Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
May 17 - Etavian
on
Launched my very own online store. -
May 17 - Etavian
on
Launched my very own online store.
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Bishop Hill
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (78)
Actually, I DID start off with 'If some of you' !!
First off, thank you Chuckles for the biggest laugh of the week!
Warmists need only look at AR4 to find that they are mistaken:
"Unprecedented Warming"?
A graph in AR4 shows that the Holocene Interglacial is colder than the previous 4 interglacials.
Case not proven.
"The IPCC is 95% certain that CO2 has caused the warming"? (Well at least that is better than the new Climate Change minister who is 100% certain)
How are they so sure?
Easy: they list all the possible causes that they (think they) fully understand, totally ignore everything else and basically ask "was it volcanos, Solar irradiance or CO2?",There ya go it has to be CO2 :) (as Freedom Lover said it is laughable or it would be if they were not changing or lives because of it)
The influence of the Sun's magnetic field/sunspots etc is totally ignored even though there is a team of 50 scientists at CERN currently proving the mechanism by which sub atomic particles caused by cosmic rays, can cause low level cloud formation.
Something causes the earth to warm about every 100,000 years during ice ages, they dont fully understand that so they ignore it.
Posts by Jeff Severinghaus and Eric Steig at RC on this are a joke. Having realised that the lag of CO2 rises to temperature rises was causing people to question CO2 as the cause rather than the effect, they felt the need to explain.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
(Severinghaus)
First of all, saying “historically” is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn’t really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts.
(Steig partly in response to Congressman Joe Barton)
At the end of each interglacial CO2 continues to rise for anything up to 2500 years (Idso) but during this period temperature falls?
Mailman
YET mention Gore becoming the first carbon billionaire and you get blank looks from alarmists.
How about Al Gore, polluter of Tennessee Rivers? Yes, the Prophet who once said:
The lakes and rivers sustain us; they flow through the veins of the earth and into our own. But we must take care to let them flow back out as pure as they came, not poison and waste them without thought for the future.
--Al Gore in "Earth in the Balance"
The reality here
Mac
We now have FortranGate.
Yeap. Whoever wrote that totally absurd and incorrect statement about the portability of F77 code clearly doesn't know their a$$ from their elbow, and that in turn sheds a very bright light on the rest of the "report".
I spent several years working in the Cornell Computing Center (later the OCS) and ported many thousands of lines of Fortran IV from the CDC 1604 to the IBM 360, which had some serious technical issues (32 bit words instead of 48 bit) but nothing that couldn't be quickly resolved (i.e retyping the variable to Double Precision.)
As Chuckles correctly pointed out F77 is 'More transportable than syphilis' and perhaps more quickly as well.
This looks like a better investigation than the prior ones. The heavy lifting was already done, as they had already cleared Mann on 3 of 4 counts. In addition they made up the counts themselves based on e-mails that they received; there were no formal accusations.
On the remaining count, they accepted that the field is evolving, Mann is getting better, as he now releases code, and the people they interviewed were not as knowledgeable on the subject. How would they know if he sent McIntyre an Excel file or something else?
That one, MikeN, is a provable lie, and a very serious tactical error for Mann to have made.
=======================
Well, that's clear then. Mann's behaviour did not deviate from the "accepted practices within the academic community". Accepted by whom? The liars and cheats in the academic community, of course. Thus the academic community stinks, and those on the investigatory team are as guilty as Mann for bringing science into disrepute. This is the equivalent of the Nazis or Communists investigating themselves and concluding that their nefarious practices are the "accepted practices within the ruling community". Only Lindzen comes out of this with his honour intact: it's quite clear that the committee choked on what he had to say and didn't want to engage with his assessment of their cynicism.
No mention of Mann's censored directory in any of these investigations, I gather.
It also appears Mann selected what emails to turn over to the investigators.
And?
So?
What?
JMurphy: Wegman WAS a NAS chairperson but isn't anymore. Conspiracy anyone ?
JK: So what, he is still extremely credible in the field of the report. And we note that you have no comments about Wegman report. One might think that you find nothing to criticize in view of your criticisms of my Jones quotes.
JMurphy: And the Jones 'quotes' need to be completed with his actual words :
1) From 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
JK: Yep, as I said: Phil Jones finally admitted: 1) From 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
JMurphy: 2) There has been a cooling trend from 2002 (but is not statistically-significant)
"No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant."
JK: Yep, as I said: Phil Jones finally admitted: 2) There has been a cooling trend from 2002 (but is not statistically-significant)
JMurphy: 3) The rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were not statistically significantly different from each other.
(Me, this time - So ?)
JK: You need a so?
This shows that the recent rate of warming is NOT unusual compared to earlier warmings, before much CO2 was released by man, and disproves one frequent claim of the alarmists, namely their claim that the recent warming is especially rapid. That is the so!
JMurphy: 4) The reason that recent warming has been largely man-made is “The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing ...”
"...see my answer to your question D."
That answer :
"When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period."
JK: He still said he believe it was man caused because he/they can’t figure out anything else. That is caveman logic which assigns gods to everything that they don’t understand.
JMurphy: Nothing controversial there - unless you don't believe the planet has been warming.
JK: Actually it is very controversial because Jones just admitted that there is no case for CO2/man caused warming since CO2 increased from 1995 to present, but the temperature rise was too small to be significant. And there has been actual cooling since 2002, but not much.
BTW, his dismissal of solar influence is disingenuous because, reportedly, the IPCC rested its anti-solar case on just one paper and ignored a number of others that found a solar connection.
When one looks at a several centuries long chart of temperature and solar activity, you find a good correlation. This MUST be explained before it can be dismissed as the cause of the recent, not statistically unusual warming and its non-statistically-significant reversal since 2002.
Add this to the fact that warming appears to have stopped, the better correlation between solar activity and climate (than CO2), and the laughable IPCC case for man being the cause (as Jones repeated to the BBC) and there is NO case for man causing warming. Never was, just a bunch of PR by a few money grubbing “scientists” enabled by a lying politician (and apparent assaulter of women) with an emotional slide show and Wall street hucksters.
Mac's hypothesis regarding the possible lockstep between the Penn State Final Report and the Russell Review should be testable by FOI requests to both institutions (Penn State and UEA).
freedom lover wrote :
Add this to the fact that warming appears to have stopped...
Are you being serious ? If so, please provide the figures for the negative/flat trend (significant, of course) up to the most recent month for which there is data.
JMurphy: Are you being serious ? If so, please provide the figures for the negative/flat trend (significant, of course) up to the most recent month for which there is data.
JK: Jones, BBC interview:
I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.
This period [from 2002] is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant."
Therefore: No statistically significant warming from 1995 to 2009 & non statistically significant cooling 2002 to preset.
freedom lover, you stated that "the warming appears to have stopped" so I asked you for the data which showed that (i.e. a significant flat or decreasing trend) up to the present : you used the present tense, after all.
Please provide the evidence.
Or did you mean that the warming APPEARED to have stopped (back in February) if one used a NON-SIGNIFICANT trend ?
Hey, JMurphy
Why don't you show us some evidence that man's CO2 is causing dangerous warming.
Note that this is a multi-part proof.
* Prove that observed temperature increases are real.
* Prove that temperature increases are unusual in a historical context.
* Prove that CO2 actually can cause warming
* Prove the relationship between any given CO2 increase and temperature
* Prove what a dangerous amount of global warming actually is.
* Prove that man's CO2 is responsible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.
JMurphy,
Did you miss the highly prestigious scientist, Kevin Trenberth (Draft Contributing Author for the Summary for Policy Makers, contributing author to Ch 1, a lead author for Ch 3, and contributing author to Ch 7 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4.)? He also appears to think we are not warming:
12 Oct 2009: ...we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. (...) and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. (...) The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. (1255352257.txt) (bold added)
freedom lover, rather than rely on some out-of-context emails (or, rather, what you have read someone else tell you about them), have a look at what he actually meant :
Trenberth is talking about the details of energy flow, which is irrelevant for the observation of global warming.
And before you try to divert attention away from yourself by asking questions, why not answer my question first : "Or did you mean that the warming APPEARED to have stopped (back in February) if one used a NON-SIGNIFICANT trend ?"
JMurphy,
Apparently you missed this part of Trenberth's email:
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
Note the concepts here:
1. There is a lack of warming.
2. We don't know enough about climate and how it works.
3 We don't have adequate data gathering.
OK, freedom lover, you're not interested in facts : only in holding fast to your pre-conceived beliefs. Fine.
To anyone else, however, who wants to know the views of the person who's email has been spun out of context in the denialosphere, here is Trenberth himself explaining :
The quote has been taken out of context. It relates to our ability to track energy flow through the climate system. We can do this very well from 1992 to 2003, when large warming occurred, but not from 2004 to 2008. The quote refers to our observation system which is inadequate to observe Earth's energy flows at the accuracy needed to understand small fluctuations in climate; it does not mean there is no global warming, as is often interpreted by the likes of Danaher. What is does mean is that our observing system is not adequate to fully track the energy in ways that allow us to understand and make best statements about the effects of natural climate variability: the La Niña of 2007-2008, and the current El Niño, for instance.
Of course, if you're only interested in a partial email, you won't be interested in the facts, so don't look.
JMurphy,
You asked for a chart, try this link. Note that it is based on USHCN data, not just some rantings of a blog. Also note that the USHCN adjustments are GREATER than the total warming. So, without adjustments, USHCN shows the present COOLER than the 1930s peak.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/how-the-us-temperature-record-is-adjusted/
I also assume you know that the Medieval warm period was world wide and probably warmer than now. For instance see: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041281.shtml
Again, why should we be concerned about a global temperature that is less than the Medieval warm period and probably less than the Roman, Minoan, Egyptian etc warm periods and less than the 1930s. Especially when the rate of warming is NOT unusual (see Jones above) and has apparently stopped (see Jones above and Trenberth above)? And when man’s guilt is based on the IPCC crowd not being able to figure out anything else?
Oh, and the chief publicist for the warmer’s lied about inventing the internet and lied about his marriage being the model for “Love Story” and lied about CO2 causing temperature in the antarctic ice cores (and several other details in his sci-fi horror film that he pawned off as a documentary) and jets around the world in CO2 spewing aircraft and recently purchased a beach front condo that will soon be underwater (unless he lied about the predicted ocean rise.)
JMurphy Of course, if you're only interested in a partial email, you won't be interested in the facts, so don't look.
JK: Right, I am only interested in the part where he implies the warming has stopped - you do recall that my original point was the lack of warming, don't you?
Trenberth: we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
Note the words: "the lack of warming" - that was my original point that you are trying hard to ignore - another top climate scientist saying there is no warming.
I think MikeN and kim have an excellent point. In the report a simple (and rather minor issue) was presented:
Q: "What is your reply to the email
statements of Dr. McIntyre (a) that he had been referred to an incorrect version of your
data at your FTP site (b) that this incorrect version was posted prior to his request and
was not formulated expressly for him and (c) that to date, no source code or other
evidence has been provided to fully demonstrate that the incorrect version, now deleted,
did not infect some of Mann's and Rutherford's other work?"
A.(partial) The issue of an "incorrect version" of the data came about because Dr. McIntyre hadrequested the data (which were already available on the FTP site) in spreadsheet format,
and Dr. Rutherford, early on, had unintentionally sent an incorrectly formattedspreadsheet.
This is an issue which has been documented in 2003 by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Response.Oct29.pdf
From this document:
- We did not ask for an Excel spreadsheet nor did we receive one [they received a txt file]. And we did not approach Mann’s associate, Mann did.
-Rutherford: “the proxies aren’t actually all in one ftp site (at least not to my knowledge)”
Its been bugging me all day but why would Mann, in an investigation of his academic conduct, say something that clearly does not correspond with the existing record?
Interesting case, somewhat OT (h/t to someone on CA)
http://www.gatewaycoalition.org/files/Gateway_Project_Moshe_Kam/Resource/DBCre/serge.html
Therefore: No statistically significant warming from 1995 to 2009 & non statistically significant cooling 2002 to preset.
Or alternatively... non statistically significant warming from 1995 to 2009 and no statistically significant cooling from 2002 to present.
Or alternatively... statistically significant warming from 1975 to present
I also assume you know that the Medieval warm period was world wide and probably warmer than now. For instance see: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041281.shtml
This paper relates to China, not to global temperatures, and says that temperatures in some regions may have been comparable to the late 20th century, not that they were probably warmer.
andrew adams This paper relates to China, not to global temperatures, and says that temperatures in some regions may have been comparable to the late 20th century, not that they were probably warmer.
jk Yes, but most people acknowledge a Medieval warm period in Europe & N. America, so showing it in China is an important indicator that it was probably world wide, not just Europe as the warmists like to claim.