Join the conversation

1. Permalink

   

   P Milstein

   (logged in via Twitter)

   The Conversation is such an excellent venue for intelligent academic reflection and peer reviewed science. It is a shame to see the comments section burdened by people whose contribution marks them as trolls and/or people who have swallowed whole the climate myths propagated by organisations intent on obfuscating the findings of reputable scientific bodies. I'm sure there are other sites where those comments would find company, and where anonymous weirdos feel at home.
2. Permalink

   

   stephen prowse

   (logged in via Twitter)

   As a (biological) scientist, I like to see actions flowing from data and testable hypothesis. Climate scientists need to be very clear about what we know and what is hypothesis or is derived from models. There appears to be good data to support increased global temperatures, increased sea levels and ocean acidity. Why these changes are occurring is not known despite the statements above. These hypotheses based on models cannot be tested. As a scientific community we need to wake up and stop portraying speculation from untestable hypothesis as fact. Stop pushing the panic button and start putting mitigation and adaption actions into a broader sustainability context.

3. Permalink

   

   John McLean

   (logged in via email @connexus.net.au)

   On peer review-
   1 – The IPCC is not peer review in the true sense of the word. The reviewers are not anonymous but the authors are is the opposite to normal practice. There's no editor who acts as referee and it's the IPCC authors who have the final say on the wording.

   2 – The Royal Society and Australian Academy of Science have close links to the ICSU, a body that was instrumental in the establishment of the IPCC, and to the InterAcademy council which supposedly undertook an independent review…

   show full comment

   On peer review-
   1 – The IPCC is not peer review in the true sense of the word. The reviewers are not anonymous but the authors are is the opposite to normal practice. There's no editor who acts as referee and it's the IPCC authors who have the final say on the wording.

   2 – The Royal Society and Australian Academy of Science have close links to the ICSU, a body that was instrumental in the establishment of the IPCC, and to the InterAcademy council which supposedly undertook an independent review of the IPCC. Neither the RS nor AAS can be considered impartial.

   3 – "The Critical Decade" was a rehash of IPCC material, with some unsubstantiated claims about the Great Barrier Reef added. I've never seen who the reviewers of that report were so how can I know if it was impartial?

   On the things you claim to know

   1 – "Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases." Utter rubbish. This was the opinion of a bunch of climate modellers who turned a blind eye to the failings of their models (and chapters 2 and 8 of the IPCC report showed those) and arguably were defending their job prospects and expensive toys.

   2 – "Increased frequencies and intensities of some extreme weather events are very likely." No, that was not a finding of the IPCC 4AR.

   3 – "Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt." This claim cannot be sustained. The temperature predictions have failed miserably because the models are flaws, so frankly I don't think you have the faintest idea of future temperatures, ergo you can have no idea whether mankind can cope.

   On the things you're not sure about

   1 – Glaring omission. Exactly what impact CO2 has on temperature in the real world. Without this you can't predict anything.

   I'm sorry but your piece is just a continuance of the mendacity about climate change that persists on these web pages.

4. Permalink

   

   John Nicol

   (logged in via Facebook)

   This is an extraordinary article. The concern in the community is not whether the climate is changing, but whether carbon dioxide increases are causing that change. Everything else is interesting, but totally irrelevant to the critical issue and debate. While it is quite correct to say that most of the community believes climate change is real – but most do not now believe it is caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Most believe it is cyclical and has many other causes, but NOT CO2, the science…

   show full comment

   This is an extraordinary article. The concern in the community is not whether the climate is changing, but whether carbon dioxide increases are causing that change. Everything else is interesting, but totally irrelevant to the critical issue and debate. While it is quite correct to say that most of the community believes climate change is real – but most do not now believe it is caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Most believe it is cyclical and has many other causes, but NOT CO2, the science is not settled and the climate has always changed. It is insulting to suggest that people do not believe in climate change and global warming between 1979 and 1995. But we also believe it warmed in the 19th century and between 1920 and 1940. There is nothing unique about the later warming as the earth recovers from the 1750 to 1850 Little Ice Age.
   The very first statement by Dr Hennessy concerning “sea level rise”, flies in the face of comparatively recent peer reviewed research from local and global measurements and detailed analysis of the oceans showing in fact, that the rate of rise is waning, decelerating, getting less than it was some years ago!
   Secondly, the fourth statement in the first list of dot points that “Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases” is hardly the stuff of “Robust Findings”!
   No other statements, amongst the “Things we Know”, bears any relationship whatsoever to the critical issue, which is whether or not increases in carbon dioxide were responsible for the singly assigned period, 1979 to 1998 used by the IPCC to claim “correlation” (not a cause mind you!) between increases in CO2 and Global warming. (The paper by Kaufmann et al. quoted here represents the first admission by anyone supporting the IPCC that temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008, since Phil Jones’ admission, under pressure at CRU, saying that “no statistically significant rise was found since 1995” – referred to in correspondence by him, as “the decline”.)
   In the quoted Kaufmann paper, the authors are grasping at straws in trying to explain why there has been no recent warming but in fact a slight though significant decrease of 0.2 C since 1998. They only put forward some very speculative and contestable arguments about recent growth in aerosols, without reference to measurements one must hasten to add, while in their biased view, warming by carbon dioxide of course continues unabated!! (BTW – in regard to Kaufmann’s fellow authors, Michael E Mann is not the Michael L Mann – a la the Hockey Stick.)
   None of the other 23 dot points or statements, in this list of 12 “Robust ..” and 11 “Uncertainties”, has any relevance for the debate on climate change or more properly Global Warming “due to” carbon dioxide . They are simply environmental observations or statements of fact, being the results of probably high quality, mostly biological, research which relate to changes which could quite obviously take place if the temperature of the globe changes for whatever reason – just as it has in the past, such as in the medieval warming of Greenland and the opening of the Russian Arctic seas in the 1920s and the Little Ice Age three hundred years ago..
   The only significant, feature in a proper discussion on this subject, would be aimed at determining whether or not increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide can cause global warming. This topic has not even been mentioned in this article. Not once. To simply say that “WE believe...” while not addressing anything which even remotely discusses the behaviour of carbon dioxide and to claim that “There are many robust findings about the science, and these provide a basis for action through mitigation of greenhouse gases as well as adaptation to reduce our vulnerability to climate change impacts.” is surely to mock the findings of thousands other scientists who do show very robust evidence that carbon dioxide does not cause the increase in temperatures claimed. Among these are physicists, chemists and earth scientists who study the atmosphere and past climate, gases and spectroscopy, and who are not convinced that carbon dioxide does as being claimed. None of this comes from computers , but has been demonstrated through “robust” laboratoiory experiments and measurements in the atmosphere, far away from the dreamy and inexact computer models. .
   The references quoted in this article are equally without substance. Anyone who has taken the time to read the details of the IPCC reports and in particular AR4 2007, is disappointed to find the lack of referral to substantial literature analysing the simplistic hypothesis put forward by Fourier, Tyndall and finally Svante Arrhenius in 1896, before modern spectroscopy and when the quantum theory of gases was thirty years away. Yet the IPCC still quotes this paper among the four or five which it refers to in an attempt to substantiate its claims for the effects of CO2 The paper by Stott et al., .
   IPCC
   “We believe that MOST of the warming during the second half of the 20th century was VERY LIKELY due to increases in carbon dioxide”
   COMMENT: This is the statement to which one is always referred when one asks for evidence that carbon dioxide can cause the warming claimed. I spent the best part of two years in correspondence with the head of the CSIRO Climate Research Group in Melbourne asking for evidence that CO2 was responsible. Promises for the provision of such evidence ended in my receiving only two reference by Zastawney (which were badly written but reasonable papers on radiation transfer, showing that CO2 forcing could only be less than a quarter of that assumed by the IPOCC). Finally, I was told “We believe.” Just incredible!
   Stott et al.
   “It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica.’ Since then, warming over Antarctica has also been attributed to human influence, and further evidence has accumulated attributing a much wider range of climate changes to human activities. Such changes are broadly consistent with theoretical understanding, and climate model simulations, of how the planet is expected to respond.
   COMMENT: Again we get the tired old phrase “it is likely” rather than the usually scientifically confident “We show here” for real research work to which scientists have a personal commitment to their own work and also provide the evidence which can be perhaps shot down by someone else. Here, in IPCC Land, we are continuously provided with belief but without evidence which can allow others to question the work.
   Eaterling and Wehner
   “Here we show that periods of no trend or even cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer‐term warming.”
   COMMENT: It is evident from records throughout climate history that very similar changes have been taking place for thousands if not millions of years. What’s so special about changes in the 20th and 21st centuries?
   Kaufmann et al.
   See comments above.
   The Royal Society (2010): Climate Change: A Summary of the Science
   COMMENT: An unusual statement which withdraws most of the confidence in AGW shown in their earlier statement which was forced to be withdrawn by complaints by more competent members of the society who understood the science of the effects of carbon dioxide. Some sentences remain which allow an out for those on the committee who drew up the first statement.
   The Australian Academy of Science (2010): The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers
   COMMENT: Another document, another group, which provides no reference to the science of carbon dioxide which is so fundamental to the claims of what is imagined to be a warming problem. As with the other societies mentioned, the executives who formulate the statements on Global Warming have done so without reference to the wider membership which has lead to very serious and widespread complaints in many of these institutions including the withdrawal of members and major changes to initial statements such as for the The Royal Society of London and the American Physical Society. The AGU and many others share in being sent on going complaints from members.
   The Climate Change Commission (2011): The Critical Decade
   COMMENT:
   This document shares with the IPCC the same distinction of formulating its case solely on Arrhenius 115 year old simplistic and widely challenged hypothesis and the recitation of the mantra “We believe...”. The number of references given in “The Critical Decade” is over 180. Amongst these which five only attempt to make a case for AGW, if we count Arrhenius and a very peculiar quotation of the Biography of Callendar by a science historian Fleming, J.R. (2007) The Callendar Effect: the life and work of Guy Stewart Callendar (1898-1964) Amer Meteor Soc.,
   None of these works provide any support whatsoever for the claim that carbon dioxide causes Global Warming.
   A few scientific facts:
   1. 80% of the heat from the surface of the earth entering the atmosphere and warming it comes from surface contact (wind) and evaporation over oceans. 20% is captured by green house gases while because of line broadening in the gas spectra, very little, if any, in fact escapes directly to space.
   2. The claimed “signature of green House Warming” upper tropospheric heating in the equatorial regions, “shown to be necessary” by the unstable models used by the IPCC, has not been found in 25 years of searching.
   3. Geological evidence over millions of years shows that the density of carbon dioxide follows the warming of the earth, not the other way around.
   4. The proposed “Back Radiation” from GHGs claimed by IPCC modelers such as CSIRO Climate, to produce global warming (333 Watts per square metre – Hansen diagram) has never been measured. (Just go outside a bit before sun down, with an umbrella, and move in and out from under the umbrella which would be intercepting 333 Wm^-2. Do you feel any change? The go into your bathroom where you may have a 150 W warming bulb which spreads out more than a square metre to give at most a power of say 90 W m^-2. Feel the warmth from it - 90 W to 333 W)
   5. A calculation shows that the power absorbed by a green house gas is taken in slightly lower in the atmosphere, as the density of the gas increases. The radiation from this eventually leads to a steady state or equilibrium where the downwards re-radiation is half that absorbed from below, while half re-radiates upwards. However, the increase in absorption of the downward radiation because of the increase in the density of the GHG, means that exactly the same intensity reaches the ground if there is no dust or other perturbation. The intensity at most, neglecting the reduction by the effects of increased convection, is ¼ of the original upwards intensity and NEVER changes.
   6. Further geological evidence shows that even the massive changes in climate which lead to an ice age and the emergence from it, are associated with the influence of the planetary orbits in the solar system which gravitationally effect tides intime with the Milankovitch Cycles effectiing the sun (surface power, magnetic field and its motion) and the orbit/rotation of the earth.
   7. The global chart published by the IPCC of the heating and cooling structure of the earth over the past 30 years shows clearly that a small, almost circular area in the southern hemisphere corresponds to the region where least warming took place and in the north a similar spot where the most severe warming took place. These two circles have almost at their centres, the earth’s south and North Magnetic poles respectively. This would suggest a likely cause of warming associated with solar wind and cosmic ray activity, would it not?
   8. Attempts to show that the back radiation has been increasing are doomed to failure because of the physics of absorption and nothing can alter that. A glance at the results of measurements by ground based instruments and those on radiosonde balloons confirm in fact that the radiation intensities measured are tied very strictly to the local air temperature and have nothing to do with radiation from heights above. In particular, right in the centre of the green house bands in CO2 for instance, at sea level the absorption length is only millimetres in length yet “climatologists” report measurements at these wavelengths for upper atmospheric radiation just as in Hansen’s diagram!!
   9. Papers by Harries et al., and others who attempt to perform a comparison of different measurements from satellites 30 years apart,(an impossible spectroscopic task) and then try to claim that there have been changes in the efflux of radiation from upper atmospheric radiation to space. The only radiation to space in the region of the tropopause comes from carbon dioxide in the temperature region of 220 K where the only other green house gas is absent because it has changed to ice much further below at temperatures probably about 265 K to 273 K. The radiation from CO2 at this temperature continues over the whole globe, even in the arctic regions. So it continues to cool the earth at a rate which is consistent with the necessary cooling over the range of frequencies of its absorption bands. Taken over the whole globe in both hot and cold regions, and since this radiation to space continues day and night, it exceeds that absorbed lower in the atmosphere by the same bands.
   10. It should be noted that were there no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, heat retained in the atmosphere such as that given up in the condensation of water vapour to form clouds, would remain in the upper air and of course re-circulate across top of the Hadley Cells from the tropics to the higher latitudes and sink to warm these cooler regions more so than at present.
   John Nicol jonicol18@bigpond.com http://www.ruralsoft.com.au/climatescientific

   1. Permalink

      

      Roger Bodman

      (logged in via email @gmail.com)

      As soon as someone starts cherry picking data, as John Nicol has, they have nullified any possible credibility - there is little point in reading the rest of the dubious 'information' that follows. It is misleading if not mendacious to claim that temperatures have declined since 1998 unless you leave out 2010. A quick plot of data from NCDC (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php#anomalies) or similar reputable data set shows otherwise. Pick an earlier starting year, say 1978 and the deception becomes even clearer.

      1. Permalink

         

         John Nicol

         (logged in via Facebook)

         [“Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008″
         1. Robert K. Kaufmanna,1, 2. Heikki Kauppib, 1. Michael L. Manna and 3. James H. Stockc
         1. aDepartment of Geography and Environment, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue (Room 457), Boston, MA 02215;
         2. bDepartment of Economics, University of Turku, FI-20014, Turku, Finland; and
         3. cDepartment of Economics, Harvard University, 1805 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA…

         show full comment

         [“Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008″
         1. Robert K. Kaufmanna,1, 2. Heikki Kauppib, 1. Michael L. Manna and 3. James H. Stockc
         1. aDepartment of Geography and Environment, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue (Room 457), Boston, MA 02215;
         2. bDepartment of Economics, University of Turku, FI-20014, Turku, Finland; and
         3. cDepartment of Economics, Harvard University, 1805 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
         Edited by Robert E. Dickinson, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, and approved June 2, 2011 (received for review February 16, 2011)]

         Dear Roger,
         Your claims that I am “cherry picking” and “mendacious” demand a polite response.
         In the link you gave, I presume that you are asking me to look at the diagram entitled “Global Surface Temperature Anomalies National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center”. I have done that and see clearly what I believe are the internationally recognized results from the analysis of the US data set and understand that these are fairly similar to those results also published by CRU from UEA. Please let me know if they are not. If you look very closely at the diagram, you should be able to see that from 2000 to 2008, which is the period over which KKMS are considering reasons for the decline, there is, even in this data selected for me by yourself, a very slight but noticeable decline the blue smoother line. (Phil Jones of CRU suggested that there was no “statistically significant warming from 1995 to 2007” – but I would not go back as far as he did to 1995, even though he is an IPCC supporter of course and I am not!) 1998 and 2010 are well recognized by all as “outlyers” because both had significant El Nino conditions. KKMS are NOT setting out to disprove that “CO2 = Global Warming”. On the contrary they are trying to explain that “warming” was in fact still taking place, in spite of the measured, falling temperatures. I simply used their analysis because it is the LATEST paper published on this topic. They also concede that the temperature has now fallen further as I mentioned, by about 0.2 C. You have accused me of Cherry Picking so I am wondering if I am also “Cherry Picking” when I point out that both this graph and the numbers given for 1880 to 2011 (June) on your reference page show similar temperature changes to those analysed by Kaufmann et al. I am also Cherry picking I suppose when I quote this “peer reviewed paper” which uses all of the internationally accepted data – accepted that is by all of the proponents of AGW. What data should I have referred to?
         You suggest I look at 1978. Could I also suggest that we discuss the warming peronds ~ 1850 to 1880 and 1920 to 1940. But no, I am not talking about 1978 to 1995 and a glance at my statement would have told you that I accept fully that carbon dioxide is increasing and that the temperature increased over that 17 year period – I have never made any suggestion that these increases did not occur, nor that CO2 is dissolving in the ocean and decreasing its PH by a very small amount, while being partially neutralized by the many alkaline materials that flow into the ocean. It is also being taken up increasingly by the biosphere. But I am not making any point about the increase or otherwise of carbon dioxide because this is not the issue. The issue is whether increases of any amount of carbon dioxide can cause global warming and I am stating emphatically that it cannot for the reasonsI have given already. If you have clear evidence of the behaviour of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which contradicts me I would be delighted to hear from you at jonicol18@bigpond.com or on this blog.
         
         Annual Global Temperature Anomalies

5. Permalink

   

   Ross James

   Engineer (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)

   So if human activity caused the temperature increase over the past 50 years, what caused the same increase 1910 to 1940? Also why has there been no increase over the past 13 years?

   1. Permalink

      

      Simon Edmonds

      Teacher (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

      Sorry you are wrong on both counts. Refer to this easily found graph on wiki.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif
      You can clearly see a far greater increase from about 1975 till now. And 10 of the warmest years on record have been in the last 12, so I am sorry, the warming has not stopped. It is about averages not cherry picking specific years. That is what Monckton does and we all know how little credit he has.

   2. Permalink

      

      Simon Edmonds

      Teacher (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

      This will help you to understand that the warming has not stopped. From the high profile skeptic Roy Spencer no less. You have to look at this very sideways to miss the upward trend.
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_20112.gif

6. Permalink

   

   Adam Smith

   Research Fellow (logged in via email @seekpleasureavoidpain.com)

   I would point you towards this June 27th article by professor Bob Carter in the SMH
   http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html

7. Permalink

   

   Alex Jay

   (Forester)

   "Models differ in their estimates of the strength of different feedbacks in the climate system, particularly cloud feedbacks, oceanic heat uptake and carbon cycle feedbacks."

   Tell us more about that one please Mr "Explainer". When the whole scare-story is sourced from "models" which presume amplifying feedback, but the error bars on clouds & water vapour are both larger than the CO2 effect and straddle each side of the zero line, what do we actually KNOW? Many of the things you say we KNOW are…

   show full comment

   "Models differ in their estimates of the strength of different feedbacks in the climate system, particularly cloud feedbacks, oceanic heat uptake and carbon cycle feedbacks."

   Tell us more about that one please Mr "Explainer". When the whole scare-story is sourced from "models" which presume amplifying feedback, but the error bars on clouds & water vapour are both larger than the CO2 effect and straddle each side of the zero line, what do we actually KNOW? Many of the things you say we KNOW are obviously assumptions and forecasts based on said models. When oceanic heat uptake has less than 10 years credible data and shows no trend, when the retention of a minor amount of early evening warmth escapes to space by next morning, what's going to cause all those cyclones, droughts and floods, Hanrahan?

   Given the huge uncertainties, why not wait 10-20 years to get a better handle on the science before taking any drastic action? Insurance is a poor argument when the premium costs more than adapting to the change, using any reasonable (ie not Stern or Garnaut) discount rate. And in that 10-20 years, if we use the resources we are currently wasting on defenses against non-existent sky-dragons, we could easily develop technology to make solar electricity (and hydrogen?) at less than coal-equivalent prices, or any number of other things to make the world a better place for our descendants.

8. Permalink

   

   David Nutzuki

   (logged in via Twitter)

   I'm not the only former Climate Change crisis believer urging prosecutors to lay criminal chargers to the leading scientists and news editors for knowingly inciting this needless panic of CO2 climate crisis. Besides condemning billions of children to a CO2 death the media failed in informing us of how the UN had allowed carbon trading markets that were run by corporations and politicians, to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate…

   show full comment

   I'm not the only former Climate Change crisis believer urging prosecutors to lay criminal chargers to the leading scientists and news editors for knowingly inciting this needless panic of CO2 climate crisis. Besides condemning billions of children to a CO2 death the media failed in informing us of how the UN had allowed carbon trading markets that were run by corporations and politicians, to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate CONTROL rather than the obviously needed POPULATION control.
   The UN and media watched as thousands of scientists presented their own personal and unique papers on climate change and called it scientific “consensus”. Yes all 3000 scientists are wrong because they all disagree with each other, not agree with each other. Tell me how that is consensus when every single scientist on board and every science organization has a unique view of climate change? That was a consultant's w & t dream. Climate change was a lab coat consultant’s w&t dream, and criminal exaggeration, but worst case scenarios have a longer life than just simple exaggeration and “lying”. Fear always is unsustainable. What they DID agree on however, was that there “would” be effects, so studying effects of something that hasn’t happened yet presumes climate change to be real. Did you notice after tropical fossils were found under the melting ice that all research suddenly went totally into effects, not causes? When this is all said and done with scientist and news editors convicted, only then will we see what climate change was; modern day omen worship.
   So until Obama decides to mention the crisis in his next state of the union speech like he didn’t this year, and when I see the thousands of climate change scientist marching in the streets and acting like it’s the emergency THEY said it was, I will be a former believer and a planet lover that is happy a crisis was averted.

   1. Permalink

      

      Simon Edmonds

      Teacher (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

      I don't believe you were ever a believer.

9. Permalink

   

   simon neville

   (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

   Ross James, 2010 was the hottest year on record tied with 2005

10. Permalink

    

    David Needham

    (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)

    As a physicist, I understand the scientific method, and peer review. This article counterbalanced with the comments above have not advanced my understanding of the science of climate change. I have been urged to "respect the science", but then persons such as stephen prowse (above) appear to have done an analysis and found it wanting. I also understand the temptation to dumb-it-down for a mass audience. But none of this really helps my understanding.

    So what of it all is true and what is speculation and what is pure hype?
    Sigh........

11. Permalink

    

    Ross James

    Engineer (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)

    Simon Edmonds. - Firstly you have cherry picked a graph from GISS, which is in conflict with the other climate data sets - Hadcrut, RSS etc. The others distinctly show no warming over the past 10 years, despite CO2 increases. I calculated the rate of rise from Hadcrut for 1910 - 1940 and 1970 - 2000. They are nearly identical. We didn't have many big power stations in 1910!!

    1. Permalink

       

       Simon Edmonds

       Teacher (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

       Ross. I didn't cherry picked anything. I went straight to the first graph wikipedia threw at me when I typed in global warming. Try it , it is not hard.
       And are you telling me the average temp in the last ten years is equal to the ten before. I don't think so. Every decade for the last three warmer than the last. Ten of the warmest years on record in the last 12 years. That is telling us something.

12. Permalink

    

    Ross James

    Engineer (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)

    Simon - have another read of what I said. There's been no increase over the past 10 years. The rate of increase 1910 - 1940 was very similar to the increase 1970 - 2000.

    No-one is questioning 0.7 degC warming over the past 160 years. Nor is there much question that a doubling of CO2 could theoretically result in 1.2 degC warming.

    The only issue is the hypothesis that a small increase in temperature from anthropogenic activity could result in increased water vapour (the strongest greenhouse gas…

    show full comment

    Simon - have another read of what I said. There's been no increase over the past 10 years. The rate of increase 1910 - 1940 was very similar to the increase 1970 - 2000.

    No-one is questioning 0.7 degC warming over the past 160 years. Nor is there much question that a doubling of CO2 could theoretically result in 1.2 degC warming.

    The only issue is the hypothesis that a small increase in temperature from anthropogenic activity could result in increased water vapour (the strongest greenhouse gas), which would lead to a catastrophic warming (positive feedback). This ignores the fact that increased water vapour means more clouds, which results in cooling (negative feedback). The IPCC admits that cloud activity is poorly understood. To date, there is no real data to support this hypothesis.

    My point about temperature data remains. Wikipedia is not the authority on this. There are four main data sets - RSS. UAH, Hadley (Hadcrut) and Giss. The latter is the one you found on Wikipedia, and it's generally regarded as the least reliable, as it has diverged from the other sets in recent times. I suggest you look at all four sets. Also look at how they compare to the models used by IPCC.There are various places you can see the comparison - eg http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/06/a-spectacular-failure-latest-hadcrut-nasa-temperatures-significantly-below-ipcc-climate-model-predic.html

    I'm afraid it's a little harder than clicking on Wikipedia, and assuming it's gospel. You need to research a little deeper.

    1. Permalink

       

       Simon Edmonds

       Teacher (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

       Ross,
       thank you for raising the issues and requiring me to look deeper. However my findings did not back up what you are saying... quite the opposite. Hadcrut is regarded as showing the least warming because it is recognised as being the least global of the main sources. In fact of the 3 temperature records HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NCDC, only HadCRUT3 actually shows 1998 as the hottest year on record.
       As for the clouds... you will be familiar with Dr Roy Spencer's work on this. He is the one pinning…

       show full comment

       Ross,
       thank you for raising the issues and requiring me to look deeper. However my findings did not back up what you are saying... quite the opposite. Hadcrut is regarded as showing the least warming because it is recognised as being the least global of the main sources. In fact of the 3 temperature records HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NCDC, only HadCRUT3 actually shows 1998 as the hottest year on record.
       As for the clouds... you will be familiar with Dr Roy Spencer's work on this. He is the one pinning all our hopes on them to save us. However Roy is also the man who thinks evolution is nonsense. Hardly a guy to stake the future of our children on.
       I will point out again that scientists in this field look at trends not individual years. 1998 was severely affected by El Nino at the time. When you remove the effect this has (from all years) the trend is very clearly up. Add to this global means not just air temp. The oceans are a much better indicator or heating because they are less erratic.Slow to move and slow to slow down. Sadly the trend is also up there. And one last indicator ... the ice. 2011 is looking like it will be a record year for ice loss in the arctic.
       http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
       Add them all together and you will see whether you do a simple wiki search or look deeper, the evidence is unequivocal. And that is why the finest minds in the field are yelling as loudly as they can for us to listen to them.

       1. Permalink

          

          Ross James

          Engineer (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)

          Simon, There are four main temperature records - GISS, Hadcrut, RSS and UAH. Below are the data from Hadcrut and UAH, both of which show 1998 to be the hottest year in this period. RSS shows the same.

          UAH Hadcrut
          1998 0.515 0.526
          1999 0.041 0.302
          2000 0.036 0.277
          2001 0.201 0.406
          2002 0.315 0.455
          2003 0.277 0.465
          2004 0.203 0.444
          2005 0.341 0.475
          2006 0.263 0.421
          2007 0.284 0.399
          2008 0.051 0.327
          2009 0.229 0.365
          2010 0.414 0.471

          Of more significance than the recent report of Roy, look at what…

          show full comment

          Simon, There are four main temperature records - GISS, Hadcrut, RSS and UAH. Below are the data from Hadcrut and UAH, both of which show 1998 to be the hottest year in this period. RSS shows the same.

          UAH Hadcrut
          1998 0.515 0.526
          1999 0.041 0.302
          2000 0.036 0.277
          2001 0.201 0.406
          2002 0.315 0.455
          2003 0.277 0.465
          2004 0.203 0.444
          2005 0.341 0.475
          2006 0.263 0.421
          2007 0.284 0.399
          2008 0.051 0.327
          2009 0.229 0.365
          2010 0.414 0.471

          Of more significance than the recent report of Roy, look at what's coming out of CERN, and the events that lead to the investment in the CLOUD experiment. However, Roy's work certainly suggests that the models under-estimate the ability of the Earth to remove excess heat.

          I worry that you're getting bogged down in temperature details, and avoiding the main issue which I described earlier. This is the hypothesis that positive feedback will dominate negative feedback. No-one denies that there's been some warming as we come out of the Little Ice Age - it's what we expect. I've told you that before.

          I notice you mentioned Arctic ice, and picked one particular data source, but ignored Arctic ROOS. Note that sea ice data only goes back a few decades. Aren't you aware that the NW Passage has been open many times in the past, before these records started. Are you aware that Antarctic ice has been increasing for the past 30 years? (They don't like to talk about this - it doesn't fit with the alarmist trend).