So I believe it is more than a stretch to say, “The global temperature for the past ten years remains within the expected prediction range” (unless you are talking about “hindcasts”, which can usually be rationalized to approach 100%). 
Regards, 
Max 
PS Right now, with everyone well aware that it has cooled off, the model forecasters have to keep the public’s eyes off of actual observed temperatures by throwing out “but wait’ll next year” hype and hoping for a miraculous turnaround. Of course another way is to “adjust” those thermometer readings to bring them into line with the known theory. GISS may be doing this, as Hansen gets more desperate, but GISS keeps getting further off the other records (Hadley, RSS, UAH), so, along with his 1930’s screw-up, he is beginning to lose credibility.
David B. Benson 
03 June 2008 at 19:34
Chylek et a. goofed up: 
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/12/chylek-on-sensitiv... 
and so water vapor feedback (mostly) and albedo change (some) still give a equilibrium climate sensitivity of about 3 K with about 60% of that being short term.
David B. Benson 
03 June 2008 at 19:49
Black Wallaby --- Go to the peer-reviewed literature regarding sea ice, albedo, etc. I'm certainly no expert on it. (But niether is manacker.) 
bobclive --- Under no circumstances will Earth's climate do a Venus-style runaway. Professor Ray Pierrehumbert did a thread about this on Real Climate awhile back. 
Thanks for the link, but since when is Air Transat the same as Air Canada?
David B. Benson 
03 June 2008 at 20:05
" Unknown authors don't overturn decades of science overnight, ..." 
Climatologist James Annan
David B. Benson 
03 June 2008 at 23:23
In 
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/06/getting-things-ba... 
Michael Tobis writes "A whole series of articles is possible on how climate change delusionists get things backwards." And the whole commentary is worth reading.
David B. Benson 
03 June 2008 at 23:39
Here is a good source of arctic sea ice news: 
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html 
I know of nothing comperable for snow melt in the far north (both North America and Eurasia).
David B. Benson 
03 June 2008 at 23:49
Recent GISS modelE study: 
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_etal_3.html 
Note the dispassionate manner in which various deficiencies are noted.
Brute 
04 June 2008 at 01:00
Here it is…….this is what the global warming fraud has been about all of this time. This is, was, and has been nothing more than a charade to seize money from successful, hard working Americans and give it to other nations……a MASSIVE WELFARE SCHEME. Everyone reading this post should pass this information along to anyone and everyone that has a job and pays taxes before this goes ANY further. This hoax is not only going to cost you your retirement but your freedoms and liberties. Successful citizens of western nations will be paying the freight for citizens of foreign nations and those who choose not to contribute. CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN NOW. PASS THIS ALONG TO YOUR FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS AND RELATIVES NOW. 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121236237789236363.html?mod=...
Brute 
04 June 2008 at 01:23
NASA Office Is Criticized on Climate Reports 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/nasa-press-o... 
Army Chief Scientist: “Sun’s turbulent dynamics” driving climate 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/army-chief-s... 
Cap and Spend 
June 2, 2008; Page A16 
The Wall Street Journal 
As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax. 
Sponsored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner, the bill would put a cap on carbon emissions that gets lowered every year. But to ease the pain and allow for economic adjustment, the bill would dole out "allowances" under the cap that would stand for the right to emit greenhouse gases. Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced a package of manager's amendments that mandates total carbon reductions of 66% by 2050, while earmarking the allowances. 
When cap and trade has been used in the past, such as to reduce acid rain, the allowances were usually distributed for free. A major difference this time is that the allowances will be auctioned off to covered businesses, which means imposing an upfront tax before the trade half of cap and trade even begins. It also means a gigantic revenue windfall for Congress. 
Ms. Boxer expects to scoop up auction revenues of some $3.32 trillion by 2050. Yes, that's trillion. Her friends in Congress are already salivating over this new pot of gold. The way Congress works, the most vicious floor fights won't be over whether this is a useful tax to create, but over who gets what portion of the spoils. In a conference call with reporters last Thursday, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry explained that he was disturbed by the effects of global warming on "crustaceans" and so would be pursuing changes to ensure that New England lobsters benefit from some of the loot. 
Of course most of the money will go to human constituencies, especially those with the most political clout. In the Boxer plan, revenues are allocated down to the last dime over the next half-century. Thus $802 billion would go for "relief" for low-income taxpayers, to offset the higher cost of lighting homes or driving cars. Ms. Boxer will judge if you earn too much to qualify. 
There's also $190 billion to fund training for "green-collar jobs," which are supposed to replace the jobs that will be lost in carbon-emitting industries. Another $288 billion would go to "wildlife adaptation," whatever that means, and another $237 billion to the states for the same goal. Some $342 billion would be spent on international aid, $171 billion for mass transit, and untold billions for alternative energy and research – and we're just starting. 
Ms. Boxer would only auction about half of the carbon allowances; she reserves the rest for politically favored supplicants. These groups might be Indian tribes (big campaign donors!), or states rewarded for "taking the lead" on emissions reductions like Ms. Boxer's California. Those lucky winners would be able to sell those allowances for cash. The Senator estimates that the value of the handouts totals $3.42 trillion. For those keeping track, that's more than $6.7 trillion in revenue handouts so far. 
The bill also tries to buy off businesses that might otherwise try to defeat the legislation. Thus carbon-heavy manufacturers like steel and cement will get $213 billion "to help them adjust," while fossil-fuel utilities will get $307 billion in "transition assistance." No less than $34 billion is headed to oil refiners. Given that all of these folks have powerful Senate friends, they will probably extract a larger ransom if cap and trade ever does become law. 
If Congress is really going to impose this carbon tax in the name of saving mankind, the least it should do is forego all of this political largesse. In return for this new tax, Congress should cut taxes elsewhere to make the bill revenue neutral. A "tax swap" would offset the deadweight taxes that impede growth and reduce employment. All the more so because even the cap-and-trade friendly Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the bill would reduce GDP between $1 trillion and $2.8 trillion by 2050. 
Most liberal economists favor using the money to reduce the payroll tax. That has the disadvantage politically of adding Social Security into the debate. A cleaner tax swap would compensate for the new tax on business by cutting taxes on investment – such as slashing the 35% U.S. corporate rate that is the second highest in the developed world. Then there's the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2010 and would raise the overall tax burden by $2.8 trillion over the next decade. Democrats who want to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends are proposing a double tax wallop by embracing Warner-Lieberman-Boxer. 
All of this helps explain why so many in Congress are so enamored of "doing something" about global warming. They would lay claim to a vast new chunk of the private economy and enhance their own political power.
Brute 
04 June 2008 at 01:24
Blame Congress for High Oil Prices 
The Wall Street Journal 
By MACKUBIN THOMAS OWENS 
May 29, 2008; Page A17 
Gasoline prices are through the roof and Americans are angry. Someone must be to blame and the obvious villain is "Big Oil" with its alleged ability to gouge consumers and achieve unconscionable, "windfall" profits. Congress is in a vile mood, and has dragged oil industry executives before its committees for show trials, issuing predictable threats of punishment, e.g. a "windfall profits tax." 
But if there is a villain in all of this, it is Congress itself. That venerable body has made it impossible for U.S. producers of crude oil to tap significant domestic reserves of oil and gas, and it has foreclosed economically viable alternative sources of energy in favor of unfeasible alternatives such as wind and solar. In addition, Congress has slapped substantial taxes on gasoline. Indeed, as oil industry executives reiterated in their appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 21, 15% of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. 
To understand the depth of congressional complicity in the high price of gasoline, one must understand that crude oil prices explain 97% of the variation in the pretax price of gasoline. That price, which has risen to record levels, is set by the intersection of supply and demand. On the one hand, world-wide demand has accelerated mainly due to the rapid growth of China and India. 
On the other hand, supply has been curtailed by the cartel-like behavior of foreign national oil companies, which control nearly 80% of world petroleum reserves. Faced with little competition in the production of crude oil, the members of this cartel benefit from keeping the commodity in the ground, confident that increasing demand will make it more valuable in the future. Despite its pious denunciations of the behavior of U.S. investor-owned oil companies (IOCs), Congress by its actions over the years has ensured the economic viability of the national oil company cartel. 
It has done so by preventing the exploitation by IOCs of reserves available in nonpark federal lands in the West, Alaska and under the waters off our coasts. These areas hold an estimated 635 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas – enough to meet the needs of the 60 million American homes fueled by natural gas for over a century. They also hold an estimated 112 billion barrels of recoverable oil – enough to produce gasoline for 60 million cars and fuel oil for 25 million homes for 60 years. 
This doesn't even include substantial oil shale resources economically recoverable at oil prices substantially lower than those prevailing today. In an exchange between Sen. Orin Hatch (R., Utah) and John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Company during the May 21 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, the point was made that anywhere from 800 million to two trillion barrels of oil are available from oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. 
If Congress really cared about the economic well-being of American citizens, it would stop fulminating against IOCs and reverse current policies that discourage, indeed prohibit, the production of domestic oil and natural gas. Even the announcement that Congress was opening the way for domestic production would lead to downward pressure on oil prices. 
There is an historical precedent for such a step: Ronald Reagan's deregulation of domestic crude oil prices at the beginning of his first term. At the time, thanks to the decision by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to curtail output, the price of oil was at a level that in real terms is only now being matched. Domestic price controls ensured that the OPEC cartel would face little or no competition in the production of oil. 
Price controls were exacerbated by other wrongheaded policies stimulated by the two "energy crises" of the 1970s. One of the most egregious was the infamous "windfall profits" tax, designed to punish oil companies for alleged profiteering. But since it applied to even newly discovered oil, its main impact was to discourage the exploration and drilling that would have increased oil supplies. 
Although the energy problems of the 1970s were traceable to government policies, Reagan's decision to deregulate oil prices was ridiculed by policy makers, especially those who had served in the previous administration. For instance, Frank Zarb, who had been Jimmy Carter's "energy czar," predicted that decontrolling the price of crude oil would lead to gasoline prices of $10 a gallon. Instead, the world price of oil plummeted, helping to fuel the extraordinary economic growth of the 1980s. 
Reagan's deregulation of crude oil prices created incentives for domestic producers to invest in exploration and to increase production. The threat of increased output by non-OPEC producers destroyed the discipline among OPEC members necessary to restrict production to maintain high prices. Facing the likelihood that an increase in supply would lead to lower future prices, OPEC producers increased output in the hopes of maximizing profits before prices fell. The cascading effect caused oil prices to tumble. 
As in the 1970s, U.S. energy policies have essentially restricted the exploitation of domestic sources of energy. Curtailed supplies have combined with rapid, world-wide energy demand to increase the price of oil and other sources of energy. This provides leverage to foreign producers and threatens U.S. energy security. Freeing up domestic energy resources will do today what President Reagan's decision to deregulate oil prices in 1981 did then: cause oil prices to fall, thereby enhancing U.S. energy security. 
Mr. Owens is a professor at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and editor of Orbis, the journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia.
David B. Benson 
04 June 2008 at 02:45
Yawn.
Robin Guenier 
04 June 2008 at 06:05
Those of you who tangled with Joseph Romm may be interested that I had the temerity to do so again. See: http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/17/must-read-ipcc-synthes... 
BTW I'm inclined to agree with David's yawn.
Sven 
04 June 2008 at 08:46
UAH out for May: 
-0.180 
Wow!!!! Or better - brrrrr, I quess!
Black Wallaby 
04 June 2008 at 09:00
David B. Benson wrote on 
04 June 2008 at 02:45 
Yawn. 
David, if you are tired, please catch-up on some sleep, and perhaps when you are ready, you could make some reasoned comments?
Black Wallaby 
04 June 2008 at 09:15
David B wrote: 
Black Wallaby --- Go to the peer-reviewed literature regarding sea ice, albedo, etc. I'm certainly no expert on it. 
Gee, that's odd, the strong assertions that you made originally looked as though it was coming from an expert! 
That is why I asked some pertinent questions which did not quite gel with me. 
OK, fair enough, despite your confidant assertions, you now admit that you had no idea what you were talking about! 
That figures, given the rest of your stuff on this thread!
Black Wallaby 
04 June 2008 at 09:29
Hey, 
Do I get a prize for doing 1600? 
I'm no mathematicion but 1600 is divisible by lots of other numbers, right? ....a fairly special # 
Should be worth an electronic kiss or something? 
Can I specify which part of my body and certain other parameters? 
That # also has magic powers in the mysterious art-religion whatever it is of "Numerology". 
(Although it did not seem to work entirely on a house I built 1980/1, with street # 16!)
Black Wallaby 
04 June 2008 at 09:40
Sven, UAH out for May: -0.180 
Nah! don't worry, it is just a momentary data malfunction which will be corrected in due course
Robin Guenier 
04 June 2008 at 10:47
This is interesting: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,557199,00... 
Yes, voters matter.
Robin Guenier 
04 June 2008 at 10:52
Further to Sven's comment, see: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MAY2008GLOBE.jpg
Brute 
04 June 2008 at 11:44
Mr. Benson, 
Being that global temperatures continue to drop and CO2 levels continue to rise; exactly how much heat does the Sun and Pacific Decadal Oscillations account for in the global temperature observations? 
What percentage of this decrease is the Sun? What percentage is PDO and what percentage is CO2?
manacker 
04 June 2008 at 20:06
Hi David, 
You appear to be someone who has high faith in the use of computer models to make climate predictions (or “projections”, as IPCC prefers to label them). From your extensive background and expertise, I believe you have “a horse in the race” regarding the applicability of computer models as scientific “oracles” for the future. 
As the famous U.S. baseball player, Yogi Berra, once commented, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” 
I’ll quote you a paragraph of a book I am currently reading, entitled “The Black Swan”, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. The book deals with “The Impact of the Highly Improbable”, where the “highly improbable” is identified as the “Black Swan” (no offense to Black Wallaby and other site visitors from Oz, who are well aware that swans – at least those of the Tasmanian ilk -are supposed to be black). 
Taleb comments on Berra’s observation: 
“While he did not produce the writings that would allow him to be considered a philosopher, in spite of his wisdom and intellectual abilities, Berra can claim to know something about randomness. He was a practitioner of uncertainty, and, as a baseball player and coach, regularly faced random outcomes, and had to face their results deep into his bones. 
In fact, Yogi Berra is not the only thinker who thought about how much of the future lies beyond our abilities. Many less popular, less pithy, but not less competent thinkers than he have examined our inherent limitations in this regard, from the philosophers Jacques Hadamard and Henri Poincare (commonly described as mathematicians), to the philosopher Friedrich von Hayek (commonly described, alas, as an economist), to the philosopher Karl Popper (commonly known as a philosopher). We can safely call this the Berra-Hadamard-Poincare-Hayek-Popper conjecture, which puts structural, built-in limits to the enterprise of predicting. 
‘The future ain't what it used to be,’ Berra later said."' He seems to have been right: the gains in our ability to model (and predict) the world may be dwarfed by the increases in its complexity-implying a greater and greater role for the unpredicted. The larger the role of the Black Swan, the harder it will be for us to predict. Sorry. 
Before going into the limits of prediction, we will discuss our track record in forecasting and the relation between gains in knowledge and the offsetting gains in confidence.” 
Taleb notes " Note that these sayings attributed to Yogi Berra might be apocryphal-it was the physicist Niels Bohr who came up with the first one, and plenty of others came up with the second. These sayings remain, however, quintessential Berraisms.” 
In the following chapter, entitled “The Scandal of Prediction”, Taleb goes on to show how predictions are usually skewed by intuitive judgment, which inherently underestimates “extremes” and is completely blind to the “Black Swan”. 
Taleb also makes the case that “information is bad for knowledge” and discusses what he calls “the expert problem”. This is the surprisingly unexpected observation that in making predictions for the future, it is more often than not the non-experts who get it right, while the experts are off. 
He refers to a common observation in expert predictions: errors in forecasts are often significantly larger than the average differences between forecasts, a syndrome he refers to as “herding”. In other words, all of the experts on a subject agree on the forecast in fairly close consensus, even though it may end up being far off the mark. 
The general consensus among experts is that they have explanations for everything that has occurred, and that they can therefore predict accurately what will occur in the future. 
But Taleb makes the point: “You cannot ignore self-delusion. The problem with experts is that they do not know what they do not know.” 
When a forecast has been proven wrong by the unexpected ensuing actual events, the first step is to rationalize why this was so. This often takes the form of “other than that, it was OK”. 
Why is this? 
Arguably, the most succinct explanation of this phenomenon was proposed by the late Thomas Kuhn in his treatise “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. 
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html 
Kuhn points out that all scientists operate within the bounds of paradigms: “A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs.” 
Scientists also like to feel that they have explanations for most natural occurrences. “Normal science ‘is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like’ —scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.” 
“A shared commitment to a paradigm ensures that its practitioners engage in the paradigmatic observations that its own paradigm can do most to explain, i.e., investigate the kinds of research questions to which their own theories can most easily provide answers.” 
In describing paradigm-based research, Kuhn observed that: 
“This paradigm-based research is ‘an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies’ 
a. no effort made to call forth new sorts of phenomena. 
b. no effort to discover anomalies. 
i. when anomalies pop up, they are usually discarded or ignored. 
ii. anomalies usually not even noticed (tunnel vision/one track mind). 
iii. no effort to invent new theory (and no tolerance for those who try). 
iv. "Normal-scientific research is directed to the articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradigm already supplies" 
AGW is now accepted as one of the key factors that drive climate. Many scientists even believe that it is the overwhelming factor. This is the new “paradigm” in “climate science”. 
It is the paradigm, as Thomas Kuhn explains, that transforms a group into a profession and guides the whole group's research, and it is this criterion that most clearly proclaims a field a science. Thus, the AGW paradigm has transformed various meteorological disciplines into the new science of “climatology”. 
For a “non-scientist” the AGW paradigm as postulated by IPCC can be crudely summarized as: 
· Atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising since 1959 when accurate measurements started. They are at around 380 ppmv today. Less accurate earlier records plus a proxy study show they were at around 280 ppmv in 1900. IPCC estimates that they grew on average at 1.9 ppm per year from 1995 to 2005, and that this rise is due to anthropogenic factors, primarily the use of fossil fuels. 
· A doubling of atmospheric CO2 should increase temperatures by somewhere around 1deg C, depending on whose numbers you believe. At the 1.9 ppm per year rate we should be there by around the year 2100 with 560 ppmv. 
· But CO2 is only part of the story. The more important greenhouse gas is water vapor. A warmer atmosphere should be able to hold more water, which will cause more warming. High altitude cirrus cloud block outgoing infrared and these are also projected to increase with warmer temperatures. Then there is the projected warming effect of melting polar sea ice, which will reduce our planet’s “albedo”. These projected “positive feedbacks” are projected to increase the impact from CO2 alone by a factor of over four times. 
· Other anthropogenic and natural factors are also considered but AGW is considered to be the dominant driving force for the next 100 years. 
· Warming will occur more rapidly at the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere than at the equator. As a result the currently observed melting rate of northern glaciers will probably accelerate. This can be seen in the non-polar glaciers and can be expected to be the same for the Greenland ice sheet. Antarctica is still an unknown, but it is expected that this will also start to melt at an accelerated rate as global temperatures warm. 
· Melting glaciers plus thermal expansion of the ocean will cause sea levels to rise, as they have been for the past century. It is anticipated that the rate of rise will increase. 
· With a lower level of confidence it is also generally projected that a warmer Earth will experience more droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and intense tropical cyclone activity. 
· Finally, the paradigm includes the postulation that primarily due to AGW, we are living in a period of unusual warmth and warming today and the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. 
Any data or model studies that support this paradigm are eagerly accepted by the mainstream scientific community as a validation of their belief. 
But scientists, like all people, have a more difficult time accepting any new study or observed physical data that do not support the prevalent paradigm. The expected reaction to such data can be: 
· Ignoring that it exists at all 
· Discarding the conflicting data as an “outlier” 
· Discrediting the source 
· Reinterpreting the results of the study to make it fit the paradigm 
· Launching a new study to get results that reinforce the paradigm 
· Finally, as Nassim Taleb has observed with his “Black Swan”, they may just be physically unable to see the new data 
Are these things happening today? Of course they are. This has nothing to do with a “conspiracy” and has everything to do with the human reaction to things that lie outside the accepted paradigm. 
It is hard or even impossible to “think outside the box” when you are so committed to the box that you are, in effect physically “inside the box” yourself. Taleb refers to the “nerd effect, which stems from the elimination of off-model risks, or focusing on what you know [rather than on what you do NOT know]. You view the world from within the model.” 
In support of the prevailing AGW paradigm the statement is often made that statements by IPCC (the global proponent for this paradigm) are carefully vetted and “peer reviewed” by the authors of the report, the member governments, etc., and are thus the credible assessment of the “scientific community”. 
This is nothing more than a confirmation that AGW is the present “paradigm” in the “mainstream” scientific community. 
The “mainstream” scientific supporters of and believers in the prevalent AGW paradigm defend it not only against skeptics, but also against any conflicting new theory. 
This behavior of the “mainstream” is not only true today but has been so in the past. 
Galileo has been mentioned as one example of a new theory being attacked by the defenders of the mainstream paradigm, but a more fitting example is Alfred Wegener, the discoverer of plate tectonics. 
In his work, Wegener presented a large amount of circumstantial evidence in support of continental drift. His observation of the similarity between continental coasts and fossils convinced him there had been a separation of the continents, but he was unable to come up with a convincing mechanism. The new theory challenged the deeply ingrained scientific paradigm of the time and was widely criticised and universally dismissed by the mainstream scientific community. 
The mainstream scientific community of the time organized symposia specifically to discredit the new theory. 
The theory was largely buried in the 1930s and remained outside the accepted scientific paradigm for almost 30 years. 
In the 1950s advances in geology led to the resurrection of the continental drift hypothesis and its direct descendant, the theory of plate tectonics. 
Alfred Wegener is now recognized as a founding father of one of the major scientific revolutions of the 20th century. His theory has become the new “paradigm”. 
A modern-day contrarian is Henrik Svensmark, who together with Eigil Friis-Christensen suggested in 1997 a link between galactic cosmic rays and global warming. Like Wegener with his continental shift theory, they observed similarity between trends in global temperatures and solar activity, but were unable to come up with a convincing mechanism. 
Most mainstream “climatologists” immediately rejected the idea, defending the prevalent paradigm that human carbon dioxide emissions are the primary factor behind twentieth century warming. 
Leaving aside some more emotional attacks on Svensmark that were ideologically motivated, Svensmark was told over and over again that this was only a theory, based on doubtful correlations, and that there was no experimental evidence to back it up. 
Most of today's leading climate scientists remain unconvinced and continue to defend the prevalent paradigm of AGW as the principal driver of climate change. 
But there are a few scientists who say that the complicated nature of cloud cover is exactly why Svensmark et al may be right. 
The calculations and model studies used to defend the AGW theory and the IPCC predictions all assume that there will be no negative feedback from increased cloud cover. This is a critical assumption although there is considerable doubt that it is correct and some recent physical observations have actually confirmed a significant negative feedback from clouds as temperatures warm. 
IPCC does say that “additional forcing factors not included here are considered to have a very low LOSU (level of scientific understanding)”, and “clouds remain the greatest source of uncertainty”, so that Svensmark’s work may actually help to decrease the uncertainty of the impact of clouds, and should therefore be welcomed by everyone as new data to help in the understanding of what causes global warming. 
A study is now underway at CERN to verify the results obtained in Svensmark’s simple laboratory experiment. 
If the results from the current CLOUD study at CERN confirm the theory proposed by Svensmark et al, they will bring new light on the impact of the sun on Earth’s climate and present a radical new challenge to the current AGW paradigm. 
As one could expect from Kuhn and Taleb, the “mainstream’ scientific supporters of the AGW theory have not welcomed the CLOUD study as a possible source of new knowledge, but instead have reacted strongly to defend their paradigm against this possible challenging new theory. 
In Wegener’s day this was done by organizing symposia specifically to discredit the new theory. Today we have blog sites to do this work and they are actively defending the AGW paradigm against this possible intruder. RealClimate a pro-AGW site has called Svensmark’s theory “one of the skeptics’ last trenches”. 
Who knows if Svensmark and Friis-Christensen will become the new “Wegeners” in the global climate debate? Will their “cosmic ray / cloud” theory be a “Black Swan”? 
And who knows if this new knowledge will cause a “scientific revolution” or “fundamental paradigm shift” away from the currently prevalent AGW paradigm to a totally new paradigm? 
Just something to think about. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
04 June 2008 at 20:25
Hi David, 
You cited a Hansen blurb that included the statement: “Although there are notable discrepancies between model and observations, the fidelity is sufficient to encourage use of the model for simulations of future climate change.” 
Wow! 
The models don’t agree with the observed facts, but they are good enough to predict the future? 
This statement smacks of blind faith and of unmitigated arrogance. 
How could Hansen be so silly as to let such a statement be published under his name? 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
04 June 2008 at 21:42
Hi David, 
In attempting to rebut the Chylek study on climate sensitivity “James’ Empty Blog” came out “pretty empty” indeed, with a lot of theoretical waffle, but no reference to any observed facts. 
His conclusion: “There is no justification in their paper as to why their expression should be accurate when applied over the last decade, and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it fails to usefully diagnose sensitivity when applied to GCM output such as that in the AR4 database (I've not bothered to do this). 
So in the absence of any evidence that their method actually works, it's hard to take their results seriously.” 
“Dollars to doughnuts?” Sounds less than convincing to me, David. 
I am still waiting for some sort of physically observed data that confirms your 3K figure, but you remain silent. To paraphrase James: “So in the absence of any evidence for a 3K sensitivity, it's hard to take this assumed value seriously.” 
It has been essentially shot down for troposheric water vapor and clouds, as well as for albedo changes, leaving a last glimmer of hope in “high altitude water vapor increase” (with no physically observed evidence that this even exists and no quantification of what this theoretically should cause). 
All very nebulous, David. 
In the absence of any compelling physically observed evidence to the contrary, it sounds like we should not rely on off-hand rebuttals by blogsites but go back to the “no net impact of feedbacks” value of 0.7K for doubling CO2 (as based on the greenhouse theory and IPCC’s estimate of radiative forcing for CO2). 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
04 June 2008 at 22:12
manacker --- Some things are easier to predict than others. For example, orbital forcing, being entirely a matter of astronomy, can be accurately predicted for well over a million years into the future and posdicted similarly into the past. 
But if all you want is a global temperature prediction depending upon CO2 forcing, then a climate sensitivity of 3 K (for the reasons previously posted here) suffices to give a ball park estimate. 
[By the way, no change in cosmic ray flux since measurements began about 50 years ago. Hence no change of influence on clouds, if there is actually any at all.] 
My current interest is in understanding a bit more about the approximately 60% of the climate sensitivity which is (essentially) immediate: water vapor, SST and albedo seem likely to offer positive feedbacks; clouds neither positive nor negative (so far). 
"The increase in climate sensitivity due to water vapor feedback plays a part in virtually any climate change phenomenon that can be contemplated on a planet with a liquid water ocean." 
Ray Pierrehumbert: 
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.htm... 
page 218 (225 ordinal)
David B. Benson 
04 June 2008 at 23:15
"Cloud changes could either amplify or damp the climate change predicted on the basis of clear-sky physics, according to whether changes in the cloud greenhouse eﬀect or the cloud albedo eﬀect win out. Unfortunately, there is no simple thermodynamic prescription that does for cloud feedbacks what the assumption of ﬁxed relative humidity does for water vapor feedbacks." 
Ray Pierrehumbert: 
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.htm... 
page 225 (232 ordinal)
Brute 
04 June 2008 at 23:21
“Although there are notable discrepancies between model and observations, the fidelity is sufficient to encourage use of the model for simulations of future climate change.” 
Max, 
Whenever I add 4 + 4 using my calculator, it comes up with a sum of 10......... 
My question to you is: 
Should I continue to use this calculator to balance my business books? What if I just tell the Internal Revenue Service that clients sent me more money than I invoiced them for; i.e. I billed them for 8 Dollars but they sent me $10.00......or a Dollar is actually worth more than it was at the beginning of the fiscal year, so 8 Dollars is actually equivalent to $10.00. Do you think that would work? 
Close enough, right? Or, as they say, "close enough for government work". 
-Brute
David B. Benson 
04 June 2008 at 23:49
'Clouds have both a warming and a cooling eﬀect on climate. High-altitude clouds have a warming eﬀect, since they strongly reduce OLR either by absorption and emission, or by scattering, of infrared radiation. Clouds at any altitude have a cooling inﬂuence, through increasing the planetary albedo in the solar spectrum. The net eﬀect of clouds depends on how the competition between these two factors plays out." 
Ray Pierrehumbert: 
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.htm... 
page 278 (285 ordinal)
Brute 
05 June 2008 at 01:19
The Sanctity of Climate Models 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/06/04/the-s...#more-330
David B. Benson 
05 June 2008 at 01:25
How has the climate, in the near and remote past, responding to radiative forcings? By looking at actual data (for which see the Wikipeida page on climate sensitivity) it is clear that the physically expected positive feedbacks are indeed operative. As often stated, the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is about 3 K. 
Indeed, this can be readily checked against the HadCRUTv3 global temperatures since 1850 CE. Knowing the CO2 concentrations in 1850 CE and also in 2007 CE, one computes that the direct effect of the radiative forcing is less that half the observed warming; the net positive feedbacks have to account for the rest of this fast response part of the equilibrium climate sensitivity, about 60% of the total at equilibrium. 
The net positive feedbacks arise from (at least) water vapor increase, SST increase and albedo decrease. The latter two effects seem to be small; water vapor is not. 
First of all, we know that precipitation has not changed in 50 years. While there is a warning regarding such matters in Pierrehumbert et al. (previously linked), I will take this as indicating relative humidity has not changed in 50 years. But since the air temperature has increased, this in turn means the absolute humidity has increased. Indeed, I previously posted a quotation from Prather in which he stated that lower stratospheric water vapor had increased. 
With constant relative humidity, cloud cover ought to stay about constant, so clouds offer neither more nor less net feedback. 
Both total water vapor and cloud cover are currently being monitored be the GEOS collection of satellites, so eventually there will be enough data to determine with some precision the (physically justified) approximations made above are. 
Whatever, further data will aid in sharpening the climate sensitivity value, further reducing the error bounds.
Brute 
05 June 2008 at 01:28
Global Warming: Not So Fast 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/21/globa...
Brute 
05 June 2008 at 02:39
Reality proves IPCC wrong: C02 not a problem 
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
manacker 
05 June 2008 at 05:25
Hi David, 
Your latest post did little to shed new light on the justification for a 3K climate sensitivity from doubling CO2 due to feedbacks from (as you put it) “water vapor increase, SST increase and albedo decrease”. 
There is no physically observed evidence for your claim that “the absolute humidity has increased”. In fact, the observed fact that “precipitation has not changed in 50 years”, points to the fact that there has been no increase in “absolute humidity” on a global basis. 
If you can provide physical evidence of globally increased “absolute humidity” (i.e. increased water vapor concentration), do so. I have not yet seen this evidence, and you have not yet provided it. 
Theory is wonderful, David, and climate model studies are magnificent, but observed physical facts are even better, and you have not been able to bring any facts to support your assumption. 
Now to the clouds. You say: “With constant relative humidity, cloud cover ought to stay about constant, so clouds offer neither more nor less net feedback.” Yeah, maybe they “ought to stay about constant” (if your assumption of “constant relative humidity” is correct), but in actual practice they do not behave the way you seem to believe that they “ought to”. Drat! In fact, as I showed you, clouds have been shown by observed physical observations to result in a major negative (cooling) feedback. 
As you agree, the “albedo” feedback is small (if it exists at all, once projections are corrected for the lack of reduction of Arctic sea ice since 1989, the continued growth of Antarctic sea ice and the effect of solar radiation, as was pointed out to you). 
So you are left with a hollow shell of hypothetical feedbacks that will supposedly increase the warming impact of CO2 by a factor of 4+, but are not supported by any physical observations. 
Forget the feedbacks, David. They are an illusion. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
05 June 2008 at 05:53
Hi David, 
Now I am going to play your “hypothetical” game of assumed feedbacks and models studies, just for fun. 
Don’t get me wrong here, David. I think that “hypothetical” exercises and the virtual reality of model studies are no substitute for physically observed facts, which you have been unable to provide to lend support for “positive feedbacks” that will result in a 3K sensitivity from doubling CO2. 
But let’s play your game anyway. 
Greenhouse theory (Arrhenius, Stefan-Boltzmann, Myhre et al) tell us that a doubling of CO2 will result in a temperature increase of 0.68K. 
You tell me that this increase in global average temperature (from around 15.0C to 15.7C) will result in an increase of globally averaged atmospheric water vapor content, since “relative humidity will remain constant”. 
Assuming that your dubious claim is correct, how much increase in atmospheric water vapor concentration will this cause: 1%, 5%, 10%? Please provide calculations to quantify this hypothetical increase. 
What is the radiative forcing of water vapor? Please provide your estimate and the bases for this estimate. 
On this basis, what is the theoretical increase in temperature resulting from the assumed increase in atmospheric water vapor concentration. Please provide calculations. 
I am awaiting your response. 
Regards, 
Max
Robin Guenier 
05 June 2008 at 11:21
One for Brute: 
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Y2ZiMDc3ZjIxMzEzZ...
Brute 
05 June 2008 at 14:04
Robin, 
I just love how these environmental fanatics claim that this debate "is about science, not politics" then in the next breath advocate passing laws through politicians to deal with it. These people someday will have to come to grips with the fact that government will not solve their problems, (maybe psychoanalysis would). I read a quote somewhere that stated: “If everyone swept up in front of your own front door, eventually the entire world would be clean”. If many people adopted that same philosophy possibly these fanatics would manage to smile, but forcing people to become environmentalists by passing laws brings resentment and antipathy. 
Unfortunately, I don’t think that anything would make these Sadsacks happy. They seem to wallow in misery and worry and endeavor to spread their feelings of dread. 
Politicians on the other hand, see an ENORMOUS opportunity to swindle the taxpayer and control industry through government fiat and regulation all under the guise of a fraudulent “climate crisis” cooked up by the United Nations and dopey idealists. One of our “concerned” environmentalist politicians actually put forth the proposition of nationalizing the U.S. oil industry. Windfall profit taxes are yet another vehicle for these Collectivists to get their hands on yet more of the proceeds generated by legitimate, successful industries. The fact is that any business will simply pass the additional cost of doing business to the end user…..the consumer…….you and me. They propose increasing taxes and setting limits on “unreasonable profits”; yet they don’t investigate Google or Generation Investment Management, (Al Gore’s company) or the Kennedy’s offshore real estate businesses and oil money. Bill Clinton and Al Gore collect upwards of $750,000 for speaking at symposiums for an hour…..seems “unreasonable” to me using their definition. Hollywood actors pontificating about “lowering my carbon footprint” when they use 50 times the energy that I do and collect 7 and 8 figure salaries for pretending, (acting). 
Don’t get me wrong, if Al Gore can convince the Sultan of Dubai to pay him 750K for talking for an hour, more power to him; just don’t lecture me about “what I need to do to correct my excessive consumption” just because I want to keep my family warm in the winter. Swindlers and phonies, every last one of them…………. 
The government confiscates roughly .60 cents per gallon of gasoline……the oil industry profits amount to roughly .08 cents per gallon. Oil companies build, create and develop oil delivery, refining and exploration……the government does nothing but hinder and harass law abiding, productive industries that provide goods and services to the citizens to appease environmentalist dreamers and garner votes. 
As I wrote previously……… When will the oil companies investigate the US Congress? 
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=297384890858685
gkl 
05 June 2008 at 15:18
Here's an interesting little tidbit on the possible role of marine micro-organisms in regulating sothouer ocean tempertaures AND CO2 levels: 
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003141.html 
The evidence just keeps piling up doesn't it?
gkl 
05 June 2008 at 15:21
Woops.... the perils of hunt-and-peck typing! 
Please read "sothouer" as "southern" in my preceding post. 
Sheesh!
Brute 
05 June 2008 at 18:41
Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermo...
Brute 
05 June 2008 at 19:03
South Dakota To Build First New Oil Refinery in 32 years 
http://www.neoconstant.com/2008/06/05/south-dakota-oi/
manacker 
05 June 2008 at 20:46
Hi Brute, 
Goddard's expose of the manipulations being made to James E. Hansen's GISS temperature record give real food for thought. 
Hansen has whined about being "muzzled" by politicians using the "shot the messenger" analogy. 
U.S. taxpayers are paying his salary. He is supposed to be providing them un-biased data on weather and climate trends. 
Instead he is actively pushing his own agenda and views as an environmental activist and getting into areas far outside his narrow field of expertise (extinction of species, collapse of ice sheets, suggested political solutions, i.e. carbon taxes, etc.). 
And now he is even manipulating the GISS data and lying to the public about the "global average temperature" in order to support his hysterical message of "tipping points" and runaway warming. 
This guy should be fired. He needs a well-deserved rest and some psychological treatment. 
Regards, 
Max
bobclive 
05 June 2008 at 21:25
NCAR News Release 
Scientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle 
March 6, 2006, 
BOULDER—The next sunspot cycle will be 30-50% stronger than the last one and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Predicting the Sun's cycles accurately, years in advance, will help societies plan for active bouts of solar storms, which can slow satellite orbits, disrupt communications, and bring down power systems. 
The scientists have confidence in the forecast because, in a series of test runs, the newly developed model simulated the strength of the past eight solar cycles with more than 98% accuracy. The forecasts are generated, in part, by tracking the subsurface movements of the sunspot remnants of the previous two solar cycles. The team is publishing its forecast in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. 
"Our model has demonstrated the necessary skill to be used as a forecasting tool," says NCAR scientist Mausumi Dikpati, the leader of the forecast team at NCAR's High Altitude Observatory that also includes Peter Gilman and Giuliana de Toma. 
Predicting Cycles 24 and 25 
The Predictive Flux-transport Dynamo Model is enabling NCAR scientists to predict that the next solar cycle, known as Cycle 24, will produce sunspots across an area slightly larger than 2.5% of the visible surface of the Sun. The scientists expect the cycle to begin in late 2007 or early 2008, which is about 6 to 12 months later than a cycle would normally start. Cycle 24 is likely to reach its peak about 2012. 
We shall see, should occur any time now, another day another MODEL. 
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/sunspot.shtml.
Brute 
05 June 2008 at 21:27
Max, 
Firing Hansen would be a mistake, (right now). The guy already gets more press coverage than Brittany Spears and claims he is being “censored” by the Bush Administration, Big Oil and whatever bogeymen he hallucinates are trying to “silence” him. Firing him would make him a martyr and cause celeb for the environmental religious fanatics. Bush only has a few months left to go and doesn't need this pipsqueak crying and whining ala Cindy Sheehan. 
In my humble opinion, these guys usually end up hanging themselves, (See: Elliott Spitzer, former Governor of New York, Al Franken (Senatorial Candidate) or Al Gore). The more these guys talk the more people realize how foolish and deluded they are. I say give him more press….. force him to talk….. Schedule press conferences for the guy everyday of the week, wear his ass out. Every time he opens his mouth he demonstrates his inability to be objective regarding the topic. His manipulated data gets further and further out of synchronization with other datasets. It’s quite obvious that his numbers are fabricated.
David B. Benson 
05 June 2008 at 22:30
manacker wrote "In fact, the observed fact that 'precipitation has not changed in 50 years', points to the fact that there has been no increase in 'absolute humidity' on a global basis." False. You are just MSU again. Go learn some physics. 
As "The Climate Book" points out, clouds have a net negative feedback. But if there is no change in cloud cover, there is no change in net feedback, as I said. 
Radiative forcing of water vapor? Why should you care? If you do, "The Climate Book" will give you some answers. What I care about is the positive feedback water vapor, etc., provides, given the radiative forcings of CO2, etc., over the past 157 years. I did this in my previous post and I'll not repeat that. 
But that was just my little study, Go read the Gunther et al. and also the Annan & Hargreaves papers. The links are in the Wikipediea page on climate sensitivity. My little study is in essential agreement with those of others. Such studies take into account the unity of all feedbacks, given all radiative forcings, to account for recent and far past temperature data. 
So there is both data and analyses to explain the record in the form of a constitutive law, with a parameter said to be the equilibrium climate sensitivity. 
But given your blunder, which I quoted, maybe you should start with a elementray book on meteorology. Climatology appears to be too difficult for your just yet.
Brute 
05 June 2008 at 23:02
Robin, 
Interesting paper………….. 
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/585.pdf
David B. Benson 
06 June 2008 at 00:24
Following this link 
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/05/james-hansens-latest-p... 
you can look at either the ppt slides or the same thiink as a pdf file. I recommend doing so.
manacker 
06 June 2008 at 01:24
Hi David, 
“As "The Climate Book" points out, clouds have a net negative feedback. But if there is no change in cloud cover, there is no change in net feedback, as I said.” Duh! 
“But given your blunder, which I quoted, maybe you should start with a elementray book on meteorology. Climatology appears to be too difficult for your just yet.” 
Actually, I think you are more into "ideology" or maybe “astrology”, David. 
You are truly amazing, David. Your uncanny ability to get it wrong every time is only exceeded by your surly arrogance and bloated opinion of your own intelligence. Didn’t your Mommy teach you that it was impolite to insult people? For shame! 
Here’s some reading material for you that will help clear up your apparent confusion on this. 
http://climatesci.org/2007/04/05/evaporation-is-equal-to-pre... 
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/how-not-to-discu... 
http://www.co2science.org/subject/p/summaries/precipglobal.p... 
But this is all beside the point. Forget “The Climate Book”. Instead, come with some physically observed facts. 
You have not brought reference to any physically observed data that support your 3K feedback from water (vapor, liquid droplets, ice crystals), while I have linked a study that shows a major net negative feedback from clouds based on physical observations as well as another study that states that the total net impact of all water is likely to be insignificant. Nada. Zilch. Not 4.4 times what the greenhouse theory stipulates for doubling CO2. 
You can post all you want to about how smart you think you are, but with this approach you are only revealing your ignorance and your arrogance. Come with facts, David, if you can (I am starting to believe that you do not have any facts here, David). Not arrogant, irrelevant blah-blah. 
Regards, 
Max
Brute 
06 June 2008 at 01:52
It is patently obvious that the global warming theory has been completely discredited and the motivation behind this fraud has been exposed. Word is spreading regarding this swindle and spreading quickly…………….The environmentalist nuts are now desperate, pulling up stakes and retracting their previous statements……like hitchhiking on a West Texas highway in a hailstorm……they can’t run, they can’t hide and they can’t make it stop. The news is reaching everywhere about this charade……good riddance. 
The Greenpeace Scam 
June 01, 2008 10:38 PM EST 
Being attacked by Greenpeace should be considered a badge of honor. In May, the Heartland Institute was the subject of a Greenpeace news release that described the Chicago-based think tank as “a free-market, anti-regulation right wing think tank” funded by leading American corporations and reputable foundations. 
That same month, Heartland Institute sponsored a ground-breaking conference on climate change in New York. More than 500 of the world’s leading climatologists, meteorologists, economists, policy analysts, and others attended. Its keynote speaker was Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic. 
Having lived under communist rule, President Klaus understood the true nature of Greenpeace and other environmental organizations. He is an outspoken critic of the global warming hoax. He, along with many others, has identified the real reason for the climate alarmism endemic to the environmental movement. Its agenda has always been to drastically reduce the human population, to attack consumption as evil, and its rabid hatred of capitalism. “The climate alarmists believe in their own omnipotence, in knowing better than millions of rationally behaving men and women what is right or wrong,” says Klaus. 
In the early 1990s, an encyclopedic book, “Trashing the Economy”, by Ron Arnold and Alan Gottlieb, closely examined the many environmental organizations, among which was Greenpeace. It was and is quite revealing, noting that Greenpeace was founded in 1971 by a group of draft dodgers living in Vancouver, Canada. “Confrontation, civil disobedience, inflammatory lies and physical harassment are Greenpeace’s methods…” 
Greenpeace gained fame protesting the whaling industry and went on to attack the timber industry. It gained further momentum attacking genetically modified seed stocks responsible for increasing the yield of crops that has since been recognized as preventing famines. The book called Greenpeace “the archetypal ‘Eco-Thug’ organization that behaves as if it were above the law of all nations.” 
The May Greenpeace news release attacked Heartland’s citation of a petition signed by “more than 500 qualified researchers whose research in professional journals provides historic and/or physical proxy evidence” that debunks the global warming hoax. Among signers of the petition attacked by Greenpeace are Dr. Fred S. Singer and Dennis Avery, two scientists with impeccable credentials, but who Greenpeace said were not climate scientists. Dr. Singer, is the former director of the National Weather Satellite Center and a renowned atmospheric scientist from George Mason University. Avery is a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, a prolific policy analyst, and an author of a book debunking global warming. 
Among the founders of Greenpeace was Peter Bahouth who is on record saying, “I don’t believe in the market approach…When companies have a bottom line of profit you won’t have them thinking about the environment.” Capitalism is about profit and from that comes jobs, dividends for investors, research and development of new technologies, and the opportunity to improve both the individual’s wealth and that of entire nations. 
Another founding member, Dr. Patrick Moore, and ecologist, has long since disowned Greenpeace and the environmental movement. In an interview, Dr. Moore was asked why the movement “got it wrong?” He responded saying that, “The environmental movement abandoned science and logic somewhere in the mid-1980s, just as mainstream society was adopting all the more reasonable items on the environmental agenda.” 
He went on to note that, “Environmentalism was always anti-establishment,” citing Greenpeace’s opposition to the forestry industry, genetically modified crops, and other example of commerce and modern technology. 
The big difference between Greenpeace and the Heartland Institute is that the former has never been interested in the truth, scientifically or otherwise, while the Institute has been dedicated to both the best that science has to offer and to our nation’s leadership in defending capitalism against authoritarian regimes and the failed communist/socialist economic systems. 
Greenpeace, a multi-million dollar operation with branches around the world, has demonstrated the capacity to manipulate public opinion, but it does so in the fashion that the entire environmental movement has adopted, the unrelenting attack on the motives and credibility of those who step up to present the truth with the belief that it is the best defense against the endless flow of lies with which the environmental movement has become identified.
Brute 
06 June 2008 at 02:28
The outcry from the public was deafening here in Washington. 
Climate Bill Defeated 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/leiberman-wa...#comment-17237
Brute 
06 June 2008 at 02:32
Sort of a long read, but this guy is dead on……. 
Regarding the Lieberman-Warner Debate, Rep. Rohrabacher: “Do you really think the world is filled with morons?” 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/lieberman-wa...
manacker 
06 June 2008 at 05:49
Very good summary, Brute. May explain why some of these AGW die-hards (like poor old confused but relentlessly arrogant David B. Benson) are unable to see the facts around them. 
It's getting cooler all the time, but the thermometers must be lying, because the beautiful theory says it should be getting warmer, 
So much for denial of the facts. 
Regards, 
Max
Robin Guenier 
06 June 2008 at 11:15
I mentioned a couple of days ago that I’d got involved with Joe Romm’s blog again. What I objected to was his piece (dated November 17 2007, see: http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/17/must-read-ipcc-synthes...) where he said that IPCC had “today issued its strongest call for immediate action to save humanity from the deadly consequences of unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions”. The IPCC made no such call, so I thought I would point this out. See my post dated 3 June (7:39 am) and others that followed, including some from Brute (much censored) – with various comments from Joe. This was going quite well until yesterday, when my post (5:07 am) went “into moderation” – where it has remained i.e. it’s been deleted. I see Max had a similar problem yesterday. 
To understand it fully it’s necessary to read the relevant part of the blog. But the deleted post pretty well makes sense on its own. Here’s what I said: 
QUOTE 
I’m sure you agree there are many difficult issues here. However, I suspect that you may need to come to terms with a fundamental principle. Scientists are able to advise with authority on what is happening re climate change, why it’s happening and what might be the consequence. That’s the role of the IPCC. What scientists cannot do is state with authority what actions the world’s governments should be taking. That involves other specialist areas such as economics (especially growth forecasting), economic analysis (e.g. what is likely to be cost effective), politics (e.g. what is realistic given power balances amongst nations), risk management (e.g. future benefit v. current cost) and ethics (e.g. what relative priority should be given to, for example, the alleviation of poverty and disease). On these most difficult issues, scientists may (and, I hope, do) have a view – but it’s unlikely to be any more valid than that of any other well-informed person. Yet you appear to consider anyone trying to understand and tackle these difficulties to be a “delayer”. To my mind, that indicates an immaturity more appropriate to student debate than to the harsh and practical world of real people who are struggling for power and survival. 
A couple of comments on your note: 
1. I did not [as Joe had alleged] tell you what the IPCC is saying – rather what it is not is saying. For example, it does not, as you claim, “call for immediate action to save humanity from the deadly consequences of unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions”. You do your readers a disservice by misleading them on this. 
2. From 1990 (the baseline for Kyoto CO2 reductions) to 2004, global fossil fuel emissions grew by 26%. And growth continues apace: China, for example, is spending 35 times as much on oil now as in 1999, with demand expected to treble by 2030. Countries such as China and India are unashamed that the alleviation of poverty is their overriding and urgent priority – they have no need for “political cover” or (perhaps unfortunately) for new technologies. See for example:   
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2008/ 04/ 09/ money-for-indias-ultra-mega-coal-plants-approved/ ?ex=1208404800&en=fc1b35982cca425a&ei=5070&emc=eta1  
Even Australia – now signed up to Kyoto – is contributing: http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports0607.htm&#8232; 
As to Europe, see: 
http://www.politicshome.com/landing.aspx#909 and 
http://www.spiegel.de/ international/ germany/ 0,1518,557199,00.html. 
It’s their voters Europe’s politicians listen to – not US “leadership”. All this will continue. In recent years, the world’s power balance has totally changed: US “global leadership” is no longer a practical way forward and your new President will have to come to terms with that. 
UNQUOTE 
I wonder why Joe doesn't like that.
Robin Guenier 
06 June 2008 at 14:09
Brute: thanks for the reference. Some useful data. 
Here's one for you - proving that not all leftists, even marxists, are alarmists (not only did it publish this, but the editorial is well balanced): 
http://www.marxist.com/global-warming-socialist-perspective-...
Brute 
06 June 2008 at 17:35
Robin, 
I won't waste any more time over there. To avoid your comment from getting stuck in "waiting for moderation" mode, get rid of any links and it will go straight through. Even is you cut and paste the text of an entire document and hit submit, it will be posted, (at least until he sees it and deletes it). 
Another trick is timing. The headquarters for American Progress is right down the road here in Washington DC. I usually post a text only comment later at night, assuming the staff has gone home for the evening, that way; at least you'll have the satisfaction of your comment being viewed at least for a few hours in other time zones while the moderator is in bed. 
I went back last night and read an exchange you were having with Benson. I could see that it was supposed to be a continuous thread, but comments/posts had been deleted in between disrupting the continuity....difficult to follow. 
Either way, the guy is a diehard fanatic; and anything that is posted that deviates from the Alarmist rhetoric can be counted on as being censored. 
I’m happy that you noticed that my stuff was abridged…….I tells me that I’m on the right track and exposing truths that the Eco-zealots don’t want made public…..beside that, I know that it annoys him. 
I realize that New Statesman is left of center, (at least that’s my understanding and how they are described), but they have allowed everything to remain and now we are up to 1700? Posts on this article alone, not including Whitehouse’s article/comments. I appreciate that. The information exchange from both camps is important.
Robin Guenier 
06 June 2008 at 20:30
Yes, Brute, you're right - it is a waste of time. Although I have to admit that I find it quite entertaining to wind JR up. How these people think they benefit their cause by censoring stuff they don't like defeats me. I've learned a great deal about both sides of the debate from this New Statesman - I too appreciate that. Anyway as I said re that Marxist site, not all leftists are alarmists.
Brute 
06 June 2008 at 21:23
Robin, 
As long as they come about it through logic, honesty and reason, than I'm alright with it......it's the emotion and obstinacy, despite the facts, that eludes me. We’ve proven to these Alarmists that the global warming theory is erroneous, but they continue to cling to it. 
Then there are many who don’t care that they will voluntarily forfeit their liberties and freedoms to support this theory…..the ends justify the means for them. They are delusion idealists. 
For instance, if a Marxist states that he supports the global warming Alarmist agenda because it promotes a Marxist ideology in the end, I would understand, (but vehemently disagree with exchanging Capitalism for Marxism), but a least the guy would be honest about his motivation. 
I’ve NEVER know government to solve problems effectively or efficiently, (without resorting to despotism or brutality). I cannot understand a person that relies on government to resolve problems, either personal or societal. Time and time again, throughout history, these lessons have been demonstrated; and yet, the Alarmists continue to pursue the path that will result in chaos and subjugation in an attempt to resolve a non-existent problem. 
Communism will never work…..there is always someone who wants a little bit more than the next guy; that’s human nature. 
I’ve stated, numerous times, that the Alarmists should start a movement, privately, to pursue their goals. Attraction works better than promotion. If someone invents a car that achieves 100 miles per gallon, market and sell that car and their goal will be achieved. If they ultimately want people to conserve and become less materialistic, promote that and if people CHOOSE to live that way their goal will be achieved. 
I don’t think it would work, but who knows? I think it is antithetical to human behavior to be a Minimalist…….. Although many people CHOOSE to live that way. 
Not me. 
Postscript: And you're correct....I do enjoy irritating the guy. Sometimes I can "feel" the aggravation in his responses. It gives me a lift at the end of the day.
David B. Benson 
06 June 2008 at 22:41
manacker --- You've been simply ignoring what I have posted, instead referencing more MSU stuff. 
But all those physicists and meteorologists must be wrong, hmm? (I'm afraid you don't know how science is conducted.) 
I did mention the GEOS (GOES(?)) satilites which measure both clouds and watr vapor. So there is plenty of data for you. Kindly go analyze it. 
In any case, the known radiative forcing of CO2 alone cannot, by itself, explain the temperature increase from 1850 CE through 2007 CE. This increase in turn causes other increases, enough for the observed warming. Water vapor increase (i.e., absolute jumidity increase) seems to be a prime suspect, along with albedo changes via land-use change, less spring snow persistence in the northernmost parts of the Northern Hemisphere, etc. Also, over 157 years SSTs have increased, providing some additional warming. 
Indeed, there may be other positive feedbacks operative. In any case, I have supplied direct or indirect links to studies which use actual data: these all give a climate sensitivty of about 3 K. Go read the papers before 'debating' it.
Brute 
06 June 2008 at 23:05
Robin, 
After thinking about it there have been some sucessful government endeavors; The Manhatten Project comes to mind. The prosecution of the the Second World War and the victory over the USSR during the cold war.......a few others....
David B. Benson 
07 June 2008 at 01:07
Brute --- I believe you asked about solar forcing. Between solar maximum and solar minimum, the change in TSI is enough to change the global temperature about 0.1 K. We are currently experiencing a protracted solar minimum. 
With regard to the total variation caused by the PDO, I haven't seen any papers, or even talk about, extimating it.
Brute 
07 June 2008 at 02:04
Mr. Benson, 
Have you been drinking?
David B. Benson 
07 June 2008 at 02:20
Brute --- Coffee. Why do you ask?
David B. Benson 
07 June 2008 at 02:29
manacker wrote " We calculate a temperature increase from 1750 to 2005 (from 280 to 379 ppm CO2): ... let’s call that 0.3 degrees C". I'll use the same for 1850 CE to 2007 CE (from 288 to 383 ppm CO2); 0.3 K. 
However, the global temperature (from HadCRUTv3) rose about 0.7 K during that interval. Much more than due to CO2 alone. 
Using the short term part of a climate sensitivity of 3 K to a doubling of CO2, and using just the actual CO2 concentrations, (0.6)(1.23) = 0.738 K. Call it 0.7 K. 
Hence net positive feedbacks amplified the radiative forcing due to CO2. 
In agreement with all the (sound) peer-reviewed work on estimating temperature changes due to radiative forcings.
Brute 
07 June 2008 at 03:27
"extimating" 
It was a joke.....typographical error contained in your last post. Reminded me of someone slurring his words.......please, proceed. 
Tell me, are you whole heartedly embracing this theory? 
Candidly; is there anything at all that makes you waver regarding this theory? 
Hypothetically, what would it possibly take or what would have to occur for you to stray from this dogma? 
It’s just us here…..no one else around. Joe Romm is fast asleep by now.
manacker 
07 June 2008 at 08:22
Hi David, 
You wrote: “In any case, the known radiative forcing of CO2 alone cannot, by itself, explain the temperature increase from 1850 CE through 2007 CE. This increase in turn causes other increases, enough for the observed warming. Water vapor increase (i.e., absolute jumidity increase) seems to be a prime suspect, along with albedo changes via land-use change, less spring snow persistence in the northernmost parts of the Northern Hemisphere, etc. Also, over 157 years SSTs have increased, providing some additional warming.” 
Just because “the known radiative forcing of CO2 alone cannot, by itself, explain the temperature increase” does not in any way provide evidence for “feedbacks”. Instead it provides evidence for “we do not know what caused it”. 
Your latest waffle leads me to believe that you apparently still have “faith” that the 3K “consensus” position on climate sensitivity of 2XCO2 due to feedbacks is reasonable, despite the evidence that I have provided you to the contrary. 
This is getting a bit repetitive, but here is some basic information to help you along a bit on understanding some of the problems with the model-based feedback hypotheses that are flying around out there. These may go a bit beyond the info in your much-cited “Climate 101” textbook, but are worth studying to get a better perspective. 
Held and Soden 
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.... 
The authors tell us: “Our uncertainty concerning climate sensitivity is disturbing. The range most often quoted for the equilibrium global mean surface temperature response to a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is 1.5°C to 4.5°C. If the Earth lies near the upper bound of this sensitivity range, climate changes in the twenty-first century will be profound. The range in sensitivity is primarily due to differing assumptions about how the Earth's cloud distribution is maintained; all the models on which these estimates are based possess strong water vapor feedback. If this feedback is, in fact, substantially weaker than predicted in current models, sensitivities in the upper half of this range would be much less likely, a conclusion that would clearly have important policy implications.” 
Pierrehumbert et al. (2007) 
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/CaltechWater.pdf 
This study estimates that a doubling of water vapor would result in a forcing of 6 W/m^2. 
Based on model studies it concludes, “the relative humidity probability density function (PDF) will remain nearly invariant for small or moderate warming”. 
In an earlier post you quoted from a report on water vapor feedback: 
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17402 
“Water vapour in the atmosphere can change phase, which leads to more clouds, and greater cloud cover means that more sunlight is reflected straight out of the atmosphere. Crude calculations suggest that the two effects approximately balance each other, and that water vapour does not have a strong feedback mechanism in the Earth's climate. “ 
But let’s see what other studies show regarding these results from “crude calculations”. 
Minschwaner and Dessler (2004). 
http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/minschwaner_march04.pdf 
The study shows that a 2xCO2 scenario without feedback produces 0.8K warming (the RF proposed by IPCC AR4 results in a slightly lower value of 0.68K). Including a theoretical water vapor feedback based on maintaining a constant relative humidity leads to a larger calculated surface warming of 1.2K for a doubling of CO2. In an assumed “worst case”, where relative humidity is not constrained to be constant (i.e. is programmed into the models to increase) the models show that a doubling of CO2 with water vapor feedback and increased RH would lead to a surface warming of 1.6K. 
Will relative humidity remain constant with higher temperature, will it decrease or will it increase? There appears to be no agreement on this question, although most of the data do seem to point in one direction. 
According to the Minschwaner and Dessler study, relative humidity (Fig. 3) is shown to decrease from by –5% per degree K (at 14 km altitude) to –20% per degree K (at around 11 km altitude), based on the “maximum possible range of sensitivities through variation of assumed model parameters”, with the conclusion: “The water vapor feedback shown in Fig. 3 is also weaker than that found in a number of general circulation models (GCMs), where relative humidity is found to be nearly invariant throughout the troposphere [Pierrehumbert].” 
The report states, “A similar trend of decreasing RH with warmer temperature was found by Sun and Oort (1995) using radiosonde observations at altitudes slightly below the UT. In contrast to these results, the mesoscale model study by Larson and Hartmann (2003) indicated a small increase in UT relative humidity with surface temperature of about +1% RH per degree of warming. The cloud resolving model used by Tompkins and Craig (1999), however indicated a decrease in relative humidity between 10 and 12 km, which was roughly –2% RH per degree surface warming.” 
It concludes: “The change in water vapor near 215 mb [approx. 12 km] is between 8.5 and 9.5 ppmv K^-1 increase in surface temperature. On the other hand, the modeled increases in moisture with surface temperature are not enough to preserve constant relative humidity. The calculated decrease in relative humidity at 215 mb is between –4.0% and –8.4% RHi K^-1.” 
To summarize the above, the physically observed data from radiosondes show a decrease in RH with higher temperature of –20% to –5% per degree K, whereas model results vary from a decrease of –8% per degree to an increase of +1% per degree. 
It is therefore reasonable to assume that RH will decrease and that the actual water vapor content will likely lie somewhere between the level at “constant relative humidity” and that at “constant specific humidity”. According to Minschwaner and Dessler, this should result in a theoretical modeled warming somewhere between 0.8K and 1.2K (let’s say 1.0K) from a doubling of CO2 with water vapor feedback. 
Please note, David, that this is a long way from 3K. 
This assumes no feedback (negative or positive) from clouds. The report acknowledges, “The simulated feedback is found to be sensitive to uncertainties arising from possible changes in clouds” and “Clouds are known to have a large impact on both longwave and shortwave radiation”, but then states that the models are “unable to produce a negative feedback simulation” even “under the most extreme assumptions” for clouds. The report states: “Thus, aspects of the drying mechanisms outlined by Lindzen (1990) are operating in the UT of our model, but not sufficiently to overcome the influence of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation”. 
The recent physical observations which I cited earlier (Spencer et al.) have validated the “infrared iris” hypothesis of a much stronger negative feedback from clouds (Lindzen) than even “the most extreme assumptions” programmed into the models (estimated by the authors to amount to as much as –2.2K), and would thus tend to provide evidence that the model assumptions (in Minschwaner and Dessler) should be re-assessed in light of the new physical evidence (i.e. adjust the assumptions to fit the observed facts). 
All of the above, David, goes back to the problem of observed physical evidence that conflicts with model assumptions and outputs: 
· Radiosonde observations that show a significant decrease in relative humidity with higher temperatures vs. model studies that assume constant or even increasing RH (thus significantly more water vapor) 
· Satellite observations that confirm a major negative feedback from clouds vs. model studies that assume either no feedback or even positive feedback 
And, as I have pointed out to you before, this is the basic weakness in the model-based “consensus” assumption of 3K sensitivity of doubling CO2 due to feedbacks that are assumed to increase the theoretical greenhouse sensitivity of CO2 of 0.68K by a factor of more than four. The physical observations show that the model-based assumptions are incorrect. 
It all goes back to how you spell ASS-U-ME. 
You might even call it the “fatal flaw” in the alarming AGW or “tipping point” hypothesis. 
So, unless you can bring some physical evidence that supports the 3K assumption used in the models, we have to dismiss this as unrealistic. 
Just saying "it has to be from feedbacks because CO2 alone couldn't have caused it is absurd", and I think you have to admit this. 
Regards, 
Max
Robin Guenier 
07 June 2008 at 10:09
Brute: did you read the article from marxist.com (my post yesterday at 14:09)? If not, you should at least read the conclusion (http://www.marxist.com/global-warming-socialist-perspective-...): ignore the editorial “Introduction”. 
It’s full of quotable chunks. For example, the author (Brian Baker), talking about the eco-fanatics says, “Just supposing that they achieve their wish of stifling debate on the climate question and bring about by bureaucratic diktat this bonapartist regime, how will they deal with the emissions of China, India and the rest of the Third World whose workers strive for a better standard of living? A new World War followed by a new imperialism?” And, in his final paragraph, he says, “The next round of the Kyoto talks will be just that, ‘talk'. China, India and the rest of the "Third World" will demand that their emissions are treated on a per capita basis, which the western capitalist powers will resist as it will mean massive reductions in the standard of living to achieve precisely nothing in terms of the climate. In the meantime as recession bites less will be heard, apart that is from rhetoric, about the necessity of addressing climate change”. I agree – not bad for a Marxist.
Brute 
07 June 2008 at 14:15
Robin, 
I'll go back and read it again.
Robin Guenier 
07 June 2008 at 14:16
Hmm … interesting: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121269184525849383.html?mod=... 
“Environmentalists are stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse. … Backers of the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill always knew they would face a veto from President Bush, but they wanted to flex their political muscle and build momentum for 2009. That strategy backfired. The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face.” 
So, after all the fuss, the Democrats couldn’t even get the 12 votes to make the 60 necessary to proceed. I see sixteen senators were absent during the vote including Barack Obama. And it seems that John McCain, a cap-and-trade co-sponsor, now says that the scheme won't fly until China and India sign on. That could be never. If, as is probable, they insist that first their living standards must be aligned with the West’s: India, for example, has over 200 million slum dwellers.
Brute 
07 June 2008 at 18:47
Robin, 
Yes, I’m glad the Commies are at least sensible about the global warming farce. 
Are we discussing economics or means of dealing with “climate change”? I think it is important to differentiate between the two. “Climate Change” in the context of this discussion connotes the “Global Warming” theory; that manmade CO2 emissions are causing temperatures to rise globally and wreaking havoc on weather patterns……I do not see cause and effect at all anymore. In my opinion, the “climate” is fine. The Sun and natural weather cycles are causing anomalies which are then blown out of proportion by certain politicians and media to promote a doctrine of Collectivism, Minimalism, (for the masses)…..redistribution of wealth. 
It may be too simplistic for me to assert that environmentalism has become the “new Socialism” because there are many nuances, but the end result, if the Greens have their way, would be more similar to Socialism than not. 
I was listening to a talk radio show yesterday evening and the question posed by the host was “What will it be, the environment or the economy?” He was specifically referring to the recently defeated “Climate Change” bill that was before Congress. His position seemed to be that it was “one or the other”. I disagree, CO2 emissions are not changing the world’s climate; therefore it is pointless to radically change our economic systems to curtail CO2 emissions. CO2 is not pollution despite what the US Supreme Court has ruled. People are slowly being indoctrinated to believe that CO2 is “pollution”. People don’t understand the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. 
That being said, there are legitimate consequential by-products, (real pollution) emitted by industrial practices that DO pose threats and should be dealt with on a case by case basis. 
Back to CO2 and the Supreme Court ruling describing it as “pollution”……..these are incremental measures taken by government to achieve a long term goal. The polar bear “endangered species” vote is another. An attorney, (barrister on your side of the world) could make a case that because my furnace produces CO2, (pollution in their eyes), I am endangering the polar bear. Purchasing a bicycle or anything else, it could be argued, produces CO2 simply through the manufacturing process. These rulings carry ENORMOOUS implications for industry. Any industry that emits “unreasonable”, (whatever that is), amounts of CO2, (let’s just say Exxon/Mobil) could be held liable for endangering polar bears or “the environment” and held accountable, resulting in lawsuits and massive fines levied. (A wonderful situation for slip and fall trial lawyers). The fines would be paid and the proceeds would transferred to agencies controlled by the federal government, in effect, nationalizing the oil industry, (and we all know what a bad idea that is). They wouldn’t sue me personally due to my furnace emissions; I don’t have deep pockets compared to Exxon/Mobil…… The problem here is that Exxon/Mobil is not a single person or a dozen fat cat rich guys; it is comprised of thousands of individual shareholders, (people). The government would be, in effect, taking money from one group of citizens and re-distributing it to another, wasting large quantities in the process, (and showering wealth and largesse on their cronies and lobbyists) and using the proceeds for purposes that have nothing to do with the intent of the lawsuit. 
The tobacco industry or “big tobacco” lost it’s lawsuits with billions of dollars being transferred from big tobacco to the government under the auspices of funding programs to convince people to give up tobacco products and to combat heart/lung disease. After a halfhearted attempt to convince people to give up tobacco use, the programs were abandoned and the funds were re-re-distributed to the general fund, (they waited until no one was looking). This began with the ruling in 1964 that tobacco was dangerous and harmful to people’s health, (forget that it is a voluntary practice). The lawsuit was 30 years in the making, beginning in 1964 and being settled in the mid-90’s. If the lawsuit had been brought forth in 1965, it would have failed. The attorneys built their case quietly and incrementally over the course of 30 years and won. 
That is what the Anthropologic Global Warming confidence scheme is all about. Most people would recoil at the idea of taking money from Sally and giving it to Mary simply because Sally has earned more of it; however, through a judicial process and numerous incremental steps it becomes more palatable and in effect, is what is and will happen unless people speak up. 
From the article: 
The final part in response to Phil is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a trace gas necessary for life on earth. As we showed at the early stages in this article, CO2 has been at 18 times the present level with a nearly constant temperature profile. No tipping point was reached. No positive feedback was experienced. Does it not strike one as odd, that the tipping point will arise at a few parts per million above the present level, and that at this juncture "irreversible damage will be done to creation"? Not my words but Dr Jim Hansen of NASA. The increase in CO2 is not leading to climate change but it does not stop the representatives of the petit bourgeois, like for example Professor Chris Rapley, Director of the Science Museum, stating at a recent colloquium: 
"The precautionary principle is the strongest card we hold. Even a risk of planetary calamity demands urgent action since the stakes are so high. 
and 
"Energy is a fleeting BY-PRODUCT of burning fossil fuels; carbon gases are the REAL product". 
Or this from Professor Celia Deane-Drummond, from Chester University: 
"The problem is a near-universal breakdown in relationships. A new category of SIN is needed - anthropogenic sin". 
But environmentalists have introduced a new vocabulary in addition to Anthropomorphic Climate Change, Sustainable Development and the Precautionary Principle. They are all designed to stop development and production, irrespective of whether it leads to unemployment, starvation and death. One of the first icons of the 20th century environmental movement was Rachel Carson, who led the campaign for the elimination of DDT, even after all the claimed scenarios had been disproved. The US ban on the use of DDT was followed by environmentalist pressure around the world and led to its outright ban - even when used for indoor residual spraying." 
By the way, it's hot here today; about 90. Must be global warming....or summertime.
David B. Benson 
08 June 2008 at 00:20
Brute --- I have some trouble using this site. 
As for climatology, yes, it is essentially correct. It begins with come conjectures by J.J. Fourier in 1829 CE, continues with John Tyndall's experimental determination of the warming properites of water vapor and CO2 in the 1850s. Arrhenius attempted to determine the climate sensitivity in the 1890s, but without computers and with some experimental errors, arrived at a figure that is too high. 
The IR properities of CO2 are known to great precision; engineers routinely use these to design CO2 lasers. The IR properties of water vapor, etc., are also known. What is hard to determine by either calculation or experiment is what exactly occurs with a mixture of the two (plus other trace gasses). 
So instead, various studies have attempted to produce an aggregate effect, the climate sensitivity. With this, the 42 or so different computerized climate models all give answers in the same range, tested against data from the recent or far past.
Brute 
08 June 2008 at 00:46
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/print.php?news.68
David B. Benson 
08 June 2008 at 00:55
manacker --- Your last was a rather coherent reply. But you possibly fail to understand the difference between relative humidity and absolute humidity. The latter is the total amount of water vapor that saturated air can hold. It is a function of pressure and temperature. Averaging only an air coulumn, it can approximately be viewed as just a function of the average temperature. 
The other problem is that you fail to understand the qualitative physics of the net positive feedbacks, ones which obviously exist, such as SSTs and surface albedo. The case of water vapor in an atmosphere with radiative forcing being applied otherwise (as in CO2) is, as you suggest, rather complex. 
Ignore the change in relative humidity over a vertical air column for now. The fact is that on very general physical grounds, one does not expect much change in the average relative humidity of the entire atmosphere. That in turn implies no change in cloud cover, or anyway, not much. 
What does happen is that as the troposphere warms, the total water vapor content rises. That provides a positive feedback. But because of IR band overlap between water vapor and CO2, ordinary calculations (done by people) can only apply in extreme cases such a Snowball Earth. So either one uses a computer for the laborious calculations of the precise effect, or else one turns to directly to recorded data. 
Using recorded data means that only the net effect of all feedbacks, both positive and negative, can be determined, and that only giving a probability density function (pdf) for equilibrium climate sensitivity in that study. But there are now lots of such studies. Recently Annan & Hargreaves combined several. The resulting pdf is much tighter as a result and agrees well with the IPCC AR4 assessment; S is about 3 K. 
Of course, the result is a so-called subjective pdf. The actual value for S might be somewhat smaller, or worse, lots larger. Both are unlikely. Obviously more studies (when properly done) are desirable. 
What ever value for S is correct for modern climate (not clear that S is not itself constantly changing in a non-linear fashion), the implied feedback comes in two parts: short-term (a few years) and long-term (centuries to warm the oceans). The study by Reto Knutti et al. shows that the short-term part is about 60%. Climatologist James Annan agrees that 'about 60%' is correct. 
Using that 60% with S = 3 K gives a decent fit to the data from 1850 CE through 2007 CE. Without bothering to work out all the details of the precise contribution of other global warming gases, aerosols, water vapor, albedo change and, yes, even volcanoes. Instead all that is swept-under-the-rug of a single number, equilibrium climate sensitivity. 
So it is possible, now, to make back-of-the-envelope estimations of what will happen when CO2 concentrtions go up even further. No GCM required. 
What policy makers would really, really like to know is changes to precipitation patterns. Obviously just plugging in CO2 concentations does not answer this. Neither, currently, do the GCMs. There are some attempts to produce regional climate models which are supposed to make such predictions. From the little I've seen about these, it does appear that the world's food situation is going to become worse.
Brute 
08 June 2008 at 00:55
Mr. Benson, 
The models were and are wrong. 
Please provide a reference where weathermen/computer models predicted 10 years of cooling/lower global temperatures before January of 2008. All of the models predicted increased warming. 
You can't have it both ways. After years of predicting run away global warming the global temperature has dropped.......no denying it. 
You can't bet on the winner of the Super Bowl after the game is over.
David B. Benson 
08 June 2008 at 01:42
Brute ---- Record braking temperature in Norfolk VA today. 
Week long heat wave in Norway. Good for ice cream vendors. 
Another drought year in southern Urkraine. Ruined harvest there. 
Anyway, you are looking at too short so-called 'treands' by visiting pseudoscience sites. What you have is essentially the same as alchemy: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience 
How here is the 10-year averaged global temperature from 1850 CE, derived from the HadCRUTv3 'temperature product': 
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/10yave.jpg 
What large-scale trend do you observe?
Brute 
08 June 2008 at 02:21
You wrote: 
“What large-scale trend do you observe?” 
I say: 
I see global temperatures recovering from the effects of the Little Ice Age.....returning to "normal". 
And two can play at the game of finding cold and warm spots on the planet. Record snow pack in the US western states. Record precipitation in Australia. I was visiting central North Carolina recently; last year they were experiencing drought. This year, they have more rain than they need. 
NOAA reports on our cooler than normal spring 
6 06 2008 
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/noaa-reports... 
Also, simulating weather is laboratories is fine; however, predicting global weather patterns far into the future and disrupting people’s lives based on “theories” is fraud. 
Seriously, Alarmists aren’t talking about stopping a housing development from being built to save a pond; they are actually debating reconfiguring the U.S. economy, (the most successful economy on the face on the earth), in an effort to control the weather? 
Think about that for just a few minutes. We aren't talking about theories and laboratory experiments where we can simply conclude that the theory was erroneous and start over; Alarmists are advocating completely restructuring the economy based on computer models that failed to predict something that is happening right now.
Brute 
08 June 2008 at 02:33
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Greenhouse_Effect_And_Radiat... 
Greenhouse Effect And Radiative Forcing 
By Hans Schreuder 
Based on UN IPCC dogma and according to this Australian website for children, the greenhouse effect is “caused by gases in our atmosphere (especially water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane). They trap energy from the sun’s light and reflect it back to Earth, so we just keep on getting warmer.” 
As Alan Siddons points out: “You might as well believe that your image in a mirror can burn your face”. It is palpably absurd, and yet it is an accurate depiction of the theory that the IPCC has foisted on the public - a theory that IPCC critics won’t even attack because, presumably, they believe it too. Moreover, the actual trapping of heat cannot raise an object’s temperature in the first place. It only slows down heat loss. For instance, a polar bear is a living thermos bottle. Its internal body temperature is much the same as ours. But its surrounding fat and fur are such that - and this is remarkable - a polar bear is virtually invisible to a thermal camera. Just like coffee in a thermos, you can’t tell how hot the inside of a polar bear is by looking at it from the outside. But neither does coffee in a thermos get hotter because its heat is trapped. It just retains its temperature for a longer time. Otherwise, both the polar bear and the thermos would self-ignite. 
In short, the earth absorbs enough energy from the sun to reach a certain temperature. Since it radiates the same amount, its temperature obviously isn’t raised by carbon dioxide absorbing some infrared - for CO2 simply releases that energy at the same pace, as satellites attest. But even if CO2 did trap thermal energy, as insulation does (creating an emission discrepancy that would be quite observable to satellites), the earth’s temperature could go no higher than what it began with. To repeat, coffee doesn’t get hotter in a thermos.” 
See larger image here 
“Why isn’t anyone else shouting from the rooftops about the self-evident absurdity of the IPCC model?” “The acceptance of this ludicrous theory threatens to destroy the western world, yet no so-called skeptic attacks it.”
Brute 
08 June 2008 at 02:40
A Different Consensus 
June 7, 2008; Page A10 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121279465120553589.html?mod=... 
Please note that global warming was #30 (out of 30) on the priority list.
David B. Benson 
08 June 2008 at 03:06
Brute --- What you saw was undoing about 7000 years of natural cooling. Caused by increases in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere: 
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html 
And in a warming world, Hadley Centre predicts more extreme weather events, not just hot ones. 
What is really going to destroy the U.S. economy is when the Mid-west dries up, as the southeast is already doing. Very hard to grow crops without water. 
Anyway, peak oil followedf by peak coal will also force investing in non-fossil fuel energy. Just so-called market forces.
Brute 
08 June 2008 at 13:38
Limitations of Climate Models as Predictors of Climate Change 
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba396/ 
Conclusion: 
“While GCMs cannot be expected to simulate future weather, they should be able to accurately depict the earth's present climate and vitality. Since they cannot, GCM predictions of climate change are statistical exercises with little bearing on reality.”
Brute 
08 June 2008 at 13:47
The Death Blow to Anthropogenic Global Warming 
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1396
bobclive 
08 June 2008 at 13:56
I just don`t understand why you David and others like you are so intent in destroying the western economy and probably causing untold hardship to yourself and your families personal livelihood and wellbeing on the back of nothing more than some computer models showing what could happen if you feed in this, this and that. 
Would you buy a car without having a test drive, no, you want solid evidence that the vehicle does what it says on the tin before you part with your cash. 
People like you act like lemmings, they just follow the leader without question. 
David the aftermath of this ridiculous push to save the planet will not effect the likes Gore. 
By the way David do you mean the Mid west drought similar to that of the 1930`s that was surpassed by the drought in the 1570s and 1580s over much of the western U.S. and northern Mexico, which lasted several decades in parts of the southwestern U.S. 
David it`s all natural, has happened before. 
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2002/sep02/noaa021...
Brute 
08 June 2008 at 15:02
Confessions of a Global-Warming Agnostic 
The Church of the Environment needs a nuclear Reformation. 
By Charles Krauthammer 
I’m not a global-warming believer. I’m not a global-warming denier. I’m a global-warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can’t be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats. 
Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems — from ocean currents to cloud formation — that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative. 
Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. “The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity,” warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, “is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.” 
If you doubt the arrogance, you haven’t seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global-warming debate over. Consider: If Newton’s laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming — infinitely more untested, complex, and speculative — is a closed issue. 
But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney, and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual Left. 
For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class — social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts, and their left-wing political allies — arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (Communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism). 
Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher’s England to Deng’s China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history. 
Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual Left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but — even better — in the name of Earth itself. 
Environmentalists are Gaia’s priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment — carbon chastity — they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat. 
Just Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane, or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe. 
There’s no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society. 
So what does the global-warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research — untainted and reliable — to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate. 
Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean. 
But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo. 
Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing?
Brute 
08 June 2008 at 15:10
Climate-Change Collapse 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121269184525849383.html?mod=...
Brute 
08 June 2008 at 15:54
You wrote: 
"What is really going to destroy the U.S. economy is when the Mid-west dries up, as the southeast is already doing. Very hard to grow crops without water." 
Mr. Benson, 
What the hell are you taking about? Exactly when are the Midwest and Southeast U.S. supposed to dry-up? This has been one of the coolest, wettest springtimes on record in the US. The computer models didn’t predict that. Temperatures continue to drop, CO2 continues to rise, the Sun is weak, temperatures are lower. Starting to see some cause and effect here? 
CO2 IS RISING, TEMPERATURES ARE DROPPING. 
SOLAR ACTIVITY IS LOW, TEMPERATURES ARE DROPPING. 
National Weather: Heavy Rain Returns To Midwest 
5/13/2008 
Highlights: Heavy rain returned to much of the Midwest during the mid- to late-week period, closing a brief window of opportunity for corn and early-season soybean planting. Only the northern fringe of the Corn Belt escaped the heavy rain, which totaled 2 to 4 inches in many locations. However, even drier areas of the upper Midwest continued to deal with low soil temperatures and slow crop emergence. Meanwhile, wet weather also prevailed across the Plains and much of the South. Rain was beneficial for winter wheat and emerging summer crops on the High Plains, but maintained wet conditions across the east-central and southeastern Plains. In addition, severe thunderstorms caused local wind and hail damage and spawned more than 100 tornadoes-mostly across the Plains and the South-from May 5-11. On May 10, the nation's deadliest tornado since February 5 tore across northeastern Oklahoma and southwestern Missouri, claiming as many as 20 lives. In contrast, mostly dry weather prevailed across the lower Southeast and west of the Rockies. In Florida, warm, dry weather promoted crop growth but increased both irrigation demands and the threat of wildfire activity. A similar situation existed in parts of the Southwest, where several new fires flared. Meanwhile in the Northwest, development of winter wheat and the emergence of spring-sown crops continued to lag the normal pace due to persistently cool conditions since mid-March. Weekly temperatures ranged from as much as 10 degrees F below normal in the north-central U.S. to at least 5 degrees F above normal in a few locations across the Deep South from southern Texas to the southern Atlantic States. 
Early in the week, cold weather persisted on the Plains, where daily-record lows for May 4 included 31 degrees F in Gage, OK, and Medicine Lodge, KS. Farther north, Grand Forks, ND, opened the week with consecutive daily-record lows (23 and 20 degrees F on May 4 and 5, respectively). Later, snow blanketed parts of the north-central U.S., with 0.2 inch (on May 10) in Grand Forks and as much as 4 to 6 inches across the western half of North Dakota. Toward week's end, chilly conditions returned to the Northwest, where Omak, WA, posted consecutive daily-record lows (30 and 29 degrees F) on May 8-9. Meanwhile in Oregon, record lows for May 9 included 21 degrees F in Redmond and 32 degrees F in Pendleton. A day later, lows dipped to daily-record levels in Idaho locations such as Pocatello (23 degrees F) and Challis (24 degrees F). In contrast, record-setting warm developed late in the week across the Deep South. In Texas, San Antonio closed the week with consecutive daily-record highs of 97 and 98 degrees F (on May 9 and 10, respectively). Elsewhere in Texas, Del Rio (107 degrees F on May 10) experienced its fourth-hottest May day on record behind 109 degrees F on May 24, 2000, and 108 degrees F on May 28, 1912, and May 27, 1927. Farther east, consecutive daily-record highs were established on May 10-11 in Ft. Lauderdale, FL (95 and 96 degrees F). 
In New Mexico, the 13,709-acre Trigo fire was fully contained by week's end, but only after 89 structures were lost. This human-caused fire in the Manzano Mountains southeast of Albuquerque was started on April 15 and later jumped containment lines. Meanwhile in Arizona, the 2,177-acre Solano Fire burning near the southern edge of Grand Canyon National Park was about 40 percent contained by May 12. Farther east, six fires in Florida each burned at least 750 acres. Perhaps the most disruptive of Florida's blazes was the 3,000-acre Osage fire just southwest of Malabar, which temporarily closed I- 
95. 
Significant rainfall developed early in the week across the south-central U.S., where Houston, TX (3.47 inches on May 5) netted a daily-record total. Precipitation expanded across much of the remainder of the nation by mid-week, when Joplin, MO (5.71 inches on May 7) experienced its third-wettest day on record. Joplin's wettest day was September 30, 1986, when 7.12 inches fell, followed by July 3, 1976, with 6.85 inches. Previously, Joplin's wettest May day had occurred on May 4, 1999, when 5.21 inches fell. Later, the first in a series of two similar storms took aim on the Mid-Atlantic States, where daily-record totals for May 9 reached 2.46 inches in Richmond, VA, and 2.22 inches in Washington, DC. Meanwhile, the second storm produced a daily-record rainfall (1.55 inches on May 10) in Broken Bow, NE, along with the aforementioned snow in the north-central U.S. On the morning of May 11, cold air trailing the second storm resulted in numerous daily-record lows, including 23 degrees F in Alliance, NE; 24 degrees F in Bismarck, ND; 25 degrees F in Yuma, CO; and 33 degrees F in Dalhart, TX. 
According to preliminary reports provided by the Storm Prediction Center, the week's most active severe weather days were May 8 (33 tornadoes) and 10 (46 tornadoes). The storm that struck Ottawa County, OK, and Newton and Barry Counties, MO, on May 10 was the nation's deadliest tornado since February 5, when 22 people died in Tennessee's Sumner and Macon Counties. From January 1 - May 10, there were 96 tornado-related fatalities in the U.S. During the last 25 years, annual deaths attributed to U.S. tornadoes exceeded 100 only in 1984 (122) and 1998 (130), while the 1983-2007 annual mean was 56 deaths. 
Mild, mostly dry weather prevailed across the Alaskan mainland, while locally heavy precipitation fell across southern areas. Kodiak netted daily-record rainfall totals on May 4, 7, and 9 (1.91, 1.42, and 1.62 inches, respectively) en route to a weekly sum of 6.45 inches. At week's end, enough cold air spread into western Alaska to result in a daily-record low (26 degrees F on May 10) in Cold Bay. Farther south, scattered showers accompanied warm weather in Hawaii. On the Big Island, weekly rainfall totaled 2.29 inches in Hilo. However, many other areas remained very dry. For example, year-to-date rainfall through May 10 included 0.99 inch (12 percent of normal) in Honolulu, Oahu; 2.52 inches (24 percent) in Kahului, Maui; and 4.87 inches (32 percent) in Lihue, Kauai. 
Source: USDA
Brute 
08 June 2008 at 16:17
Mr. Benson, 
Boy, your apocalyptic computer models were way off, especially when it comes to the Midwest and Southeast. You can’t see the forest for the trees. You’re up in Washington State, correct? Should I post about the record cold and rainfall there? Didn’t Whistler have the most snowfall recorded in decades last season? 
Look, if you personally believe that CO2 is effecting the weather than adjust your personal habits; but don’t press your religion of environmentalism on the rest of us…….THE OBSERVATIONS, (REALITY), DON’T MATCH THE PREDICTIONS/COMPUTER MODELS………….GET IT? 
Severe storms bring flooding, tornadoes to Midwest 
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jW-BndswWuhgPAPXOK4Q6TCQs... 
U.S. Spring Season Forecast: More Record Floods 
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2008/2008-03-20-02.asp
Brute 
08 June 2008 at 18:47
Gee David, it's been much colder lately in the Northwest than I thought . It must have something to do with people driving around in their Prius cars. But ,since they've had to heat their homes because of the cold, the two must offset each other. 
Record Report 
Statement as of 6:30 PM PDT on June 07, 2008 
... Record low maximum temperature tied at Seattle-Tacoma Airport... 
a record low maximum of 55 degrees was recorded at Seattle-Tacoma Airport today. This ties the old record of 55 set in 2002 and 1950. 
... Record low maximum temperature set at Seattle WFO... a record low maximum of 54 degrees was recorded at Seattle WFO today. This breaks the old record of 56 set in 2002. 
... Record low maximum temperature tied at Hoquiam Airport... a record low maximum of 54 degrees was recorded at Hoquiam Airport 
today. This ties the old record of 54 set in 1999. 
Public Information Statement 
Statement as of 5:30 am PDT on June 8, 2008 
... Record cold for the first week of June... 
Record cold average high temperatures for the first week in June were set in Seattle... Olympia and Bellingham this year. In addition... Seattle tied the record for the coldest average temperature for the first week of June. The records from Seattle include the federal building records which go back to 1891. The 
Olympia and Bellingham records go back to 1948. 
The following is a list of the top 3 coldest years on record for the first week of June for the individual stations. 
Seattle 
Average high temperature average temperature 
1. 57.3 degrees (2008) 1. 52.4 degrees (2008 and 1999) 
2. 59.0 degrees (1917) 2. 52.8 degrees (1917) 
3. 59.4 degrees (1999) 
Bellingham 
Average high temperature average temperature 
1. 56.4 degrees (2008) 1. 51.8 degrees (1954) 
2. 58.9 degrees (1984 and 1971) 2. 52.1 degrees (1999) 
3. 52.4 degrees (2008) 
Olympia 
Average high temperature 
1. 57.7 degrees (2008) 
2. 60.1 degrees (1999) 
3. 61.3 degrees (1988 and 1963) 
It was the fifth coldest first week of June on record at Olympia 
using the average temperatures.
manacker 
08 June 2008 at 21:39
Hi David, 
Your latest blurb did little to refute the studies for which I provided links that conclude that that the climate sensitivity of doubling water vapor concentration would be 6K, but that the net overall “feedback” from water (vapor, liquid droplets, ice crystals) is negative rather than positive. This is a result of a modest positive feedback from a relatively minor increase in atmospheric water vapor (estimated to increase the “no feedback” impact of 2xCO2 fom 0.8K to somewhere less than 1.2K) and a very strong negative feedback from clouds as temperature increases (estimated to amount to around –2.2K). 
Some comments to your points: 
“But you possibly fail to understand the difference between relative humidity and absolute humidity” 
This is a silly statement, David. I understand this difference very well, as did the authors of the studies for which I gave you links. And they show that the relative humidity decreases on average by –5% to –20% per degree C with increased temperature. These results are based on physical observations from weather balloons. Moisture content does increase, but is less than it would be with constant relative humidity, as assumed in many CGMs. Some GCMs even assume increased RH with temperature. So the assumptions made in these GCMs are incorrect. But this is all covered in the first paragraph here and does not require repetition. 
“The fact is that on very general physical grounds, one does not expect much change in the average relative humidity of the entire atmosphere. That in turn implies no change in cloud cover, or anyway, not much.” 
Your use of the word “implies” implies that we know all there is to know about cloud formation, which is very obviously not the case (as IPCC freely concedes in its 2007 SPM report). Spencer’s observations (which were published after SPM 2007) have shed a lot of new light on this topic and they show a strong negative feedback with increased temperatures. This impact comes from observed increase of low altitude (net cooling) clouds and a decrease in high altitude (net warming) clouds. So today we have physical observations that show your statement of “no implied change” as well as the IPCC model assumptions of positive feedback from clouds to be incorrect. It is hoped that IPCC will ensure that their future projections are corrected for this new information, which was lacking when they published SPM 2007. 
So, in light of a reduced positive impact from water vapor and a strong negative impact from clouds, we have laid to rest the notion that water will cause any significant positive feedbacks in a slightly warmer world. So we are back to a theoretical increase of doubling CO2 of 0.68K. 
“Using that 60% with S = 3 K gives a decent fit to the data from 1850 CE through 2007 CE. Without bothering to work out all the details of the precise contribution of other global warming gases, aerosols, water vapor, albedo change and, yes, even volcanoes. Instead all that is swept-under-the-rug of a single number, equilibrium climate sensitivity.” 
So we are now switching the discussion from water feedbacks to other postulated feedbacks and rationalizations of "hindcasts".. 
“60% with 3K” is a wonderful hypothetical assumption, but remember I told you about spelling ASS-U-ME. You can also get a good fit by comparing the temperature with any other unrelated indicator that happens to have increased over the same period. You have provided zero observational evidence for causality here, David, just a suggestion of correlation. And absolutely no evidence to support a 3K sensitivity, 
The arrogance of some “climatologists” is to think that they know all that there is to know about what causes climate change. The truth is that there is still a lot we (i.e. the “climatologists”) have no clue about, and this may even be the overwhelming part. To crank out a bunch of “hindcasts” based on anthropogenic GHG and feedback assumptions (as you did) is meaningless mental masturbation. To call this “science” is pure delusion. 
There is no evidence for your assumed for 3K sensitivity. It is based purely on the virtual reality of computer models plus hype. 
Regards, 
Max
Robin Guenier 
08 June 2008 at 22:43
Brute: did you see my posts on Joe Romm's (Climate Progress) item yesterday on Obama's Climate bill speech? Dangerous territory for a Brit!
David B. Benson 
08 June 2008 at 22:49
bobclive --- I'm not 'intent on destroying the western economy.' It is destroying itself. A VAT of 1% on the world's GNP suffices to halt and correct the problem. The Stern Report offers on solution path. 
Yes, drought in the Mid-west somewhat like those in previous times. The difference is now that the American Mid-west does a significant portion of the world's food production.
David B. Benson 
08 June 2008 at 22:54
manacker wrote "There is no evidence for your assumed for 3K sensitivity." Again, you are MSU. Assuming you have actually read what I have repeatedly posted, (indirect) links to the peer-reviewed papers in question, you simply lying. 
Therefore, not willing to subject yourself to the discipline of the scientific method. 
Find some mental health assistance; you have some quite serious problems.
manacker 
08 June 2008 at 23:06
Hi David, 
You wrote: “Brute --- What you saw was undoing about 7000 years of natural cooling. Caused by increases in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere: 
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html 
And in a warming world, Hadley Centre predicts more extreme weather events, not just hot ones.” 
I think Brute has very convincingly shown you that we are experiencing “natural cooling” today (since around 1998). 
But I would like to point out that any Hadley predictions of “extreme cold weather due to anthropogenic global warming” are based on pure fantasy. But Hadley have been so notoriously wrong in all of their model-based predictions (“2006 will be hottest year!” – oops!; “2007 will be hottest year! – ouch!) that they are not to be taken seriously in any case. 
BTW the link you provided shows no “extreme weather event predictions” by Hadley, but atmospheric CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa by NOAA, so proves nothing except that CO2 levels have risen between 1958 and today. That’s all. 
Now, to your first remark about “undoing about 7000 years of natural cooling”, you must be joking, David. 
Are you deliberately ignoring the Roman Optimum and Medieval Warm Period? Or are you unaware of their existence? Have you fallen for the Mann “hockey stick” or did you fail to get the word that it has been thoroughly discredited as a fraud? 
Come on, David, you know full well that temperatures were warmer during both above-mentioned periods than they are today, and both were followed by periods of cooling, during which temperatures were colder than today (the Dark Ages Cold Period and the Little Ice Age). 
So to talk of “7000 years of natural cooling” is absurd. 
Temperatures go up; temperatures go down. At this very moment, it appears that they are going down slightly for the past 10 years after having gone up for around 23 years prior to this and having cooled a bit for 32 years before that and warmed for 35 years before that. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
08 June 2008 at 23:19
Hi David, 
In the latest chapter of this never-ending saga, you wrote: “manacker wrote "There is no evidence for your assumed for 3K sensitivity." Again, you are MSU. Assuming you have actually read what I have repeatedly posted, (indirect) links to the peer-reviewed papers in question, you simply lying. 
Therefore, not willing to subject yourself to the discipline of the scientific method. 
Find some mental health assistance; you have some quite serious problems.” 
For shame, David. You are reverting to your bad habit of saying people are “lying” or need “mental health assistance” when they do not agree with you. Then you use your silly “MSU” analogy. Didn’t your Mommy tell you this is “bad manners”? 
You have not posted any links to any studies where physical observations validated a 3K sensitivity for a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity. 
On the other hand, I have posted links to studies where physical observations refute this. 
Please, David, “subject yourself to the discipline of the scientific method”. 
Recognize that I have provided the links and that the studies do show strong evidence for an overall neutral to negative feedback from water (vapor, liquid, solid) with the minor warming caused by doubling CO2. 
We have beaten this dog to death and you have clearly been unable to bring physical evidence for your assumed 3K figure. 
End of story. 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
09 June 2008 at 00:08
manacker --- You are just MSU again. And again to the point where I question your mental competence. 
Once again, go here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity 
Go to the first citaton, Gregory et al. (2002) and click on that link. Read that paper. Then go to the next, Annan & Hargreaves. Click on that. Read both the blog and the linked paper. 
And no, you clearly fail to understand about water vapor. So here is a middle-school level primer for you: 
Fix a quantity of air, A. Introduce some water vapor, W, into the air. The ratio of W/A to the saturated maximum that the air can hold, M/A, is W/M. W/M is the relative humidity, often expressed as a percentage. As the air increases in temperature, M increases. Therefore the relative humidity goes down. 
Exercise for the student: Considering the atmosphere has a whole, why should the relative humidity remain approximately constant, even when the average temperature of the air goes up slightly during a sunspot maximum?
David B. Benson 
09 June 2008 at 00:18
manacker wrote "Come on, David, you know full well that temperatures were warmer during both above-mentioned periods than they are today, and both were followed by periods of cooling, during which temperatures were colder than today (the Dark Ages Cold Period and the Little Ice Age)." Sorry, those little ups and downs were largely restricted to Europe although sometimes included the North Atlantic region. 
I'm talking about global temperatures and I assure you that there is abdundant data, from ice cores but also from direct physical evidence to suppost the statement that it is now globally warmer than at any time in the intervening 7000 (or so) years. 
It is clear that you, who make so much ought of looking at evidence, have failed to do so. When you do look at it, you fail to recognize that it is only of regional significance. I guess your claim to be interested in 'climatology' means just the 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience 
dished up as climate-astrology at places like WattsUp. So now I know why your wrote it in quotes.
David B. Benson 
09 June 2008 at 00:39
manacker --- Are you aware of orbital forcing? The discovery is often attributed to a Serb? Who? Who actually was the first to discover orbital forcing? 
When you can correctly answer these elemetray questions about historical climatology, then perhaps you will be ready to discuss, with some minor knowledge, '7000 years of natural cooling'. 
But to do so with greater precision, I encourage you to read W.F. Ruddiman's popular "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum". 
There is even a Wikipedia page summary, but the book is far better.
David B. Benson 
09 June 2008 at 01:06
"Natural lab shows sea's acid path" 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7437862.stm 
bad news; shocking pictures.
David B. Benson 
09 June 2008 at 02:35
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html 
entitled "WATER VAPOR in the CLIMATE SYSTEM Special Report. December 1995" 
is most clear regarding basic definitions.
David B. Benson 
09 June 2008 at 02:39
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023624.shtml 
entitled "Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe" 
is unambiguous, in this abstract, regarding positive water vapor feedback regionally, i.e., in Europe.
David B. Benson 
09 June 2008 at 02:47
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/ccm/0108_watervapor.htm 
entitled "COMMON CLIMATE MISCONCEPTIONS The Water Vapor Feedback" 
is extremely clear and provides some quantitative estimates (from IPCC AR4). 
From this it is clear that much of the equilibrium climate sensitivity of about 3 K is due to water vapor and clouds.
David B. Benson 
09 June 2008 at 02:57
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/climate-scientists... 
entitled "Climate Scientists Hide Water Vapor" 
is also quite good. I especially appreciated the care that Coby has put into his replies to the comments.
Brute 
09 June 2008 at 03:09
Robin, 
Good posts over @ Progress. 
I’ve got a comment but I’m not really certain how to word it, but here it goes…… 
Does the average non-American think that Americans have it too soft? That we are all wealthy Hollywood types lounging around the swimming pool all day thinking of ways to waste money and screw over the rest of the world? 
It strikes me that Joe Romm and others of his ilk harbor a self loathing……a sense of guilt one might say…….almost as if they are ashamed of being successful. I look at the benefits that my country has provided to its citizens and I’m thankful. We have a description in the states for people like him and it’s called the “Blame America First Crowd”, they hate their own country and to that end seek to “punish” their fellow citizens for their “wanton callousness and indifference to global suffering”. 
Romm and people such as him endeavor to lower the standard of living for citizens of wealthy nations to equal the living standards of the poorest nations…..in essence, “let’s make everyone miserable”. 
My solution would be to raise the living standard of the third world to equal that of western nations. He and many of the people posting seem to think that America has to take the first step. Why? If we use more energy than the average world citizen why not increase their energy consumption and raise their quality of life, (as China, India and Russia are doing). 
Why doesn’t Airbus create a fuel efficient aircraft with zero emissions…..plenty of smart folks over there. Why doesn’t Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen, Volvo or Saab create a car that operates without creating CO2. If it’s a good product, they can sell it here. 
Romm’s rhetoric works upon the victim hood mentality, (typical liberal theme). Create a boogeyman/scapegoat “rich, wasteful Americans” and blame them for the world’s troubles. 
Made me think of this movie scene from The Life of Brian: (No, I don't consider the United States on par with the Roman Empire) 
REG: 
They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers. 
LORETTA: 
And from our fathers' fathers' fathers. 
REG: 
Yeah. 
LORETTA: 
And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers. 
REG: 
Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?! 
XERXES: 
The aqueduct? 
REG: 
What? 
XERXES: 
The aqueduct. 
REG: 
Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah. 
COMMANDO #3: 
And the sanitation. 
LORETTA: 
Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like? 
REG: 
Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done. 
MATTHIAS: 
And the roads. 
REG: 
Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads-- 
COMMANDO: 
Irrigation. 
XERXES: 
Medicine. 
COMMANDOS: 
Huh? Heh? Huh... 
COMMANDO #2: 
Education. 
COMMANDOS: 
Ohh... 
REG: 
Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough. 
COMMANDO #1: 
And the wine. 
COMMANDOS: 
Oh, yes. Yeah... 
FRANCIS: 
Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh. 
COMMANDO: 
Public baths. 
LORETTA: 
And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg. 
FRANCIS: 
Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this. 
COMMANDOS: 
Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh. 
REG: 
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? 
XERXES: 
Brought peace. 
REG: 
Oh. Peace? Shut up!
Robin Guenier 
09 June 2008 at 11:20
Brute: well, I’ll try to answer. First, it’s not easy for me as, since the 1960s, I’ve been working with American businesses and Americans. There was a time when I seemed to be spending more time in LA than in London (I was on terminal jet-lag). My daughter lives in the US and I have an American grandchild. Moreover, I cannot speak for the “average non-American” – I doubt if there is such a person. 
But, yes, there is a leftie-liberal view in Europe that the US (and particularly Bush) is responsible for many of the world’s ills. And, yes, they feel that Americans are appallingly wasteful (just as they feel we’re very wasteful). On the other hand, the same people have an admiration of much of American tradition and culture – and (I suspect) rather expect that everything will be OK when (as they also expect and certainly hope) Obama comes to power. But, interestingly, many of the same people (in the UK) tend to “Blame Britain First" – especially Blair whom once they idolised. As for the motor industry, well it’s interesting that Angela Merkel backed away from setting tough emission targets largely to protect Germany’s powerful industry. And that’s the reality here: really we like America and, when it gets down to it, we don’t intend to endanger our lifestyle or economy by following a green agenda. But some of us, the liberal intellectuals anyway, feel guilty about it just as we feel guilty about all those years of exploiting the colonies. It’s all very perplexing. No wonder there’s so much nervous disease. 
I doubt if that helps (or makes sense) – but it’s an attempted answer. 
As to alleviating world poverty, there are (as I'm sure you know) no easy solutions. My view is that much of the problem is being solved by economic expansion – e.g. in China and India. We should leave them to get on with it. But that leaves, in particular, Africa where there is no possibility of such a solution – indeed China and India’s success probably makes things worse. How to deal with these basket-case economies is a massive problem. But it comprises about a billion people so we can’t (in my view) ignore it. One thing: aged rock stars jetting around the world are not the answer. If you’re really interested, read Professor Paul Collier’s book “The Bottom Billion”.
Brute 
09 June 2008 at 13:28
Still trying to get through the other 27 books that have been suggested.
bill s. 
09 June 2008 at 16:22
Robin, 
Maybe it's simplistic, but in my view the solution to poverty in the third world is cheap energy. And the solution to progress without drowning in pollution is energy efficiency. 
It may be time for the opponents in the AGW debate to seek common ground. Surely we all favor energy efficiency -- the question is how to achieve it. Arbitrary goals, cap-and-trade, carbon sequestration and the like aren't politically viable, as the Senate's inaction on the Warner-Lieberman bill shows. Americans won't fall on a sword in the name of environmentalism, but we will embrace efficiency measures that benefit the economy, as many will. For example, my local newspaper recently carried a story about using the heat from industrial smokestacks to produce electricity, instead of wasting it. Apparently that is a common practice in Eurpore, but mostly illegal in the U.S. because of utility monopolies. How crazy is that? In the era of cheap oil, Americans could afford to be wasteful. No more, and maybe it's a good thing.
Robin Guenier 
09 June 2008 at 18:06
Yes, bill s, I partly agree with you. But the alleviation of poverty (in particular in Africa) is about far more than cheap energy. For example, how do you resolve poor governance, corruption, constant conflict, AIDS, racial and religious hatreds, etc etc? 
Brute: showing off for a moment but I hope to prove that I can get things right, see: http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/tony_collins/2008/06/npf...#more
manacker 
09 June 2008 at 19:14
Hi David, 
You are wrong again when you write: “Sorry, those little ups and downs (the Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period) were largely restricted to Europe although sometimes included the North Atlantic region. 
There is ample physical evidence from all over the civilized world at the time of a MWP with temperatures higher than today (China, Greenland, Europe, etc.). Receding alpine glaciers reveal evidence of ancient forests and vegetation, and more rarely medieval civilization. Sea charts show clear passages that are now frozen. Agricultural records show grapes in northern England, oranges in northern China. Etc. 
There are a few good summaries and studies based on 2000-year global temperature reconstructions that confirm this. I’ll just give you links to two. 
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf 
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025 
You wrote: “I'm talking about global temperatures and I assure you that there is abdundant data, from ice cores but also from direct physical evidence to suppost the statement that it is now globally warmer than at any time in the intervening 7000 (or so) years.” 
Your above statement just got shot down by the studies I linked which confirm that it was indeed warmer throughout out planet during the MWP than it is during “the little ups and downs” we are experiencing today. 
David, put on your Kevlar-toed shoed before you shoot from the hip. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
09 June 2008 at 19:33
Hi David, 
Looks like you are still beating the “3K climate sensitivity” drum. Amazing tenacity, David, but not very effective. Just saying the same thing over and over again does not make it come true. 
I asked for physical evidence. You link to two well-written theoretical treatises by Zeke Hausfather and Coby Beck, neither of which provide any physical evidence, just reiterations of hypotheses. 
Let’s break off this part of our discussion. 
You have been unable to come with any physically observed data that support your hypothesis of major water feedback from doubling CO2 (3K climate sensitivity). 
I have provided links to studies that refer to physical observations, which show that the net overall feedback from water (vapor and clouds) is NEGATIVE, not positive as you have assumed. 
This is a result of a slight positive feedback from water vapor (estimated to increase the CS at 2xCO2 from +0.8K to somewhere between +1.0K to +1.2K, per Minschwaner and Dessler), plus a major negative feedback from clouds (equal to around –2.2K per Spencer). 
Sorry, David, those are the data based on physically observed facts not theoretically derived hypotheses coming out of the virtual world of GCMs. Denying the observed facts does not make them go away, David. 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
09 June 2008 at 19:55
Hi David, 
Even your own references refute your claim of 3K sensitivity. 
Quoting from your reference (Houghton et al, 1995.): “According to the 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment [Houghton et al., 1990], this feedback could amplify the temperature change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide by some 60%. The IPCC update, scheduled for release in 1996, does not change this conclusion.” 
The cited 2004 study by Minschwaner and Dessler came up with a similar (but slightly lower) amplification (from 0.8 to somewhere between 1.0K and 1.2K), relying on physically observed changes in relative humidity from weather balloons. This is a l-o-o-o-o-o-o-ng way from 3K, and does not include the strong negative feedback from clouds observed by Spencer, which puts water feedback in total back down to virtually zero. 
Give up on this one, David, your argumentation is not convincing. 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
10 June 2008 at 00:16
manacker --- By 'now', I mean the average global temperature of the past 7--10 years. As that is about 0.35 K warmer than the average over the entire 20th century, I'll not quibble with the paper in the first of your links. The second is to a paper published in E&E, infamous for the low quality of editing and reviewing; I did not bother to read it. 
By the way, there is a new book about the so-called Midieval Warm Period, which points to droughts in Australia, Africa and North America during that time. So I agree that the climate effects, if not the temperature, were wide-spread. 
Here is some quickly collected links which provide evidence of serious warming in at least Alaska, British Columbia and Italy; possible also in Peru: 
90--7000 years ago: 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=914542 
5200 years ago: 
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/quelcoro.htm 
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Fast-Melting-Glaciers-Expose-... 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman 
7000 years ago: 
http://www.physorg.com/news112982907.html 
There is a paper by Hansen (iwth at least one co-author) stating that 'now' is at least as warm as at anytime during the Holocene. From my own analysis of the GISP2 ice temperatures for central Greenland, that seems a bit over-done, but not by much. Another 2--3 decades will settle the matter. 
More interesting is the fact that in central Greenland at least, the past millennium has the coldest average temperature of any in the past 7 millennia; the one just previous was the next coldest. This is in good agreement with orbital forcing theory. 
So what has occurred in the past century is far beyond 'normal' climate. Indeed the last time there was a long, fast temperature increase (as measured in central Greenland but applicable globally) was the recovery from the 8.2 kya event.
David B. Benson 
10 June 2008 at 00:35
manacker --- I directly answered you, regarding climate sensitivity, by directing you to the wikipedia page and two of the links therein. 
You have simply ignored this. Indeed you even seem to ignore what IPCC AR4 has to say about the matter. 
Do note that equilibrium climate sensitivity is not solely due to water vapor; a goodly portion is due to warming the oceans. 
Estimates of climate sensitivity: 
http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html 
and finally, you should really look at more recent work than that dated 1995, hmm? 
P.S. You keep making claims for Spencer's work; his peer-reviewed published reseach is about the MJO. It does not support the claims you make for it. 
P.P.S. Quit stalling. Go read the Wikipedia page on climate sensitivity. Follow the suggested links to the first two papers. Learn something.
manacker 
10 June 2008 at 02:22
Hi David, 
Yes, I have read the Wikipedia blurb and the 1,000+ pages (groan!) of AR4 plus SPM 2007. 
It is not a matter of “ignoring” what IPCC claims. It is a matter of seeing that IPCC cannot back up their claims with anything other than model studies. Just because there is ”an agreement” among climate modelers that the sensitivity is 3K (i.e. this is the prevailing paradigm among "climatologists"), does not mean that this value has been demonstrated by any direct physical observations or that it is correct. 
And you have been unable to bring any references that demonstrate this evidence. 
This is the correct scientific method to validate a hypothesis, and it has not been done here as yet. So until it is done, it remains an unvalidated hypothesis or suggestion. 
What Spencer has done is to validate, based on physical observations, Lindzen’s “infrared iris” hypothesis, thereby proving the validity of a strong negative feedback from clouds. Spencer has estimated that this negative feedback is equivalent to around three-fourths of the currently assumed and model programmed 3K climate sensitivity (or about -2.2K). 
You wrote: “Do note that equilibrium climate sensitivity is not solely due to water vapor; a goodly portion is due to warming the oceans.” 
Yes, David, I can agree that your theory includes more than just water (vapor, liquid, solid), which appears to be a net overall wash, due to the strong negative feedback from clouds, which offsets a postulated positive feedback from a minor increase in water vapor. 
So let us talk about the other feedbacks. How much is due to the “warming of the oceans” and how does this “feedback” manifest itself? 
How much is due to the change in “albedo”, due to melting Arctic and 
Antarctic ice and how is this estimated? How is this corrected for the angle of the sun at the northernmost and southernmost latitudes? 
Bring facts, David. Not model study results or unvalidated hypotheses. 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
10 June 2008 at 03:29
manacker --- Anyone who actually read IPCC AR4 Wg1 report has to be a masochist! :-) 
But you didn't follow the suggested links on the Wikipedia page. 
(1) Find the link to Gregory et al. (2002). [That's a pdf file, so I can't link it here.] Notice it is based on recent observations. 
(2) Find the next link to Annan and Hargreaves. Read the blog and also the paper. Note the paper could easily be revised to use only the estimates based on observations. 
You misunderstand what Spencer actually accomplished, but let's let that pass, hmm? 
Your other questions are ones you ought to be able to answer yourself. I'll just mention that the water vapor in the lower stratosphere that Prather brought up is (1) above the usual hydrological mechanisms and (2) may well be the result of the decomposition of methane. In any case, at that altitude it certainly has a strong postive global warming effect.
Robin Guenier 
10 June 2008 at 13:34
One for Brute: 
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/06/day-music-died.html
Patrick49 
10 June 2008 at 14:48
Brute, 
Joe Romm deleted the following which I posted this morning: 
June 09, 2008 Congress Fiddled With Warming While Earth Cooled 
By Marc Sheppard 
Last week Democrats tried to kill the economy in the name of solving a problem that doesn't exist. Republicans should hang this bill around their necks in every district where an incumbent voted for the woefully misnamed and deservedly DOA Climate Security Act, technically S.3036. 
Asking Americans to pony up even more at the pump with already record gasoline prices creeping higher almost daily seems offensive enough. But compelling such burden under the guise of moral imperative to curb global warming at a time when the planet is actually cooling rings downright obscene. 
And that’s why last week’s cavalcade of Senators opposing the Act -- which would have directed the EPA to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases -- entirely on economic grounds was so confounding. 
Don't get me wrong -- the fiscal arguments against the bill's draconian business regulations were inexorable -- its massive consequent spike in energy costs would be nothing short of ruinous to the nation. An AprilEPA analysisof the bill estimated a 53 cents per gallon increase in the price of gasoline and a 44% jump in electricity costs by 2030 should it become law. Even those figures precariously assumed a 150% increase in nuclear and "significant use of biomass" for electricity generation; otherwise costs will be "significantly higher." Add a projected net loss of almost a trillion dollars in GDP by that very same year and this blatantly socialistic power-grab attempt deserved the pauper's funeral it received on financial grounds alone. 
That's without even considering that there's no proof whatsoever that the actions of mankind can influence global temperatures even one degree Celsius in either direction. 
With Americans struggling to keep food on the table in lighted rooms of solvent homes as soaring energy costs drive prices painfully northward across the board, a bill that would hemorrhage thousands of additional dollars from each family's survival-chest annually would seem inopportune at best. Indeed, this public display of politicians debating climate science in terms of macroeconomics, while betraying a comprehension of neither by a disturbing majority within their ranks, was a wonder to behold in these truly trying times. 
Green dreams were peddled. Imagine the insolence of countering the economic-suicide predicted from arbitrary and inherently unmonitorable CO2 limits with unfounded promises of some imaginary "green job" boom. Or basing short-term impact projections on the advent of renewable energy "technological advances," naively citing alternately the Apollo Mission and Manhattan Project as prognosticators of success's inevitability. And amid all these fantasies, legislating likewise non-existent Carbon capture and sequestration technology shackles upon the only energy source realistically capable of providing the nation's electricity for decades to come: Coal. 
Particularly given no proof whatsoever that the actions of mankind can influence global temperatures even one degree Celsius in either direction. 
It's no secret how much liberals covet European models for just about everything. Yet, Europe's even less intrusive attempts at cap-and-trade have failed miserably, wreaking havoc upon economies with no significant decrease in atmospheric carbon levels. Britain's efforts to legislate carbon limits have sparked trucker and taxi-driver strikes and protests and even threaten Labor's majority. In fact, climate legislation across the pond has failed so miserably that a new pollfound "more than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change." 
Yet, despite all the consumer misery endured, CO2 levels in Great Britain still increasedby 3.39% between Kyoto ratification in 1997 and 2004. True, the global average was 18.05%, but the United States, whose refusal to ratify allowed continued economic growth, managed a mere 6.57% increase. Compare that to other Kyoto signers like Japan (10.61%), Russia (15.61%) or Italy (15.53%). In fact, lib-beloved France, with all its Carbon pontification, barely beat the US (6.21%), despite deriving the majority of its electricity from carbon-neutral nuclear plants. 
S.3036 ostensibly gambled on non-existent technology to accomplish essentially nothing at inescapably catastrophic costs. 
The Silence of the Shams 
GOP failure to challenge the act's underlying premise of man's influence on climate not only circumvented the strongest case against it, but also set perilous precedent by implying acceptance of the unaccepted in the halls of congress. Such oblique capitulation throughout the MSM, the leftie blogosphere and pop culture has already handed the alarmists a victory of sorts. And a Senate floor debate tacitly based upon the junk which is the Democrats' science can only serve to further dye the fraudulent claim of "consensus" into the ever docile fabric of public psyche. 
Consequently, from the outset of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 debate, the greenie claim that the global warming "debate has ended" appeared as though a foregone conclusion. And everyone from Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to John Warner (R-VA) to Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was thus handed the pulpit from which to preach that we have no choice but to act now regardless of the economic fallout involved -- to do otherwise would be downright immoral. 
During last week's Democrat radio address Boxer waxed Goraclesque: 
"There are some in the Senate who insist that global warming is nothing more than science fiction. These are the same kind of voices who said that the world was flat, cigarettes were safe, cars didn't need air bags -- long after the rest of us knew the truth." 
And with this shifty alarmist sleight-of-tongue (intentionally omitting the "anthropogenic" prefix), the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works chair set the tone for debate. Not whether or not mankind's Carbon footprint stinks, but rather what steps are necessary to assuage its feculence. 
A June 2nd piece at WaPo lamenting the Senate's probable failure to pass S.3036 (for now) further exemplified the left's disregard for the science by stating that: 
"The world has clamored for U.S. leadership on climate change. Yet for seven years the Bush administration denied and dithered while the planet warmed." [emphasis added] 
An interesting accusation, particularly considering that the planet stopped warming 2 years before Bush took the oath in 2001, has been cooling since 2002 and that this year's was the fourth coldest May since 1979. 
That's right -- the University of Alabama, Huntsville just publishedits satellite-derived temperature anomalies for May. The figures depict a global temperature drop of 0.195°C between April and May, and a drop of 0.379°C since May of last year. Anthony Watts, one of myriad scientists attributing recent cooling(and global temperature anomalies overall) to the activity of that yellow dwarf star at the center of our solar system and other historically correlative natural forces, notes that: [emphasis in original] 
"Even more impressive is the change since the last big peak in global temperature in January 2007 at 0.594°C, giving a 16 month ∆T of -0.774°C which is equal in magnitude to the generally agreed upon ‘global warming signal' of the last 100 years." 
Please consider those words carefully. 
And also that, as previously noted, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory recently confirmedthat an impending phase shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will likely bring colder temperatures for as many as the next 20-30 years. 
So amid all the dreadful economics, the Democrats were actually proposing the single largest government intrusion into the nation's economy since WWII rationing in order to stop something that stopped almost 10 years ago. And which, despite continually rising atmospheric CO2 levels, exhibits no signs of restarting. 
A socialistic solution in search of a problem if ever there were one. 
Das Klima Kapital 
Have I mentioned that there's no proof whatever that the actions of mankind can influence global temperatures even one degree Celsius in either direction? 
In last Tuesday's NRO, Lawrence Solomon reminded us that Lieberman-Warner is based primarily upon the premise that there exists "scientific consensus on [manmade] global warming." And that this over-talked talking point is based largely upon the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's headline of "2500 Scientific Expert Reviewers." 
Even if true, why then does Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's petitionagainst global warming alarmism continue to add signatures to its over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs? Just who are the UN's "expert reviewers" whose opinions have been elevated to the realm of "indisputable?" 
Solomon contacted the Secretariat of the IPCC to learn the names of these 2,500 scientists and just what exactly they endorsed. Writes Solomon: 
"I planned to canvas them to determine their precise views. The answer that came back from the Secretariat informed me that the names were not public, so I would not be able to survey them, and that the scientists were merely reviewers. The 2,500 had not endorsed the conclusions of the report and, in fact, the IPCC had not claimed that they did. Journalists had jumped to the conclusion that the scientists the IPCC had touted were endorsers and the IPCC never saw fit to correct the record. There is no consensus of 2,500 scientist-endorsers. Moreover, many of those 2,500 reviewers turned thumbs down on the studies that they reviewed - I know this from my own interviews with them, conducted in the course of writing a book about scientists who dispute the conventional wisdom on climate change." 
So why champion a bill that gambled on non-existent technology to accomplish essentially nothing at inescapably catastrophic costs to solve a non-problem that no one has the slightest idea how to solve anyway? 
Addressing the National Press Club last month, Czech President Vaclav Klaus describedthe government control over business afforded by cap-and-trade as "something which resembles very much the dreams of communist central planners." And while Lieberman-Warner, which would have extracted trillions of dollars from the economy by selling greenhouse gas credits to American industry, already fit that bill, the so-called Boxer Substitute Amendment would bring a smile to the face of comrade Marx himself. Responding to claims that cap-and-trade would harm poorest Americans the most, Boxer's was a typical liberal fix that "sets aside a nearly $800 billion tax relief fund through 2050, which will help consumers in need of assistance related to energy costs." 
Translation - control the nation's commerce while redistributing its profits. 
In 1867, Karl Marx argued that capitalism's cycle of labor exploitation could not endlessly sustain itself and would ultimately be its doom. Modern greenies insist that capitalism's cycle of environmental exploitation will not endlessly sustain itself and will ultimately be not only its doom - but the entire planet's. 
Cap-and-trade thus represents the perfect liberal synergy of environmentalism and socialism. 
With both energy costs and atmospheric carbon levels on the rise while global temperatures fall, one might expect prudent policymakers to adopt a watch-and-wait philosophy over the next 10 years or so. But the envirosocialists are instead feeling the heat to enact their green-red social reforms before the "consensus" lie is exposed -- and the public's hypochondriacal fever cools. 
All the more reason why Republican senators should have scooped up handfuls of nascent practical science and with it buried the decaying piles of junk science that shelter the counterfeit arguments coming from the other side of the aisle. And Friday's defeat of S.3036 doesn't change that imperative one iota. 
Yes, having failed to muster the 60 votes (48-36) necessary to overcome a GOP filibuster and move to final consideration, Majority Leader Harry Reid was forced to pull the bill from the floor. But with both Presidential nominees supporting cap-and-trade and likely Democrat gains in both houses, this insidious scheme may smell funny, but it's by no means dead. Especially with a majority of the citizenry reading headlines the likes of Republican lawmakers block US climate bill still of the mind that their carbon-spewing lifestyles somehow threaten the world of their descendancy. 
So when next the battle wages, government topography, public hysteria and lower energy costs might coalesce to favor the alarmists' scare tactics over the economic realities. 
That's why then -- as now and before - disputing and debunking the sham science will be key to curing this greenhouse gas dementia once and for all. 
Marc Sheppard is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and welcomes your feedback.
Brute 
10 June 2008 at 15:58
Heh, Heh, Heh........................ 
Anecdotal Climate Roundup 
10/06/2008 
Seattle has coldest first week of June since 1891 
Seattle just experienced the coldest first week of June, according to climate records dating to 1891, said Cliff Mass, University of Washington metrologist. Both 1999 and 2008 share the record, with 1917 falling in second place, he said. “Just wait until tomorrow,” he said, when temperatures are going to be even colder. 
Story here: 
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004466972_w... 
Missoula water park closing due to cold weather ‘to protect children from hypothermia’ 
Missoula water park closing for week due to cold weather 
Associated Press - June 9, 2008 8:24 PM ET MISSOULA, Mont. (AP) - The Missoula Parks and Recreation Department has decided to close the Splash Montana Waterpark this week, because cold weather is forecast. 
Story here: 
http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=845467... 
Lobsterman: ““Global warming is having the opposite effect for us” 
Costs up, prices down 
Water temperature played a big part in the last minute scramble that closed the season with temperatures falling so low the lobsters were not crawling. 
In order for the lobsters to crawl into a trap the water has to be at least over the 40-degree mark and Crouse said the spring season has hardly any times when the conditions are right. 
“Our spring is just not viable,” he said. “Global warming is having the opposite effect for us and we are seeing the temperatures of the water stay lower for longer.” 
Story here: 
http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-220834-Costs-up-prices-do... 
Aspen to reopen this June for Skiing 
Story here: 
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=93380&catid=1...
Brute 
10 June 2008 at 16:10
Now here is a sharp marketing campaign! 
Book Your Vacation Now Before The Ocean Evaporates! 
Ocean City, Md. 
The print ad, which takes up most of a newspaper page, shouts, "The Ocean Is Evaporating!" 
TV and Internet spots warn that the world's oceans will disappear - in about a billion years. 
But what appear to be public service announcements this week, delivered with a fake sternness by Mayor Richard W. Meehan, are actually an ad campaign to encourage visits to the resort town. 
"We're advising citizens to book their Ocean City getaway now, before the ocean evaporates," Meehan says in the commercials; the image blurs and jumps like an old newsreel. 
The ads ran Sunday and Monday in TV markets from Richmond to New York. The Internet version is at http://www.morefunhere.com. The print version ran Monday in The Washington Post. 
The ads are part of a $1 million campaign designed for the Ocean City Department of Tourism by MGH of Owings Mills. 
Earlier this year, while searching for ideas, one staffer read about a study in the Monthly Notices of the British Royal Astronomical Society. 
The study described how, over hundreds of millions of years, the heat of the sun will steadily increase. After about a billion years, the oceans will boil themselves dry, for reasons separate from climate change. 
A light went on inside creative director John Patterson's head - an enormous, scorching light. If the oceans boil, he figured, that "probably pretty much ruins things" for Ocean City. It was the start of a joke. 
Meehan said he felt a little funny making such frightening pronouncements in jest. "Was it kind of Orson-Welles-ish? Yeah," he said, adding that the ads have generated mostly positive responses. 
Unfortunately, Ocean City's problems are likely to begin long before the oceans disappear. One of the study's authors, Klaus-Peter Schrder of the University of Guanajuato in Mexico, said in an e-mail to The Post that the earth's warming will make the oceans to expand before they boil. That will turn Ocean City into just Ocean, he says 
"That beach in the advert will disappear long before the 1 billion years are up," he said.
manacker 
10 June 2008 at 19:25
Hi David, 
You wrote: “You misunderstand what Spencer actually accomplished, but let's let that pass, hmm?” No, David, let’s not “let that pass”. I understood fully what Spencer accomplished, and so did he. You apparently are not aware of the major significance of Spencer’s work, which will have a critical impact on feedback assumptions fed into GCMs. Just so you can understand it better, I will repeat: 
“What Spencer has done is to validate, based on physical observations, Lindzen’s “infrared iris” hypothesis, thereby proving the validity of a strong negative feedback from clouds. Spencer has estimated that this negative feedback is equivalent to around three-fourths of the currently assumed and model programmed 3K climate sensitivity (or about -2.2K). “ 
“Your other questions are ones you ought to be able to answer yourself. I'll just mention that the water vapor in the lower stratosphere that Prather brought up is (1) above the usual hydrological mechanisms and (2) may well be the result of the decomposition of methane. In any case, at that altitude it certainly has a strong postive global warming effect.” 
Sure I can answer them myself. But it appears that you cannot and you won’t like my answer. 
Prather does not know what has caused this apparent increase in stratospheric water vapor. He does not say that it has anything to do with increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, nor that it has anything to do with the resulting fractional degree C increase in the “globally averaged mean land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (as measured by weather stations, some of which are suspect), the even smaller “globally averaged mean land and sea tropospheric temperature anomaly” (as measured by satellites with spot checks from balloons) or the negative “globally averaged mean land and sea stratospheric temperature anomaly” (satellites). He also provides no evidence that this increase in stratospheric water vapor has an anthropogenic origin. 
It is just one of those many unknowns about our climate and what makes it change that we have to accept. But to put it into the “hopper” of “anthropogenic greenhouse warming” is absurd, as it would be absurd to assume that it is part of a “positive feedback” resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions. 
Sorry, David, you have not brought any sound evidence based on physical observations for your assumed feedback of 3K, so lets “let that pass”, OK? 
Regards, 
Max
manacker 
10 June 2008 at 23:06
Hi David, 
Just to summarize our exchange on “climate sensitivity” (following a doubling of CO2), and elaborate on it, I am quoting from the introduction to James E. Hanson’s testimony to U.S. House of Representatives, April 26, 2007. 
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/Testimony_20070426.pdf 
“The Earth’s history shows that climate is remarkably sensitive to global forcings. Positive feedbacks dominate. This has allowed the entire planet to be whipsawed between climate states. Huge natural climate changes, from glacial to interglacial states, have been driven by very weak, very slow forcings, and positive feedbacks.” 
This rather somber estimation of how the Earth’s climate responds to natural (or anthropogenic) “forcings” has been put into serious question by the physical observation of a strong negative feedback from clouds in a study by Roy Spencer, published after the Hansen testimony. 
As the ocean warms, low-altitude clouds increase. These clouds reflect incoming solar radiation, thereby acting to cool the planet. At the same time, high altitude clouds decrease. These clouds absorb outgoing infrared radiation, which leads to warming. So the combined effect is one of strong negative feedback. 
These observations validated the “infrared iris” hypothesis of Richard Lindzen. 
Climatologists believe a doubling of CO2 levels could lead to a temperature increase of 3C, based on the hypothesis that positive feedbacks predominate (as suggested by Hansen). At a suggested climate sensitivity of 4.2K (with 2xCO2), Hansen’s assumption is even more alarmist than the “consensus” position (as might be expected). 
You quoted Pierrehumbert: “'Clouds have both a warming and a cooling effect on climate. High-altitude clouds have a warming effect, since they strongly reduce OLR either by absorption and emission, or by scattering, of infrared radiation. Clouds at any altitude have a cooling inﬂuence, through increasing the planetary albedo in the solar spectrum. The net effect of clouds depends on how the competition between these two factors plays out." 
This was wisely put. Now that we have a better idea of how the climate system really responds following Spencer’s observations on clouds, it is probable that the more conservative estimate of climate sensitivity (at 2xCO2) of Shaviv and Veizer at 0.75C is more realistic than the “consensus” position prior to the Spencer study (or, even less, the Hansen estimate). 
Hope this clears up the “water feedback” part of climate sensitivity, so we can move on to other topics. 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
10 June 2008 at 23:44
manacker --- Actually read 
http://www.physorg.com/news132251958.html 
which includes "'But we really won't know until much more work is done,' Spencer said." 
Further note that this researcher gave rise to 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to... 
which makes it difficult, most difficult, for me to take you at all seriously. As I stated before, Spencer's work will have to be replicated before being accepted; especially in light of his 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience 
postings. 
With regard to Prather: all he did was point out that lower stratosphere water vapor had been increasing and that, at that elevation, it is a powerful global warming gas. I read and passed on the hypothsis that that water vapor is the result of methane distruction. If so, then the quantity ought to vary with methane production, methinks. 
With regard to extremely low values of equilibrium climate sensitivity, paleoclimate data makes this essentially impossible. The atmosphere hasn't changed that much between then and now. 
But when, oh when, are you going to go read some well-regarded papers on climate sensitivity? Looks to be willful ignorance on your part. But then, it seems more and more you are only interested in 'climatology', not climatology. Too bad. 
By the way, here is an intresting blog about the origin of the IPCC and why it does 'concensus': 
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/06/history-of-opinon... 
And who chose the head of IPCC for the 2007 study?
Brute 
11 June 2008 at 02:01
Mr. Benson, 
You're trying to bail out a sinking ocean liner with a thimble. I do admire your tenacity. 
You and your fellow Alarmists are going to have to pray and offer tofu sacrifices to Mother Gaia or something. Maybe Mother Earth will hear your prayers and speak to the Sun God to help out your rapidly fading cause.
David B. Benson 
11 June 2008 at 02:18
manacker --- Your latest argument is #34 
Skeptic Arguments 
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
manacker 
11 June 2008 at 19:53
Hi David, 
Boy, you are really reaching to the bottom of the barrel when you pull out RealClimate blurbs to rebut something you cannot respond to yourself. RealClimate has absolutely zero credibility as far as being an objective source for "Real" info on "Climate" (as I'm sure you are fully aware). 
But this is a typical reaction when something new comes out of left field to shatter a paradigm. It's called a "paradigm shift", David. You can read up on it on the Thomas Kuhn" link I provided you earlier. 
Looks like Shaviv and Veizer were spot on with their estimate for 2xCO2 sensitivity of 0.75K; checks with Spencer's latest findings. 
Don't think I'll wait until Wikipedia "accepts" it as "fact" before I accept it. Ya gotta be open to new things, David, especially new physical observations that provide new insight into what is really going on out there (rather than just relying on GCM GIGO results for your info). 
Regards, 
Max 
PS What's that #34 remark all about?
manacker 
11 June 2008 at 22:22
Hi Brute, 
You were spot on when you wrote David “You're trying to bail out a sinking ocean liner with a thimble. I do admire your tenacity.” 
Actually, David has switched to the standard ploy of switching subjects as his story becomes weak. 
He has used this gambit in his exchange with me as well as in your exchange with him. 
We started off with the assumed 3K “sensitivity” (for 2xCO2), which he defended as the “consensus view”. 
When I referred to a recent study by Roy Spencer, which confirmed Richard Lindzen’s “infrared iris” theory of negative feedback from clouds based on actual physical observations (and thereby concluded that sensitivity for 2xCO2 should be around 0.7K), David first reacted by ignoring Spencer’s study. 
The major negative feedback from clouds is non-existent. It can’t exist today because we do not see it in paleoclimate reconstructions. OOPS! 
Then he switched to: Maybe it’s “not non-existent, but it can only have a minor role” because Gavin Schmidt said so. HMM… 
Then he waffled with: My scientist (Gavin Schmidt) is better than your scientists (Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen), with a personal opinion “at least Gavin Schmidt does not exaggerate”. OUCH! 
Then came a switch back to paleoclimate GCM studies as proof of no negative feedback from clouds. GROAN… 
Then came a link to a Joe Romm (!) blog, which labeled Spencer and Christy as “delayers” and tried to discredit them by linking them to a book allegedly published by Exxon-Mobil. HUH?? 
Then came the statement: “In modern science nothing is proved”, followed by a switch to Swiss glaciers. (SWISS WHAT??) 
When I shot down his claim on rate of glacier melting with some facts, David switched to the accuracy of GCM outputs “once instrumentation errors are corrected”. (UGH!) 
When I tried to get him back on track David came with the accusation “you made stuff up (MSU); (= “you’re lying”). (BRIEF LAPSE OF MANNERS…) 
A switcheroo to “we’re in the warmest period in the Holocene today” (apparently intended to prove a 3K climate sensitivity of 2xCO2??) (PALEOREDUX all over again) 
Then came some history: Arrhenius calculated 6K sensitivity, followed by more “MSU” blurbs with a link to a Pierrehumbert model study (apparently intended to disprove Spencer’s observed negative cloud feedbacks??) 
This was followed by a humorous interlude, where David accused me of having Fear of Computers (FOC). 
Then came a requote of Gavin Schmidt’s estimate of water vapor and cloud feedbacks (as proof that the physical observations of Spencer were wrong??) 
After a chat with Joe Romm more model info on water vapor feedback (but no physical observations which “must exist out there somewhere with all those satellites up there”). 
Then, strangely, a link to a study and a quote from it that concludes that the effects of water vapor and clouds essentially balance each other out and that “water vapor does not have a strong feedback mechanism in the Earth’s climate”. 
Let me repeat that: “the effects of water vapor and clouds essentially balance each other out and water vapor does not have a strong feedback mechanism in the Earth’s climate” 
Which is what I was arguing all along! (HOORAY!!) 
David backed off from this, of course, once he realized what he had written and the exchange went on a few more days before I cut it off. 
I have had the same type of discussion with other climate alarmists, like David. The pattern of these exchanges was similar to that of the David exchange. Many are a bit more abrasive than David, who usually kept his manners. Some are downright hostile and snarly (viz. Joe Romm). Some become extremely emotional. To his credit, David did not resort to emotional outbursts or insults. But they all use the “switch and waffle” tactic when they run out of real arguments to support their position. 
I think they are taught this M.O. in the “how to talk to a skeptic catechisms” that are out there. 
But it is fun sparring with these guys (as I am sure you have also observed). 
Regards, 
Max
David B. Benson 
11 June 2008 at 23:27
manacker --- Follow the link to learn about #34. 
As I quoted, even Spencer does not claim for his work what you do. And I'll not bother linking to the RealClimate threads, becuase it is clear your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with the facts. 
Indeed, you don't dare read Gregory et al. (2002) which provides information based on observations. These show that climate sensitivity is unlikely to be small. 
Worse you don't dare read Annan and Hargreaves because you might actually be forced to learn something new (for you). 
And, by the way, you have also used #22. 
"QUIZ: Who said, 'People who deny the whole global warming thing. They’re just a little crazy.'” 
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/11/quiz-who-said-%e2%80%9...
JZ Smith 
12 June 2008 at 00:41
Brute, Robin, Manacker, 
While I haven't been posting much here, I have been following fairly closely this thread. I, as well, vigorously tip my hat to The New Statesman for allowing such an open and unedited debate. Free speech is the lifeblood of a free society. 
I am surprised that any of you continue to post at Joe Romm's site, since like so many left-of-center sites, he chooses to edit that speech with which he finds objectionable. Stalin would be so proud! (How ironic, then, Robin, to see the Marxist.com piece you posted on AGW.) In Brute's case, I'm sure his motivation (for posting on Romm) is purely one of sport. 
Manacker, your post above summarizing your long exchange with DB Benson was very instructive. The thing that I have observed with Mr. Benson and his predecessor Peter Martin (They are sly... I never even saw their hand-slap as they swapped positions in the ring), was the predilection to call for "peer-reviewed" studies and calling into question the credentials of anyone holding a contrarian view to the Alarmist position. It's straight out of the Warm Words AGW handbook. (yes, there is actually a handbook See this: http://www.ippr.org/members/download.asp?f=%2Fecomm%2Ffiles%... 
Manacker, you, and the original David Whitehouse article that started this long debate are using simple, observed facts that simply don't fit the predicted outcome. The GCM's, as you so eloquently put it, cannot accurately predict the future of a chaotic system like our climate. 
Things don't look so good for the AGW crowd, and I suspect they will soon become even more emotional, vindictive, and shrill in their calls for "change".
JZ Smith 
12 June 2008 at 00:47
A follow-up to above: I think Brute gets credit for finding the Warm Words document. If not Brute, then someone else on this of the original DW column did. It was not me!
David B. Benson 
12 June 2008 at 01:19
JZ Smith --- It is called science. The conclusion is clear. Now action is required. 
Of course, AGW is not the only problem. Consider the sad state of the oceans. 
In any case, I feaar that you too have been taken in by the 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience 
being handed out by the climate-astrologers such as poster manacker.
Brute 
12 June 2008 at 01:52
JZ, 
Glad to see you’re still around. Your comment was the first, right? 
It was either Tony from Harmless Sky or Robin who posted the Warm Words link/information. In any event, it wasn't me. Give credit where credit is due.....that's one of my creeds…… that and “Real men have huge carbon footprints”. 
Just built a replica 1965 8 cylinder sports car…….345 Horsepower, no catalytic converters or emission pump….. headers to straight pipes…….should be finished next week. British chassis, American engine. I’m thinking of getting a personalized tag that reads “MOCO2”….get it? 
Maybe Martin just logged off and re-signed as Benson? 
Their arguments are falling on deaf ears. People aren't worried about paying attention to the Alarmists fantasies when they can't pay for fuel to get to work or heat their homes. Thankfully, the weather.....err....... "climate" is doing the job. If the Sun continues this weak phase it will get very cold this winter and people will be drilling for oil in their backyards with their Makita’s. 
The temperature here was 94.75 degrees yesterday, today it was 85.25 degrees. Talk about climate change! The week before it was in the upper 60’s. That’s typical spring/summer weather here…… 
A 10 DEGREE temperature difference within 24 hours and not a single cute furry creature died from this MASSIVE temperature change. Amazing how all of God’s creatures adapted so quickly! 
Benson, Martin and Romm are all cut from the same cloth……mindless servants of the environmentalist agenda, no semblance of objectivity. They’ll never change their minds; and you’re right, it is entertaining to tease them, especially Romm. I back him into a corner and when his Queen is in check he upsets the chessboard….deletes my posts. He threatens to “ban” me…..whatever that means. Maybe I’ll be sent to a Gulag in Siberia to a re-education camp to “get my mind right” ala Cool Hand Luke…..Brings back memories of grammar school for me actually…..maybe I’ll have to stand in the corner. 
I’m formulating a really good comment to “push him over the edge”…..the borderline psychotic that he is. 
This link is sort of neat: 
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/05/a_visual_compa...
David B. Benson 
12 June 2008 at 02:02
Brute wrote "Maybe Martin just logged off and re-signed as Benson?" I assure you not. 
Maybe just that Martin becme tired of this, as I am becoming?
Brute 
12 June 2008 at 02:13
Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out.................
Robin Guenier 
12 June 2008 at 07:30
JZ Smith: I'm glad to see you're still around. Yes, this has been a remarkable discussion and all credit to the New Statesman for hosting it and allowing it to happen and to continue. 
My congratulations to you for, as Brute notes, writing the first comment (on the Whitehouse article) back in December - and, incidentally, to Brute for his 01:52 comment today which, if you combine the two threads, was number 3,000. Incidentally, it was TonyN from Harmless Sky who posted the Warm Words data. 
I agree that things don't look so good for the AGW crowd these days - but they still have most powerful friends amongst politicians and the media. Although, if the latter switch allegiance, they can be unpleasantly vindictive. If cooling continues for the next few months or so, things may get interesting. 
Re Romm, I too enjoy goading them: see my various comments on http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/07/obama-climate-bill-is-...#comment-14322
Admin 
12 June 2008 at 10:02
After an astonishing number of comments. We're going to close this thread. Many thanks to everyone who contributed to this long-running but by enlarge good-natured debate. 
Ben Davies 
Editor, newstatesman.com