General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Thundery wintry showers]

The above analysis is based on the GISS dataset which shows more warming than the NOAA and CRU (Climatic Research Unit) datasets. Compare and contrast with the CRU dataset here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

The CRU version does show evidence of a stagnation over the last decade. Thus, the comment that "it is clear that this is not the case" re. stagnation is true if and only if we take the GISS version of the data as correct, and the CRU version as incorrect. Of course if we remove factors like ENSO, NAO and solar activity then questions like "why have temperatures, at most, stagnated when natural forcings point towards cooling?", in which case we get the conclusion "either some other forcing, such as AGW, is at work in the background, or there is a significant lag of some kind, or both". Personally I have my doubts about whether such lags can explain the current situation (I suspect that AGW is still very much alive), but I am prepared to be convinced otherwise if something sufficiently compelling turns up!

I have no arguments with the rest of the post though.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[masheeuk]

just for the record the powers that be are doing all they can to keep us all alarmed.

Couldn't agree more there has been a continuous stream of warnings od diseases that would wipe us all out.

BSE, the biggest con job ever attempted

SARS was going to wipe everybody out

Bird Flue was on its way from the far east

Swine flu has pandemic status yet less people have died than during a normal winter.

For me the shame is I think warming is happening but feel there are scares being created to make people panic

[Methuselah]

I know it's a tad off-topic, but has anyone seen The Thaw? Solar Cycles and Laserguy'll love it!

[Solar Cycles]

Just thought I'd clarify something that it seems certain contributors to this forum have not grasped - that the global mean temperature is still RISING on average. Below is the graph of global mean temperature, using the data from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ for the last 50 years, which I'm sure everyone is familiar with. It is updated all the way to August 2009. The blue line are the mean annual global temperatures, the orange line is the 5 year running mean and the red line the 10 year running mean. The 2009 data point is based on actual Jan-Aug data, and adding the 10-year averaged monthly means for Sept, Oct, Nov and Dec, with the error bars representing the maximum and minimum values based on the last 10 years (1999-2008) data.

Some have argued that temperatures are stagnating or even declining this decade - it is absolutely clear from this data that this is not the case. The warmest year on record is 2005, and the sequence of 'record' years runs as 2005, 1998, 1990, 1988, 1981, 1980, 1973 (in this dataset). Crucially, following each 'record' year, the temperature is usually lower for a number of years until the record is ultimately broken, something not surprising with stochastically-varying data that is on average increasing. You can scan the graph and find a number of sequences of 4 or 5 years where the temperature is on average declining (e.g. 1981-1986), yet the overall shape of the graph is unequivocally upwardly-trending, as are the running means, taking into account stochastic variation.

I've added regression lines for the last 10, 11 and 20 years to show the trend in recent years. Every one is upwardly-trending by between 0.13 and 0.24C/decade, even the one cherry-picked to start from the anomalous 1998 (in the hope of producing a negative trend). Hence although stochastic variations have taken 2008 and most likely 2009 below the long-term trend, there is nothing in the data to support a stagnation or decline in mean temperature.

(to show the same variations over the last 30 years)

I think some commentators on here are confusing weather (year-on-year variations) with climate (>10 years average). Just because one or two years lie below the current trendline does not make a change in direction of the graph. It is entirely clear that the trend in global mean temperature for the last decade continues to be one of rising temperature.

And before I get crucified for being a 'warmist', or some such rubbish like that, this analysis is based on past data, not models or predictions. Like others in the scientific community, I would absolutely love for temperatures to decline and for us to get cooler winters, and for there to be no link between CO2 and climate. Unfortunately, the data does not support such a conclusion - plot the trend in temperature over the past 50 years with CO2 and any indicator you like of solar or other variation and you'll see which one has the better correlation.

I can also verify for the various deniers out there that there is no such thing as a 'conspiracy' in the scientific community - just a genuine consensus that the world is getting warmer, and that the most likely cause is increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. A consensus does not mean that every last scientist agrees, just that the vast majority do). I am disappointed by the number of posted articles/links here that come from totally unverified sources, using totally unsubstantiated claims suggesting that AGW does not exist/is a myth/conspiracy etc. As others have said, please keep to verifiable sources, and steer clear of opinion pieces that clearly have an agenda (this goes for both pro- AND anti- stances).

For example:

Afraid that report is total garbage and is six years old, badboy657 (and I do not mean to pick on you personally, just the article). The author is cherry-picking individual weather events to suggest that global warming is a fallacy. I could do the same to indicate spectacular warming (and unfortunately the media tend to do this to extremes). Unfortunately, as we all know, weather varies spatially. One region of the world experiences heatwave, another cooler, wetter, drier etc, all at the same time. It is the average of all these weather events globally that is important, as seen in aggregated indices such as the graph above. This accounts for all the spatial variation. Or look at the record for one location over an extended period of time - providing that region's climate follows global trends - not all do due to spatial variations.

Here's hoping it gets cooler soon!

sss

More fudged data from GISS I see!! 13 years of static temps, cannot be hidden by any magicians illusions!

I know it's a tad off-topic, but has anyone seen The Thaw? Solar Cycles and Laserguy'll love it!

Nope I haven't, but you could enlighten me!!

[Bluebeard]

I've been lurking on this thread for a while and I'm just wondering if anyone here has yet picked up on the controversy brewing over the infamous "Hockey Stick" and use of tree-rings as temperature proxies at ClimateAudit. There is a layman's summary available on the Bishop Hill Blog

[Solar Cycles]

I've been lurking on this thread for a while and I'm just wondering if anyone here has yet picked up on the controversy brewing over the infamous "Hockey Stick" and use of tree-rings as temperature proxies at ClimateAudit. There is a layman's summary available on the Bishop Hill Blog

Wattsupwiththat, have been following this closely. Off course our warmists friends will have none of it!

[jethro]

Solar: any chance of stopping "warmist/denier" tags? It doesn't aid conversation, merely stokes antagonism which stifles a lot of debate on here and puts new people off joining in.

What are your thoughts on the tree rings and hockey stick?

Bluebeard: it's great to have you making the step from lurker to poster, welcome aboard. My thoughts on this latest controversy is there does appear to have been rather a lot of cherry picking going on, it may turn out that there's a perfectly reasonable reason why, but so far, I haven't seen any evidence of it.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

[laserguy]

I know it's a tad off-topic, but has anyone seen The Thaw? Solar Cycles and Laserguy'll love it!

Um,no,never heard of it Pete! Let me guess,it's the latest luvvie-fest from Hollywood drawing attention to the 'cause',or propagandist mockumentary from the BBC? Either way,I don't like the sound of it !

[Admiral_Bobski]

Um,no,never heard of it Pete! Let me guess,it's the latest luvvie-fest from Hollywood drawing attention to the 'cause',or propagandist mockumentary from the BBC? Either way,I don't like the sound of it !

Brief synopsis: trouble looms for humanity when the melting Arctic ice exposes a previously trapped giant prehistoric parasite.

Sounds like a larf!

CB

[Solar Cycles]

Solar: any chance of stopping "warmist/denier" tags? It doesn't aid conversation, merely stokes antagonism which stifles a lot of debate on here and puts new people off joining in.

What are your thoughts on the tree rings and hockey stick?

Bluebeard: it's great to have you making the step from lurker to poster, welcome aboard. My thoughts on this latest controversy is there does appear to have been rather a lot of cherry picking going on, it may turn out that there's a perfectly reasonable reason why, but so far, I haven't seen any evidence of it.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

As discussed in the Hockey stick thread, I think using tree rings as proxies, is not the most reliable way of gathering past climatic conditions. All sorts of other factors come into play, such as light, water, etc etc. It's certainly worth following this on WUWT, regardless of which camp you belong too.

[Gray-Wolf]

Yes C-Bob, humanity gets more than the genome from the thawing woolly mammoth...............

Anyhoo's just a reminder for those who finger point at Indo-China as a reason as to not bother reducing our emissions

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/8283909.stm

indeed had we not 'offloaded' our heavy industry/manufacturing sectors our emissions would be much higher. I fail to see how we can feel justified in making China into a baddy because they produce all the 'stuff' we think we need to live in a first world country today.

Supply and demand springs to mind, if we want to help indo-china cut emissions we should reduce our demand for goods from them.............yet another 'wont happen' scenario.

AGW aside does anyone think we will even try to meet any targets we set for the world in Dec?

I certainly don't.

B.A.U. is held up as causing the worst case scenario in our current climate models for climate change but it appears (to me) to be exactly what capitalism/consumerism demands of the world....Ho Hum.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

As discussed in the Hockey stick thread, I think using tree rings as proxies, is not the most reliable way of gathering past climatic conditions. All sorts of other factors come into play, such as light, water, etc etc. It's certainly worth following this on WUWT, regardless of which camp you belong too.

You've made me ask where you keep your TARDIS hidden again, Solar ...What exactly is the best way of gathering information from 100,000 years' ago?

[jethro]

A crystal ball??

[Solar Cycles]

You've made me ask where you keep your TARDIS hidden again, Solar ...What exactly is the best way of gathering information from 100,000 years' ago?

Well it's no more ridiculous, than using a solitary tree as a proxy, as proof that the globe is warmer now than at any other period!!

[jethro]

Yes C-Bob, humanity gets more than the genome from the thawing woolly mammoth...............

Anyhoo's just a reminder for those who finger point at Indo-China as a reason as to not bother reducing our emissions

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/8283909.stm

indeed had we not 'offloaded' our heavy industry/manufacturing sectors our emissions would be much higher. I fail to see how we can feel justified in making China into a baddy because they produce all the 'stuff' we think we need to live in a first world country today.

Supply and demand springs to mind, if we want to help indo-china cut emissions we should reduce our demand for goods from them.............yet another 'wont happen' scenario.

AGW aside does anyone think we will even try to meet any targets we set for the world in Dec?

I certainly don't.

B.A.U. is held up as causing the worst case scenario in our current climate models for climate change but it appears (to me) to be exactly what capitalism/consumerism demands of the world....Ho Hum.

I agree it's lunacy to point fingers at China when it's the rest of the world who say "make this for us, as cheaply as you can".

There are signs of a change coming from China though, they're forging ahead in green technology. I don't for one minute think it's because they're suddenly concerned about the environment or want to comply with Kyoto or son of Kyoto; there's money to be made and they want a slice of the pie.

Doesn't matter what the motive is if it leads to cleaner, greener technology for us all. Look at the examples so far, calculators and digital watches cost a small fortune when they first arrived, China got on the case, pretty soon they were and are as cheap as chips. Solar panels and the like a prohibitively costly at the moment, give China a few years and we'll all be fitting them.

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-17-chinas-rear-view-mirror/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27friedman.html?_r=1&em

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1925804,00.html

[Methuselah]

Well it's no more ridiculous, than using a solitary tree as a proxy, as proof that the globe is warmer now than at any other period!!

Very true!

[laserguy]

Well it's no more ridiculous, than using a solitary tree as a proxy, as proof that the globe is warmer now than at any other period!!

Madness! When the trunk of that innocent tree breaks it'll bring AGW crashing down with it,hopefully. Incredible to think of how much 'weight' it's having to bear. Marvellous! As for Briffa,the impression I get from just one glance is of a tofu chomping,sandal wearing tree-hugger type (he picked the wrong one!) who can't be anything other than a rabid warmist! Sorry Jethro,I know you had a go at SC for using 'that' term earlier. I don't mean to offend by it's use,as I'm sure SC doesn't either,so if you or anyone else can suggest one word which describes those who believe CO2-enhanced warming has/is happening without raising hackles,I'll gladly use it! Mind you,I've gotten quite fond of the 'denier' tag,it'll be all the rage soon and everyone's (well,nearly) gonna want to hop aboard my bus! Be quick,or there'll be standing room only.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Nope, because this "tree rings" thing is not the only evidence for the existence of AGW (though it is a big line of evidence for its proposed intensity). If Steve McIntyre can show that tree rings are not a reliable proxy (and I'm prepared to be convinced either way on this one) it will still not refute AGW.

I say again, LG and to some extent SC, your contributions would be valued far more if you showed a bit more respect for alternative views.

[kippure]

You've made me ask where you keep your TARDIS hidden again, Solar ...What exactly is the best way of gathering information from 100,000 years' ago?

Ice Cores

[Solar Cycles]

Nope, because this "tree rings" thing is not the only evidence for the existence of AGW (though it is a big line of evidence for its proposed intensity). If Steve McIntyre can show that tree rings are not a reliable proxy (and I'm prepared to be convinced either way on this one) it will still not refute AGW.

I say again, LG and to some extent SC, your contributions would be valued far more if you showed a bit more respect for alternative views.

TWS, I have the up most respect, of all those who think differently to I. And it's not a case of refuting AGW, more like calling into question the methods used to gather data. After all tree ring proxies where the defining moment, in convincing us all, that the 20th century was warmer than any other period. This, and all the problems associated with climate modelling, which also has been found wanting, cast a huge question mark over the amount of CO2 induced warming that has taken place.

[jethro]

Going back to the warmer/denialist tags for a moment....

I pick up on it because it splits everyone into two camps, those for and those against - it instantly sets up a combative atmosphere which time again degenerates into ever decreasing circles, leading to the original topic being utterly lost.

I don't think two sides comes anywhere close to covering the myriad of stances on all this. I for one am labelled a denier by some, a warmist by others - I'm a piggy in the middle of no man's land.

I don't think it's necessary to come up with alternative tags because I don't see the need for them at all, why do we have to label folk? Can't we all read their opinions with an open mind without slotting them into a box?

Just to be clear... this isn't MOD Jethro speak, it's always been my opinion.

Moan over....

[Iceberg]

TWS, I have the up most respect, of all those who think differently to I. And it's not a case of refuting AGW, more like calling into question the methods used to gather data. After all tree ring proxies where the defining moment, in convincing us all, that the 20th century was warmer than any other period. This, and all the problems associated with climate modelling, which also has been found wanting, cast a huge question mark over the amount of CO2 induced warming that has taken place.

What rubbish, do you know how many things are used as proxies other than tree rings ?. do you know how many tree rings samples have been taken that show and confirm the temperature trend for the past few hundre years. The figures are in the multiple thousands.

[sunny starry skies]

Madness! When the trunk of that innocent tree breaks it'll bring AGW crashing down with it,hopefully. Incredible to think of how much 'weight' it's having to bear. Marvellous! As for Briffa,the impression I get from just one glance is of a tofu chomping,sandal wearing tree-hugger type (he picked the wrong one!) who can't be anything other than a rabid warmist! Sorry Jethro,I know you had a go at SC for using 'that' term earlier. I don't mean to offend by it's use,as I'm sure SC doesn't either,so if you or anyone else can suggest one word which describes those who believe CO2-enhanced warming has/is happening without raising hackles,I'll gladly use it! Mind you,I've gotten quite fond of the 'denier' tag,it'll be all the rage soon and everyone's (well,nearly) gonna want to hop aboard my bus! Be quick,or there'll be standing room only.

Oh dear. You can't help yourself can you? You mock a greatly-respected member of one of many branches of palaeoclimatology just for how he LOOKS? More than just a tad ad hominem I think. You also think that the whole dataset for the AGW argument is based on dendrochronological records that went into the Mann et al study? The same story can be pulled out of glacier records, ice core records, innumerable lake sediment records from the Arctic, quite apart from tree rings, instrumental temperature data, Arctic sea ice and ecological records. Just have a look at the science. You'll find that it is not the arguments of a biased few, but in the data of nearly every study carried out in the Arctic, from postgraduates to professors, independently carried out, conclusions independently arrived at.

You cannot seriously argue that the current phase we are in is anything other than unprecedented. Well, at least not if you've actually looked at the data gathered by researchers across the globe. As I said in a previous post, I want to be wrong about the CO2 link to climate, but the data from thousands of sites, as well as the straightforward physical basis for the link, says pretty unequivocally otherwise. And I certainly would not go to the Government to be fed my opinions on science, or very much else .

Making the link between AGW and government/media scare-mongering over 'flu or anything else is also unhelpful, as the media do like to hype every last story to the eyeballs to sell more copy. The difference here is that a lot of climatic change has happened (particularly in the Arctic) and is still happening. But of course the media make every (valid) observation of it into some great overblown catastrophe so they sell more copy.

Jethro and Gray Wolf - really good points about our contributions and the India/China issues - it's poor that we have just shipped our pollution overseas, and things aint gonna change for the better (whatever your opinion on AGW, we all agree that reducing polluting emissions is a good thing) until we change our ways... and THAT aint gonna happen until it is economically in our interests to do so....

sss

[stewfox]

just for the record the powers that be are doing all they can to keep us all alarmed.

Couldn't agree more there has been a continuous stream of warnings od diseases that would wipe us all out.

For me the shame is I think warming is happening but feel there are scares being created to make people panic

There is only one thing we know for sure about climate is that it wont always play ball

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2009-05-27-summer-forecast_N.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2009-09-10-summer_N.htm

[Solar Cycles]

What rubbish, do you know how many things are used as proxies other than tree rings ?. do you know how many tree rings samples have been taken that show and confirm the temperature trend for the past few hundre years. The figures are in the multiple thousands.

Aye I do that, and not one of them tells us Jack squat, about past climatic conditions. The whole tree ring proxy data is flawed, from start to finish. Sunlight, water, cloud cover, and a whole host of other third parties determine tree growth!!

Oh dear. You can't help yourself can you? You mock a greatly-respected member of one of many branches of palaeoclimatology just for how he LOOKS? More than just a tad ad hominem I think. You also think that the whole dataset for the AGW argument is based on dendrochronological records that went into the Mann et al study? The same story can be pulled out of glacier records, ice core records, innumerable lake sediment records from the Arctic, quite apart from tree rings, instrumental temperature data, Arctic sea ice and ecological records. Just have a look at the science. You'll find that it is not the arguments of a biased few, but in the data of nearly every study carried out in the Arctic, from postgraduates to professors, independently carried out, conclusions independently arrived at.

You cannot seriously argue that the current phase we are in is anything other than unprecedented. Well, at least not if you've actually looked at the data gathered by researchers across the globe. As I said in a previous post, I want to be wrong about the CO2 link to climate, but the data from thousands of sites, as well as the straightforward physical basis for the link, says pretty unequivocally otherwise. And I certainly would not go to the Government to be fed my opinions on science, or very much else .

Making the link between AGW and government/media scare-mongering over 'flu or anything else is also unhelpful, as the media do like to hype every last story to the eyeballs to sell more copy. The difference here is that a lot of climatic change has happened (particularly in the Arctic) and is still happening. But of course the media make every (valid) observation of it into some great overblown catastrophe so they sell more copy.

Jethro and Gray Wolf - really good points about our contributions and the India/China issues - it's poor that we have just shipped our pollution overseas, and things aint gonna change for the better (whatever your opinion on AGW, we all agree that reducing polluting emissions is a good thing) until we change our ways... and THAT aint gonna happen until it is economically in our interests to do so....

sss

Lake sediments is just as flawed as tree ring proxies, and ice cores don't tell us if it was warmer in the MWP than now!! And the data from thousands of sites you mention are no indicator to the above! Fudged data, and deceitful stories, won't convince the masses! Edited October 2, 2009 by Solar Cycles