Polar Ice sets new minimum

[NorthernRab]

Actually, towards the topic of climate change I don't find them (the BBC) very balanced at all. I find it very rare for them to forward a counter argument to global warming. I think this is one of those rare occasions.

I never said that I thought the BBC was nutural when it came to climate change, in fact I think that a lot of its content is quite insistent on AGW existence. What I said was that they are usually very balanced and rarely seem to take sides, ergo it was nice for them to supply a counter view concerning climate change for once.

[Bobby]

the BBC are renowned for being a highly respected and very unbias and nutural reporting agency

Is that sarcastic? Lol.

To say that temperatures "have not risen" since 1998 and thus we are no longer warming is highly misleading and bad statistics. Bit of cherry picking too. The most accurate way to see if we're warming is to take 10 year averages, 20 year, 30 years etc. Look at the average temperature of the last 10 years, and then look at the average temperature of the 10 years before that. You will find that the last 10 years, the last 20 years, the last 30 years etc are all by far the warmest ever recorded.

If we were cooling the last 10 years would not have been warmer than preceeding 10 years which isn't the case.

Such highly misleading cherrypicking really gets to me.

[Yeti]

Is that sarcastic? Lol.

To say that temperatures "have not risen" since 1998 and thus we are no longer warming is highly misleading and bad statistics. Bit of cherry picking too. The most accurate way to see if we're warming is to take 10 year averages, 20 year, 30 years etc. Look at the average temperature of the last 10 years, and then look at the average temperature of the 10 years before that. You will find that the last 10 years, the last 20 years, the last 30 years etc are all by far the warmest ever recorded.

If we were cooling the last 10 years would not have been warmer than preceeding 10 years which isn't the case.

Such highly misleading cherrypicking really gets to me.

Yes, exactly, this is the problem. People take a clutch of years and use it to say that we are no longer warming - well, we are, even if the last handful of years has been slightly less warm than the previous, it is still warmer than the previous 50!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Yes, exactly, this is the problem. People take a clutch of years and use it to say that we are no longer warming - well, we are, even if the last handful of years has been slightly less warm than the previous, it is still warmer than the previous 50!

There is a difference between "still warm" and "still warming"!

CB

[Devonian]

There is a difference between "still warm" and "still warming"!

CB

On trends and warming 'stopping' (and a little bit of something for the solar people).

[Admiral_Bobski]

On trends and warming 'stopping' (and a little bit of something for the solar people).

Granted that what is proposed in that link is possible - I'm not going to jump on the "it's cooling, it's cooling, it's cooling!" train. I have said quite clearly elsewhere that I believe it may continue to warm in the near future, but that there is also a possibility of it starting to cool in the near future. My last post was making the point that saying "the last ten years are the warmest for 50 years" does not actually mean that temperatures are still rising. Simple.

CB

[NorthernRab]

Is that sarcastic? Lol.

No. Please name me one of the other major news broadcasters who are more nutural? The BBC is government owned, although technically not goverment run, therefore coporate interests don't really affect them. I personally believe that all media is extremely influenced and controlled, but that is neither here nor there. Who do we turn to, barr Channel 4 (who are also excellent) for reliable coverage, Sky News, CNN? Probably not.

Also Magpie, the article does not directly claim that temperatures have decreased, indeed that article's main theme is that "Global Warming Has Dipped". They are stating that global warming has come to a bit of a standstill, not that it never happened. You can't really talk of "cherry-picking" when considering that, can you?

Edited April 4, 2008 by NorthernRab

[biffvernon]

Many thanks for your reply biff, I find this area quite interesting. In my view the dynamics between the atmosphere and the oceans have to be taken as a whole, as one entity, the absolute boundary for the climatic system being the rock/water boundary of land/air on the continents, and sea floor/ocean in the oceans and seas. To get a true feeling of what is going on all the systems, cycles and mechanics across all the disciplines be it gravity, particle, fluid mechanics, heat transference, solar input, gas properties and much more besides need to be taken into account. This reason is why I sit on the fence as I do believe we are working with only part of the whole with regard to what the climate will do next.

For sure, there is plenty yet to learn. Like we're in a car, we can see it is hurtling towards a cliff edge. We've worked out that pushing the gas pedel speeds it up and pushing the brake slows it down. But we're not too sure about what goes on in the engine. What do we do? Wait until we have a full understanding of motor engineering before risking touching that brake pedal?

barr Channel 4

Yes let's bar Channel 4 after that silly swindle programme last year

[Azores Hi]

For sure, there is plenty yet to learn. Like we're in a car, we can see it is hurtling towards a cliff edge. We've worked out that pushing the gas pedel speeds it up and pushing the brake slows it down. But we're not too sure about what goes on in the engine. What do we do? Wait until we have a full understanding of motor engineering before risking touching that brake pedal?

Well I never get involved with these debates, but it's Friday and I'm feeling reckless.

The problem with your analogy (apart from the bit where you say we know what the pedals do, but I won't go there) is that it doesn't address the importance of the car continuing to move forwards.

[biffvernon]

Well I never get involved with these debates, but it's Friday and I'm feeling reckless.

The problem with your analogy (apart from the bit where you say we know what the pedals do, but I won't go there) is that it doesn't address the importance of the car continuing to move forwards.

Eh? If continuing to move forwards involve falling off a cliff I'd guess it might be quite important to stop going in that direction.

[Azores Hi]

Eh? If continuing to move forwards involve falling off a cliff I'd guess it might be quite important to stop going in that direction.

With respect, you've missed my point. The analogy that climate is a car which we are driving of a cliff is too simplistic.

There are many who would argue, that we don't fully understand what the pedals do, that the windscreen is very dirty and we can't be sure that it's a cliff we are driving over. And that applying the brakes could have detrimental effects. Not to the car but to the driver.

I just want to make clear that it's not your argument that I object to, just the analogy you have chosen to illustrate your argument. Too many times we see poor analogies banded around when they really don't fit the point people are trying to drive home.

Climate change is a far too complex problem to sum up in one short analogy, the thousands of posts and numerous topics on the subject is testiment to that.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Azores Hi

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The BBC article isn't saying either of those, it is just saying that global temperatures haven't risen since 1998 (fact) and 2008 is expected to be cooler globally than 2007. ( forecast)

Simple really !

Yes it is simple and well put.

Now for the quotes of 'well into our cold 20' and when La nina subsides and back to El Nino warming etc etc. We are in the La Nina perturbation cycle where it will be 'dominant' over El Nino for about 36 years since Feb 2007. The cold 20 is such a small scale and fairly irrelevant cycle as not to go into. I see that the evidence continues to build of cooling and the warmists are beginning to simmer joke!!!! Solar cycle 24 hasn't started yet way way way later than the so called 'experts' predicted. A proper soalr minima beckons COMBINED with a La Nina cycle.

We haven't warmed since 1998 with massively increasing CO2 and further El Ninos....we haven't warmed and in Jan 2008 the last 30 years warming was wiped out.

The last time..and every single time as it has happened many...the arctic became almost ice free it triggered pronounced and even severe global cooling.

The clock ticks and already the experts are writing this year off against being the warmest....2009?

My assertion has been that by 2015 if it isn't blatantly obvious that we are in global cooling I will fully accept AGW as the cause. Why? Because the cycles point to a Dalton style cooling 'at least' by 2030 and I believe the cycles and that i think it will become fairly obvious by 2012.

BFTP

Edited April 4, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Thundery wintry showers]

With respect, you've missed my point. The analogy that climate is a car which we are driving of a cliff is too simplistic.

There are many who would argue, that we don't fully understand what the pedals do, that the windscreen is very dirty and we can't be sure that it's a cliff we are driving over. And that applying the brakes could have detrimental effects. Not to the car but to the driver.

I just want to make clear that it's not your argument that I object to, just the analogy you have chosen to illustrate your argument. Too many times we see poor analogies banded around when they really don't fit the point people are trying to drive home.

Climate change is a far too complex problem to sum up in one short analogy, the thousands of posts and numerous topics on the subject is testiment to that.

I'm not sure about that. If you think in terms of climate change, then okay fair point, but if you add factors like sustainability into the mix, then the analogy is rather stronger- we physically can't go on consuming the amount of fossil fuels we do forever.

[HighPressure]

I am of the opinion that Ocean currents are the primary driver of our climate and these currents are significantly effected by ozone depletion and solar activity. El Nino and La Nina both play significant short term roles in climate and the clue here is that these are via ocean currents and not via atmospheric changes. What ever the level of CO2 in our atmosphere it appears to be no more than a mere spectator to these events. CO2 can be shown in a laboratory environment to be a warming gas but it cannot be shown to have a significant impact on ocean currents. What can be seen clearly is that ocean currents if disrupted in anyway can cause major variations in the take up of CO2 by ocean sinks. The increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere is not the cause of GW but merely a result of the oceans decreased ability to deal with it and for this answer we need to look elsewhere unless a link can be shown between atmospheric CO2 levels and our oceans then I feel simply going for the soft option which is mans GHG emissions is both naive and technically flawed.

I am going to repost what I said on the Ozone thread on 23rd Feb prediction no significant warming for 2008. There may still be many missing links on what is a far more complex issue than just a single element. But I think that Ozone depletion could turn out to be a good pointer in predicting short term climate. Of course this could be a load of crap for an uneducated fool who thought he would do his own research and sod what anyone says, but I stand by its prediction of 23/02/08

23/02/08:

Following on from the previous graphs this is Ozone Hole area again its 1979 start delayed by 2 years to show a predictive path.

Where this gets interesting for me is that a clear correlation again shows back to 2000 and suggests that 2008 should show similar Global temps to 2007 with a cooling in 2009. The Southern hemisphere shows a much closer correlation to Ozone hole area when compared with the Northern Hemisphere which could find 2008 to be a defining year as to follow the Ozone path it needs to stay around the 1deg mark. Any further increase will show little or no correlation to hole area and suggest that other factors are the main driver especially in the Northern part of the globe. I am fairly confident that the Southern Hemisphere will continue to show tight correlation to hole area at least for the next few years, but if the North breaks away then the South will eventually follow. I expect Sothern Hemisphere to report @+0.4 and Northern @+0.7 giving a 2008 global mean of @+1 deg.

Edited April 4, 2008 by HighPressure

[Azores Hi]

I'm not sure about that. If you think in terms of climate change, then okay fair point, but if you add factors like sustainability into the mix, then the analogy is rather stronger- we physically can't go on consuming the amount of fossil fuels we do forever.

True, but in this instance it was my impression that the analogy was used in the context of climate change. However I take your point and I agree, in the context of sustainability of fossil fuels then the analogy is stronger.

[biffvernon]

There are many who would argue, that we don't fully understand what the pedals do, that the windscreen is very dirty and we can't be sure that it's a cliff we are driving over. And that applying the brakes could have detrimental effects. Not to the car but to the driver.

Right, so the windsreen is too dirty to see where you're going. And you suggest that foot on the gas is a better policy than foot on the brake. Hmmm.

Remind me not to accept a lift.

[Azores Hi]

Right, so the windsreen is too dirty to see where you're going. And you suggest that foot on the gas is a better policy than foot on the brake. Hmmm.

Remind me not to accept a lift.

At face value your analogy is fine. Apply the brakes! What have we got to lose? You may well save the car! But the situation is far more complex than the car analogy allows.

For example and persisting with the car analogy:

1. There is no one driver of the car, the car has in fact, about 6 billion drivers.

2. They all need to apply the brakes at the same time.

3. The brakes may not work.

4. Applying the brakes comes at a price.

5. Lots of the drivers will be unwilling to pay that price without knowing if the brakes work first.

Actually the more we go into it the more this analogy fits!

(apart from the fact that a car couldn't possibly have 6 billion drivers)

P.s At no point did I say we should put our foot on the gas...

Edited April 4, 2008 by Azores Hi

[Bobby]

No. Please name me one of the other major news broadcasters who are more nutural? The BBC is government owned, although technically not goverment run, therefore coporate interests don't really affect them. I personally believe that all media is extremely influenced and controlled, but that is neither here nor there. Who do we turn to, barr Channel 4 (who are also excellent) for reliable coverage, Sky News, CNN? Probably not.

Also Magpie, the article does not directly claim that temperatures have decreased, indeed that article's main theme is that "Global Warming Has Dipped". They are stating that global warming has come to a bit of a standstill, not that it never happened. You can't really talk of "cherry-picking" when considering that, can you?

The BBC are extremely biased in some areas. All channels have the inherent bias of those who run the channels. I'd say ITV and Channel 4 in fact are more neutral than the BBC. Anyway, off topic now.

Yes but is entirely incorrect and bad statistics to say that warming has stopped because we haven't yet passed a high point in the past (1998). Climate trends are discovered by averaging long term periods of temperature data. It's not about looking at one single exceptional year. This is the method that is used by scientists all over the world to measure climate. What you have to look at, the only way to see if we are continuing to warm or not, is compare the last 10 years with the 10 years before that. If you do that you will find that the last 10 years are significantly warmer than the 10 years before that. So the period after 1998, the hottest year, was much warmer on average than the 10 years before 1998.

What this tells us that the warming trend has continued onwards since 1998. In fact it shows an acceleration of the warming if anything. There is nothing even remotely as warm as the last 10 years in the temperature record. If we were cooling or stalling then we wouldn't see this.

Even more short term, looking at 5 year rolling averages, the last 5 years are warmer than the 5 years before that, and they were warmer than the 5 years before that. In fact, last year was the second warmest ever according to NASA.

And also, one more very important thing that people are overlooking, is that there is yet more cherry picking going on. Both NOAA and NASA, probably the worlds leading authorities on climate at the moment, have 2005 as the warmest year ever, not 1998. This makes the whole argument moot anyway, if you use 2005 as the warmest year.

Why do the sceptics always choose the 1998 year and ignore NOAA and NASA?

[Bobby]

I will admit that we are in a notable cooling (or stalling) phase if the next 10 years aren't any warmer than the last 10 years. No sign of that happening yet though.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

And also, one more very important thing that people are overlooking, is that there is yet more cherry picking going on. Both NOAA and NASA, probably the worlds leading authorities on climate at the moment, have 2005 as the warmest year ever, not 1998. This makes the whole argument moot anyway, if you use 2005 as the warmest year.

Why do the sceptics always choose the 1998 year and ignore NOAA and NASA?

These are the same people that predicted that solar cycle 23 would be the busiest of its time with 24 superceding that. 23 was quieter than expeced and 24 is already 15 months late...with no start in sight and is now accepted that it is likely to be very quiet.

They are good but thay aren't nearly always right,....then who is

BFTP

[NorthernRab]

The BBC are extremely biased in some areas. All channels have the inherent bias of those who run the channels. I'd say ITV and Channel 4 in fact are more neutral than the BBC. Anyway, off topic now.

Yes but is entirely incorrect and bad statistics to say that warming has stopped because we haven't yet passed a high point in the past (1998). Climate trends are discovered by averaging long term periods of temperature data. It's not about looking at one single exceptional year. This is the method that is used by scientists all over the world to measure climate. What you have to look at, the only way to see if we are continuing to warm or not, is compare the last 10 years with the 10 years before that. If you do that you will find that the last 10 years are significantly warmer than the 10 years before that. So the period after 1998, the hottest year, was much warmer on average than the 10 years before 1998.

What this tells us that the warming trend has continued onwards since 1998. In fact it shows an acceleration of the warming if anything. There is nothing even remotely as warm as the last 10 years in the temperature record. If we were cooling or stalling then we wouldn't see this.

Even more short term, looking at 5 year rolling averages, the last 5 years are warmer than the 5 years before that, and they were warmer than the 5 years before that. In fact, last year was the second warmest ever according to NASA.

And also, one more very important thing that people are overlooking, is that there is yet more cherry picking going on. Both NOAA and NASA, probably the worlds leading authorities on climate at the moment, have 2005 as the warmest year ever, not 1998. This makes the whole argument moot anyway, if you use 2005 as the warmest year.

Why do the sceptics always choose the 1998 year and ignore NOAA and NASA?

That's my point though, global warming itself has technically stopped compared to 1998, but it hasn't stopped compared to 1988. If we are assuming (hypothetical of course) that 1998 was our new climate, then global warming has stopped. It's kind of a clever bit of spin at worst, or simply an observation that the doomsday scenarios might not be as close as we thought at best.

P.S, come on, ITV? Couldn't have more coroperate interests if it tried.

[PersianPaladin]

"This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998..."

What a load of cr*p. Seriously....has this Mr.Harrabin bumped his head or something?

Why divorce El Nino 98 et al from these warming cycles when the very exarcebation and frequency of ENSO is NOT a lone teleconnection or isolated from other feedback mechanisms.

Edited April 4, 2008 by PersianPaladin

[SnowBear]

For sure, there is plenty yet to learn. Like we're in a car, we can see it is hurtling towards a cliff edge. We've worked out that pushing the gas pedel speeds it up and pushing the brake slows it down. But we're not too sure about what goes on in the engine. What do we do? Wait until we have a full understanding of motor engineering before risking touching that brake pedal?

Hiya Biff, thanks again for your reply.

I can see what you mean with that analogy, but I think like others we can see there is more to your analogy than I think maybe you first envisioned. The whole scenario has many external influences and possible unknowns, Grass or rocks? Wet or dry? An unseen area of sand just before the cliff edge? Maybe just leaving all pedals alone as the car will stop before the cliff anyway? Maybe nothing will stop the car no matter what anyone does?

This I find is the problem with climate change, so many disciplines involved, raising so many many questions and ultimately many many theories.

The end result if we continue along the lines of the car and cliff could be like this..

(And this is in no way me making an analogy as to what will happen btw folks, just a play with this particular analogy and is completely made up )

There is grass and it is wet, the driver does nothing at all as the car has a mechanical failure, there is sand and it slows the car but leaves it teetering on the very edge. Along comes a great storm and blows the car back away from the cliff.

If we change one element of the scenario, even a little bit, it could alter the outcome drastically. I guess the sustainability issue as TWS raises could be like the car running out of fuel, in gear, engine stops dead, car stops dead or slides a little further before stopping, how close to the edge is another matter.

Edited April 5, 2008 by SnowBear

[biffvernon]

Occam's Razor requires we assume the simple outcome.

Splat.

[SnowBear]

In regard to climate change though Biff, I think we need to rethink on using Occam's Razor as we are in danger of oversimplification. We are not talking about a singular mechanism or even a handful, we are talking tens if not hundreds of mechanisms and cycles at play. With the research incomplete in many areas we cannot assume the simplest theory is the correct one. It needs to be simple, but not simpler than what is required to explain what is happening in all areas.

If we look at Particle Physics, originally it was a simple case of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons. But it didnt explain all. Now? We are adding more and more particles and sub-particles, and each time we are really doing the opposite, if something is not explained in the simplest way, we need to look beyond what we have, we add more to explain, the anti razor almost. If something is not explained in three, a forth or fifth and so on is added until we get to a solution.

In your case with the car, in using Occam's Razor and saying it will go splat you are largely ignoring all other possible influences which could or are at play on the car and its surroundings.

Edited April 5, 2008 by SnowBear