[litespeed (OP)]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,k-6975,00.html

"... the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill."

"Hamburg Max Planck Institute scientist Jochem Marotzke, on the other hand, says: "I hardly know any colleagues who would deny that it hasn't gotten warmer in recent years."

[Madidus_Scientia]

This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. It seems obvious there's a warming trend, but wait! lets look closer!



Let's ignore the long-term trend and choose to draw a gentle sloping line from 1999 to 2008. That way it doesn't make it look as bad as it is! Then we can set this whole global warming business to the back of our minds and never worry about it again.

This way of interpreting data is just plain dishonest.

[litespeed (OP)]

madi:

Climate models did not predict this.  Accordingly, the models are flawed.  I am shocked, SHOCKED to find climate models flawed. Perhaps some of us got distracted by Melodius Shakspearean Actors and forlorn Polar Bears.

[Madidus_Scientia]

You're shocked that the climate model doesn't predict cooling? You're right, it predicts warming. A long-term warming trend. Climate models can accurately predict long term trends, but there will always be short-term fluctuations.

Anyway, let's say for the sake of argument climate models are completely unreliable and we should throw them all out. How does this change anything? You can see from the instrumental data that although there are large drops in temperature over short term periods, there is an obvious overall warming trend.

I guess you can't see this for all the sand.

[kingmaker]

Global warming has just gone in the wind now.They are just talking things about it and would never happen.

[aiyana]

Human activities have led to large increases in heat-trapping gases over the past century. The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to this human-induced increase. Global average temperature and sea level have increased, and precipitation patterns have changed. Human “fingerprints” also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, plant and animal health and location, and Arctic sea ice.

[Madidus_Scientia]

Global warming has just gone in the wind now.They are just talking things about it and would never happen.

That post made little to no sense, but if it would never happen then how do you explain the fact that it is happening already?

[litespeed (OP)]

aiyana - RE fingerprints. These 'climatologists' might be giving up DNA as well as fingerprints in the near future.  From Hacked email; the director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, wrote:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."

He also advised: 

Mike: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit


ANDREW BOLT POINTS OUT, IN HIS OWN BLOG:

"Destroying government data subject to an FOI request is a criminal offence. Is this data being deleted the stuff CA asked from Jones in repeated FOI requests? If true, Jones had better get himself a lawyer very fast, but I doubt very much he would have done anything remotely illegal."

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/

[Madidus_Scientia]

[litespeed (OP)]

Madi - I am watching your Beavis and Butthead video and will comment as I go along from time to time. However, I wish you had simply listed the URL I now provide below.  That you post Beavis and Butthead videos to make your point is, well, dissapointing


Kevin E. Trenberth article An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ufop60Hv4K8J:www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/11/energydiagnostics09final.pdf+An+Imperative+for+climate+change+planning:+tracking+Earth%27s+global+energy&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera

The man seems in an absolute panic of confusion and bewilderment. No wonder his email is equally, if not more hysterical.

[litespeed (OP)]

madi - Besides, Jones resigned his position at CRU instead of demanding an open hearing to defend himself.

FROM: Tom Wigley  "...Mopping up any awkward evidence about the IPCC’s latest report before Climate Audit gets hold of it?"

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

[litespeed (OP)]

madi - I understand the email includes a bit of 'tongue-in-cheek' self deprication at the Denver weather. Never-the-less, none of it matters anyway since nothing at all is going to be done not matter what. But Take Comfort, Bucky! As I always say. Warm is good [British Pinot Noire], and cold is bad [The Plague of Black Death and Burning Witches!]

DENVER: "... we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data ... shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***"

"Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? [see URL in earlier post] We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record.

We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low."

[Bored chemist]

Isn't this thread a bit like saying that, since yesterday's weather forecast wasn't right, we should give up on meteorology?
We can explain roughly a hundred years of fairly consistent warming with some noise on it. The last couple of years are just more noise.

[ukmicky]

Climate models can accurately predict long term trends

If the data we enter in is not accurate and is also incomplete how can we accuratly predict long term trends.

[litespeed (OP)]

Bored chemist - You wrote:  "...We can explain roughly a hundred years of fairly consistent warming with some noise on it. The last couple of years are just more noise."

You apparently did not read "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy: Trenberth" Which has been the subject of recent posts and which I conspicuously referrenced above.

"It is not a sufficient explanation to say that a cool year
is due to natural variability. Similarly, common
arguments of skeptics that the late 20th century warming
is a recovery from the Little Ice Age or has other
natural origins are inadequate as they do not provide the
physical mechanisms involved. There must be a
physical explanation, whether natural or anthropogenic.
If surface warming occurs while the deep ocean
becomes cooler, then we should be able to see the
evidence. It may be that there is insufficient data to
prove one way or the other, as is often the case in the
deep past."

[Bored chemist]

This
"It is not a sufficient explanation to say that a cool year is due to natural variability"
seems to be an assertion made without any supporting evidence.
It plainly depends on your point of view.
I, because I know that the climate (and weather) are not simple systems and are subject to (at least) small scale chaotic behaviour, think that it is a perfectly sufficient explanation.
It's also the reason that the weather forecasts screw up sometimes.

Ideally, perhaps we might like to explain every last twitch of the curve, but that is probably an inpossible goal.
If we persue that goal at the cost of failing to act on the currently available evidence we risk such grave consequences that it would be abject folly.
If, on the other hand, we accept that there are some things we do know- such as the fact that CO2 absorbs IR radiation, and we make deductions from those facts and test them and find them to be broadly true then perhaps we should have faith in those models. Or we can always wait for more data- so long as we live far enough above sea level.

[ukmicky]

"It is not a sufficient explanation to say that a cool year is due to natural variability"

I agree Scientifically it is definitely not enough.

This is a science forum where beliefs don't quite cut it as evidence. Scientific method cant be tossed out the window when it suits.

A hypothesis can only be disproved it can not be proved and therefore as part of the scientific method scientists outside IPCC need to be given access  to the models used, so scientists other than those working on behalf of the IPCC can attempt to replicate their findings. Unfortunately for the world and the scientific method the IPCC will not release details of all the Models they are using and therefore no one other than the Ipcc can test there hypothesis.

Their is a word that covers that type of science its called Pseudoscience. And the worst thing is we could actually be destroying the earth but the case for it is being ran by a bunch of people who dont dserve to be called scientists.

[litespeed (OP)]

Hi bored - You wrote: "If we persue that goal at the cost of failing to act on the currently available evidence we risk such grave consequences that it would be abject folly."

1) Read my lips: 'NOTHING IS GOING TO BE DONE'. Make plans accordingly.

2) Even if it does get warmer that is better then getting colder.

3) I read this Denver guy's paper and I am not encouraged by the 'talent' working the subject area. He is a mediocre writer and seems to have a mediocre and unimaginitive mind as well.  

Its like he's been doing the same Chinese Restaurant for decades with Column A and ColumnB. Suddenly there's a Column C and he gets the vapors. The paper simply drips with hand wringing after hand wringing.

[Mazurka]

In answer to the question why has global warming stopped, the answer is that it depends on what data you look at and how you interpret the data.

Much of the (so called) sceptical analysis of climate related data has foundations of sand, which is why many climate scientists ignore it or otherwise refuse to engage with it.

With respect to the CRU emails, the FOI Act requests were refused because CRU did not “own” the data.  With hindsight some of the emails were perhaps naïve, but they were written months or years in advance of the FOI requests – and to turn it around, how many people would be happy for every email they have written to be bandied about the web?  I currently work in local government and frequently deal with FOI requests.  I suspect you would be surprised as to how limited such requests actually are.

It could be said that it is quite arrogant of “scientists” to only supply the data to reputable work groups etc and not to publish the data more generally, but recent years are littered with headline grabbing misinterpretations in relation to Anthropogenic climate change.

To make a factual correction Jones has not resigned – merely stood down pending the investigation – he maintains that there has been no wrong doing or deceit although of course the blogosphere says different, so it must be true… 

With respect to the word “trick”, could I suggest that you do a word search for it in the scientific literature?  If you do, you will probably realise that it was not used in the context of “deceit”, rather it was used in contest of “clever or ingenious device or expedient” .

It is of course very easy to knock climate modeling – it is a tremendously complex system to try and model and weightings applied to individual mechanisms within the model can always be argued over.  For example the effects of aerosols and particularly soot and sulphate are known, but not completely understood.

I think a good analaogy to the situation over the “science” of climate change is to compare it to Darwinian evolution.  In general, evolution by natural selection is accepted as the mechanism by which life as we now know it has arisen.  However there remains considerable debate about the details with the likes of Steven Jay Gould disagreeing with Richard Dawkins as to some of the specifics...

Ultimately I find it endlessly amusing that there are many bloggers and self appointed experts (often with no scientific background)  who know better than the scientists.  Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (an organization you may expect to be skeptical about climate change) accept to some extent that global warming can be (to an unknown extent) be attributed to mankind. http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm

[ukmicky]

It could be said that it is quite arrogant of “scientists” to only supply the data to reputable work groups etc and not to publish the data more generally, but recent years are littered with headline grabbing misinterpretations in relation to Anthropogenic climate change

It not arrogant ,its stupid and unscientific because unless they allow access and proper independent research into their data and models used they are no better than pseudo scientists.

You say reputable work groups, this unfortunately does not include anyone who wishes to disprove their findings, as they do not consider anyone who can described as a skeptic as reputable which is basically crazy. Scientific method is all about trying to disproving someones findings, without it the theory of relativity would not be accepted by the majority of the scientists.

If they want credibility they must allow the skeptics a chance to disprove their findings.

That is the only way and is what is actually scientifically required for it to be anything  other than pseudoscience.