JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Has the world started cooling? Hints from 4 of 5 global temperature sets…

I’m not keen on short term trends at all, they have a habit of flicking in and out of statistical significance with each month’s new data, or even switching from cooling to warming. But for what it’s worth, and only time will tell, perhaps the world entered the downswing of the PDO cycle in temperatures circa 2005.

If the world was entering a gently cooling phase, this is what it would look like

Syun Akasofu pointed out that there was a simple 60 year oscillation of global temperatures (about 30 years of warming, about 30 years of mild cooling) on top of a long slow rise that started more than 200 years ago. He predicted that we were at the top of one of the cycles, and were about to see the beginning of a cooler cycle. This early data suggests he may be right.

See the little red dot with the green arrow at about the 2010 mark. Dr Syun Akasofu

The cooling for the last eight years is statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets. One, UAH, shows a small (statistically insignificant) rise since 2005.

And here’s the political point: how many of the policy makers, the media, or the public are even aware of the current trend? Approximately no one. I’ll bet even most skeptics didn’t know it.

 

...

….

….

….

Cue critics who’ll tell me I’m cherry-picking data…

Note I’m not suggesting that this shows CO2 doesn’t cause warming, I’m not suggesting this is evidence (yet) that the models are wrong (they’re wrong, but for other reasons), I’m not even saying that the world is definitely cooling. I’m pointing out that if we were entering a cooler phase, this is what it would look like.

Perhaps the most important thing about these graphs is to juxtapose that claim the world is “still warming” in recent years. If statistical significance is where you hang your hat, the warming trend is not statistically significant, and yet (at the moment anyway) it is statistically significant to say the opposite about the last 8 years in 4 out of 5 datasets.

Btw, all five of the datasets have uncertainties of about 0.05 degrees C, so any change less than that is statistically insignificant.

 

UPDATE: Graph title corrected in the RSS graph.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.4/10 (99 votes cast)
Has the world started cooling? Hints from 4 of 5 global temperature sets..., 8.4 out of 10 based on 99 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/cxaf5dg

306 comments to Has the world started cooling? Hints from 4 of 5 global temperature sets…

  • #
    • #
      Quack

      you can go back even further and get colding trends!!! but only if you “adjust like mike”!!!


      Report this

      13

      • #
        Quack

        oh, and thanks to JoJo it looks like we are going down the down escalator now!!! too bad skepticaljunkscience warmists!!!


        Report this

        29

        • #
          Streetcred

          quack quack quack … do you have anything remotely intelligent to say ?


          Report this

          34

        • #
          Nice One

          Quack, do you need reminding about how many times global warming has “stopped”?

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html

          To Nova.

          Taking cherry picking to a new level! Admitting that you are doing so doesn’t justify it. Predicting that others will call you on it; obvious! Thinking your admission will prevent us from calling you on it; priceless.

          None of the graphs show statistical anything, warming, cooling or flat. The variability is far too high. Statistical significance is something you repeat so often, so why do you suddenly no longer feel the need for it?

          You also don’t account for influence of solar, ENSO, aerosols before deciding what remaining impact CO2 has.

          As for Akasofu’s predictions, debunked already here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-akasofu.html

          But if you do wish to persist with Akasofu; could you explain what is STILL causing the so called “Recovery from the little ice age” to continue today? So what’s causing that underlying increasing trend? Will it go on forever since Akasofu’s predictions seem to indicate that. And why did this never ending increase begin so recently, when the planet had been slowly cooling for 10,000 years or so? Right about when we started emitting GHGs. Coincidence?

          You’ve lots of explaining to do.


          Report this

          726

          • #
            Nice One

            BTW. Nova (or anyone else for that matter), how exactly are you calculating this stat?

            all five of the datasets have uncertainties of about 0.05 degrees C


            Report this

            610

          • #
            Shyguy

            Then let’s stop cherry picking.

            http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
            I see a 60 million years downtrend.

            Your turn.


            Report this

            94

          • #
            Nice One

            Try to stay on topic Shyguy, your “it’s changed before” argument has been done to death.


            Report this

            419

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            I don’t know where Ms Nova is getting the idea that the unceratinties for all five data sets is “about 0.5 degrees C”

            The trends and 95% error margins are calculated by a standard program taken from the paper by Foster and Rahmstorf 2011.

            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

            Calculations can be made for the varios data sets here:

            It is the same program that people have been using and quating to claim that there has been no statistically significant warming for 17 years.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

            It is the same program that people have been using and quating to claim that there has been no statistically significant warming for 17 years.

            The results are:

            RSS Trend: -0.045 ±0.595 °C/decade (2σ)
            NCDC Trend: -0.060 ±0.307 °C/decade (2σ)
            GISS Trend: -0.059 ±0.328 °C/decade (2σ)
            UAH Trend: 0.015 ±0.587 °C/decade (2σ)
            HAD4 Trend: -0.097 ±0.308 °C/decade (2σ)

            Unsurprisingly given the signal to noise ratio for 8 years, none of these data sets show anything near statistically significant cooling (or warming). The error margins varu greatly from very large warming to very large cooling.

            This claim of Ms Nova’s is quite wrong:

            “The cooling for the last eight years is statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets. One, UAH, shows a small (statistically insignificant) rise since 2005.”


            Report this

            812

          • #
            Nice One

            I agree Philip, it seems Nova hasn’t calculated the stats correctly, but I wanted her to have the benefit of the doubt. I’m sure she’ll post her workings – any minute now.


            Report this

            52

          • #

            This claim of Ms Nova’s is quite wrong:

            “The cooling for the last eight years is statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets. One, UAH, shows a small (statistically insignificant) rise since 2005.”

            “Quite wrong?”. Not at all. There are many versions of “statistical significance”. So you can come up with a different more complex method but don’t recognise the simple one? How odd.

            You have referred to one in a paper by Foster and Rahmstorf that is complicated. I used a simple, reasonable, rough and ready method and drew conclusions that fitted (see all the caveats). It is not sophisticated but it is still valid. Is the trend greater than the errors in the individual measurements (about 0.05C per data point here)? If the trend is less than the errors of individual instruments it is not really credible. With your preferred measure it looks like a trend could, under some circumstances, be statistically “significant” even though it is less than the individual measurement error. Hmm.

            Note the many caveats? These results are…”hints”…” if we were entering a cooler phase, this is what it would look like”… and ”short term trends… have a habit of flicking in and out blah blah blah”…

            I’m quite accurate in claiming statistical significance. You toss the jargon, but miss the point. I’d be wrong if I said the results were significant for policy. But I didn’t say that.

            Perhaps you’d like to use the more complex technique on the warming trend and tell us how long we have to go back before we see “significant” warming? I’m sure you would not apply one method to cooling trends and a different one to warming trends, right?

            More importantly, can you tell us how significant the trend in ocean temperature since 1955 is? It shows about 0.17 degrees C of warming over 57 years, but any reasonable assessment of either (a) the measurement of an individual ocean temperature measurement by bucket or XBT is grossly higher than 0.17C degrees, or (b) the sparse sampling of the ocean (which is rather big, and has currents so temperatures can be quite different just a few miles apart), shows that the individual errors on each data point is far larger than 0.17C. No doubt you can point to some dense and authoritative article by some climate authority explaining how in convoluted terms that this is indeed a very significant and serious trend, and that the measurement errors are much much less than they appear? And funny how when we started measuring it with Argo in 2003 the trend evaporated?
            [Data for 0 – 700m, ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv

            Not cherry picking techniques are we?


            Report this

            85

            • #
              Nice One

              Your concept of statistical significance seems to be unique and has a few “issues”.

              Can you explain why your method also produces “statistically significant” warming from 2008?

              http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008/trend/

              Or “statistically significant” cooling from 2013?

              http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2013/plot/rss/from:2013/trend/


              Report this

              34

              • #

                REPLY: Mrs Nice, 2008? Reductio ad absurdum. Since I said that trends since 2005 were a “hint”, likely to change, and I would not draw stronger conclusions on them, I was not just technically correct, but reasonable too. That I keep pointing out the caveats, and that my point was speculative, and you fail to read those, either in the post or in my comments, I can only conclude you are unable to read and comprehend. Blinded? Shame.

                You seem to be getting excited over the idea that 8 years can’t possibly be “significant” yet apparently you agree that “a decade” or ten years might be? Which God handed down that mathematical proof? In 2 years time, if the apparent trend continues, will you declare it’s statistically significant then? Is there a magic day as the sun rises on Jan 1 2015 where the “completely wrong” and “stuffed up” maths suddenly becomes “right?”

                The world “significant” in a mathematical sense does not imply it was important. You are confusing the terms, despite me making it clear in the post that I drew no important conclusions from it.

                Unlike some of your favourite scientists who keep telling us the world is still warming even in recent times, I say nothing more decisive than there has been no warming trend in 17 years. “…for what it’s worth, and only time will tell, perhaps the world entered the downswing of the PDO cycle in temperatures circa 2005.”

                In the end, Akasofu might have been right. Tough eh?


                Report this

                93

              • #
                Nice One

                No I noticed all your “caveats”, but I also noticed your use of the term “Statistical Significance”.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

                Statistical significance is a statistical assessment of whether observations reflect a pattern rather than just chance. When used in statistics, the word significant does not mean important or meaningful, as it does in everyday speech; with sufficient data, a statistically significant result may be very small in magnitude.

                It seems the rest of the world doesn’t share your view.


                Report this

                55

          • #
            Nice One

            Data for 0 – 700m,

            Not cherry picking techniques are we?

            LOL!


            Report this

            45

            • #

              Not avoiding the question eh?

              ” can you tell us how significant the trend in ocean temperature since 1955 is?”

              LOL-til-you-cry

              Let’s pretend that atmospheric CO2 will heat a lower layer of the ocean before it heats the top one. Now lets figure out the significance of that trend?


              Report this

              53

              • #
                Nice One

                No, I’ll stick to the argument and not be side-tracked by irrelevant questions. You say:

                The cooling for the last eight years is statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets.

                Your use of the term statistically significant is NOT supported by any branch of statistics. You’ve stuffed up and once again have a lot of trouble admitting your mistake, you know, “the simple one”. More material for Lewandowsky!

                LOL!

                As for your deep ocean heat comment, I already responded to that – still waiting for you to explain your “it comes from the deep” idea.

                —-

                REPLY: Answered. – Jo


                Report this

                54

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    Not fair. 2005 to now is meaningless.

    From 1997 to today, 16 years, is getting to the end of “natural” variability limiting the rise. That is only 8 years of warmer than expected and 8 years of more cooling than expected.

    Start point of 2005: cherry-picking for no benefit except as confirmation bias.


    Report this

    912

    • #

      Would be interesting on what basis you say

      16 years, is getting to the end of “natural” variability limiting the rise.

      There appears to be a (very slight) cooling in the last 8 years, and no significant change over 16 years. CO2 emissions have accelerated steeply in that time. It would appear that human caused warming has been exaggerated and natural variation understated.
      My guess is that your projected resumption of the warming trend is because the models say it will happen, and not from some empirical data.


      Report this

      382

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        It’s not CO2 from Mauna Loa beancounter. It’s total atmospheric CO2, and anthropogenic CO2 is only 3 or 4 % of that.


        Report this

        193

      • #
        Doug Proctor

        Apologies: my comments were not well explained. I came across as supporting the warmist view. I do not do so.

        Actually, my point was that the comparison was faulty, a disagreement with the argument, not the conclusion. I’m a non-believer in the CO2-IPCC story.

        My 8 yr/8 yr comment related to the warmist view, not badly taken, that you can have a continued rise of “their” level if you split the “hiatus” into a too-warm/too-cool way. That would take some of the alarm out of the pre-98 period, but their model of continued warming offset by natural factors would survive.

        Regardless, starting at 2005 is meaningless for any discussion about long-term warming. It has meaning for the magnitude of natural variability and thus, by inference, the proportional magnitude of CO2 forcing.


        Report this

        51

    • #
      Bloke down the pub

      It’s a pity that so few scientists made the same point when Hansen first made the claim that a few years of upward trend could be extrapolated to thermageddon.


      Report this

      233

    • #
      Ian

      Did you actually read what Jo Wrote? If you did then your understanding skills are very limited. She specifically addressed the points you querulously quibble about


      Report this

      214

    • #
      wes george

      Not fair. 2005 to now is meaningless.

      Hello?…anything is fair because the whole climate change debate is completely meaningless.

      Are we seriously discussing what the weather is going to be like in 100 years as part of a political debate about how parliament has raised taxes to control the Earth’s climate?

      You know, the same parliament who couldn’t even organise a program to install pink bats without burning the house down. The same morons whose “compassionate” policy on que jumping asylum seekers lures thousands to their death at sea.

      Have we friggin’ lost our minds?

      If an insane clown posse can control the earth’s climate, why don’t we petition parliament to outlaw drought while they’re fine tuning the weather?

      And why didn’t they solve the last bunch of burning moral issues of the day, you know, like how to achieve World Peace, nuclear arms control, world poverty, hunger or stop catastrophic continental drift??? Heck, I’d settle for the clowns to just finish the bloody dual carriage way on Pacific highway between Sydney and Brissy.

      You want “meaning” in the climate debate?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f-kfRREA8M


      Report this

      394

  • #
    john robertson

    That nature cycles is obvious to anyone who was not born yesterday, schools used to teach that fact as part of basic science.
    Climatology, persists in insisting linear processes dominate in their computerized world.
    Small wonder their models fail.
    Which is why, as Climatology Inc maintains that their projections are more real than the weather, climatology is a religion rather than science.
    Get ready for 30 years of hysteria over catastrophic cooling, caused by our technological lifestyles.
    Opposite problem=same old cure.
    Back to the caves.

    On the bright side social mores cycle too, we are at or close to peak stupid, as the consequences of the Carbon Cult come home to hurt, crowd wisdom will change, next step hostility to authority as they have provided excessive evidence of their social worth.
    We have been ignoring the people who intend us harm, they make no secret of their intent, but we have just shrugged and not taken them seriously.
    As the bite sets in, this will change.
    Poverty is a wonderful “educational tool” in the university of hard knocks.

    Question to you Australians, will the Federal opposition attract sufficient votes to wipe out your current plague of progressives?
    Or has the complicit media poisoned the well to the point voters hate them all? The media BS,”They all Steal” or “They’re all crooks”.
    Cause if neither group are worth voting for, I am curious if None_of_the_Above, is an option.
    The idea is, if voters select NOTA, all those running get banned from politics for 10 years or more.
    There is no way the pollies will allow NOTA as a ballot option, but if one person in each riding changes their name to NOTA.ZZZ(1thro # of seats), organize enough signature for nomination and then do nothing.
    Should get elected when the rest are the usual career politicians,the terror of these leaches would be marvellous to see.
    Could be very disruptive of those power blocks who are fleecing us at present.


    Report this

    243

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      It is indeed a concern to say the least.
      The leader of the opposition just the other day was murmuring about throwing only part of the huge bureaucracy built up around this nonsense away. It could be that he doesn’t want to throw warmist votes out with the bathwater. Or, as I have often suspected, it is not the people that we elect that are calling the shots. Electing one crowd or the other is just an delusional curtain to hide the puppeteers.
      In any event, voting is mandatory here, and the electoral office can and sometimes does require ID.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        john robertson

        As usual I missed the point in this thread jacking query,its my theory that the current party members will chose none of the above, rather than reward their current lying leaders or chose the demonized opposition.


        Report this

        31

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Yeah funny you mention that. I was watching the miles and miles of trucks queued up on the road to the channel tunnel in the UK on early morning news today. The snow has closed a lot of roads and doesnt look like letting up anytime soon. I was thinking, “start the countdown, any minute now we are going to be told this is man made/human induced or whatever. Its gone well beyond science now. Its almost at the point Dawkins has reached with religion, no point in even discussing it anymore because the other side has basically cemented their beliefs and thats that. I guess we are approaching the final phase of Michael Chriton’s “Green Dragons and Whiffle Dust” scenario. Governments now have to decide whether to raise the panic level again or claim they have fixed it, the one thing we wont get is the bloody truth.


      Report this

      221

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Governments now have to decide whether to raise the panic level again or claim they have fixed it, the one thing we wont get is the bloody truth.”

        Yep, an admission of the truth that there was never really any change in global temperatures that wasn’t totally due to natural cycles and variability, and the the idea of CO2 actually causing any atmospheric warming was a load of hogwash.. it ain’t going to happen any time soon.

        Maybe in 15-20 years, when the global temps are significantly lower and the current load of trough dwellers have gone their various ways.


        Report this

        162

    • #
      Backslider

      “None_of_the_Above” is exactly what happened at the last Australian election. I think that voters now will realise what a mistake that was and will give more thought as to who they will actually vote for.


      Report this

      51

    • #
      Robert

      The interesting thing is some years ago Hansen and his ilk (Mann, Gleick, Lewandoski, et. al.) were the rebel hippies speaking out against authority and questioning everything.

      Now that they believe THEY are the “authority” the same type of “rebellious” questioning and speaking out against them is not to be tolerated.

      Talk about do as I say not as I do…


      Report this

      111

      • #
        ExWarmist

        The problem when they were young was that “They were not the Authority” hence their rebellion – but it was always about cementing authority – just changing the faces.

        Simple lust for coercive power over others.


        Report this

        51

  • #

    I know that the UK (even Europe) is, in area, an insignificant corner of the planet, and short term weather is not climate. However, we have had a number of cold winters. On Monday 11th March was the coldest March day in England since the 1980s. This prompted a cartoon by Matt in the Telegraph of people queuing in the snow outside a stationers. The notice in the window reads.

    CALENDER RECALL – MONTH OF MARCH MISTAKENLY SHOWS IMAGE OF SPRING

    Still available for next few hours here.


    Report this

    51

    • #

      Steven Goddard just reported: The global warming scamsters have chosen to crank up the unprecedented warming BS, just as the US and Europe get slammed with wave after wave of record springtime cold.
      My reply: And this was just after the US and Europe got slammed with wave after wave of record wintertime cold. Yes, I know, how stupid of me, the heat is what’s causing this coldness. Brrr!!

      The Herald Sun reports: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/unusual-snow-hits-uk-and-europe/story-fnd134gw-1226595990965
      An excerpt: Weather service Meteo France described the snowfall – coming only eight days before the official start of spring – as “remarkable for the season.”
      More than 2000 people were stranded in their cars overnight as heavy snow paralysed roads in Normandy and Brittany, with many spending the night in emergency shelters.
      “There are cars in front, there are cars behind. We’re in a film, it’s like the end of the world,” trapped driver Michel told France Bleu radio from the Manche region.


      Report this

      32

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    This cooling trend is clearly due to the effect of increased snow, which is caused by global warming.


    Report this

    252

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      LMAO – pure gold


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Robert

      Increased what? You couldn’t have said snow, I have it from one of THE authorities on this matter that our children won’t know what snow looks like. Gonna have to call it something else since it is quite obviously too warm here in the NH for it to possibly snow…


      Report this

      52

      • #
        Robert

        Good to know some got the sarcasm in that reply even though I forgot the /sarc tag.

        That being said I’m off to the slopes to do some boarding. Not sure what kind of boarding since it used to be called SNOWboarding but as we all know from the climate authorities we won’t know what snow is etc. etc.

        Sure seems to be an awful lot of it though for something we aren’t supposed to be seeing due to all this warming…

        I’ll omit the /sarc tag again as it should be obvious.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    warcroft

    The latest claim Ive been hearing/reading lately is that we are suppose to be in a mini ice age right now, but due to global warming its not as cold as its suppose to be.

    Again, arguing every which way to ‘prove’ global warming.


    Report this

    200

    • #
      Colin Henderson

      Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.

      The hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions is – there is no CAGW!


      Report this

      122

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Agree Colin

        The thing is driven by orbital mechanics and the atmosphere is just along for the ride.

        KK :)


        Report this

        41

      • #
        Tim

        Colin, I believe there are some new theories that challenge Ockham based on income.

        For instance, the Ehrlich Razor, The Gore Razor and the Flannery Razor have proved very rewarding for their proponents, whereas poor old William of Ockham lived in poverty.

        Get with the program – there’s big money to be made.


        Report this

        11

  • #
    Carbon500

    Tongue firmly in cheek, I know for a fact that the cooling here in the UK began in 2007.
    It poured with rain all day during a classic car show I attended, and I had to bale out a couple of inches of water from my leaky old convertible when I got home.
    There hasn’t been a sweltering August since.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    well, the CO2 price is definitely cooling:

    Failed EU auction sends CO2 prices to six-week lowLONDON, March 12 (Reuters Point Carbon) – EU carbon allowances fell to a near six-week low of 3.71 euros on Tuesday as the market baulked in response to the cancellation of an EU auction of permits, traders said…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2217628

    desperation on the cusp of madness:

    EU Commission wants carbon cuts, more renewables in 2030 goals
    BRUSSELS, March 12 (Reuters) – The European Union needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent and increase the share of renewable energy to 30 percent by 2030, the executive European Commission said in a draft paper on new climate and energy policy
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2217048?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    30

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Completely O/T but I have a relative who lived in Bruxelles but about 8 years ago saw the writing on the wall.

      Government was importing voting fodder to go on social security, law and order was slipping away and the downward spiral had begun with only the “Rulers” laughing.

      He sold up everything and moved overseas and I suspect the Rulers in brussels are “Sequestering” their superannuation O/S in numbered accounts ready for the final collapse.

      The Biomass aka woodchip scam is going to create more “pollution” than any coal fired plant could ever dream of doing.

      An analogy would be to tell people who are trying to lose wight that the solution lies in EATING MORE FOOD.

      I used to see people saying that Lefties were delibarately out to destry industrial society as being mistaken.

      The Biomass Power Generation scam confirms their alarm.

      It is totally insane from any viewpoint; science, morality, the environment. Biomass power is damaging to all.

      KK :)


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Mark

      Hey pat, that’s not the only thing cooling. How’s this for ‘cooling’ electoral feeling?

      http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2013/4872/

      15% margin TPP! Seems to fit with the WA result though.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    With the greatest of respect, Jo, what is this, Climate Cleo? :D

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    RUMOUR! Mystery celeb seen chilling out,
    grainy paparazzi photos Page 3 !

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    AMAZING! If Climate Cate had a
    winter makeover what would she look like?
    See our artists impression!

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    RAUNCHY! Climate Cate reveals
    ‘I HAD NO HOT DATES FOR 8 YEARS.’
    Is missing Trenberth’s ‘heat’.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    SEALED SECTION: Gleick will steal your heart,
    then steal your identity!

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    DRAMA! CatePac back together!
    Describes relationship with Hollywood’s
    biggest Ocean as ‘on again off again’.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    EXCLUSIVE! Heartless Carbon DUMPS Our Cate!
    Claims they’ve been drifting apart for years.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Hey wait a sec… maybe Climate Cleo isn’t such a bad idea after all.


    Report this

    131

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Slightly OT, but …

    On New Zealand National Radio this morning — there was a discussion between Geoff Robinson and a UK reporter, Ozzie Barrett, about a sudden and fierce snow storm in Sussex, in southern England, that occurred during the last 24 hours.

    This snow storm is unusual in that the British weather patterns usually mean that Scotland gets snow first, and then it gradually moves down the country. In some years Sussex does not get any snow at all. So nobody was prepared for this event, and there were lots of traffic accidents, etc. People are understandably annoyed.

    Towards the end of the interview, Geoff Robinson, the New Zealand Anchor, asked, “Is this to do with climate change, do you think?” This a standard question in New Zealand, but the interesting thing was the response.

    The UK reporter, Ozzie Barrett, equivocated, changed the subject, and avoided the question all together. Six months ago, he would have been all over that question like a rash.

    Perhaps there are changes afoot in the media in the UK, and Radio New Zealand haven’t got the memo yet?


    Report this

    171

  • #
    pat

    13 March: Bloomberg: Karin Matussek: Deutsche Bank Tax Manager Said to Be CO2 Probe Suspect
    Deutsche Bank AG (DBK)’s head of tax for continental Europe is among the suspects in Frankfurt prosecutors’ investigation of carbon-emission certificate trades, two people familiar with the matter said.
    The executive and a tax-compliance manager are being probed in the case over evading value-added tax, said the people, who declined to be identified because the suspects haven’t been disclosed publicly. German financial regulator Bafin is also looking into the matter, it said…
    Prosecutors are also probing co-Chief Executive Officer Juergen Fitschen and Chief Financial Officer Stefan Krause, who signed tax returns related to value-added tax on the certificates.
    Deutsche Bank spokesman Ronald Weichert said the bank was cooperating with prosecutors and declined to comment on the identity of any suspects. An e-mail and call to the tax executive weren’t immediately returned…
    They have extended the case to also look into whether, in the course of the investigation, some people at the bank obstructed justice or violated money- laundering rules…
    Prosecutors are investigating about 190 suspects in the case, among them 25 are at Deutsche Bank…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/deutsche-bank-top-tax-manager-said-to-be-suspect-in-co2-probe.html


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    You know Im rapidly coming to the conclusion that it almost doesnt matter what the weather/climatei is “actually” doing, so much as what the public are assisted to “perceive” its doing. Classic example on Weatherzone today. I click on a headline because it reads “SA Heat Records Shattered” (pretty exciting stuff) only to iscover upon reading that the records are better described as not records at all, but just more points on the graph. However “MORE POINTS ON THE GRAPH!!!!” doesnt sell a headline quite as nicely as “CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL MELTDOWN DOOOOOOM!!!” does it. So have read of his stuff In reality its rather pedestrian and probably dose more to debink AGW than support it considering some of the data sets are alegedly over 150 years old and yet we are only topping the “3rd” hottest etc etc, I have no idea how you can have over 100 years more AGW gas in the system and only come 3rd in records yet claim there is any sort of relationship. Surely you would be seeing the top and long records being broken easily by now with so much “forcing” behind the alleged drivers. Its probably just as well I am a mere layperson because if I was a scientist Im sure it would do my head in eve more to see such a weak hypothesis getting so much travel. The media have a lot to answer for and in time, I hope they will be made to answer.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You are right. It has never been about science. It is all about propaganda and attitudinal control. For example, why refer to it as Climate Science, when there was a perfectly good branch of Science already in existence, called “Atmospheric Physics”? The answer was, I suspect, that the real Atmospheric Physicists would not want a bar of any association with the quants pretending to be scientists,

      It is more of an experiment in Sociology than in any physical science.

      That is why we get the attack trolls like JFC and Nice One visiting here. I don’t know if anybody else has noticed, but they tend to change with every new academic year. It is only MattB and John Brookes who are consistent, and they present reasoned (if incorrect) arguments. The attack trolls are all about firing ad hominem from the lip, but cannot base any of their arguments in science. When you ask for any evidence or even for some logical reasoning, they just can’t get it up.

      Cue the trolls …


      Report this

      201

  • #
    JFC

    I’m not keen on short term trends at all,

    Uh oh, I think you might be. But only when you can square the circle to do some junk science. You cant be serious right? You’ve just written a post referring to the last 8 years. Given your track record this is just breath taking. Anyway I thought you were saying that the global surface temperature record was completely corrupted? So why on earth would you be using it to show anything??

    In a long list of pathetic/desperate posts this one is right up the top.

    [Oh good, this must be one of the better posts then. Should get lots of hits and inform lots of people about reality. I'll ask Jo to make this comment of yours a sticky at the top of the post. Thnx JFC. Mod Oggi]


    Report this

    434

    • #
      AndyG55

      Ah.. the attention whore returns. !


      Report this

      143

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      The really funny part my friend is this (and you know it to be true), if it was 8 years that fitted the hockey stick, Pachauri, Flannery et al, would doing a karaoke double of doom on every microphone they could get their hands on. Here we throw up a point or two for debate and allow people such as yourself (repeatedly warned for not contributing, but welcome nonetheless) to debate those points in a civilised fashion.

      If the warmist side of this argument has committed one crime, it would be spending far to long ridiculing open discussion and the creating notion in the mind of the general public, that questions are bad. That critical thought is not to be tolerated. Among people genuinely seeking the truth, such a basic human instinct made ugly by a few, this may be the warmists greatest crime.

      The only stupid question is the one you dont ask. If you self reflect for a moment, then start using this space to debate, rather than deride, you might lift your group from the sad morass of non scientific, closed minded, religiously dogmatic delusion it currently finds itself in.


      Report this

      180

    • #
      Backslider

      only when you can square the circle to do some junk science

      Yet its perfectly ok to scream about so called “record temperatures” for only a single year…. duh…


      Report this

      61

      • #
        Backslider

        Actually, I should have said: Yes, its perfectly ok to screeeeam about so called “record temperatures” for only a single week.

        This is what we get from you alarmists now. Please justify it, make sure that you use science (not political science by the way).


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Then JFC,you should have no problem accepting Brozek’s presentation since it meets the warmists minimum number of 17 years to do away with the cherrypicking cries.

      Has Global Warming Stalled? (Now Includes January Data)

      LINK

      Enjoy!


      Report this

      42

  • #
    AndyG55

    Referring to the first chart, and looking at the Sun’s current non-activity, it would not surprise me if the temp dropped to, or even below the 0C anomaly mark by the mid 2030′s


    Report this

    42

  • #
    Ian George

    ‘Cherrypicking’ Australia’s annual mean temp over the past 35 years reveals some ‘interesting’ data.
    Past 15 years annual average (1998 – 2012) – 0.39C Previous 15 years – 0.21C
    Last 16 years
    1997-2004 annual average – 0.33C 2005-2012 – 0.42C

    However, the past 5 year average (2208-2012) is the 4th coolest out of the the past seven 5 year averages at 0.27C/per annum (previous 5 year average was 0.61C).
    So we have warmed over the past 30 years and over the past 16 years but cooled quite significantly over the last 5 years.
    It does make it hard to ascertain when the BOM keep adjusting the data ( eg 2009 being reduced from 0.9C down to 0.81C and 1998 being increased from 0.73C to 0.85C). See BOM’s Annual summaries page to see the adjustments.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Stuck-Record

    May I be the first to claim that we are heading into a Global Ice-Age, and that the only way we can be saved is by forgetting democracy and building a World Communist government that has the total control over every aspect of our lives and resources.

    I also suggest we immediately give climate researchers around the world trillions of dollars in research grants to find out what is going on. After all, they are the only ones qualified to do this.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Well if thats true, then oh my how the blame will have shifted. Imagine the pure, cosmic irony of CO2 being the only thing keeping us from an ice age and that Kyoto was the beginning of the end of man’s affect over its onset. At 47 I think I have led a good life, so if I die laughing when that happens, I will have no regrets.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Crakar24

        S66,

        But thats the beauty of the scam, at 200 life is bad, life is good at 275, gets warmer at 300, gets hot at 350 and gets really hot at 380, gets cold at 400 and really cold beyond that on account of all the snow.


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Carl

    I think you are being very measured and conservative.

    I’ve been saying for a couple of years that the scary thing is cooling not warming.

    The sun reached its peak in the 1990s and is now heading down.

    I think there are five main cycles or trends.

    A very long term one in the millions of years, caused by whether there is water or land at the poles. That has put us in a long term ice age that lasts for millions of years with short inter-glacials that last for 10 or 12 thousand years. Fortunately we’re in an inter-glacial.

    The interglacial cycle that has given us about 12,000 warm years.

    The increase and decrease in the sun’s activity, modulating the cloud cover on earth. It seems to peak about every 1,000 years.

    The Pacific Decadal Oscillation that cycles about every 60 years.

    The 22 year solar magnetic field changeover, which has a minor effect.

    The very long term one is changing too slowly to matter.
    The interglacial cycle has been causing a slow cooling for thousands of years as we head out of the inter-glacial. It’s a slow change but persistent.
    The sun’s activity reached a peak in the 1990s. It was the strongest peak in 5,000 years. It caused the warming since the Little Ice Age.
    The PDO reached a peak of warm temperatures in the 1990s.
    The 22 year solar magnetic field changeover is too minor to matter.

    So now the three that matter are all lined up in a cooling phase. The question is: will it be moderately cold, or will it be as bad as the Little Ice Age, or will it be a full ice age. A moderate cooling is unpleasant but nothing we can’t handle with technology and adaption. A Little Ice Age would be a bit more of a problem but we should be able to handle it. A full ice age would be a catastrophe.

    The funny thing is that handling a cooling period needs energy for heating, making fertilizer etc. We need wealth and industry. The exact opposite of what the fools are trying to achieve.


    Report this

    252

    • #
      AndyG55

      You have so encapsulated the problem.

      Places like the UK that have basically destroyed their energy making options are going to be hit incredibly hard even if the coming cold period is only slight.

      Anywhere that places any reliance on wind or solar is going to be in deep s**t.

      Solid, abundant, reliable energy is what is needed: coal, gas or nuclear of some sort.


      Report this

      142

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … abundant, reliable energy is what is needed …

        Fear not. For the Russians have already foreseen this need, and have converted most of their old nuclear submarine reactors to produce dependable electricity at 50 or 60 Hertz. They are mounted on barges, and can be towed to a wharf near you. But preferably not too near.


        Report this

        111

      • #
        ExWarmist

        they can always go back to burning hanging witches, it’s what they did in the UK the last time the weather turned cold and crops started to fail.

        Gotta blame someone for all the bad luck, misery & hunger – any you know what – both in the 1600s and in the 2100s it is assumed that humans can control the weather.

        Superstitions that valorise humanities significance & power seem to have enormous staying power.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Carl

      A great summary.

      And as you say, for us, the immediate future is dominated by solar activity levels.

      KK :)


      Report this

      62

    • #
      Robert

      The funny thing is that handling a cooling period needs energy for heating, making fertilizer etc. We need wealth and industry. The exact opposite of what the fools are trying to achieve.

      I understand what you mean but the nasty part is that it really isn’t that funny. Those fools are trying to play God and as you, and I, have been saying we have far more to worry about from cooling than we do from warming. Given their goals it is obvious they don’t give a damn about humanity because they are paving the way for some serious suffering.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Jo your comment is great because it tells it in terms that the IpCCC and other Climate Scientist use; the very short term analysis.

    Of greater importance eventually is predicting and preparing for the next big one; ie the ice age which we started to recover from about 20,000 years ago.

    The periodic ice age phenomenon is real, it is important and it is coming.

    The current interglacial has been between 18,000 and 10,000 years,depending on how you want to define it but has been faitrly stable for 8,000 years.

    How long have we got.

    The points above are important to bring into question the CAGW – CO2 driven theme but from a more enlarged scientific viewpoint tis discussion is , to use that overplayed metaphor, ignoring the elephant sitting on a stool in the corner of the room.

    It would be interesting to get some opinion from astronomers as to where we are situated in terms of orbital tilt, wobble and eccentricity of orbit around the Sun.

    Apparently we are , at the moment, in a period when the orbit is as circular as it is going to get. Astronomers may be able to tell us when we may be moving to a more elliptical pattern?

    If you look at the sharp peaks on the Benthic Forams graph here,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles ” it suggests we don’t have a lot of spare change from our 8,000 year interlude and may be in for a rude shock very soon.

    These graphs cover too much ground, but experts with access to higher resolution data may be able to offer a more precise timing for the turnaround.

    There has been some useful comment on this aspect of Earth’s cycles recently and it would be interesting for someone to “speculate” on what’s next.

    KK :)


    Report this

    82

    • #
      Crakar24

      KK,

      I read somewhere that the MCycles do not correlate all that well with ice ages, they may play a part but there is also something else at play here.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Crackar

        The most interesting one for me is is eccentricity but the mix of cycles is so complex that it would take an expert to sort it.

        Nevertheless, I think that orbital mechanics does play the major role in shifting climate long term.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          John Knowles

          The coincidence of cycles is probably highly significant. Many scientists have ridiculed Dr Svensmark for his cloud seeding hypothesis and claimed it is too insignificant to affect climate yet as part of the whole picture it may be one of a few critical factors tipping us into an ice-age forming scenario. Once northern Eu has year-round ice the increased albedo would likely maintain the situation until a combination of subtle factors tripped it back again.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi John

            The Earth’s heat balance is enormously complex and I think, best explained by a combination of fluctuating Solar output and Earths distance from and inclination to that source.

            Our focus on CO2 as a heating issue is intuitively crazy; all you have to do in my latitude, is to stand in the Sun and feel the warmth. Go outside after sundown and you can be very cold indeed.

            Just imagine what local temperatures would be if the Sun never came up tomorrow.

            No amount of CO2, even if the concept was quantitatively valid, could stop the world from freezing.

            The world’s scientific community has been highjacked by and silenced by money.

            The bloodymindedness of this whole thing has been emphasized recently by the biomass scandal aka the wood-chips scandal aka the “we are going to make massive pollution now to solve a comparatively small pollution problem from combustion by products.

            As one who lived under a rain of particulate matter from coal combustion fired electricity generators I can confirm that great steps have been made in cleaning up these processes.

            But the scam continues day in day out on government sponsored media programs.

            KK :)


            Report this

            50

  • #
    Yonniestone

    During Monckton’s address he displayed temperature charts that gradually went back to thousands of years, It was very interesting to see the temperature trends of earth’s history and it made a big impact on the audience.
    Hate to be a pain but could someone give me a link to these charts or something like them, and no troll’s unless you want a pineapple!


    Report this

    111

  • #
    Neville

    We can say that there has been no SS warming for at least 16 years and a very slight cooling since 2005.

    But even if there was a strong non stop warming trend for the last 30 years and everyone agreed that it was because of human co2 emissions there is nothing we could do about it.

    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm

    The last thing we should do is bring in a co2 tax, because it can’t change the temp or climate by a whisker.
    If we accept the tonnages above it can’t change anything for thousands of years, just ask silly Flannery.

    If we are concerned about future warming we should use the tried and true adaptation and more R&D spending on new energy technology. Heaps cheaper and we may one day get a return on our money.

    The mitigation of CC is probably the greatest con, fraud and Ponzi scheme of the last 100 years.
    Simple maths using EIA forecast above destroys every argument the liars and fraudsters can dream up.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      And see therein lies the problem of dealing with fundamentalist anti humanists who are at the core of the warmist group. These people will always brig it back to over population and a requirement for a diminished lifestyle.

      I agree completely that emerging technology (probably in as little as the next 10-20 years) will render the entire problem moot. Its happened in similar intervals with all our current energy sources, there is nothing to suggest that development trend will stop.

      Meanwhile the irony of tweeting a return to the caves on an iPhone made from fossil fuel products will be completely lost on the barefoot, hairy, dolphin huggers we have to try and reason with.


      Report this

      91

      • #
        john robertson

        I’m not sure we can reason together with these secular anti-hmanists, communication is only real between equals.
        The first problem is they are not cognizant of reality, clue 1, “Hey dolphin hugger, you are a human”. “No man, not me.”
        Friend of mine insists that a shovel is the proper tool with which communication can be established.


        Report this

        21

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Here is a popular strategy for solving a problem.

        [1] Identify a trend and a catastrophic consequence of that trend continuing forever.
        [2] Assume that the trend will indeed continue in a linear fashion until catastrophe hits.
        [3] Assume that there are no other factors that will curtail the trend before catastrophe strikes.
        [4] Assess that nothing can be done about the trend as required actions are not politically feasible.
        [5] Create a fake problem whose proposed solution will mitigate the trend.
        [6] Fudge data, cherrypick, invent data, invest billions in propaganda, and fake organizations to push the party line for the fake problem and the proposed solution to the fake problem.
        [7] Slime, discredit, ignore, abuse anyone and anything that shows that the fake problem is indeed fake or that the proposed solution is harmful.
        [8] Co-opt government, business, religion, etc to further push the party line.
        [9] Disburse patronage to curry loyalty amongst the middle ranks of the party faithful.
        [10] Repeat 6 through 9 until proposed solution is enforced, coercive law.

        … rest and “enjoy the fruits of thy labours” …

        or [1.a] realise that the trend was not linear – but cyclical and that the imagined catastrophy was just that “imaginary” – and go straight to “… rest…”


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    The ~60 year cycle can be seen pretty clearly with a sine curve fit to HadCRUT. You can see what it means for future cooling from the extension out to 2050 in the graph. (For more information the full set of blog posts the graph comes from is here).

    So far I would say the temperature is fitting that projection very well indeed, unlike the IPCC models.

    Another way to do it is to detrend HadCRUT, which makes the cycle easier to see (the graph is from this article on the 60 year cycle, I’ve replicated it more or less here).

    Unfortunately Paul Clark can’t easily implement a sine curve regression fit on his excellent Woodfortrees tool. Also you can’t do this in Excel either. I used to use a stats package for this sort of thing, but these are expensive.

    The next thing to consider is what the cycle in the temperature data corresponds to, in warming-speak. It turns out the answer is quite a lot…40% of the ‘warming’ in the century that IPCC talks about, which is 1906-2005.

    So why didn’t they choose 1901-2000? Because if they use 1901-2000 the total temperature rise then is only 0.6 C. But it is very interesting that in the detrended HadCRUT graph I linked above 1906 is the exact bottom of the cycle and 2005 the exact top. An 0.3 C swing. Out of 0.74 C total temperature rise.

    This suggests the IPCC are quite aware of the cycle but don’t want to talk about it. Funny that.

    If you remove 40% of the temperature ‘rise’ due to the cycle, it removes 40% of the supposed CO2 sensitivity. Which is why the CAGW people hate the cycles. This signal alone would probably stop AGW from being dangerous. And save us a lot of government money, since the CAGW climate scientists would no longer need to be paid anymore.

    The next question is of course: what about the Sun?

    And that too seems to have caused 40% of the temperature rise last century through the indirect effect of the varying solar magnetic field on cloud formation. Take this out and the empirical CO2 climate sensitivity calculates to a completely harmless 0.7 C/doubling. Which is what the experimental measurements come out at using the IR radiance satellite instruments.

    CAGW is falsified. I recommend to anyone working in a climate field to find a new career as soon as they can, before the whole government funded edifice collapses.


    Report this

    111

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    Great posting and about time.

    The satelite data since 1979 has always been too short a time frame to see any long term trends – one has to look at much longer term data like this Akasofu graph, or better still Girma Orssengo’s version.

    Like Akasofu, Girma also deconstructed the long term data into an “Out of the Ice Age” trend and a sixty year oscillation.

    The whole point though was to point out that even this sixty year “multi decadal oscillation” was just an add on to the underlying long term trend and that even this new cooling cycle of the oscillation would also eventually pass.

    The real question is – will the new solar minimum cause the long term “out of the Ice Age” trend to reverse – and in all probability that will take quite a few more years to de able to detect.
    Patience Patience


    Report this

    42

    • #
      JFC

      So AC, you’re saying that using data from 1979 is too short a time period right? Ummm, so what does that make data from 2005 I wonder? Mmmmm, let me think about it.


      Report this

      314

      • #
        Backslider

        So you will agree then that Australia’s “Angry Summer” is alarmism.


        Report this

        133

        • #
          AndyG55

          Odd, I haven’t felt angry at all this summer. Ok, maybe just a bit cranky that its been just another very ordinary dose of weather, like the last few years.
          Very few nice warm days, too much rain etc. Darn, where’s the summers of the 60, 70′s: those long hot summers. :-(

          More, “demused” at the idiotic brainwashed ignorance of the warmist trolls that poke their repugnant snouts in here occasionally.

          I can’t believe that anyone with even a single rational thought could possible still accept this AGW rubbish. Very puzzling.


          Report this

          92

      • #

        Hmm then you are a slippery guy because you failed to read through the link I posted HERE where it was shown that as far back to 1989 there has been no statistically significant warming happening.Which of course is so damaging to the entire CAGW hysteria hypothesis with the cracked crystal ball power by the IPCC that had forseen a .20C per decade temperature increase from year 2000 onwards but the first decade is about zero instead and this decade might be going into significant cooling.

        Meanwhile if you bothered to seriously look at Girma’s presentation he shows that past warming AND cooling trends stays in bound and that the IPCC reports have failed big time in their projections based on the never verified AGW conjecture.

        Carry on with your feeble replies.


        Report this

        62

      • #
        A C of Adelaide

        Quite clearly if you want to look at short term trends you look at short term data.
        If you want to look at long term trends you look at long term data.

        There is a short term decline in the data as presented. This has no long term significance UNLESS it is part of a longer term trend, and clearly it IS part of a longer term 60 year cycle as pointed out by Girma Orssengo and Akasofu. But it will be hard to spot that if you only bother looking at the short term 30 year satelite data set.

        The 60 year cycle is a “bullshit” trend since any warming is followed by cooling which cancels it out. Thats what cycles do.

        The REAL warming trend as shown by Akasufo and Girma is the long term trend out of the the Little Ice Age which is not going to be visible in any of this short term data – you have to look at the long term 130 year data.

        Clearly the IPCC have over egged their cakes by counting the increase in temp due to the 60 year cycle and the trend out of the Little Ice Age. They are WRONG at the 95% confidence level. That is what the graph Akasufo presents is saying.

        BUT have we passed out of the gradual long term trend out of the Little Ice Age into a genuine long term cooling trend or are we still in the warming phase? We are going to need more data to tell.


        Report this

        31

      • #
        Backslider

        I asked you a question…..


        Report this

        10

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    Incidentally, I challange the mathematically inclined to plot the following sine wave function against the satelite global anomoly temperature data

    A = 0.18*SIN(((YEAR-1993)/60)*2*3.14159)+0.2

    Correlation with the running avaerage suggests the sixty year oscillation has some validity

    (with a little dip every 7.5 years – but thats another story)


    Report this

    20

  • #
    RoHa

    It’s the next Ice Age! We’re doomed!

    Doomed, I tell you!

    DOOMED!!!!

    AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!

    (That makes me feel young. Brings back memories of the Ice Age scare of the 70s,)


    Report this

    31

    • #
      AndyG55

      I doubt it will get to being an Ice Age as such, just a somewhat cooler period for the next 60 or so years.. Its only doom if your country has destroyed all your decent power sources.

      Reliance on wind and solar will work even less in a cooling climate than in a warming one.

      Not sure how hydro works when the surface is frozen either (Scandinvian countries), depends on the outlet configuration I guess.

      but anyway, just like the warming scare, no need to panic.. just use our ingenuity to adapt in sensible ways. (attempting to control CO2 emmissions is NOT one of those)


      Report this

      42

      • #
        RoHa

        “no need to panic”

        Either you are a spoilsport or you work for The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Oh no, not another reference to the Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and I have to put up with references to an electronic book. I suppose you will be telling me next that the weather on Alpha Centuri actually changes once in a while. That is so depressing.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            PeterB in Indianapolis

            Rereke,

            Don’t make us change your name to Marvin.

            So long as you know where your towel is, you can be a warm hoopy frood during the next little ice age… provided your towel is big and fluffy enough…


            Report this

            00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          ahhh the good old days of the 70s ice age scare…


          Report this

          20

      • #
        AndyG55

        so glad some of you educated enough to have some fun with that :-)


        Report this

        20

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Some interesting “between the lines” reading here http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/01/24/3675740.htm

    Also related, there are radio news reports on ABC all morning that a CSIRO research team (Antarctic I think, cant find a web link) can not reach its instruments due to being unable to get through the sea ice to access them. The instruments were placed around 3 years ago when the are was accessible. Thats about as much as they are saying on radio, perhaps more will emerge as the day goes on.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      PeterB in Indianapolis

      Antarctic sea ice is currently 794,000 square kilometers above normal for this date, so that seems unsurprising that they cannot get to their equipment.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Linde

    The Global Warming script has tanked.

    The movie, let’s call it ‘Apotheosis’ is about the achievement of global totalitarian control for an elite Apex aspiring to be ‘the gods’ on this planet. This hopeless turkey is still in production. The financial backing is in place, the actors are hired, the production executives all have their contracts, the sets are built – but the script won’t play. Not to worry, Global Studio is committed to this movie. They aren’t going to just pull the chain. They will call in script doctors for rewrites. My guess is they will rewrite along the lines of wearthworx special FX and go for engineered climate crises.

    I think they should go for an alien invasion coverstory in addition to weather modification and human engineered climate crises. In the new script, instead of humanity itself being the bad guys, humanity becomes the victim. The new good guys become the New World Orderlies themselves who today find themselves holding ‘the bad guy’ script. Obviously, they have to change that. With a little rewriting, a new turkey could hand them the ‘good guy’ script. Using special FX, weatherworx, climate engineering, transhumanism, classified technology and Blu Ray, the brave and selfless ‘crisis management’ teams of the New World Orderlies embedded in key bureaucratic positions across the world, saves ‘a remnant’ of human resources for the NWO. The alien invasion subplot would be especially entertaining.

    These are the droids they are looking for.

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea of pollution, the threat of global warming: water shortages, faminines and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and its only through changed attitudes and behaviour tht they can be overcome. The ‘real enemy’, then is humanity itself.”
    The First Global Revolution: a Report of the Club of Rome. Club of Rome, Consultant to the Un and NGO. (1972; 1974) Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider. Orient Longman.


    Report this

    71

  • #
    Tristan

    I don’t know which idiot told you that there’s been statistically significant cooking, but they need to retake “Introduction to Statistics”


    Report this

    112

    • #
      Tristan

      Hehe. Cooking.

      (What about the idea making comments that is on topic instead?) CTS


      Report this

      06

    • #
      Backslider

      So who told you that there has been statistically significant extra warming?


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Tristan

        Strawman.

        I’m referring to Jo’s claim of statistically significant cooling.


        Report this

        27

        • #
          Backslider

          And I am asking YOU about statistically significant extra warming – where is it?


          Report this

          61

          • #
            Tristan

            You’ve got three choices.

            1) Use a long enough timeframe to obtain a significant trend from an air temp record

            2) Use a shorter timeframe and control for the relevant variables

            3) Use additional temp increase indicators such as OHC, ice mass balance, sea level


            Report this

            210

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Well there’s plenty of evidence that the world has warmed since the middle of the little ice age.

            However – that warming has been a natural process that started well before human industrialization – so your point is?


            Report this

            61

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Reply was to Tristan.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            llew Jones

            Thought we had a simple first order mathematical relationship between an equilibrium temperature change for a given CO2 forcing. Historically climate sensitivity has been expressed in terms of a doubling of CO2. At present since the IR the fraction is about a 1.4 increase in CO2 (390/280) what should the climate sensitivity or temperature increase be at present using ln (390/280) as a factor?

            It seems that the alarmists are too scared to do that calculation but are happy to threaten us with their temperature projection in about 70 years time when the CO2 concentration may be 560 ppm (assuming an average increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of 2.5 ppm/year).

            Instead they would rather have us having inconclusive arguments about global temperature anomalies.

            Thus it would be fun to see what temperature change we should expect from 1.4 times right now instead of us all, including the alarmist scientists being well dead before a doubling occurs. Sneaky buggers those alarmists aren’t they?

            Oh and by the way as the relationship is logarithmic we should expect to see a continuing diminishing in the rate o f equilibrium temperature change for each unit increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Sneaky buggers alright.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            John Brookes

            Its warming. If it starts actually cooling, statistically significant cooling, I’ll be amazed.


            Report this

            25

          • #
            Backslider

            Tristan. I asked you where is the statistically significant warming? I am not asking you to demonstrate natural warming, we can all see that. I want YOU to show me this warming that all you alarmists are on about. Where is it?

            Tim Flannery is now relying on the weather over a couple of months in Australia for his “Angry Summer” alarmist thesis, because he cannot actually show any of this extra warming. Can you?


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Tristan

            There hasn’t been much “natural warming” for something like 50-70 yrs

            So roughly all the warming since the mid 60s can be attributed to humans.

            Backslider et al. : Show us the evidence!

            Me: If you were convinceable, you’d have been convinced already, so I won’t waste my time ;)


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              If you were convinceable, you’d have been convinced already …

              That is the Tweedledee defense: “Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be. But as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s Logic.” (Lewis Carroll)


              Report this

              10

          • #
            Backslider

            There hasn’t been much “natural warming” for something like 50-70 yrs. So roughly all the warming since the mid 60s can be attributed to humans.

            So now you are saying that if it were not for CO2 emissions, the World would be cooling? (its never stable). Where is the scientific proof for that fairy tale?

            If you were convinceable, you’d have been convinced already, so I won’t waste my time

            In other words, you have nothing whatsoever to support what you say. You would make good mates with Tim Flannery – he now uses just two months of local weather to “prove” CAGW.


            Report this

            11

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Tristan – You need to re-read your stats notes on multiple regression and significant variables. If you have several covarying variables omitting one of them causes the other variables to incorrectly adopt that variance. This is called the ‘omitted variable fallacy’. CO2, solar magnetism and ocean cycles have all trended upwards in the IPCC’s magic period 1906-2005. Therefore leaving out solar and oceans causes a least squares (or etc) regression fit to incorrectly assign the variance to CO2 sensitivity. Which comes out 6x too high since the omitted variables are responsible for 5/6ths of the temperature rise.

      IPCC’s ensemble models also omit these two variables as they derive high values for climate sensitivity. Which is why in the last 15 years they cannot fit the temperature record without ‘epicycles’ – volcanoes, sulfur aerosols, dust or whatever, none of which make any sense.


      Report this

      121

    • #
      Tristan

      I’m quite amazed that none of Jo’s readers on the contrarian side have pointed out this error.

      I know there are some among you who know what the confidence interval of a trend means.

      Why aren’t any of you speaking up?


      Report this

      112

      • #

        I am quite amazed that you forgot this from Jo:

        Cue critics who’ll tell me I’m cherry-picking data…

        Note I’m not suggesting that this shows CO2 doesn’t cause warming, I’m not suggesting this is evidence (yet) that the models are wrong (they’re wrong, but for other reasons), I’m not even saying that the world is definitely cooling. I’m pointing out that if we were entering a cooler phase, this is what it would look like.

        Perhaps the most important thing about these graphs is to juxtapose that claim the world is “still warming” in recent years. If statistical significance is where you hang your hat, the warming trend is not statistically significant, and yet (at the moment anyway) it is statistically significant to say the opposite about the last 8 years in 4 out of 5 datasets.

        Btw, all five of the datasets have uncertainties of about 0.05 degrees C, so any change less than that is statistically insignificant.

        You are blubbering again and badly too.


        Report this

        113

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Tristan…

        What part of …

        Note I’m not suggesting that this shows CO2 doesn’t cause warming, I’m not suggesting this is evidence (yet) that the models are wrong (they’re wrong, but for other reasons), I’m not even saying that the world is definitely cooling. I’m pointing out that if we were entering a cooler phase, this is what it would look like.

        Did you not read and understand.

        Jo has made no claim that there is statistically significant cooling.

        Your reading comprehension skills need work.


        Report this

        121

        • #
          JFC

          So, what your’e saying is that she is saying that she’s just writing mindless filler? Have I got that right?
          Or to put it another way, what is the bloody point of this ridiculous post Nova?


          Report this

          25

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Mr. JFC

            So, what your’e saying is that he is saying that he’s just writing mindless filler?

            Tim Flannery to Queenslanders:

            1. Build desalination plants – its getting hotter and the dams will never fill again.
            2. CAGW is happening and Queensland is getting flooded and colder.

            You guys should give up.

            Go BROWN, GREEN why don’t you just get real.


            Report this

            10

        • #
          John Brookes

          So it was pure speculations, like “I’m not suggesting that elephants can fly, or that they have every been observed to fly, but if elephants did fly, they might look something like this”


          Report this

          23

      • #
        Tristan

        ExWarmist

        The cooling for the last eight years is statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets.

        If statistical significance is where you hang your hat, the warming trend is not statistically significant, and yet (at the moment anyway) it is statistically significant to say the opposite about the last 8 years in 4 out of 5 datasets.


        Report this

        313

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          What a dweeb.

          You can calculate statistical significance in any set of data over any time period.

          The concept of statistical significance is not limited to Climate Science, or to any other form of long term data sets.

          The “crime” you are trying to imply (without much success) is that Jo is taking an 8 year data set and extrapolating it. She is not. The second passage you quote should be read as, and I paraphrase: The [long term] warming trend is not statistically significant, but at the moment, the cooling trend in the last 8 years are statistically significant in 4 of the 5 data sets given.

          She is saying the equivalent of, “We have had a long period of warm weather, but the last week is somewhat cooler”.

          Perhaps if you read the whole post, and did so without a preconceived bias, you might actually be able to understand what is going on, and then contribute in a meaningful way.


          Report this

          101

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Rereke,

            Before you fling around accusations of dweebhood, take a look at the error margins for all five data sets in my post at #30

            None of the 8 year periods show anything like statistically significant cooling.

            You could fly a 747 through the error margins. Particularly that for RSS.


            Report this

            25

        • #
          ExWarmist

          So what – specifically – is wrong with the 2 statements by Jo that you reproduce above?

          Is the cooling for the last eight years NOT statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets?

          The 2nd statement follows from the first. So you only need to rebut the first – which you have claimed is incorrect – however you do not demonstrate why it is incorrect.

          Assertion only – please provide a proof.


          Report this

          50

      • #
        Tristan

        Let’s try this again, more slowly.

        The cooling for the last eight years is statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets.

        Let’s look at the GISS data from 2005.

        Trend: -.06C/dec +/- 0.33C/dec (2 sigma)

        Therefore, the 95% confidence interval of the trend is [0.27,-0.39]C/dec.

        Or “somewhere between warming really fast and cooling even faster than that”.

        To be statistically significant warming/cooling (using the usual definition) the confidence interval would have to exclude zero.

        Those huge confidence intervals, mostly thanks to ENSO, are why we tend to need periods of around 30 years before we can make meaningful inferences about the warming rate when looking at only the air temp record.

        The trend interval for GISS since ’83 is ~[0.11,0.22]C/dec. Still a big difference between the upper and lower bound!


        Report this

        46

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Hey Tristan – where’s your links???


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Mark

    Last night on Seven News in Melbourne we had Browny trot out a bell curve to explain how a 0.9C increase in temps moves the bell curve so we get more hot day records broken. How does a statistical argument explain a cut off high in the Tasman? Since when is 30C considered a heat wave?


    Report this

    111

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      You’re on the money Mark. Here’s what Bill Kininmonth said about the hot summer:

      By contrast, former Deputy Head of the Bureau of Meteorology, Bill Kininmonth, has noted that “the high temperatures were neither Australia-wide nor global, as might be expected from carbon dioxide forcing… (and) the past summer was only 0.2 degrees warmer than the previous warmest summer of 1982-83”. Separately, Kininmonth has observed that the trend in the Australia-wide maximum since 1980, including this recent “hottest summer”, has been 0.1 degrees per century, not significantly different from zero. He compares our hot summer with that experienced in Europe in 2003 — a manifestation of a sustained blocking weather pattern.

      I said pretty much the same at the time – there was a strong blocking high in the Tasman. Blocking occurs more commonly when solar activity is low, which it has been lately – much much lower than in the last solar cycle.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Ian George

        Totally agree, Bruce.
        The blocking Tasman high combined with the late start to the monsoon season have both contributed to the warm weather in SE Australia lately.
        By comparison, the North Coast and Northern Tablelands of NSW have had below average maximum temperatures for 6 weeks as the blocking high pushes moist SE winds onto the coast (same as Jan/Feb 2009).
        But you don’t hear about that!


        Report this

        50

      • #
        John Brookes

        Only 0.2 degrees warmer than the previous record. But if we had a winter that was 0.2 degrees cooler than our previous coldest winter, you’d be tap dancing!


        Report this

        26

  • #
    Gbees

    This is consistent with Nicola Scafettas work. 3-4 decades of global cooling on the way. Scafettas models correlate with empirical evidence.


    Report this

    71

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    It is bad enough when people cherry pick data sets of 17 years or less which are set up to fail a statistical significance test, then they want to read something into 8 years of data?

    This is utter junk. The RSS error margin means that based on this data, the trend for the next century is somewhere between warming of 5.5C and cooling of 6.4 C. Worthless.

    RSS Trend: -0.045 ±0.595 °C/decade (2σ)
    NCDC Trend: -0.060 ±0.307 °C/decade (2σ)
    GISS Trend: -0.059 ±0.328 °C/decade (2σ)
    UAH Trend: 0.015 ±0.587 °C/decade (2σ)
    HAD4 Trend: -0.097 ±0.308 °C/decade (2σ)


    Report this

    216

    • #
      AndyG55

      Oh look, there is a hint of negative trends in all but one of those.!

      That’s what Jo said.. and that’s what there is.

      I know, you want to go back before the satellite record, where the massively adjusted GISS and HadCrud actually show a manufactured trend.

      Its all you have.. so keep grasping at it.


      Report this

      112

    • #

      Philip,you failed to read and understand these words Jo wrote:

      Cue critics who’ll tell me I’m cherry-picking data…

      Note I’m not suggesting that this shows CO2 doesn’t cause warming, I’m not suggesting this is evidence (yet) that the models are wrong (they’re wrong, but for other reasons), I’m not even saying that the world is definitely cooling. I’m pointing out that if we were entering a cooler phase, this is what it would look like.

      Carry on with your silly faux indignations.


      Report this

      133

    • #
      cohenite

      This is utter junk. The RSS error margin means that based on this data, the trend for the next century is somewhere between warming of 5.5C and cooling of 6.4 C. Worthless.

      And yet these temperature records are the basis of AGW: worthless, utter junk! Well spotted by the troll Shehan.


      Report this

      153

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      It is not good enough for Ms Nova to put up a disclaimer saying in effect “I know this is junk but I’m going to put it up anyway and let the ‘skeptics’ run with it.”

      Especially when Ms Nova and the ‘skeptics’ insist in multiple sections that anyone who says that this graph shows that there has been warming for the last 17 years the same as for the last four times 17 years is an ignoramous or dishonest.

      http://tinyurl.com/d4jxlth

      And Cohenite: the temperature records are fine. Its cherry picking that yields worthless utter junk.


      Report this

      316

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi Philip,

        You say …

        And Cohenite: the temperature records are fine. Its cherry picking that yields worthless utter junk.

        However.

        A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

        The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.


        Report this

        81

      • #

        So, according to the God Philip, under no circumstances can Jo Nova point out something speculative and draw no conclusions from it. Is that right?

        All I can say is readers here found it interesting. No one demanded your money. I didn’t realize you set rules on what other people are allowed to discuss?


        Report this

        30

        • #
          jiminy

          Can’t speak for anyone but me, but if I was to satirize junk science, this is precisely the sort of article I would write.
          You would have been correct on one point you are wrong one if you’d said,
          “None of these trends are remotely significant” and you’d have been more statistically correct if you’d said,
          “If the world was warming, cooling, or neither then this is what it might look like”.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      It’s utterly typical that as I type this, 10 people don’t like purely mathematical facts that they find unwelcome.


      Report this

      39

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Which mathematical facts are those Phil?

        Can you quote a reference for that?

        KK :)


        Report this

        10

      • #
        AndyG55

        I think he is talking about the NON-correlation between temperature trends and atmospheric CO2, KK

        It is a mathematical FACT that the mathemathical correlation between temperature trends and atmospheric CO2 is tending towards ZERO,

        thus implying that there is ABSOLUTELY NO CAUSATION.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Andy, take a look at the temperature and atmospheric CO2 graphs at 34.3


          Report this

          03

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Andy.

          When it’s all done and dusted for the cycle we are discussing, the operant period of the astronomical controls is 115,000 years with a few minor cycles of 41,000 and 26,000 years thrown in for good measure.

          The only reason Jo has been using short periods in her discussion is that the Warmers initially used short periods to assert various, spurious claims about Global Warming.

          Surely if they do that, then Jo is Justified in responding in the same terms.

          They are a bit one eyed.

          KK :)


          Report this

          20

          • #
            AndyG55

            Will be fun watching the CAGW braindead as the temps start to decline over the next few years..

            You can see the UPROAR even a hint of temperature decline has provoked, quite funny :-)

            And as far as climate models are concerned, even if the models were behaving, they are calibrated to HadCrud and GISS, both of which have been massively fudged to creat big trends to justify the anthapogenic warming idea. This means that the model are destined to be always wrong even if they actually did the right things within their calculations.

            Its quite bizarre, watching them create their own errors ! :-)


            Report this

            20

  • #
    cohenite

    As far as I am concerned after 17 years of no rise in temperature AGW has been disproved.

    Oh, look at that, it’s already happened.


    Report this

    173

  • #
    Rosco

    I just love that people quote +-0.05 or +-0.06 or +-0.0whatever based on a data set that is at best accurate to +-0.5 of a degree – probably realistically +- 1 degree.

    The whole rise over more than a century is still less than a degree.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    I might add to my previous posts that Akasofu wasn’t the first to note this 60 year cycle.

    Here is Mike Kelly in the Climategate emails

    “Just updated my global trend graphic for a public talk and noted the level has really
    been quite stable since 2000 or so and 2008 doesn’t look too hot…..
    Be akward if we went through another early 1940′s swing.”

    I dont know why anyone would find this new downwards trend as either controversial or unexpected.


    Report this

    61

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    Hi Jo,
    Just had another thought
    Another consideration you might follow up is that I remember in the early days the AGW crowd showed a graphic where they showed that global warming was acellerating because shorter and shorter segments of the trend were getting steeper and steeper. I think it may interesting to refind their data and update it with shorter and shorter intervals on the current data to demonstrate that using their own technique warming has started to not just decellerate but accellerate in the opposite direction.

    From memory Girma’s paper uses the diagram too.


    Report this

    41

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Do you mean this bogus statistical technique, from AR4.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Did Aristotle ever get around to codifying the Endpoint Fallacy ?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      Two graphs showing nonlinear warming are given here.

      http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/11901124/img/Anonymous/hadsst2-with-3rd-order-polynomial-fit.jpeg

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png

      Of course the temperature record shows flat sections and cooling periods due to the fact that “natural” temperature forcings make warming and cooling contributions to the total temperature but these tend to even out in the long term. There is nothing whatever unusual about the current 8 year flat period.

      By the way, here is the atmospheric CO2 concentration over the same period:

      http://tinyurl.com/aj2us99


      Report this

      13

      • #
        AndyG55

        “There is nothing whatever unusual about the current 8 year flat period.”

        And there was nothing whatever unusual about the 20 odd years of natural warming up to 1998.


        Report this

        11

      • #
        AndyG55

        Seriously, you are using the HadCrud adjusted temperatures ??? Get real !!

        They have been delibertely ADJUSTED to create the trends.

        The peak of the 1930-1940 has been totally disappeared.

        ANYONE that uses pre-1980 HadCrud or GISS values as a reference to any sort of reality is a fool and and idiot.

        Thankfully the satellite records now make it far harder for them to fudge the data.

        So lets stick just to the data that hasn’t been grossly manipulated.

        A slight natural warming from 1979 -1997, then an El Nino step and re-bound 1998-1999, then basically level, with maybe a hint of cooling toward the end.


        Report this

        01

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Andy,

        Are you actually looking at the temperature data in the graphs? The local peak around 1940 is readily apparent in both of them.

        But why are you (incorrectly)complaining about the non-appearence of a local peak in temperature data that you claim is a fabrication anyway?

        Attempting to dismiss all pre satellite temperature data because you don’t like it is nonsense. The post 1979 satellite and non-satellite data are in good agreement.


        Report this

        22

        • #
          AndyG55

          here’s your curve, this is where it comes from

          for eg..Raw temps in the US for the 1930-1940 were actually higher than in 2000, but have been adjusted down some 0.4 degrees relative to the satellite record.

          Even in Australia they lowered the averages from the late 1930′s but they could erase the records. We have only just now, after all the so-called warming, and with massively change urban heat effects, matched the 1939 record in Sydney. (the AWS actually registered a maximum of 45.3C, so where did the extra 0.5 come from.. thin air, or maybe someone’s a******e?)

          Its tantermount to fraud, just like Mann’s hockey stick. I hope that one day, the data fiddlers will be held to account.


          Report this

          11

        • #
          AndyG55

          “The post 1979 satellite and non-satellite data are in good agreement”

          DOH, of course they are.. its much harder to justify “adjustments” when you have a concurrent satellite record to contend with !!

          Global warming came to a grinding halt once satellite records became commonly accept.

          A slight natural warming from 1979 -1997, then an El Nino step and re-bound 1998-1999, then basically level, with maybe a hint of cooling toward the end.


          Report this

          11

  • #
    Warren

    “If we were entering a cooling phase, this is what it would look like” Of course it might look like that. So?


    Report this

    28

    • #
      Backslider

      So?

      So, it looks like things are continuing as they have been, slow warming with cooling periods fairly regularly (did you even look at the graph???).

      I have asked this question of other alarmists who like to post here: Can you show any extra warming? Or to put it another way, where is the empirical evidence to support CAGW? (or even AGW) Please show me the rising temperatures (above normal). Where are the rising sea levels?


      Report this

      42

      • #
        John Brookes

        Its one of those tough ones Backslider. Theres no evidence except for it happening.


        Report this

        45

        • #
          Backslider

          except for it happening

          What is happening JB? Anything unusual?

          You are perfectly correct, there is no evidence for AGW, CAGW. What is happening is the same as has been happening long before any man made CO2 came into the picture. Same gentle rise in temperature, however the evidence is that at some point it will start going down. We cannot tell at this point whether it will dip and rise again, or do a sharp decline into Ice Age as it has in the past.

          You cannot in any way demonstrate any marked rise in temperature. This being the case, its unbelievable that you continue to swallow the CAGW tripe. You have, as you say, “no evidence”.


          Report this

          23

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Not to mention the empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is the sole cause of any extra warming, or even a demonstrable portion of any extra warming.


      Report this

      34

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Warren – so where’s the warming.

      Missing for 16 years and now cooling for the last 8.

      You know what – that wasn’t supposed to happen – do you have any other failed predictions of looming catastrophe to own up too?

      Do you dream of shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre?


      Report this

      41

      • #
        Macha

        Good one. Imagine warrens response if the trend was the same but in opposite direction…..towards warming! The claim would be. CAGW. I told you so! But alas, it’s a case of nothing to see here..move along. Bring on sept. fed elections and repeal of C tax,,,,


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        I’m sorry ex warmist but you are demonstrating my point about Ms Nova putting up junk and letting warmists run with it.

        You claim that warming was “missing” for 16 and now “cooling” for 8. But the trend for 5 years is larger than ever.

        The RSS results from 1996, 2005, 2008

        Trend: 0.035 ±0.205 °C/decade (2σ)

        Trend: -0.045 ±0.595 °C/decade (2σ)

        Trend: 0.271 ±1.357 °C/decade (2σ)


        Report this

        24

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Sorry that should have been “skeptics”

          But I’m sure “warmists” would be happy to happy to run with the trend for 5 years according to the “skeptics” rules here and declare the warming is now rocketing along at 0.271 C/decade.


          Report this

          06

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Phil,

            The significant operant period under examination is from the commencement of the cold snap that initiated the last ice age to the commencement of the next freeze; which will be soon.

            That will be about 115,000 years.

            So your 8 year data burst is actually 0.007% of the operant period and is therefore insignificant statistically.

            Sometimes the effect of something small, like a needle for instance can be quite large.

            For example a needle can cause a big pop when it meets a large balloon, this is similar to what has been done to your concoction, pricked it.

            On the other hand as you have demonstrated with the piddling 8 year time slot, a needle can be a very small item when tossed into a hay stack.

            You might never find it.

            We are looking for the significance of your data; there may be none.

            KK :)


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            No Keith, the significant period is that since industrialization began increasing atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 390 ppm.

            The geologic processes and timescales you are talking about are much too slow to be noticable over the last century and a half or for the next few centuries.

            The next ice age is indeed probably coming, but that won’t be “soon”, it will be millenia, possibly tens of millenia away. And at that time, if human civilization is around, they may need to start burning fossil fuels to mitigate that particular catastrophe.


            Report this

            15

        • #

          So Phillip,

          my point was that the Akasofu prediction was standing up well on earliest glance. He might be right. If you have evidence that he’s wrong, go for it. Correct me…


          Report this

          31

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Ms Nova, my point is that data for an 8 year period might indicate anything, the error margins being so large.

            And I respectfully submit that for the reasons I give in 30.5.1.1, these statements are factually incorrect:

            “Btw, all five of the datasets have uncertainties of about 0.05 degrees C, so any change less than that is statistically insignificant.”

            “The cooling for the last eight years is statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets. One, UAH, shows a small (statistically insignificant) rise since 2005.”


            Report this

            15

          • #

            OK. So you agree that Akasofu might be right, and there are hints in the earliest data that support him.

            Thank you.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            SimonV

            The only temperature projections that are proving to be even more wrong than Akasofu’s are John McLean’s and Easterbrook’s.

            Akasofu’s projections were wrong two years ago, and, as he predicted significant cooling, they are even more wrong now.

            Why not put them up against the observed temperature record for all to see?


            Report this

            00

            • #

              Why not? Go ahead. I’ve posted detailed graphs you can compare. We also know there has been 17 years of global flatness which fits his graph well. Whether or not there is a serious downturn coming is yet to be seen.

              Since his predictions were published in 2009 -10, it’s curious you know he “wrong” already. If you can see the future, don’t keep it to yourself. ;-)


              Report this

              10

  • #
    Peter

    You are right to be cautious about implying trends from regression analyses based on selected data sets. The slope of a linear regression is very sensitive to rhe points at the ends of the range of data being regressed. That is one reason why such analyses flick in and out of significance and why the slope may even reverse.

    There are statistical techniques for deciding when a data from one section of a time dependent distribution is actually different from another section of the same distribution. But these are somewhat more complex.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    here’s a fellow who knows CAGW is real!!!

    9 March: Boston Globe: Bryan Bender: Chief of US Pacific forces calls climate biggest worry
    CAMBRIDGE — America’s top military officer in charge of monitoring hostile actions by North Korea, escalating tensions between China and Japan, and a spike in computer attacks traced to China provides an unexpected answer when asked what is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region: climate change.
    Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, in an interview at a Cambridge hotel Friday after he met with scholars at Harvard and Tufts universities, said significant upheaval related to the warming planet “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’
    “People are surprised sometimes,” he added, describing the reaction to his assessment. “You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level. Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.”
    Locklear said his Hawaii-based headquarters — which is assigned more than 400,00 military and civilian personnel and is responsible for operations from California to India, is working with Asian nations to stockpile supplies in strategic locations and planning a major exercise for May with nearly two dozen countries to practice the “what-ifs.”…

    But when it comes to pragmatic military planning, Locklear said he is increasingly focused on another highly destabilizing force.
    “The ice is melting and sea is getting higher,” Locklear said, noting that 80 percent of the world’s population lives within 200 miles of the coast. “I’m into the consequence management side of it. I’m not a scientist, but the island of Tarawa in Kiribati, they’re contemplating moving their entire population to another country because [it] is not going to exist anymore.”
    The US military, he said, is beginning to reach out to other armed forces in the region about the issue.
    “We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue – even with China and India – the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change start to impact these massive populations,” he said. “If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.’’
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/03/09/admiral-samuel-locklear-commander-pacific-forces-warns-that-climate-change-top-threat/BHdPVCLrWEMxRe9IXJZcHL/story.html


    Report this

    11

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    The UK is getting more wind from the East, in recent years. That’s what brings the cold continental air in winter – and dumps of snow spreading from the East coast confirm this.
    Anecdotal evidence from gamekeepers, who spend their life out on the hills, suggests North Easterly winds are much more common than they used to be.
    Is the Atlantic Conveyor shutting down (OMG) or is it just a recent tendency for the the Arctic Jet stream to move south, pushing swirling Atlantic depression south of the UK and so pulling air from the opposite ie NE direction ?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Sonny

    AGW can NEVER be disproved.
    Mwahahahahahahahaha.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    I can’t speak for the rest of Admiral Locklear’s statements, but the geographers will tell you that Tarawa does not exist – it seems to be a mythical island used in some Naval computer simulations.

    Geologists, on the other hand will tell you that Teraina Island, in the Kiribati Group, is actually subsiding due to movement in the seabed. It is primarily made of coral, and coral can grow faster than the sea level rises, but only if the supporting seamounts are stable.


    Report this

    52

  • #
    Dennis

    Shut Up: Alarmists are in control now


    Report this

    10

  • #
    MadJak

    Considering we’re in an interglacial period of the earths history, I am seriously concerned about a lack of statistically significant warming over the last 16 years.

    It’s bizarre, but then I recognise that whilst 16 years is a longish time for me, it’s an atomic fart in the history of the earth.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Dave

    .
    All the trolls eg: Philip Shehan, Tristan et al are hypocritical in their perception of GREEN.

    They cuddle all that is natural and GAIA related. The GREENIE syndrome. Yet reject all Human influence as a threat. eg:

    1. Love CO2 from burning woodchip, hate CO2 from coal?
    2. Love herbal analgesics over synthetic drugs like aspirin?
    3. Love herbal control instead of some of the diethyl esters and other herbicides & insecticides?
    4. Love GREEN money from windmills to buy their EV (UWA sponsored with free electricity)?

    These vandals wonder why the general public detest their WARMIST superior ways in dealing with the everyday Australian.

    Bring on the cold rebuttal to their ways on September 14th.

    Both may come earlier that these GREEN TWITS think. Sorry GREENS don’t think.


    Report this

    32

    • #
      Tristan

      Asking questions looks less stupid than wild assumptions.

      Jus’ sayin.


      Report this

      36

      • #
        Dave

        So you are a herbalist like Philip Shehan!

        And all part of Prince Choo Choo’s Flim Flam GAIA consumption crew.

        Go GAIA Choo Choo anti Aspirin trolls.

        GREEN FOOLS.


        Report this

        12

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      Dave you are an idiot. There is nothing whatsoever which I have written to justify your assumptions as to my attitudes. I am a research scientist who understands and uses statistics and knows when people are talking rubbish about them. That is what I have beeen writing about.

      1. CO2 from woodchips is recycled through the carbon cycle. It does not add to atmospheric CO2 as long as trees are grown to replace those which are burnt. Humans burned wood for millenia without adding to the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

      Burning fossilised carbon which has been locked up for millions of years has lifted the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 ppm prior to the industrial revolution to 390 ppm today.

      2. Have worked in the developement of synthetic medicines. Have no time for remedies, synthetic or “natural” which have not been subjected to clinical trials and found to be effective.

      3.Ditto with “natural” versus synthetic pesticides. Or any other “natural” products. Some of the deadliest toxins and carcoinogens kneon to scince are “natural”.

      4. If you factor in the real costs of burning coal, including damage caused by climate change, wind power is a viable alternative.


      Report this

      210

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Burning fossilised carbon which has been locked up for millions of years has lifted the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 ppm prior to the industrial revolution to 390 ppm today. ”

        GOOD.. towards 700+ !


        Report this

        41

  • #
    Myrrh

    Jo – re your dislike for short term trends – here’s a look at our longer cooling trend in the Holocene from its Maxium, and to some it looks like it will last for another 23,000 years..:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/207/4434/943.abstract
    Science 29 February 1980:
    Vol. 207 no. 4434 pp. 943-953
    DOI: 10.1126/science.207.4434.943
    Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations
    John Imbrie, John Z. Imbrie
    Henry L. Doherty professor of oceanography, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912
    National Science Foundation predoctoral fellow in the Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

    “Abstract
    According to the astronomical theory of climate, variations in the earth’s orbit are the fundamental cause of the succession of Pleistocene ice ages. This article summarizes how the theory has evolved since the pioneer studies of James Croll and Milutin Milankovitch, reviews recent evidence that supports the theory, and argues that a major opportunity is at hand to investigate the physical mechanisms by which the climate system responds to orbital forcing. After a survey of the kinds of models that have been applied to this problem, a strategy is suggested for building simple, physically motivated models, and a time-dependent model is developed that simulates the history of planetary glaciation for the past 500,000 years. Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.”

    Carbon dioxide always lags hundreds of years behind global temperature change in and out of our Ice Age, conclusive proof that it is never the driver of climate change, we need to concentrate on what does do the driving.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Mister Dr. P Shehan,

    My apologies – I was just fishing and didn’t even mention statistics.

    Seems the bait is great. TA for the info. Cold in Queensland tonight – YUP?

    YAWN. Night Mr. Philip Shehan.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    David

    Its the middle of March, but here in Blighty its still bloody freezing (literally)…


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Harold Pierce Jr.

    Phillip Shehan says:

    1. CO2 from woodchips is recycled through the carbon cycle. It does not add to atmospheric CO2 as long as trees are grown to replace those which are burnt. Humans burned wood for millenia without adding to the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    This is incorrect. Do you have any idea how much diesel fuel is used to produce a tonne of wood chips?

    Using heavy machines, a logging company constructs a road into the forest. Transported to the site in vehicles using diesel fuel, the loggers cut down the trees using chainsaws. More heavy machines are used to drag to the logs to a site where they are loaded onto really big trucks, which take the logs to the mill.

    After milling the wood waste suchas bark, sawdust and unmillable wood is hauled away in big trucks perhaps to a rail site where the chips are loaded into rail cars for transport to power plant for example.

    Actually much wood waste suchas bark is used at pulp mills for generation of process steam. Sawdust from milling logs is usually sent to pulp mills.


    Report this

    32

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      Harold. You are entirely correct. I was writing about the fuel itself, not the activities required in transporting it.

      But of course the same argument applies as regard to coal mining, which which then produces extra CO2 from carbon previously locked up in the ground when burnt in the power station.

      Mind you those activities are also powered by fossil fuels.


      Report this

      04

  • #
    David

    According to the Arctic Sea Ice graphs on Wattsupwiththat, the ice should be starting to melt by now – but not much sign of that happening…
    Also, this year’s graph line is just SOOOO average compared to previous years, that it must have the ‘warmists’ spitting feathers…


    Report this

    41

  • #
  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    Ultimately, it is the responsibility of a theory’s proposers to defend it against any and all questions. The proposers of the AGW theory have proved unable and often unwilling to defend their theory in open scientific debate. Thus negating the validity of the AGW theory.

    When a theory is proven to be false, then it must be either modified or rejected. AGW believers appear to think that their theory is above this.

    The alarmists may bluster all they like, but AGW is a broken theory. (Lack or warming, no hot spot etc.) However, instead of getting a new theory, the alarmists seem to respond by attacking the messenger and redoubling the rhetoric.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    40

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Too right Speedy

      All we have is “commentary”.

      There is NO testable hypothesis.

      There is therefore no way of disproving the unavailable hypothesis and so all we have is public discussion and THAT is not science.

      I don’t know how or why mainstream scientists have let them get away with this for so long.

      KK


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Norman

    Jo Climategate 3 has happened


    Report this

    10

  • #
    KR

    There’s no substitute for actually running the numbers. If you do, and evaluate statistical significance (whether the data is sufficient to separate between your hypothesis and a null hypothesis), then some interesting points emerge.

    Going from the present back to any time in the instrumental record:

    * There is no period where warming is invalidated against a null hypothesis of no warming.
    * Against a null hypothesis of the longer term warming trend, there is no period where a “no warming” hypothesis is validated. None. At all.
    * Over any period with enough data to show statistical significance, to actually separate between a warming trend and no trend at all, the data shows a statistically significant warming trend.

    Statistics are important. Arm-waving over short term variations rather than trends, not so much.


    Report this

    13

    • #
      AndyG55

      A few hundred years ago we had this little called ” The little Ice Age”

      Thanks goodness there has been a gradual NATURAL warming trend since then.


      Report this

      61

      • #
        KR

        AndyG55 - Warming since the LIA? I take it, then, that you agree with me – that Jo’s claims of cooling in the opening post are unsupportable and incorrect?

        Natural? No – the best estimates are that without anthropogenic influences the climate would be ~0.7C cooler now, if driven by natural forcings only.


        Report this

        17

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Can you provide a reference for that?


          Report this

          40

          • #
            KR

            Follow the link I provided. Detailed primary references from that are shown here.


            Report this

            03

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Which link, there are thousands of “links’ put up by warmers.

            That in itself suggests to me that warmers are incapable of understanding things and rely on othere s to do their dirty work for them.

            Every time a warmer says “follow the link” I immediately assume no science education (and that includes degrees in “Environmental” Science whatever that is.) and a lack of capacity for independent thought.

            KK


            Report this

            60

        • #
          AndyG55

          No, there are hints we may be starting to cool.

          And those climate simulations that have been programmed to say it should be cooler.. really !

          You want to use models to say what the temperature should be, when they have been proven dramatically wrong in even short term predictions.. .. rolfmao. !!


          Report this

          62

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          No Phil!

          And also my left armpit would be 0.7 C degrees cooler than the right if I lifted that arm up.

          If I stuck an ice cube in there it would not only be painful but the localized atmospheric temperature would be perhaps 2 or 3 Deg C which is either 1.3 C or 2.3 C of a difference from the original 0.7C.

          Now you may have noted the error or being a warmer possibly not but I have been naughty and subtracted a difference from a an absolute reading.

          I can’t legally do that because I am a scientist but I’m sure warmers have done far worse in their quest to mangle the science of thermodynamics.

          Phil , you have probably noted that I am rambling and I do aplogise for that, from the bottom of my heart.

          Sincerely.

          FOIA rules.

          KK :)


          Report this

          50

        • #

          KR: Do quote me. I didn’t say the World Was Cooling. Stop hitting a strawman.

          I said “Has the world started cooling? Hints… “


          Report this

          00

          • #
            KR

            Joanne Nova

            To quote you – your exact statement:

            The cooling for the last eight years is statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets

            is simply unsupportable and incorrect.

            To make a claim of a statistically significant cooling trend the uncertainties in the data must be small enough to exclude one of the hypotheses in the presence of non-trending variations. That is the very definition of statistical signifcance – that your stats allow you to identify pattern rather than noise. If the trend uncertainty includes both hypotheses, you do not have statistical significance, and cannot properly claim it.

            The uncertainties for GISTEMP 2005-now, as an example, are -0.059 ±0.328 °C/decade. That includes cooling, zero, the longer term warming trend, and in fact warming at almost twice the longer term rate – given that very limited data, all of those are possible with a greater than 1/20 chance of occurring of that period simply from short term, non-trending variations. There is not enough data in that time frame to make a determination, to have statistical significance.

            And, as I said above, if you go from the present back far enough to be able to make a determination with statistical significance, warming is supported, cooling or a zero trend is rejected.

            Not a strawman, and not an opinion – that’s the math. Your claim, your statement, is factually incorrect.

            I do understand why those trends might appear important or significant – they seem to stand out, to contradict consensus science. But you really really have to run to math to see, and beware of making claims that are contradicted by the data.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Backslider

      Statistics are important. Arm-waving over short term variations rather than trends, not so much.

      How about you tell that to Tim Flannery, who is using just two months of Australian weather for his new alarmist “Angry Summer” thesis.

      Why does he do this? Because there is no statistical evidence for CAGW.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    KR

    JoNova - Your opening post falsely claims “The cooling for the last eight years is statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets.” This is simply unsupportable – the stats show no such thing. What is your 2σ trend uncertainty, what is your null hypothesis?

    GISTEMP, as an example, shows -0.059 ±0.328 °C/decade (2σ) since 2005 – meaning a 2σ range of -0.387 to 0.269 °C/decade, with the long term (30 year) trend of 0.168 ±0.056 °C/decade (2σ) falling well within those uncertainties.

    It’s not statistically significant, by definition, until your null hypothesis (warming, or no change, in this case) is excluded from the 2σ range. That has not happened, and you therefore cannot claim statistically significant cooling. You are just looking at short term noise.


    Report this

    25

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Can you provide a reference for that?

      What is your null hypothesis in relation to CO2 induced climate change.

      Oh yes , that’s right.

      There is NO TESTABLE hypothesis for the CO2 – Atmospheric Temperature claim.

      No testable hypothesis = NO PROOF.

      Do you have a reference for that?

      KK


      Report this

      72

      • #
        KR

        KinkyKeith – Once again, you are demanding references when you supply none, a Burden of Proof fallacy.

        How about Chen 2007, direct measurements of reduced radiation to space at CO2 frequencies? Or Evans 2006, “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate”, which states:

        Not only do these results prove that an increase in the greenhouse effect is real, and that trace gases in the atmosphere are adding a significant radiative burden to the energy budget of the atmosphere, but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models [ ].

        Testable hypotheses: Detailed radiative changes. Results of empirical measurements: Confirmed.

        The burden of (dis)proof is on you.

        [KR Just providing a list of papers (behind a paywall?) when pushed for evidence, is not the way to keep the moderators happy] Fly


        Report this

        05

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          The burden of proof is to show that CO2 is actually linked to global atmospheric temperature in a CONTROLLING mechanism.

          That has not even been POSTULATED – that’s “defined so that it can be disproved” in your language.

          If a hypothesis is not clearly defined it is not falsifiable and therefore NOT a hypothesis.

          All the warmer intelligentsia have is Public Commentary.

          There is no testable hypothesis and therefore NO SCIENCE OF CO2 RELATED GLOBAL WARMING.

          I’m sure you could run one up for us in a jiffy.

          Off you go now.

          KK :)


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Speedy

            KK

            KR 53.1.1 uses a subtle trick there in quoting the case for greenhouse gases being able to trap heat. The trick is in failing to distinguish between the effect of the TOTAL greenhouse gas content and the MARGINAL effect of additional greenhouse gas content.

            As anyone who can Google Beer-Lambert’s Law (For a LAW it is) will tell you that once 99 point something percent of the target wavelength has been absorbed, the effect of adding further absorbant will two thirds of three eights of SFA.

            I wonder if he knows he did that?

            Cheers,

            Speedy


            Report this

            20

        • #
          KR

          Moderator/Fly – My apologies on the the first list here; there are many papers out there that are either paywalled or require some searching, not much that can be done about that. However, in the reply you commented upon I went to some effort to find and link two relevant and publicly accessible papers.

          As a point of useful reference, I would direct everyone to scholar.google.com as a good source for papers – search on the authors or titles, look at the list of multiple versions if available – many authors keep an open copy on their own servers, which may be accessible. Also do a standard Google search – I’ve found a few open access papers there that may not show up on Scholar.

          KinkyKeith – I suggest you try turning up the heat on your oven; by your logic it won’t warm. In the meantime, read this link on the causal chain you complain so much about. If you disagree, keep in mind that there are over 150 years of empirical measurements supporting those physics, which have worked quite well in all applications over that time.


          Report this

          05

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            KR

            You don’t seem to get it do you.

            This is about science.

            A falsifiable hypothesis is the test of real science.

            There must be a clear link between T change and CO2 concentration as well as a postulated mechanism to explain the link.

            IPCCC, UEA, UWA, Climate Class of 2013 in general; all are “no shows” when it comes to preparing a testable hypothesis.

            No science.

            Commentary and computer simulations are not science or engineering.

            KK :)


            Report this

            51

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    You are just looking at short term noise.

    “If there were to be a significant event, what would the data look like at the commencement?”

    In my field of research, that is a question that is often asked.

    Jo has also asked this question. And one indication would be that most of the global data sets would start to reflect a cooling trend.

    As she says, and as you would have noticed if you had bothered to read her post to the end:

    Cue critics who’ll tell me I’m cherry-picking data…

    Note I’m not suggesting that this shows CO2 doesn’t cause warming, I’m not suggesting this is evidence (yet) that the models are wrong (they’re wrong, but for other reasons), I’m not even saying that the world is definitely cooling. I’m pointing out that if we were entering a cooler phase, this is what it would look like.

    Perhaps the most important thing about these graphs is to juxtapose that claim the world is “still warming” in recent years. If statistical significance is where you hang your hat, the warming trend is not statistically significant, and yet (at the moment anyway) it is statistically significant to say the opposite about the last 8 years in 4 out of 5 datasets.

    Btw, all five of the datasets have uncertainties of about 0.05 degrees C, so any change less than that is statistically insignificant.

    My bolding.


    Report this

    43

    • #
      KR

      As I pointed out, the statement “it is statistically significant to say the opposite [that it is cooling] about the last 8 years in 4 out of 5 datasets” is just not supportable.


      Report this

      23

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      OK, so if we were going to experience a significant global cooling event, what would the early indicators look like?


      Report this

      31

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I have made no personal comment on that, one way or the other.

      But all change has to start somehow, so the question I put to you before is entirely relevant to this conversation.

      What would the early indicators of a significant cooling event look like?


      Report this

      41

      • #
        AndyG55

        “What would the early indicators of a significant cooling event look like?”

        I would suspect a basic levelling of natural temperature trends for maybe 10-12 years then probably a slight hint of a downturn…. ohh….. look !

        This downturn would gradually become steeper over the next few year, but hopefully NOT become too steep, because WARM IS GOOD, and enhanced CO2 is GOOD !


        Report this

        51

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Ah, so that is why KR equivocated, rather than answering what I thought was a perfectly reasonable question. Thank you Andy.


          Report this

          52

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Rereke, how can you possibly accuse KR of “equivocating” after THIS:

            “I have made no personal comment on that, one way or the other.”

            I will repeat KR’s question and if you are unwilling to answer it you should cease commenting on this subject.

            Do you or do you not agree about the lack of statistical significance for cooling claims?


            Report this

            14

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            If you go up-thread to #54 you will notice that I said:

            “If there were to be a significant event, what would the data look like at the commencement?”

            In my field of research, that is a question that is often asked.

            To me, that is a perfectly reasonable question, because it has the potential to give you early warnings of dynamic events.

            KR came back and said that what Jo had written was “just not supportable”.

            So, if you note, I just replied “OK”, and changed the subject by asking my question, which was ignored, and has continued to be ignored by KR, and now yourself.

            I am now intrigued as to why my question about early indicators has caused so much consternation.

            Could it be that the following comments by AndyG55 and KinkyKeith were spot on the money?

            Is it that recent history, with little or no warming for a period, followed by a slight down turn in temperatures are the early indicators that we are looking for, and you are so afraid of?

            What a hoot, if that were the case.


            Report this

            21

          • #
            KR

            Rereke Whakaaro

            My objection is that you, to quote, “…changed the subject by asking my question…”, not addressing my post. I consider that a red herring with respect to the topic.

            You have quite clearly not answered the question I raised, the (incorrect) claims of statistical significance. That’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of math, of definitions.

            As to your side topic – if a cooling event change were to occur, we would expect a negative trend. Which wouldn’t be meaningful until it reached statistical signficance, “reflecting patterns rather than chance”, and not just a jog of short term non-trending variations, aka weather.

            If that were to occur, I would be very happy to see it – I’m not at all enamored of the consequences of rapid climate change. But in the meantime I’m not going to engage in wishful thinking on insufficient evidence – the statistically supported trend is that of warming, right along physical predictions, and the observations of the last 40 years.


            Report this

            02

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Well, I started this discussion by quoting your #53, where you said, with reference to Jo’s post, “You are just looking at short term noise.”

            All of my questions have been in relation to that point. I made no comment about statistical significance. So I have no idea why you keep on challenging me about it.


            Report this

            22

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Rereke, in case you missed it, back at #40 I posted a youtube clip of the 1943 acadamy award winning documentary With the Marines at Tarawa.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY9NZYR2f94


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Yes, I did ignore that. Since I had better things to do.

            But as you graciously pointed out, the island known to you and the film makers (and probably the Marines that served in the Pacific), as Tarawa, is Betio Island, which is known to me, and the UN, and is connected (at low tide) to Bairiki Island, where the Australian High Commission is situated. No wonder I didn’t know where it was — it was hiding in plain sight.

            I suggest that the name Tarawa was original coined as a code name, as part of the normal military strategic planning process (on paper during and after the war), and now in computer simulations. When you think about it, only a moron would use the real names of places when they are planning an attack, so code names are regularly substituted. I am suggesting that Tarawa was one such code name.

            This name would have been used with the commanders in the field, and will have filtered down through the hierarchy, to become the “real” name for the target as far as the Marines were concerned. As long as they had the right coordinates, they knew where to attack. Later the name would have been picked up by the Film Makers in the course of doing their research.

            So my comment at #40 was correct. Geographers would say that Tarawa does not exist. Military historians may beg to differ.

            However, the main point of my comment at #40 was to mention that the submarine ridge where the main Kiribati Islands are situated appear to be subsiding due to tectonic movement. And since other islands in the Pacific do not seem to be effected, it is unlikely to be due to rising sea levels.


            Report this

            21

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        A failure of the temperature to rise?


        Report this

        10

  • #

    There is some automated analysis of earlier ClimateGate emails at:
    http://www.tome22.info/TypeViews/Emails.html

    The emails and associated people are linked into a larger database covering AR4, NGOs etc. This can be accessed from: http://www.tome22.info/Top/ResearchEntrance.html

    The whole database is being rewritten and there are some areas that have obviously never worked.

    Is there any potential going further with this approach?
    (Cross posted on Bishop Hill)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    UzUrBrain

    Why is the graph of CO2 concentration essentially a straight line? WHY?

    Since Man started making CO2 from burning Coal, oil and other fossil fuel in the 1600′s AND had burnt MORE each and every year since that first time. [Ignoring burning wood for fires as that is essentially lost in the noise level of forest fire burning.] The laws of physics says that if you start filling a very large tank with water and that if each year you add the amount that you added last year plus 25% more, that the level of the water in the tank will NOT, and I repeat NOT, increase at a linear level. PERIOD. It is hyperbolic in nature. Since the 1800′s we have almost doubled the amount of fossil fuel burning each year. That implies the resulting curve should be close to logarithmic in nature (You would need a log scale on the Y axis to get a straight line. WHER is all of that CO2 going? Shouldn’t we be getting a Log increase? Something is fishy.

    This tells me that the INCREASE in CO2 is the result of something much larger in scope than our burning fossil fuel – it is the result of the increased rate of decay of organic material due to the slow LINEAR increase in temperature.

    Those that do not see this should use their brain.


    Report this

    11

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Good points Uzur

      KK


      Report this

      00

    • #
      llew Jones

      On the other hand what the alarmist scientists go very quiet on is the known relationship between global temperature rise and the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations say since the IR. This curve actually goes the other way so that the tangent to the rate of change in temperature asymptotes to zero.

      No one seems to want to plot that theoretical curve. Perhaps it might indicate that the last decade or so in which the rise in global temperature has plateaued out is due to the tangent flattening out on the way to a zero gradient?

      (Of course that is why a net positive feedback in the climate system is essential to the possibility of any significant AGW let alone the alarmists longed for “tipping point”).


      Report this

      00

      • #
        llew Jones

        Correction to #56.2 para 1.

        “This curve actually goes the other way so that the tangent *which is the rate of change in temperature at any given CO2 concentration* asymptotes to zero.”


        Report this

        00

  • #
    macha

    This might be O’T but a neat package and well worth a read.

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/ClimateChange_Ziegler-2013.pdf

    PS> I am NOT sorry if there is too much scientific info in there for the alamism “warminsts”.
    They can go take a cold shower for all I care, soz this makes more sense than anything I’ve seen put up from the IPCC.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Macha

      have downloaded it.

      Not read yet but looks very interesting

      KK :)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      llew Jones

      Macha outstanding and extensive presentation of the part natural variability plays in governing the Earth’s climate.

      It should be obvious that the “settled science” claimed to back alarmist science does nothing of the sort. Assuming alarmist climate scientists are not complete fools they also understand that and hence their resort to the unproven and thus at present unscientific positive feedback factor.

      Without that rationale the “settled science” cannot be used to point the finger at fossil fuel emissions as a source of significant global warming. Alarmist climate science is rightly described as pseudo science and a scam. What then drives alarmists to promote this nonsense? The only reason is that first and foremost they are irrational activists with an unscientific agenda.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Edward Sikk

    I have just returned from a skiing trip to Niseko in Hokkaido.The weather was the worst I have encountered there.Continual blizzards cold weather and what appeared to be metres of snow.I did not bring back figures with me,I can only refer to newspaper stories that Russia has had the coldest winter in 100 years and nearby Siberia has recorded extraordinary temperatures of about minus 70 C. I have been skiing every year for over the last 50 years in Australia and many times overseas,twice before in the last decade or so in Niseko.I would offer a very tentative suggestion to anyone with a young family that it might be a good time to invest in a ski lodge in say Hotham or Thredbo.Snowfalls of course depend on a complex combination of temperature and moisture precipitation and in Australia we have often been disappointed,but my experience this last decade leads me to suspect we are in for good ski seasons to come.At any rate I had plenty of spare time in Niseko to read Jo Novas threads.I like the cheery good humor in the main of the warmest skeptics.Like Rereke Wakaaroa I too was born a male but I never realized until I read one of his comments that I have been a closet lesbian for many years.I thought I was simply an admirer of the fair sex.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Larry

    Temperatures go up and down from year to year, but the Earth is most assuredly warming over the long run. http://clmtr.lt/cb/p4g0DK


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Larry

    Many times in the history of mankind, as new discovery’s were made un-informed individuals and organizations that held power worked to deny the truth. Such is the very case with human caused climate change. It is well known that all over the globe, temperatures vary from year to year, but there can be no doubt that the Earth is warming over the long term. http://clmtr.lt/cb/p4g0DK


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Edward Sikk

    Larry I hope and pray that the earth continues to warm as it has appeared to do (in fits and starts),since the end of the mediaeval ice age.Warm is good.Cold is bad except for those who enjoy snow sports. The point of this thread is that the recent pause in global warming gives rise to suspicions as to what may be happening to world climate.I think you mean to claim that the increase in warming which occurred during the last century is attributable to the use by mankind of fossil fuels.You realize do you that you bear the onus of proof in this regard. The reference you gave in support of your assertion is inadequate.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Kevo

      @Edward

      What evidence do you have that this small downward trend is not just a seasonal flux that happens naturally? You claim that there isn’t enough evidence to contradict your point, but where is the evidence to support your point? Here is the science behind where I’m coming from: http://clmtr.lt/cb/p4g0VE

      (The link he post to here is based on what Skeptical Science posted a while back and uses the D word liberally) CTS


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Edward Sikk

    Correction.There was no mediaeval ice age.My apologies. But my point as to you bearing the onus of proof remains the same


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevo

    The temperature trends from season to season change greatly. Last year at this time, Madison, Wisconsin was rocking a good 75F day, but this year we are up to only 22F. The whole month this year has been significantly cooler than last year. HOWEVER, in the long run, the entire Earth is warming. Month to month, season to season, year to year, we will vary, but decade to decade, or century to century, we are warming significantly. |

    (Comment approved link deleted) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    edward sikk

    Kevo You misunderstand me.I am asserting nothing.Like you I hope we are seeing merely a temporary global cooling.Like you I expect that the earth will continue its history of warming since the seas rose at the end of the last ice age.I merely suggest that if the cooling trend continues it might prove to have been a good punt to have bought a share in a ski lodge.Here in Tassie we are all well aware of Bass Strait which as you know only came into existence at the end of the last ice age only a brief 14000 years ago. So we seem to be in complete agreement.So why refer me to a pamphlet titled “spread the truth destroy denial”. Have you some scientific proposition to assert? If so please refer me to a reasoned case and not some inflammatory document which seems to invite you to destroy me unless I agree with you.And remember you will carry the burden of proof for whatever it is you assert.Just think of me lke your father if you like.I am anxious to learn from you,truly.I am no scientific expert.


    Report this

    00