Has global warming stopped?

Published 19 December 2007

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'. Plus read Mark Lynas's response

Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?

Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.

With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.

But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.

In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface causing some heat to be retained.

Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble.

The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.

But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.

The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.

The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.

But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.

It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?

Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so.

Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.

I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.

The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.

David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).] His website is www.davidwhitehouse.com

Post this article to

1290 comments from readers

JZ Smith
19 December 2007 at 21:18

Mr Whitehouse,

Too bad the AGW has already left the station. As a skeptic moving further toward skepticism, I am disappointed that so many scientists have apparently accepted the finality of AGW. Those most strongly touting the "truth" of AGW are forcing themselves into the position of eventually either flip-flopping on the issue, or, more disturbingly, working to silence those voices with whom they disagree.

jimbeaux
19 December 2007 at 21:34

I'm confused. On one hand, I've read that 2007 is shaping up to be the 8th warmest year on record, and that seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and the 10 warmest have all occurred since 1997.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/recor...

On the other hand, we have this info here.

So a poor layman like me is confused by the contradictory stories. Which is correct? Can references be posted?

NORMSMITH
20 December 2007 at 03:04

Everything makes sense when you look at the graphs from the Vostok Ice cores. Earth goes through a predictable pattern of long ice ages which are separated by comparatively warm intervals called interglaciations. The ice ages last about 100,000 years and the warm intervals last about 12,000 years.

This pattern has nothing to do with human activity, as it goes back before modern man was here. CO2 always rises with the temperature.

Our current warm interval - The Holocene - is almost over. The previous warm interval - The Eemian - was way hotter than todays Holocene. If humans had been around 125,000 years ago there would have been some Al Gore type pointing to the rising temperature and CO2 and blaming it on human activity.

I encourage all Global Warming alarmists to look at the Vostok graphs. You will quickly see that everything happens in a natural cycle. Read up on the |Holocene and the Eemian.

Nothing new is happening. Mother Nature has her own patterns we barely understand. Humans don't have the ability to control the climate. That's ego and self-congratulatory backslapping taken to an unprecedented level.

And one more thing - look at the Sea Level history charts that go back 18,000 years. Now there's a big reality check if you can handle it. The charts show a trend that is decreasing and about to plateau.

Wake up and don't get suckered in by the carbon-taxers.

Frank
20 December 2007 at 08:30

This will not suit Gordon Brown. No tax revenue in it.

DennisA
20 December 2007 at 10:48

Since 1659, the hottest Central England temperatures are:

winter - 1869, followed by 1834

spring - 1893 followed by 1945

summer - 1976 followed by 1826

autumn - at last success for global warming, 2006, but followed by 1730, 1731 and 1729. This year ranked number 42 out of 349 years.

mitchy
20 December 2007 at 13:33

I think I'll reserve judgement for now, 7 years isnt a long time to suddenly decide global warming isnt happening.

Fact is, there are lots of factors affecting the planetary climate, its orbit, the sun's cycles, and the Earth's own natural cycles. However, I do not accept the arguement that our presence is not sufficient to affect the climate. I think this is a naive and frankly parochial view which fails to take into account the very clear effects we are indeed having on the planet. Massive deforestation, dying coral reefs, rampant loss of biodiversity, atmospheric and aquatic pollution are all having an effect, which is undoubtably contributing to what is happening overall.

Dont get me wrong, I'm not of the view that we are the sole cause of climate change, but I do think we are messing about with a delicately balanced system and, given enough time, we will eventually tip the system beyond the effects solely caused by natural oscillations.

Regardless of any of this, another inescapable fact is that we (particularly in the west) are consuming natural resources at an utterly unsustainable rate, which is reason alone to curb our excesses and try to think beyond immediate short-term gratification. China and India are catching up fast, so we really need to lead by example and start being a bit more sensible with our resources, before we start warring with each other over dwindling resources (like we arent already).

Mike
20 December 2007 at 13:51

Thank you Mr. Whitehouse.

In a day and age where the politics surrounding this issue have the potential to be far deadlier than the topic at hand, I am thankful for people like you.

Mike in California

sprungmonkey12
20 December 2007 at 13:53

jimbeaux - I'm with you, I'd like clarification on the conflicting reports, however, the link article you referred to is for US temps, not global temps. Perhaps that is where the difference lies. Wish someone would back this up. I need some ammunition before visiting some "over-the-top" global warming alarmists relatives for Christmas. We have to pack our own TP as they ration everyone's squares. True story.

SCEPTIC
20 December 2007 at 14:36

YOUR ARTICLE IS PAID GOVERNMENT NONSENSE

GLOBAL WARMING IS MEASURED NOT ONLY BY TEMPERATURES BUT ALSO BY AMOUNT OF MELTING ICE GO TO THIS LINK AND SEE YOURSELF......

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/

thuntley
20 December 2007 at 15:18

Hey SCEPTIC, you reference a site supportec by the New York Times. Not necessarily what one would call an "unbiased scientific resoure". Why not check out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They've got more weather data than anyone. Chillin'Out

david
20 December 2007 at 16:21

It seems odd Mr Whitehouse doesn't provide any data to support his idea. Is it because they don't?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Cybertiger
20 December 2007 at 16:39

I agree - global warming is cobblers. Our global problems are too many people and rapidly diminishing fossilised carbon energy. George Bush may spew a lot of hot air but let us be confident that he will do something about our little problems.

drpaulz
20 December 2007 at 17:06

Using year to year measures to determine the trajectory of global climate shifts is akin to measuring the effectiveness of a weight loss scheme over several hours. Take a step back from the data and the trends are clear. Average global temperatures are rising as was forecast by James Hansen, and others, due to increased carbon content in the atmosphere. The debate is over. It is time to adapt and respond. And to complete the analogy: if you are much more corpulent today than 2 years ago it matters little if your weight has remained constant for 7 hours.

DrColes
20 December 2007 at 17:36

Political propaganda is NOT science. UK court says Gore is a fraud. August 2007 Update: Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming Not True. Unfortunately, Hansen is a political hack of George Soros. Further, flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros. In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework; a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/ Remember CONSENSUS is NEVER science it’s always a POLITICAL STATEMENT (a Party Line).

Eric the Half a Bee
20 December 2007 at 17:59

Much as I'd like the finger-wagging doom-mongers to be wrong, I'm afraid this doesn't do it. As a few previous commentators have noted, it's just not possible to draw any conclusions even from a decade of data if it has large errors associated with it. And this does. Boring stat fact: the standard deviation of the annual measurement is around 0.05 deg. Compare that to the latest IPCC report (2007) temp rise trend of 0.2 deg/decade, ie 0.02 deg/yr. In other words, the predicted signal is less than half the size of the error associated with it, so it's just not possible to tell if the overall trend is right even over a decade or so - it is, as we statisticians say, "lost in the noise".

Effrontery
20 December 2007 at 18:18

Can we keep this simple, please? Are we doomed or what?

Effrontery
20 December 2007 at 18:20

PS - these charts, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ referenced above, seem to show that it's getting warmer. What's wrong with them?

JZ Smith
20 December 2007 at 18:48

"It seems odd Mr Whitehouse doesn't provide any data to support his idea. Is it because they don't?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/"

The data referenced above has been shown to be manipulated heavily by James Hansen, from NASA, who could not be said to hold an objective POV.

To wit: http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=40

Maz
20 December 2007 at 19:02

We're not doomed. We need to look after our environment like any other precious resource. Of course we have an impact on the planet but to suggest we are catastrophically changing our climate is absolute cobblers. There is simply no evidence that what we are seeing is not just natural climate variability with possibly a small and ultimately limited superimposition related to human activity. Not necessarily a bad thing especially since the only certainty about future climate is that we WILL have another iceage. It will cause untold misery and destruction wildly exceeding anything the current doomsayers are trying to scare us with! Evidence of warming (melting Arctic ice - not Antarctic by the way, the sea ice there is actually growing and that continent is cooling not warming) is not evidence that we are causing the warming. The commonest mistake, even in comments above!

Regarding the temp record - this is contentious to say the least. Do you believe the land based (remember the planet is mainly ocean) station data? Do you believe that the data is adequately corrected for urban heat islands? We can't tell because the chaps that do this refuse to make public how they do it!! Do you believe the satellite record which covers the whole globe but only goes back to 1979?

The Hadley Centre in East Anglia (funded by the Govt to investigate, monitor etc Climate Change) publish their own record http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/Ha... The levelling off in temp is clearly seen. But we clearly need more data to establish a meaningful trend. If the temps start to drop as the drop in solar activity starts to take effect then the global warmers clearly have a problem and it could be Millenium Bug all over again. Except this scam is much bigger.

robrtl
20 December 2007 at 19:19

please ,does rising co2 precede rising temperatures or do temperatures precede rising co2

Maz
20 December 2007 at 19:48

Over the last century the graph for temperature and the graph for CO2 actually bear little resemblance to each other.

If you look at ice core data to determine this relationship over the last series of ice ages then it appears that the temp rise leads the CO2 rise by about 800yrs. The logic is that the warming oceans released CO2 because the gas is less soluble in the warmer water.

Patrick Hadley
20 December 2007 at 20:33

I don't think any one has replied to Jimbeaux, about how can this year be the 7th warmest etc if global warming has stopped.

It is certainly true that 1998 at 0.546 degrees Celsius above average was the warmest year since proper records began to be kept in 1850. Global warming is a bit like putting on weight. Once the pounds are on you do not start back at your ideal weight next year. The warming that happened recently will have its effect for some time to come. However using the Met Office Data these are the figures for how much the years 2001 -2006 were above average: 0.409, 0.464, 0.473, 0.447, 0.482, 0.422. The figure for 2007 is estimated tobe 0.41 above average. The trend is now actually moving downwards (admittedly not yet in a statistically significant way).

All of these figures are higher than any other year in the list since 1850, except 1998. That is why we see some effects of warmer temperatures. However the word warming implies that we are getting more warm. David Whitehouse is therefore correct when he says that global warming has stopped. We are still warm, but we are not getting any warmer. The IPCC report asumed a trend of ever rising temperatures which is not happening at present.

juchestyle
20 December 2007 at 20:48

Hey Jim,

This is obviously one of those websites that is sponsored by people who are ok with selling out the human race by misrepresenting the truth. You are right, the last couple years have been the warmest on record. And to clarify the article, we should be in a cooling period according to the natural cycles, but we are warming, that is proof positive that we are destroying our exosphere. I am not worried about the earth it will be here long after we are extinct.

JZ Smith
20 December 2007 at 20:52

More interesting reading on this subject:

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=445

Patrick Hadley
20 December 2007 at 22:39

JZ Smith, thank you for the link.

drpaulz is obviously exaggerating for effect when he compares the time periods of warming with a diet. He says that it is like getting excited after 7 hours compared with 2 years of fatness. Well not really. The exceptional warming occurred between 1978 and 1998 - a period of 20 years. It was only during this period that global temperatures left the range it had been in since 1850. The flattening of the smoothed curve has been going on now for nearly 10 years. So a fairer description would be to say that we have stopped putting on weight for a year after two years of pigging-out and gaining weight pretty fast. We are still plumper than ever, but perhaps the tide has turned.

bobclive
20 December 2007 at 22:52

Many temperature stations in rural areas have been closed within the last few years leaving mostly urban stations which are in heavily built up areas such as airports which suffer from the UHI effect, this would give a bias upwards for global temps as has been seen prior to 2001.

Could it be that over the last 7 years the temps have stabilised at the higher level because the weather stations that are left are now predominantly urban.

Could it be that the only actual temperature rise has been the urban heat island effect, that has been recently shown in China to be 65~80% of the overall warming in 1961~2000, and about 40~61% of the overall warming in 1981~2000.

Ref.: Ren, G. Y., Z. Y. Chu, Z. H. Chen, and Y. Y. Ren (2007), Implications of temporal change in urban heat island intensity observed at Beijing and Wuhan stations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L05711, doi:10.1029/2006GL027927

JZ Smith
20 December 2007 at 22:54

Mr. Hadley,

Well put, but don't forget that CO2 emissions for the 1998-2007 time period continued to rise, as far as I know consistent with prior years, yet global temps were flat. That is not a strong argument that CO2 from human activity causes AGW. In fact, as has been noted above, CO2 levels typically follow rather than precede temperature changes. Perhaps CO2 levels will soon flatten or decline??

joseph_joseph1@hotmail.com
20 December 2007 at 23:09

Now that the Arctic ice is melting, we need to open the Arctic up to oil drilling. We need cheaper oil close to home. And because there are no trees there, we will not have to worry about the tree huggers.

shibeg
21 December 2007 at 02:30

George Monbiot always provides references for his articles. Where are Mr. Whitehouses's article references ?

grantnw
21 December 2007 at 04:23

there's absolutely no doubt that central england is warming ... the record is here:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

owl
21 December 2007 at 07:00

Drinking this koolaide, global warming stops every night.

Make the El Nino anomaly of 1998 the base ref point. Change the reference frame to work the angles. Ignore the trashheap of past cooling-soon claims that never materialized. Hire gunslingers to pinprick the science. Misquote and misrepresent both the science and the critics as required.

Congrats, we're now on a course of overdrive mainlining greenhouse gases into the system. Sure hope all your re-assurances are valid - there's no mulligan on this one.

IanB
21 December 2007 at 09:37

The flat to downward trend of surface temperatures suggests, to this geoscientist at least, that the effectiveness of CO2 as an agent to heat the planet (or more accurately to retain the heat energy in the atmosphere for longer) has been significantly over-stated by the IPCC and the computer models used to project temperature.

One thing that really surprises me is that, whilst the topic of global warming was moving up the political agenda, the number of weather stations actually measuring temperature globally was decreasing, with about a 50% drop in the early 90s, principally in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and particularly in the high latitude rural locations where the signal of atmospheric warming would be strongest. Surely making sure that the maximum and highest quality real world data is obtained is essential to support the AGW hypothesis.

The calculation (or more realistically, model construction) of the Earth's surface temperature includes mathematical/computational corrections to allow for this, but are difficult to validate, because what is the right answer? Something worth considering whenever you see a comment of how (something like) 15 of the warmest 20 years occurred since 1990, is that this could to some extent be an artefact of the correcions applied to the raw data.

mikh
21 December 2007 at 09:48

"The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" H L Mencken

Maz
21 December 2007 at 09:52

Central England is hardly global, Grantnw!

You provide the link to the Hadley Centre for the CET series. The only value in this series is its continuity and duration. But as Philip Eden points out on his excellent website http://www.climate-uk.com/page5.html the nature of this series is not without controversy.

Whilst you were browsing the Hadley Centre (Met Office) site for the CET why didn't you have a look at their own (albeit corrected ?How) Global Temp Series. I provided the link earlier but here it is again http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/Ha... I think you'll find the data behind Mr Whitehouse's article that some posters here seem to think does not exist. Regards.

Antipodes
21 December 2007 at 10:14

Qualified:

It is certainly untrue that "the science is settled" - science is never settled and in this case it is far from settled, starting with the basic spectroscopy. If you read any text book on climatology, you will also conclude that climate is above all a "chaotic system", meaning that responses to several factors are non-linear. What is absolutely settled for global warming and anything else is that once an issue has been politicised, knowledge goes out the window. Specifically, the panic-mongers lie, most conspicuously about the "hockey stick effect" (sharp global temperature rise) now proven to be an artifact (look up Steve McIntyre, Toronto) and unaccountably removed from its pride of place in global-warming publicity.

johnmarshall940
21 December 2007 at 10:36

This intense argument is similar to the one in the 50's and 60's about Plate Tectonics. The only problem is that governments have jumped onto the band wagon and legislating left, right, and center for no good reason.

Jane Greene
21 December 2007 at 10:38

This article is a complete load of old cock and I'm horrified the New Statesman ran it!

puzzle270
21 December 2007 at 11:04

a commercial glasshouse is a closed system and in many currently used for food production co2 is raised up to 1500 ppm because the plants grow quicker, what is noticeable however there appears to be no increase in temperature at 1500 ppm compared with a standard glasshouse at 380ppm. can someone please explain why !

revel
21 December 2007 at 11:25

Congratulations Mr Whitehouse. Nowadays, it takes a brave person to point out the Emeror has no clothes.

Environmentalist priests now talk of Climate Change rather than Global Warming. They are 100% correct simply because climate has always changed and will always change. What they fail to prove is a causal relationship between human activity and climate change. Showing correlations, especially over short periods, is proof of nothing.

Indeed temperatures have changed but seldom show increases in CO2 preceding temperature increases and vice versa.

For example temperatures rose significantly after the centuries of the little Ice Age ended in the mid-19th century preceding the rapid increase in use of fossil fuels in the Industrial Revolution.

We should expect substantial rises in temperature over the next decade as we move into the Solar Maximun Cycle.

It requires a leap of faith, unsupported by scientific evidence, to believe humans can exert any significant influence either way on temeratures and climate.

RichardSCourtney
21 December 2007 at 11:48

Several persons here seem to think there is an inconsistency between the global temperature having flat-lined for the last 7 years and the warmest years since 1880 being recent. Not so.

Mean global temperature (MGT) has risen (with stops-and-starts) for the last 300 years as the globe has warmed from the Little Ice Age (LIA) when the Thames froze solid each winter. Around 1700, Londoners used to have “Ice Fairs” on the frozen Thames each year. The last Ice Fair was held in 1814, and the Thames has not frozen solid since. Of course the warmest years are recent because they are near the end of that warming trend that is recovery from the LIA.

The existence of global warming (GW) is not evidence of man-made global warming known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW) because warming of the Earth does not prove that human activity warmed it. At issue is whether human activity is or is not affecting the changes to the Earth’s temperature that have always happened naturally.

However, AGW asserts that human emissions of greenhouse gases will inevitably cause warming. But MGT reached a maximum in 1998 (an El Nino year) fell back in 1999 and recovered to nearly the 1998 value in 2000. Since then, MGT has been constant.

For data, methods and graphs see

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txt

The cessation of global warming in 1998 is not consistent with the AGW hypothesis. But very little is consistent with the AGW hypothesis. For example the following facts do not support the scare.

Sceptical arguments concerning anthropogenic global warming (AGW)

The history of global temperature is not consistent with the suggestion that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (notably carbon dioxide) govern global temperature. For example, mean global temperature has not again reached the high it did in 1998 (an El Nino year) and it has been stable for the last 6 years despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of by 4% since 1998. (Assuming the measurements can be trusted)

The regions of warming across the Earth are not consistent with AGW as projected by climate models. For example, global temperature has not increased since 1998 because, while the northern hemisphere has warmed, the southern hemisphere has cooled. Global warming was supposed to be global, not hemispheric. And the expected greatest warming of the atmosphere at altitude near the equator has not happened: indeed, radiosonde and MSU data both suggest a slight cooling of the atmosphere at altitude near the equator.

The bi-stability of the climate system over geological ages despite gross changes (e.g ~30% increase in solar radiative forcing) suggests that the climate system is not subject to disturbance by relatively small effects such as increased radiative forcing (of ~0.4%) from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

Available evidence from ice cores and from analyses of recent atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations indicate that changes to the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration follow changes to temperature. A cause cannot follow its effect.

No unprecedented climate changes have been observed in recent decades or centuries. Hence, there is no evidence that AGW has altered natural climate variability.

There is no evidence that AGW has altered the rate of sea level rise. Indeed, measurements of sea level rise indicate it has not.

There is no evidence that AGW has altered the incidence or the severity of extreme weather events. Indeed, hurricane frequencies and intensities have reduced in recent decades.

It remains to be proven that the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is a result of human activity and historic measurements of carbon dioxide concentration suggest that the concentration was higher in the nineteenth century (before significant human emissions) than now.

The available data of global climate are unreliable because they are based on imperfect measurements, are compiled using a variety of unsure compilation methods, and are biased (e.g. by the urban heat island – UHI – effect). Hence, the asserted recent changes to global temperature are not known with any certainty.

Cloud effects (e.g. Lindzen Iris) could cancel any AGW.

Observed climate variability over geological time is not explicable by the assumption that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations determine global temperature. But the observed climate variability over geological time may be explicable by other hypotheses that remain to be tested (e.g. the Svensmark hypothesis).

A computer model’s output is only reliable to the degree that the model’s performance is validated. The computer models of the atmosphere are simplistic, contain gross assumptions and are not validated. Therefore, outputs of those models are evidence of how the models perform and are not evidence of anything concerning the world’s climate.

I – and many other scientists – do not accept that the above facts suggest a need for precipitate and damaging economic actions such as constraint of greenhouse gas emissions.

All the best

Richard

revel
21 December 2007 at 11:54

The Mediaeval Warm Period (11th to 14th Centuries) saw average temperatures significantly higher than at present. Without the assistance of industrially produced CO2 increases and human intervention.

revel
21 December 2007 at 12:38

If Greenpeace, Al Gore acolytes and the motley gang of pseudo scientists (who claim consensus for their views) want to make sacrifices on the altars of their climate gods to avert the ravages of climate, that's their affair.

But it becomes sinister once they subvert politicians and others who have the power to compel the rest of us to comply with their superstitions and prescribed behaviour.

Mankind has always flourished and prospered in warmer times. So I say let's hope the temperatures do in fact rise.

There is no evidence of past warm periods producing all the perils predicted by the environmental fundamentalists.

If the Arctic melts completely, sea levels will not rise significantly because the Arctic Cap is a mass of floating ice. That indeed is why Al Gore bemoans the melting of 40% of the Arctic already, but has no explanation why sea levels haven't risen yet. Perhaps it's only the second 40% that has this effect.

Also plants thrive with more CO2. Their growth is more luxuriant. Animals and humans thus have more food.

It's great we are experiencing a revival of higher C02 levels approaching levels experienced many times in the past.

Why are we shackling our economies and retarding growth to pander to those who prescribe behaviour that is clearly designed to impoverish us?

Cybertiger
21 December 2007 at 12:56

How will the Americans power their F16 fighter bombers when the oil runs out?

stargazer
21 December 2007 at 13:05

In say 50 years time this warming stuff will be brought out in classrooms. The kids being taught how science 'died' and mass hysteria took over around the 'turn of the century'. There has been no global warming for almost 10 years.1998 being the most recent warmest year. With the 1930's being the warmest decade and 1934 the warmest year. All this will turn out to be caused by the Sun...the Sun drives the climate as it always has. and the temp. goes up and down. Each of the last four interglacial's reached higher temps. than our current one. The temp has been higher at least 11 times during the past 10,000 years. Over the past 1000 years the medieval period being up to 2 deg C warmer than now...at the end of this period we had the 'little ice age' with very cold times between 1400 and 1850 when the temp. started to rise again. ~1850 is the date beloved by the AGW's they show this graph to 'prove' the temp.had gone up since... We can live with warm we should be glad it is. I think that the Sunspot-cosmic ray-cloud connection will turn out to be the 'smoking gun'. That said the next solar cycle (24) may be 'low' and the following one (25) lower still. This is from new research on a solar sub-surface 'conveyor' that has slowed in recent times. There is a pattern here (as there always is)... and I fear the immanent onset of a 'maunder' type sunspot minimum which bought on the little Ice age... We can live with warm...but millions may suffer (and worse) if we indeed get years/decades of extended cold...power/gas outages, crop failures, food/water shortages,all forms of transport snowed to a halt etc.And after this global warming stuff...who would now believe any scientist who says 'well we got it wrong... and forget what we said about warming ! global cooling is on its way so we must make it law to put Co2 into the atmosphere to counter it. We are being conned.... anyone interested please cut and paste these links onto your browser to see that there is no scientific consensus. The climate IS indeed changing but then it always has.

See here http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968 http://icecap.us/ http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ http://www.junkscience.com/ http://www.climateaudit.org/

The so call scientific 'consensus is actually only about 2,500 people... and not all of them are scientists. Here is a list of 20,000 scientists who think that the 2,500 are WRONG http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Here is more... including the eminent professor, Freeman Dyson http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/pol/508587158.html There are many more lists like this from PHD's from almost every country.... So much for consensus !!!!

cronopio
21 December 2007 at 13:29

I'm seeing claims and counterclaims that are equally hysterical. It all boils down to who you trust to give you reliable information, or whether you enter the debate with preconceived notions. I have no personal opinion on global warming.

Call me crazy (and I'm sure some of you will) but I believe in the self-regulating qualities of Wikipedia, which states in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c...:

"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate."

Since the article does not have a 'disputed' or similar status, I'm inclined to believe dozens of groups of professional climatologists over a BBC journalist with a degree in astrophysics.

bitin
21 December 2007 at 13:36

I think that the global warming phenomenon is way less related to climate change than it is related to the mass psychology of "Western" mind:

The logic evolves the following way

a. we (Western civilization) are evil

b. therefore we inflict evil changes on the world

c. but we can do something about it

d. let's reverse these changes

Enjoy

bsacr2007
21 December 2007 at 13:50

People can absorb the extreme predictions that organisations like the Met Office blithely produce at the beginning of one year,

"2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998"

only to have them dismissed at the end of the year as tosh: 2007 was statistically no different from 2006, 2005, etc..

And yet, are we just supposed to

- "wear it"

- to accept that "The Science"TM is settled

- individually and collectively obsess about our carbon footprint(s)

- allow our politicians to pontificate with every scientifically illiterate bone in their collective body?

The time has come for the scientifically literate amongst us to forcefully argue against anyone who indulges in scare-mongering from whatever side:

when the science does not support them.

The IPCC has never made a climate prediction since it was founded but does less to prevent its scenarios/**projections** from being treated as predictions the further you get away from its underlying Reports.

It selects the scientists to undertake the work, and write the chapters, which are not subject to proper peer review themselves (with original authors rejecting comments as they see fit), and avoids contentious issues by sticking with the dogma that the GHG aspect is decisive: thus ignoring large swathes of properly peer-reviewed material that contradicts this view.

And then of course, there is the Summary for Policymakers for each Working Group...

But then what do you expect when the goal of the IPCC is "to find consensus": the extent to which this is its raison d'etre is the extent to which it ought to fail in being regarded as a "scientific entity".

Really it is this blurring of science and politics that is damaging both AND our collective understanding of the issue.

"Investigative journalism" into the IPCC?

Why not start here -- at least you'll steal a march on the BBC. The House of Lords Report from 2006 and Lord Monckton's ongoing efforts might be a place to kick off.

"What? Unthinkable!" you say?

Well not, I wager, from here on in: 2007 will be seen as the high water mark for the anthropogenic global warming "theory".

In fact, Bali (which thankfully doesn't really promise an awful lot without EVERYONE getting on board - vanishly small probability in itself) points the way: realism has just started to kick in.

"Dissent is the native activity of the scientist, and it has got him into a good deal of trouble in the last years. But if that is cut off, what is left will not be a scientist. And I doubt whether it will be a man."

Jacob Bronowski

"No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power."

Jacob Bronowski

truf76
21 December 2007 at 13:54

It is astounding that such an ill conceived article can find its way into the pages of the New Statesman.

justaman37
21 December 2007 at 14:01

Everyone blames the warming on humans but they never want to discuss the repeated global warming and cooling of the past which has been much worse than now. They cry that Lake Chad is drying up be cause of “man” but Lake Chad has dried up about 6 times in the last 3,000 years do to repeated global warming. It is not new. Global warm or global cooling might kill us but guess what … it is going to happen. All indications are this is a normal minor warming that will be followed by a minor cooling. But there is no money or control in that. There is only money and control in crisis.

scott
21 December 2007 at 14:05

Our local high school participated in a government sponsored science program called "GLOBE". They faithfully recorded air temperatures (high/low/noon) for 12 years, even during vacations and summer breaks. No matter how the numbers crunched- no evidence for rising temperatures. Curious, we tapped into the data for all the other school's data participating- no evidence. We chalked it up to the fact that data since 1994 isn't a good enough time period ( but it feels like it when your doing the work).

ckingballwin
21 December 2007 at 14:08

i appreciate the article but everything that was stated relative to temperatures presumes that we can accurately measure the earths temps to within .5 degrees or closer. this is simply not known. the data that is being used for the purposes of measuring the surface temps has to many problems with it to accurately measure worldwide average temps (if such a measurement is even possible) and even if we could measure it we have no idea what "normal' should be.

Chris in Utah
21 December 2007 at 14:20

Two comments:

1) The usually very conservative magazine Business Week ran a cover story on climate change in 2004 that sets the issue out very reasonably.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_33/b3896001_...

2) Even if one accepts Whitehouse's conclusions (which I do not), the fact remains that an economy based on inefficient use of fossil fuels is, well, it's stupid. We have the smarts and the means to transition to a sustainable economy based on other energy sources. That transition will be marked by economic opportunity for those businesses smart enough to seize the moment. And the end result will be a less polluted world. That's good for all us, humans and nonhumans alike.

So we can begin this transition now or not. I say begin now.

Chris in Utah

Maz
21 December 2007 at 14:37

To Jane Green who wrote

"This article is a complete load of old cock and I'm horrified the New Statesman ran it!" and

to truf76 who wrote

"It is astounding that such an ill conceived article can find its way into the pages of the New Statesman."

You epitomise what's wrong with the Climate Change issue. You bemoan the fact that someone has dared publish and speak out against your firmly held beliefs but provide precious little by way of evidence for your point of view.

Do you just accept what "authorities" (whoever you perceive them to be) tell you? How about figuring things out for yourself. If you already have, why not tell how or why you reached your conclusions? Have you anything interesting to back up your point of view?

Unfortunately, your current approach (and those of many others) is to conveniently say "the debate is over, let us tell you all how we think you should change your lifestyle (to save the planet - sic)".

Perhaps that is, in the end, the actual point of it all.

Norm K
21 December 2007 at 14:48

The harsh reality of the physics of the Earth is that there is a limited amount of energy radiated by the Earth that can be captured by CO2.

This limits the possible warming from atmospheric CO2 to about 2.6°C and over 2/3 of this has been captured already.

Because of the logarithmic decay in effect from increasing CO2 a doubling of CO2 to 760ppmv is limited to a maximum of 0.12°C of global temperature increase.

None of the climate models that predict several degrees of increase take this limitation into consideration and are based on a limitless linear relationship with global temperatures.

This is why the models predict that the current massive increases in global emissions should be producing a significant rise in global temperatures, but as your article points out the global temperature has stayed constant.

The IPCC has managed to hide this fact by switching to a decadal average for temperature that gives no representation of the last 5 years of reduced warming.

Global warming will officially come to an end on January 1, 2009 when this decadal average will no longer be propped up by the temperature spike from the 1998 el Nino, and the IPCC will be forced to admit that the drop in global temperature on their own manipulated statistical representation signals the official end of global warming.

Straydingo
21 December 2007 at 15:33

Jane Greene states that this article is rubbish and that she is horrified that the New Statesman has run it.

Jane what is more horrifying is the fact that you, and the rest of the Global Warming Scare Mongering Community, feel that there should be no debate or challenging of the current thinking (or Group Think to be more precise) on this subject.

Tell me, would you have been one of the supporters of the then leading scientific community that challenged Christopher Columbus’s view that the world was not flat?

Of course, I respect the fact you are entitled to your opinion, but please be reciprocal in allowing other equally educated people have theirs.

crakes
21 December 2007 at 15:42

The satellite measures, the reduction of weather stations, the rural vs. urban measures all sound nice... but we are missing all that is right in front of us:

The polar ice cap IS shrinking. Ski lodges are closing (except for those at the highest altitudes). Snow melt sources of water are diminishing. My mountain region in Blacksburg VA (hardly an urban area) is warmer, with new record heat being set each year, and less snow than in the past (records show it). That we are getting warmer is real... Look at the charts or look out the window! I recall a story about monks using the bible to argue how many teeth were in a horses mouth... Are the scientists haveing a similar religious debate? Looking out my window the contination of the warming effect is pretty obvious... It hasn't stopped.

Don
21 December 2007 at 16:07

Once again the corrupt and dysfunctional UN is trying to force it’s will on nations. But why is this body so concerned with “global warming”. There is no money for these corrupt politicians in it……or is there? "The success of the conference signifies that the world is ready to take on active efforts, such as technology investments, to solve the problem of global warming…." “Carbon Sciences, Inc. is developing an innovative technology to transform earth destroying carbon dioxide (CO2) into earth friendly carbon products.” http://www.carbonsciences.com.

Wait a minute if we are going to try and us technology to change the weather there can be very big bucks involved……ah ha! There is a motive for the UN. And think of the Grant money to follow for these companies that are going to solve our natural climate changes. What really scares me is that politics and the media are now trying to come up with ways man can alter the weather. I for one don’t think man should start tinkering with the weather when we really know so little about it.

truthsayer
21 December 2007 at 16:21

Norm K

Yous say that 2/3rds of the energy available for CO2 to absorb is already taken up. I have been looking for a source to prove to others that most is taken up.. little escapes to space. Where did you find your info.

The problem I have with the anomaly in temperatures is that they take their base level from a period that includes the cool 70s they do not include the warm 30s. This makes things look worse.

crakes
21 December 2007 at 16:25

Here's a question for ice sampling...

If CO2 is associated with a warming planet, and if the ice melts as CO2 rises (as it is doing now), how can the ice core samples ever capture the CO2 level during the warming periods? The cap is disappearing and not gathering evidence, right? So when CO2 drops down and the caps grow again, we get a record of lower levels right? Is the peak CO2 ever revealed in the ice caps? How can it be?

Bobg
21 December 2007 at 16:31

I agree with Don. I love this when all these closed minded alarmists ask us to prove something that does not exist. All you have to do is follow the money. The environmental groups and political groups that fund the studies, will make trillions and consolidate their power over the world and our economies. What a wonderful, wonderful world it will be........

New Age Contrarian
21 December 2007 at 16:37

If the correction of the aerosol that was used to explain the unobserved rise in gloabl temperature (from Co2) over the period 1970-2000 were to be applied in the same way to adjust satellite temperature data over the same period, it would be concluded that the Northern Hemisphere, from about 40 degrees N lattitude to the pole, was covered by a sheet of ice

Eddie Gwinnet
21 December 2007 at 16:38

Of course humans can't affect the climate of the whole planet by releasing gigatons of C02 into the atmosphere. It's patently absurd. Next those enviro-wackos will be telling us how human overfishing can deplete entire oceans or that lead pipes will make you sick or some other nonsense. People used to worry that human hunting could make dodo birds go extinct, but I see plenty of dodos around...especially on this website.

davef
21 December 2007 at 16:41

Your statement of the physics is very interesting, but what evidence and physics do you base it on.

Not attacking you .. just interested.

Patrick Hadley
21 December 2007 at 17:02

Can the consensus of experts really be so very wrong? The answer to that question is certainly.

Ten years all the experts and computer geeks were unanimous that the Millennium Bug had the potential to cause chaos. As a result $300 billion was spent in the USA alone on "fixing" it. Other countries spent little, and many businesses ignored it completely.

It is fascinating to do a google search on "millennium bug". You can find lots of sites from the 1990s predicting the disaster that is going to happen because not enough people are spending vast amounts on Y2K fixes. Read a great speech from someone called Blair warning everyone about it in 1998.

In fact there were no more computer problems in January 2000 than average, even in countries and organisations that had not spent a penny on fixing the so-called bug.

The millennium bug was a goldmine for computer experts - who among them was going to say to a client, "Don't worry your systems will all work fine in 2000, so there is no need to give me thousands to fix them."

The parallels with global warming are obvious.

longshotlouie
21 December 2007 at 17:04

'Garcon ..... more Co2, please!'

Straydingo
21 December 2007 at 17:14

Bobg - you are spot on with your comment as well...Al Gore has been reported to have made $100m and is the icon of 18+ Uni students around the world.

I'm sorry but the usual factors such as fame, money and the sense of wanting to be morally superior (either consciously or subconsciously) are often what drive us humans to blindly follow a particular course of ideology.

yoddy
21 December 2007 at 17:17

I'm not going to argue with a Ph.D. in astrophysics but I do know if you stick your mouth on car tailpipe and turn it on, if you don't move it, you're going to die. How can shit like that be good for the world? So even if there isn't global warming from a historical perspective, I'm glad people are finally getting the idea in their head that pollution is bad for people, plants and animals.

vphayden
21 December 2007 at 17:45

- Global Warming is not about the environment. It's about money and power.

- I am convinced that there is no long term temperature change.

- I am convinced that the current temperature trend is part of a natural cycle that has happened many times since the begining.

- I believe many average and poverty level people will suffer economically because of the politics/econimics involved in the global efforts to appear concerned.

- Many corporate/political/econimic giants will get much richer.

- All of their efforts will will have less than 0.000000000001 % effect on global temperature.

- Americans will get hosed...

P. Hayden

marcrandrew
21 December 2007 at 18:05

The most lucid commentary in this debate is mitchy's. Climate change (or global warming) will likely go the way of prior apocolyptic forecasts. But what's clear is that incredible increases in carbon emissions are just one of the nasty environmental consequences of development. The planet simply doesnt have the resources to continue to power current trends, and the consequences will be heavy environmental degradation, more conflict, and eventually, poorer standards of living for all of us.

That corporations and politicians are beginning to move on this is fabulous news, not evidence of some now power conspiracy.

revel
21 December 2007 at 18:27

Yoddy is correct.

However, the noble cause of combatting polution is a very separate issue to enforcing behaviour in the farcical belief one is saving polar bears and stopping cyclones or sea level rises.

SkyHunter
21 December 2007 at 18:30

Mr. Whitehouse,

Now why would you, as a scientist mislead people by telling them that a chaotic system should respond to forcing in and "exact" correlation?

Shame on you, the entire premise is misleading. Solar activity is low, yet global temepratures are still at record levels.

Since you are a scientist, I must conclude that you are deliberatly obfuscating the issue.

That is correct sir.

I just called you a liar!

Maz
21 December 2007 at 19:24

Marcrandrew,

just because we're not taken in by the Climate Change hysteria that has gripped politicians and the media (esp the BBC) doesn't mean we're advocating wanton disregard for our environment. It's a precious resource to be managed like any other.

What's wrong with arguing for the truth in these matters? Are you suggesting that because the fallout from this scare is likely to be positive (in your view) that the end justifies the means. The trouble with making the wrong diagnosis is that there is every chance you will select the wrong cure. Instead of spending billions on stupidly trying to stop the climate from changing we could be spending the money on making sure that the poorest nations are developed enough to cope with anything Nature throws at us in the future. As it will do.

How about a concerted world effort to make sure that every individual on this planet has access to clean drinking water? It's by far a better use of our limited financial resources than funding a bunch of self-serving politicians and looney greens playing King Canute.

I don't trust Environmental Pressure Groups anymore than I trust Politicians and Multinationals to tell me the truth. Here's just one example of what can happen if you blindly follow what the environmentalists tell you. The ban on DDT was clinched on the strength of "research" (later shown to be seriously flawed) that it was detrimental to Osprey eggs. We lost a major weapon in the fight against Malaria. Malaria is not a tropical disease, by the way (regardless of what the climate doomsayers would have you believe). It is a disease of poverty. The poorest countries suffered the most with millions dying every year from Malaria. Some African countries are in fact now openly flouting the ban. Good on them. They know what their priorities are.

Just like I want my doctor to prescribe according to evidence based knowledge so do I want to see environmental solutions based on science that is unadulterated by ideology, Anti-Americanism and the fashionable guilt complexes of the industrialised West.

It's very easy to demonise fossil fuels from the comfort of your current standard of living. I prefer to remain appreciative of what we have managed to achieve in the past century because of fossil fuels whilst acknowledging that we are duty bound (to say the least) to minimise as much as possible the impact on our environment. Something that we have, admittedly, not been sufficiently aware of in the past.

Camaraderie
21 December 2007 at 19:42

One problem I see here is people getting environmentalism confused with global warming/CO2.

One can be a global warming skeptic (i.e. man made CO2 emissions are NOT contributing in any appreciable way to any global warming that might be naturally occurring) and still be very much in favor of cleaner cars, alternative energy solutions, clean water etc. I think it is disingenuous to equate the two.

Several comments have been made here regarding LAND based temperatures. In the interest of those here that are really interested in DATA....I would refer you to this slide:

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/page92.html

Anthony Watts has been surveying the 1200 or so USA based temperature monitoring stations along with a small group of volunteers. They have been taking pictures of each station and what surrounds it and evaluating EACH stations siting vs. the NOAA guidelines for such stations. With over 1/3 of the stations now having been visited and photographed they are finding that 85% of the stations have errors between 1-5 degrees centigrade...more than ALL the warming reported in the past century. Quite simply...the BEST land based data in support of warming is badly scrogged up. Proof of warming must come from other sources...atmospheric or oceanographic. (Of course those sources don't show anything much happening to warrant catastrophic claims.)

bobclive
21 December 2007 at 19:56

I refer again to the urban heat island effect, I believe this is the cause of the majority of the warming seen since the 1960`s, if I am wrong can someone put me right, see links below.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/01/29/do-urban-areas-hav...

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1616

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/badwater.htm

StephenB
21 December 2007 at 20:02

If I were an environmentalist, I would be concerned that the baby is going to be thrown out with the Global Warming Hype bathwater as Maz eloquently points out. Crying "Wolf!" will have its consequences.

Freewolf67
21 December 2007 at 20:06

"Crakes

Here's a question for ice sampling...

Actually crakes, it's happening even now. The primary focus on the "disappearing" ice caps has neglected to inform folks that even though some are retreating/disappearing; other regions are in fact growing, becoming thicker, etc..... As more snow in these areas falls....more CO2 is trapped leaving a record behind for scientists a couple thousand years in the future.

Do yourself a favor and do a search for glaciers that are growing AND do a search on what the rest of the Antarctic Ice Sheets are doing (not just Larsen B).... The Artic sheets appear to be decreasing in overall size, but in parts of it....the ice is actually growing thicker.

Anyways.....yesterday was a balmy -47 degrees F at my house here in Fairbanks Alaska......could you blokes send some warming up this way?? 'Preciate it ;-) Thanks ;-)

rsknappmd
21 December 2007 at 20:39

My summary of the article is: 1. the global warming curve appears to have flattened out briefly. 2. We don't know enough about climate cycles to know what this means.

Implications: 1. Running off in all directions to reduce CO2 may not be the most prudent course of action, as the relationship appears to be correlative, not necessarily causal. 2. Better understanding of the phenomenon may lead to more effective countermeasures.

Recommendations: 1. be on the lookout for "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacies. 2. Don't assume long-term trends from short-term data.

My comments: Nothing in the article appears to suggest that we should continue to kill off the oceans, destroy the atmospheric quality, or nuke the whales.

Global warming is a well-substantiated hypothesis, but is not an article of faith. As a hypothesis, it is always subject to refinement. Information which appears to contrast with projections should be used to refine the hypothesis, and not attacked as nefarious heresy. Of course, all data, not only that which appears to contrast with the projected data, should be analyzed carefully as to possible sources of experimental error.

Summary: New information in not an inherent evil.

vphayden
21 December 2007 at 22:55

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. "

Hmmmmmmm.........

vphayden
21 December 2007 at 22:55

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."

Hmmmmmmm...........

bobclive
21 December 2007 at 22:57

Jones et al of CRU collected the measurements made by many land-based weather stations.

They started with around 250 stations, built up to 1700 in 1950. The period between 1970 and 2000, sees the number of stations dropping from 1600 down to 400. During that same period, the CRU global temperature estimate rises by 0.6°C. The stations left are mainly urban.

vphayden
21 December 2007 at 22:57

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process."

Hmmmmm........

vphayden
21 December 2007 at 22:58

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

Hmmmmm........

vphayden
21 December 2007 at 22:59

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.S...

Aaaahhhhh!!!!!!

bobclive
21 December 2007 at 23:01

Jones et al of CRU collected the measurements made by many land-based weather stations

moe146
21 December 2007 at 23:32

This all has absolutely nothing to do with science OR the environment....it is about money. There is plenty to be made with fear mongering and propaganda. Which will go down as the biggest hoax in history -- WMD or GW? Hmmm. Lets wait and see.

hlb1121
22 December 2007 at 00:01

Maybe I missed the part about how the climate is statistically the same over the past seven years. Did someone average together all the regions temperatures and determine the average for each year for the past seven years is the same? if so, this is a flawed way to determine whether or not global warming has stopped. Firstly, climatology 101 tells us that climate is phenomena over an extensive period of time and seven years is a JOKE for an appropriate length of time. Secondly, global warming doesn't mean every place on earth is going to get hotter. In fact, the warming of the oceans can cause the ice sheet on Greenland to essentially fall into the ocean and cause an ice age for Europe. This is something you learn in basic climatology. Some places will become colder due to global warming and other places hotter. As someone who possesses a doctorate in science, David Whitehouse is incredibly naive about aspects of weather and climate that is learned in a freshman class at university.

disgustedmerida
22 December 2007 at 00:24

plus ҫa change ....

wonteach
22 December 2007 at 00:26

It is clear that the claim that "the argument is setlled" is made only by the ignorant or the dishonest. Personally, as a quasi-scientist (I'm a mathematician) who has followed the issue about as closely as an informed layperson can be expected to do, I find it impossible to hold to a strong opinion one way or another. I suppose I'd say 55% yes global warming is real, and 45% no.

One thing I can say with certainty, however, is that the scientific community is nowhere near as objective in its search for truth as we were led to believe in high school. Having spent decades in acedemia, I have been sorely disappointed in the degree to which political and philosophical agendas drive scientific opinions, including those held by the very most eminent scientists. Look at the furor over Lawrence Summers's comments at Harvard, where he speculated that women may be genetically less likely to have the capability to become great scientists or mathematicians. The research and the observable facts on that issue are so strongly in Summers's favor that one could almost say that THAT issue is settled - in the OPPOSITE direction from the conclusion espoused by the "eminent" faculty of Harvard University.

The most interesting question regarding global warming is sociological: Given the fact that the issue is so very UNsettled, why do so many people WANT it to be true? The press, and the liberals, can easily identify the ulterior motive of those who want it to be FALSE - i.e., the remedies might cost them money, directly or indirectly. But it is rare for any media outlet to discuss the propensity of people to believe in doomsday scenarios because the acceptance of those scenarios will allow the believers to dictate the solutions. In this case, the proposed 'solutions' will involve a major disruption in the entire way of life of the developed world. What could be more titillating to the neo-Puritans who are offended by the spectacle of our comfort and affluence, than to be given the power to tell people what cars they can drive, how big their houses can be, and what kind of appliances they can use? The prospect of micromanaging the lives of hundreds of millions of people is utterly intoxicating.

hlb1121
22 December 2007 at 00:27

It's also interesting to note that the oceans are becoming significantly warmer, particularly at the poles. Yes, land temperatures heating up or cooling down is a concern for humans, but a bigger problem is how much the temperature is increasing in the oceans and at the poles. You know what happened with Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans? It could happen again, and again, and again. Because global warming causes the oceans to heat up and that is fuel for storms like hurricanes. Just because a handful of scientists (that vphayden has been posting about) disagree, there must be something going on if most scientists believe that global warming is a real threat.

Boxorox
22 December 2007 at 02:36

hlb1121-Not correct! Recent SSTs reading have confirmed a trend over the recent years that the sea surface temperatures are decreasing. Huh!

bartofsky
22 December 2007 at 03:51

Mr.Whitehouse,

Don't you think that your name alone says it all, or it is just a coincidence? Lets run to the nearest dealership to by as many SUVs as we can, lets have the time of our life!

Are you really so brutally uneducated?

LionHeart
22 December 2007 at 05:02

All models are wrong, some are useful.

George Box (statistician)

wildebeest
22 December 2007 at 06:04

If one needs to decide whom to believe, one should at least look at who has a motive to deceive: those who would like to continue a comfortable, though profligate lifestyle and those who profit from the sale of things that accommodate that lifestyle or those who say we all have to make uncomfortable changes?

Menckenwasright
22 December 2007 at 07:05

hlb1121 has captured the evil and the essence of the exploitation of this complex phenomena. The world is being conditioned to believe that the USA is at fault for any extreme - excessive heat, excessive cold, excessive dryness, excessive wetness - more storms, less storms, more ice, less ice - and more (and less?) to come I’m sure. Just watch; regardless of how the climate changes, the USA will be blamed and will be expected to do something. (Remember that this same cabal of anti-fossil-fuel zealots made news in the 70s by reporting that fossil fuels were causing an imminent ice age.) Kyoto indicates that as long as wealth gets redistributed it really doesn’t matter what happens to the carbon output. It is remarkable and frightening that the world press has, in the main, ignored the input of thousands of respected and reputable international scientists under the politically popular mantra of USA bashing. It is really depressing to accept that the populous has reached the point where they replace “The Sky Is Falling” with any cry of climate extreme and blame it all on the same thing - fossil fuel consumption by the USA.

NORMSMITH
22 December 2007 at 07:44

Sure - humans and overpopulation have caused a lot of environmental problems. No doubt in anybody's mind. But to say humans control the climate is pure fallacy. The long term graphs tell the story. Keep in mind many of these graphs are read from right(present) to left(the past). Here is the Ice core data:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev_png

Notice our current "Global Warming" (AKA The Holocene) is actually much cooler than previous interglaciations(warm intervals between ice ages).

Notice that CO2 and Temperature are NEVER STABLE. They always rise and fall in a natural cycle.

Look at those squiggly lines going up and down. Does anyone think humans caused all these variations? Just because one of the many upticks is happening in our lifetime does not mean we caused it!

Don't feel guilty or personally responsible. Please.

Here is a sea level history chart. It's probably the best indicator of when the Holocene (current warm interval) will end. Let's enjoy the warm while we can !!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

Cybertiger
22 December 2007 at 09:09

@Menckenwasright

"blame it all on the same thing - fossil fuel consumption by the USA."

The Americans voted for George Bush and his disciples - and then wonder why they're hated!!

PS. H.L. Mencken is my favorite curmudgeon.

PPS. I think one critter out of every breeding pair of Americans should be culled - as a sacrifice to G-d - and the greater go-d of the planet.

Patrick Hadley
22 December 2007 at 10:28

hlb1121 please have a good look at all the data on the Hadley Centre Met Office Site. Work out for yourself whether the trend of warming from 1978 to 1998 has been followed by a period of no warming for the last 9 years. You are right that climate trends can only be assessed in the long term, but the warming period was not long term either. We just do not know what will happen in the future.

The comment from wonteach about the neo-puritans is well worth thinking about. Sadly there is sometimes a tendency that when we see other people enjoying themselves we want to stop them. We can rationalise this for religious reasons or pseudo-scientific reasons, but it is the same impulse to condemn.

Maz
22 December 2007 at 10:34

hb1121,

Yes 7yrs is not enough to declare a new trend. But then, is 30yrs enough to determine that the recent warming (contaminated as it is by the way we measured it) is any different to the changes that have occured over this planet's climate history? At least try to be consistent.

Katrina was a Category 3 hurricane when it hit New Orleans. The devastation was due to the fact that the levees were poorly maintained to say nothing of the slow response in dealing with the aftermath. It was NOT the strength of the hurricane!

Can you remember the names of any hurricanes that have made landfall in the last two years? So what's happened? Why has it gone so quiet? Did you just read the Stern Review and swallow it all? According to Stern (and his infamous extrapolation) we should have seen several. It's one of the reasons he put forward to recommend that it was cheaper to spend billions now on reducing CO2 emmisions than to pay the costs of the ravages of Nature in the future. A freshman class in economics could punch holes a mile wide in that report. But that's for another blog!

Ian Perrin
22 December 2007 at 10:35

from: BBC World News - Monday, 12 November 2007

IF THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS RISING, IT HAS NOW STOPPED

Sceptic

Since 1998 - almost a decade - the record, as determined by observations from satellites and balloon radiosondes, shows no warming.

Counter

1998 was an exceptionally warm year because of the strong El Nino event. Variability from year to year is expected, and picking a specific warm year to start an analysis is "cherry-picking"; if you picked 1997 or 1999 you would see a sharper rise. Even so, the linear trends since 1998 are still positive.

Chris Schoneveld
22 December 2007 at 10:44

crakes on 21 December 2007 wrote:

quote: "Here's a question for ice sampling...

The answer is simple, at least for the Antarctic. Warmer years are not causing the melting of ice in the Antarctic, it's too cold down there. That's why the Vostok ice cores show a continuous record of 450,000 years spanning Glacials and Interglacials..

dsart
22 December 2007 at 10:58

DR Whitehouse is entirely correct and has been very careful about sticking to the facts. The website quoted by Ian Perrin is plain wrong.

Look at this BBC site about recent temperatures. With or without 1998 it doesn't make a difference. Look at the figures and then draw a graph - you will see it's a straight line.

Of course it's significant. Temp has been rising since 1980 but it wasn't until 1993 that we saw it as significant. For a third of the time of the current warm spell the global temp hasn't been rising at all - that's highly significant.

We should congratulate a real, honest and couragous scientist like Dr Whitehouse to have the integrity to stick to observational facts and not rhetoric (like many of the comments here). We should also congratulate the New Statesman as well.

Interesting that Whitehouse has more comments than Dawkins.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7142694.stm

revel
22 December 2007 at 10:59

20,000 REAL SCIENTISTS signed a petition to the effect that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would have a beneficial effect. And that the dire predictions of the climate scare lobby were unfounded (The Petition Project).

See the document at:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Every single scientist signed his or her name and provided qualifications and positions held.

(Unlike reports from the environmentalist priests who generally remain anonymous and are often are mere bureacrats and pseudo-scientists and who always claim there is a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS)

This report alone must tell us something about the scientific consensus fallacy.

The responses to Mr Whiehouse's article are about 95% supportive (I see 5 opposing views, all of which are superficial and insulting), many of those supporters being scientists.

The publishing of the Petition Project had the following consequences:

1) Acrimonious accusations that the signatures were falsified. This was disproved.

2) Many signatories lost their jobs and many found it impossible to have their views published in mainstream media

3) There was almost total silence in the media about the existence of the document. The fraudulent claims of a scientific consensus for the new environmental cult's creed were intensified.

There is no scientific consensus.

It has become commonplace to hear "scientists (unnamed) say", "all scientists (unnamed) agree", "scientific consenseus".

The mainstream media are at the heart of the censorship of scientific facts and of open debate.

jansz
22 December 2007 at 12:52

The AGW believers are so shrill, capital letters, terms of abuse, no rational discussion and the continued quoting of sources that have long since been discredited. The consensus is swinging to the sceptics - the activists and their media supporters will soon feel as silly as the Y2K proponents.

Nelthon
22 December 2007 at 13:45

So proponents of AGW continually link to 'sources that have long since been discredited'. Such delicious irony, given that the post above yours links to the Oregon Petition...

Nelthon
22 December 2007 at 13:48

Anyway, I look forward to seeing the trend analysis Whitehouse used.

Ian Perrin
22 December 2007 at 15:07

You can test the Goddard Institute of Space Studies data to show whether the BBC got it wrong or not at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

I suggest you use GISS for land temperatures, Hadley for Ocean, Annual for mean period, Begin 1998 to End 2007 for time interval and a statistically meaningful base period. Leave all the other values as you find them.

This is hard data, not assertion.

Maz
22 December 2007 at 15:48

Ian, (and Nelthon)

you’re playing with statistics. No one is denying that the planet has warmed over the last 100yrs (longer even). If you’re on a peak any trend line is going to give you a positive value.

The gist of David Whitehouse’s article is that the last seven years indicate a levelling off of Global Temperatures. I prefer to use the data from the UK’s publicly funded Hadley Centre because they are displayed nicely for all to see (ignoring for the moment the flaws inherent to all surface temperature records). Here’s the link again. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/Ha... Anyone can see what’s going on. The question is – is this just a blip or is it the start of a downward slope? Nobody knows. What we do know is that CO2 levels have continued to rise unabated and if CO2 level is the key driver of global temperature I would NOT expect to see the temp rise level off as it is doing. I’m not saying it’s impossible though.

What is interesting is that recent indications of solar activity suggest we might be heading towards a period of reduced solar activity. This contrasts with the heightened activity in the 80s and 90s. Remember that the Solar Aa (Geomagnetic) index is still twice as high as it was at the start of the last century. So I don't think we're going to see obvious climatic effects immediately.

This seems to suggest that Solar Activity has a far greater influence on global climate than CO2. You only need to superimpose the graphs of Solar Activity and CO2 on the temperature graphs from the Hadley Centre and it kind of shrieks at you! Perhaps the next seven years will make things more obvious.

I’m prepared to wait.

taghioff.info
22 December 2007 at 18:39

The other issue is that temperature changes in relation to rising CO2 levels are highly non-linear. This basically means that this relatively trend in the temperature record is not very conclusive.

It is interesting that the skeptics used exactly this argument against a much longer and more pronounced warming trend, but now are strangely silent about the stochastic and non-linear character of short-term temperature variations.

IF reduced solar activity is balancing out CO2 emmissions, it means they have a similar effect to CO2. But this is not an either or scenario, since CO2 response to solar emmissions tends to amplify its effects. In other words, both the non-linearity and the other causes, when viewed form the point of view of the highly erratic historical record, indicate that rising CO2 will have highly unpredictable outcomes, but some of these are highly amplified outcomes driven by positive feedbacks.

Or in yet other words, these factors indicate that CO2 is more rather than less dangerous.

Nelson
22 December 2007 at 19:47

'Begin 1998 to End 2007 for time interval ' I'm intrigued. Why are we always pointed to 1998 as the start year? Is it chance, serendipity that you chose an obvious statistical outlier with inflated temperatures (1998 was a strong El Nino)? Or is it just plain naughty? It's precisely because there's significant noise superimposed on a small signal that you need to analyse temperature trends carefully:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

Tamino has already analysed the GISS and HadCRU data sets. Both show a significant trend in warming over the past decade. Even if you pick 1998 as your starting year:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/

Nelson
22 December 2007 at 19:51

Regarding a correlation between solar activity and temperature - well, the field is a lot, lot murkier than you might suppose...

http://preview.tinyurl.com/39emdw

Robin Guenier
22 December 2007 at 19:55

I wholly agree with Maz and Patrick Hadley that “the consensus of experts” really can be very wrong. But I suggest they stop using the “Millennium Bug” as an example of this. The problem was all too real – if they are so sure it was not, perhaps they would explain for example how a banking system that assumed, as many once did, that “87” meant 1987 would, without being fixed, have automatically assumed that “07” meant 2007 and not 1907. Yet unfixed the impact on, say, interest calculations would have been serious. Fortunately, essentially all large organisations (the problem was most serious in the bespoke software used by such organisations) fixed it. It was largely done by junior IT staff (not “geeks” or “experts”) checking millions of lines of computer code for dates, fixing them and testing the fixes. It was mind-numbingly dreary work. There was no “goldmine” for “computer experts” – they were too busy hyping up the dotcom boom. All large organisations in the developed world had to check their systems. I think Mr Hadley would be unable to name, for example, any banking or social security organisation that did nothing.

There were some problems. But very few because thousands of unsung people got on and fixed it. Precisely the opposite of the point they are (correctly) trying to make.

Alan Cooper
22 December 2007 at 20:15

jimbeaux is unnecessarily perplexed by the apparent contradiction between the facts stated in the article and that "I've read that 2007 is shaping up to be the 8th warmest year on record, and that seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and the 10 warmest have all occurred since 1997." This is not in any way a contradiction. In fact 1998 was an upward spike in a very jagged graph, which the subsequent years have not yet climbed to match even though they have all been higher than any others in the record prior to that. It is quite unremarkable that no significant trend is observable in a short segment from the record of a variable which randomly fluctuates above and below an average which is increasing by a much smaller amount each year.

I cannot believe that a person with a PhD in astrophysics could honestly believe that this was significant, so I join the other commenters who have accused David Whitehouse of dishonesty and I will try to remember his name so that I can avoid his prevarications in future.

JohnChwth
22 December 2007 at 20:22

Well what we should be looking at is the trends from as far back as possible. Thatshows the current period is by far the warmest for over 150 years.

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

andanotherthing
22 December 2007 at 21:36

Its not the scientists spouting the Al Gore message that we have to worry about, its the politicians who have embraced this rubbish and will think of ever more ingenious ways to tax us, saying these are green taxes and will help to save the planet!!

NORMSMITH
22 December 2007 at 21:47

re:JohnChw... 150 years is too short of a timescale to draw conclusions from. We are talking about climate which is controlled by long term cycles. Here is a graph of the last 12,000 years (since the last ice age melted away).:

http://earthintime.com/holocene.jpg

Note that 150 years ago we were coming out of a long cold period - "The Little Ice Age". The modern thermometer was invented after the Little Ice Age ended. Therefore thermometer data shows a rising trend. It's really that simple. What is important is the long term cycles and that trend is crystal clear: The Holocene Temperature peaked out 8,000 years ago and we are gradually cooling into the next glaciation (ice age).

Here is another chart (based on Ice Core Data) that shows the long term trend and the NATURAL fluctuations of CO2 and Temperature . http://lbs.hh.schule.de/klima/klimawandel/treibhausgase/carb...

Note that CO2 and Temperature are Never static/stable. Mother Nature has her own rhythm and we can't control the climate. We are not Gods.

Nelson
22 December 2007 at 22:13

But the fact that CO2 fluctuated in the past (incidentally, you might want to read up on the effects this had on temperature) doesn't exonerate us in any way. It doesn't mean we can spew gigatons of the stuff into the atmosphere without a care in the world. It will affect the climate. It's basic, fundamental physics. We're proving to be very poor keepers of this planet.

Mike D
22 December 2007 at 23:17

I located an artical by a group of scientists about the glaciers in the swiss alps that indicated that trees were growing where the ice currently is. Their conclusion is that the climate was warmer than now for 12 periods in the last 9000 years and colder than now for about 5000 years. there are similar reports of finding trees where there is now permafrost in northern canada. htere is a report from greenland that they located the remains of plants that had grown where the ice recently melted .

These articles and more are on the web if you are truely interested in studing the history of climate.

Also I would question any group such as your national weather service if they are telling you that the weather is getting hotter according to their adjusted data.

J. 23 December 2007 at 00:27

It is not that the humans or the USA are evil and must be punished. It is not environmentalists trying to force us to all live impoverished lives. (Our ancestors could only wish for such "impoverished" lives that many of us currently lead.)

It is the undeniable fact that with the ever expanding population of consumers on the planet, it means that everyone of us is responsible for the health of the planet.. The denial of this and that business as usual can just blissfully continue seems to be the convenient excuse of many of the global warming disputers.

Regardless, if the climate models are in error, humans cannot continue forever on the personally destructive path we are on. The resources and other processes of life on this planet will not be able to function in our favor at this unsustainable pace.

Now or later we will be forced to find alternative methods to produce and consume energy at reasonable and equitable rates. Most likely all of us will be have to find ways to live with less pressure on the ecology. I for one would love for our frenetic pace to slow down for the good of not only the earth but for our species sake.

Those with innovative and iventive minds can clearly see that living with a lighter footprint on the earth does not mean reverting to a primitive existence.

In the reality of biological terms there is not any real seperation from the earth, but it's only in our self made philosophical exclusions that we see ourselves as a special creation given life by supernatural agency. That is just part of the reason we do such a poor job of protecting and preserving the only home we will have probably for the long term future. Many of us feel this just a way station for some fantasy world after death instead of being in awe of our intrinsic connections to the richness of life as it is here and now.

Our modern consumeristic distractions and comforts have given us the false sense that we are no longer a part of the natural world and can just live in self-absorbed, disregard for it's well-being.

When we do that we are perhaps signing our own notice of impending extinction or at least a life of increasing discomforts because we are not willing to live sustainably now.

Nelson
23 December 2007 at 02:08

'Hlobal warming stopped in 1998'. This is a meme you find a lot on the internet. But is it true? With some statistical tricks you can claim that it did. Temperature data are inherently noisy, and global warming is 0.2 degrees per decade. Incidentally, this might look modest, but it's important to recognise that historical warmings of a similar magnitude to that projected to occur over the next century took orders of magnitude longer to develop.

I mentioned trend analysis above because it's easy to do wrong, it's easy to claim that global warming has 'stopped', or 'doubled', or 'reversed' using the same data.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2007/05/5-year-trends.p...

Even something as simple as the length of your sample can colour your result. In this figure 5, 10, and 15-year trends are used. This is why Whitehouse should post his analysis. Has he chosen a period long enough to detect a signal rather than noise? I'd hope as a PhD he hasn't...

NORMSMITH
23 December 2007 at 03:32

Please don't let me hear anyone else say "The science is settled." That's just a cop out for people too lazy to look at the science. Here is a new peer-reviewed study from the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society : http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

-And these eminent scientists are not alone. Click the Global Warming link on that same page and you will see that hundreds and hundreds of scientists are now admitting that humans cannot control climate. Al Gore has pulled off a hoax bigger than the "Millenium Bug" and scientists are jumping on his bandwagon so they can score some of the billions of dollars in UN "research" money. This is a good example of Follow The Money.

NORMSMITH
23 December 2007 at 03:41

And here is the TRUTH about those poor "stranded polar bears.":

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uw5WdmuGSfM

Ted
23 December 2007 at 04:18

OK, so the earth is warming. The alarmists automatically assume that change is necessarily bad. A warmer earth will extend the growing season in Canada, Scandinavia and Russia, increasing food production for the whole world. Rainfall patterns may change making some arid areas productive. There will be some displacement, of course, but who is to say that the overall effect is bad. There was a warm cycle form 900 to 1300 wherein temperatures were 2 degrees F higher than they are now and somehow the human and animal populations did just fine.

taghioff.info
23 December 2007 at 05:08

@Ted

Your assessment is based on the IPCC's headline finding that below 3 degrees of warming global net food production goes up.

But that finding does not include effects from extreme weather events. Temperate zones are not immune to these. The 2003 heatwave in Europe knocked 10-20% of harvests in many countries that year.

Also, if food supply declines in the poorest countries (which are generally in the tropics), this will hit the incomes of the poorest in those poor countries, the marginal rain-fed farmers.

Amartya Sen made the observation that it is not lack of food in itself that starves people, it is the inability to obtain food. So poor farmers faced with crashing yields and no alternate form of income will starve, even IF we have food to spare in the North.

This raises the possibility of mass starvation, which in turn raises the possibility of social collapse. It is for this reason that the UN secretary general is telling us we need to pay attention to Darfur, because it indicates what may be in store if we are all as complacent as you Ted.

mercury risin'
23 December 2007 at 05:10

If you look at the temp graphs, there are other flat spots that follow peak years. Each time it eventually got hotter. It's been a trend, and it still is the trend.

Menckenwasright
23 December 2007 at 05:18

Cybertiger

"The Americans voted for George Bush and his disciples - and then wonder why they're hated!!"

My, my; you are harboring such intense hatred! No wonder you think the planet is warm!

I appreciate very much the logical and considered scientific analysis posted here and the links to a gathering amount of evidence that should reduce AGW obsession. However, I am cynical. The world has been whipped into a frenzy of intense dislike, or "hate" in some cases, for the USA. I have observed that emotion rules over logic. As long as that emotion continues there will be no moderation of the cry for "reducing the carbon footprint" at the expense (primarily) of the USA. As long as the world press and world leaders continue to bash the USA, well intentioned people will see no alternative but to drink the koolaid. All of the historical data and valid scientific analysis that refutes AGW will go for naught as long as that hatred is cultivated and exploited.

dmgreer
23 December 2007 at 08:12

Nice. Also, the author doesn't seem to have much grasp of science or statistics... wait, what's this? David Whitehouse is an astrophysicist? More like an astro-charlatan.

Whitehouse claims that the data show a complete leveling of temperature over the past 6 years, but that's an out and out lie. If you look at the data http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/glob_... you can see that there's no such leveling.

Given that, it's pretty easy to posit that sulphate aerosols from China's prodigious coal burning might have contributed to a decceleration of warming. Whether that's true or not is another matter, but it certainly is _not_ true that the warming trend would have to be exactly equalized by the cooling effects of aerosols.

David Whitehouse should be ashamed of himself for such a poor display of scientific understanding.

Robin Guenier
23 December 2007 at 08:16

Groan. Normsmith - the so-called Millennium Bug was no hoax. See my comment yesterday.

garryf
23 December 2007 at 09:14

I am frankly disgusted with some of the comments here - typical from the crowd that will take no crticiism - cherry pick the data and accuse the writer of dishonesty. Those who have done that should be ashamed of themselves, its dispicable.

On this list has been posted a link to the BBC news report of recent temperature records issued durung the Bali conference and without doubt they point to 2001-2007 being statistically flat. To 1999 and 2000 being cooler. 1998 being warmer (a strong el nino year). Before that we have an obvious rise from 1980 -1997 though with 1997 being less than the 2001-2007 average - Whitehouse has clearly made his case looking at the DATA. As he said it's not a viewpoint but an observational fact.

Also someone said earlier in these comments that sulphur particles could explain for the standstill because they reflect sunlight into space. Not so. Have you read the IPCC Synthesis report (obviously not). It says that sulphur aerosols (the only ones for which we have any data) have been declining for over a decade, so that blows your uninformed analysis out of the window "dmgreer."

Clearly David Whitehouse has been careful to stick to scientifically accepted standard data (unlike many of the deniers posting vitriol against him) and is being attacked for pointing it out. As far as I can see none of the personal attacks against him are sensible and say more about the lack of knowledge and intolerance of thoise who have posted them.

MODERATOR - please remove those personal comments from this list and do so oin the future.

David Whitehouse is to be praised for using a scientists logic to point out something that we should havge all seen and in my view stands head and shoulders over the bitter cowards who make calls of dishonesty whilst hiding behind a nickname - you should be ashamed of yourself.

Patrick Hadley
23 December 2007 at 11:59

Robert Guenier: Of course I know that there was something to be fixed in Y2K, but I invite you to compare the reality with the hype. If you do a google search for millennium bug you will find many examples of the doomsday scenarios. The Guardian article from 5th Jan 2000 gives a good summary and links to balanced articles. You will find out that pension companies, banks and social security had fixed the 00 problem many years before the scare, and that some countries spent very little but had no problems.

My point is not to deny that there was some truth behind the scare stories, just that the predictions of total chaos and disaster (and there were many of them) were very wide of the mark. At the Bali conference Ban Ki-Moon said that "Humanity faces OBLIVION" unless we act now to prevent global warming. Nothing in even the most extreme projections of warming could possibly justify that comment.

Nelson
23 December 2007 at 12:26

Normsmith, the paper you linked by Douglass et al. has been heavily criticised. It's main conclusion is basically unsupportable - it's a poor paper, and nicely dissected in the following link, which gives some insight into what peer review should have picked up:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropic...

Nelson
23 December 2007 at 12:36

Garryf, I'm not making personal attacks against Whitehouse. I'm genuinely interested in his trend analysis of the temperature data. It's possible to come up with any number of conclusions from the same data (warming, cooling, stasis), but is the analysis valid?

ArchiesBoy
23 December 2007 at 13:53

I just had a look at Whitehouse's website. It is obvious that the man is in love with himself, and whatever he writes is written from that standpoint... Meantime, global warming proceeds apace.

keithw
23 December 2007 at 14:32

Actually ArchiesBoy I think that's a stupid comment and a waste of space. I think Whitehouse's website is rather modest - compare it to the editor of the News Statesman's John Kampfner's website and you will see.

Patrick Hadley
23 December 2007 at 14:56

Nelson: the Douglass paper was published after proper peer-review in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society. That is just about the most respected place to find a paper on this subject.

You say that it has been criticised by Real Climate. Well, blow me down what a shock that is! To the AGW fanatics at Real Climate it would have been about as welcome as a pork chop at a meeting of the Jewish vegan society.

Robin Guenier
23 December 2007 at 15:00

Patrick Hadley: I was CEO of the Government’s central computing agency (in the Cabinet Office) in 1996 when the Government first took the date change problem seriously. Yes, some large organisations were getting on with it then, but not many, including several in the financial sector. Hence my appointment as Executive Director of Taskforce 2000 (1996 – 2000) tasked with communicating the need for action. Had large organisations not taken notice, I assure you the outcome could have been chaotic: contrary to your assertion, those who said it had that potential were right. It was particularly true of the financial sector – the Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements in Basle took it very seriously. On Friday, you suggested that “countries and organisations that had not spent a penny” had no problems; yet I’m sure you cannot identify one large organisation or country in the developed world that did nothing. I also doubt if you can name one “expert” who predicted chaos – those who did either were alarmists or were ignorant.

My point is simple: Y2K is an exceptionally bad example of the consensus of experts being wrong. Perhaps you should consider Avian Flu.

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc.
23 December 2007 at 16:09

To me, this article by David Whitehouse is a delightful Christmas gift. His statements are fully accurate and reasonable. In my opinion, the continued attacks against the "life spirit" (CO2) are wrongful, as well as shameful. We need more "life spirit" into the atmosphere in order to sustain continued increase in plant growth and increased food production for human consumption.

As to the claim by climate fanatics, that temperatures are rising at alarming rates, it can be proven that they are not. Diagram showing world mean temperature, calculated for each one of last 120 months, can be found at my blogg site. This period obviously equals full 10 years.

http://altice.blog.is/blog/altice/entry/398432/ (double click graph for full size).

Through this data, we can lay a number of different trend lines, but here we will talk about a straigth line. Can we by sight, judge where the trend line should be placed, or what its slope should be, for it to be optimum (best) fitted ? I do not think anyone can. The trend line is basically level, which means that the mean world temperature has remained stable/level for the past 120 months (10 years).

The best fitted regression line through the data, shows a slightly positive slope, which my computer gives as: a=+0,09% (+0,0009) C-degrees/month. This corresponds to 0,1 C-degrees in 100 years!

Since we know next to nothing about the causes of the world temperature changes, our best approach is to extrapolate past measurements into the future. How this should be done, is hotly debated. Should we use long or short term series ?

To me it seems most important to determine which way the trend is leading. We do this by analysing the most recent part of the line. It seems most likely that a straight line continues its straigth course. Similarly a curved line most likely continues curving to the same side as it is presently doing.

Considering these points, it is easy to come to the conclusion that world temperature has reached a peek and will most likely continue level or turn down, as I find most likely. Anyway, we will problably only have to wait a few years for the temperature curve to take a definite shape.

Robin Guenier
23 December 2007 at 16:25

Patrick Hadley: further to the my comment above, I suggest you look at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/news/1998/024.ht... for a summary of the problem (as seen in 1998) and at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1541557.stm for a description of a real problem that emerged in 2002. Fortunately this was exceptional – but it takes little effort to imagine the chaos that would have resulted had the NHS not fixed things elsewhere.

I suggest we now end this exchange. It’s an unnecessary distraction from the real subject where I have a lot of sympathy for your position.

NORMSMITH
23 December 2007 at 17:05

To: Nelson - Seasons Greetings and a merry Christmas to you.

The problem with the realclimate site is that their Guru is Mike Mann. Mann is the clown who brought us (drumroll please...) the now thoroughly discredited Hockey Stick graph. The Hockey stick managed to erase both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period from history. see: http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick... for a thorough scientific de-bunking of Mann's hockey stick. The hockey stick should have looked like this: http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/Graphs/Copy%20of%201000%20year...

The new IPCC report has totally dumped the hockey stick overboard and they should have made Mann walk the plank as well.

Mann got busted(scientificly speaking) for his bogus hockey stick so it looks like he got in with realclimate to post cover stories and more BS. I can't blame someone for wanting to make some more Pub money, but Mann is the typical pig at the trough when it comes to raking in the Global Warming Research Money. Follow the Money bro'.

Here is a partial list of scientists who don't agree with al Gore's doomsday hysteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics

Cybertiger
23 December 2007 at 17:33

@Menckenwasright

“The world has been whipped into a frenzy of intense dislike, or "hate" in some cases, for the USA …All of the historical data and valid scientific analysis that refutes AGW will go for naught as long as that hatred is cultivated and exploited.”

Ha, ha, ha … for all their good works, the Americans are world-beaters at cultivating hatred … and then exploiting it … along with everything and everyone on the globe. Of course, AGW is buncombe … but the true science will just give Americans a greater licence to go on exploiting more than their fair share of the world’s finite fossilised energy … and why should the rest of the world put up with it?

Revenge, humiliation and the cultivation of hatred was what the 'war on Iraq' was all about – and oil of course ... in the name of ‘Operation Iraqi Liberation’. Americans will always grab what they want: they want oil, they want to control it, and they will exploit worldwide hatred - and anything else they can - to get it.

jabailo
23 December 2007 at 19:34

The current state of the Global Warmers is that of McCarthy-ites during the 1950s. A small group has hijacked the collective mind, despite evidence to the contrary of their beliefs. Like Joe McCarthy waving around his list of 500 "known Communists", Al Gore goes around waving his list of "1000 scientific papers". I've read several of those papers. They don't absolutely support any particular view. I am thinking of rewriting a version of Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" with Global Warming substituting for Witchcraft.

Cybertiger
23 December 2007 at 21:47

@Menckenwasright

And as a postscript to the above - H.L. Mencken said,

“Democracy is a form of religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.”

However, in my humble opinion, it is jackals and the worship of jackasses that underpins the faith in the greatest democracy that money can buy. Mencken was wrong.

socorrie
24 December 2007 at 06:04

The May 2007 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change) publication Ch 6: Palaeoclimate is at

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf

Page 477 Figure 6.13 (d) shows highs in northern hemisphere temperature now and around years 1000 - 1200 AD. It also shows (b) solar forcing highs in the same time frames. (c) shows that there are CO2 and other forcings now but NOT in the past 1000 years. So, it was warm a 1000 years ago, but there was no CO2 around to cause it. Per this IPCC data, CO2 probably does not affect global warming, and the sun probably does.

jeffknowler
24 December 2007 at 10:53

The argument is very simple : we can choose to do, or not do, something about a change that may, or may not, be happening. Best case scenario : we do something, it costs some money, but climate change was fallacy. Worst case scenario : we don't do anything, it doesn't coat anything, and climate change wipes out the human race.

Money's gonna be no use to an extinct species.

bobclive
24 December 2007 at 10:53

Robin, you say,

Y2K is an exceptionally bad example of the consensus of experts being wrong. Perhaps you should consider Avian Flu.

What about DDT.

stargazer
24 December 2007 at 12:35

In reply to jeffknowler

just say that

if the warming IS indeed 'natural'...

and also due to 'natural' causes the warming is over... and we have major (natural) cooling on the way. Given that many more would die from cold than from warm. We may be spending billions making the above scenario worse by removing Co2. in this case doing nothing is the right thing to do........(and NO i am not saying we should not clean up our act. )

Robin Guenier
24 December 2007 at 13:04

bobclive: in response to my suggestion that (as Y2K was a poor example of experts being wrong) Patrick Hadley might consider Avian Flu, you suggested DDT. I dunno - but how about IBM's 1950s view that there was a total world market for about five computers?

Cybertiger
24 December 2007 at 13:24

Jeffknowler said,

“Worst case scenario : we don't do anything, it doesn't coat anything, and climate change wipes out the human race. Money's gonna be no use to an extinct species.”

I feel sure that George Bush has a cunning plan to avoid personal extinction. As some Americans will have noticed, Dubya is putting a lot of public money into the manned mission to Mars. Perhaps G-d has told him about the costs of global warming to the rest of His creatures down on Earth.

PS. Pity the Martians under occupation.

PPS. Spare a thought at Christmas time ... for innocent Martians.

Arie Brand
24 December 2007 at 14:34

This is the (slightly abbreviated) actual report put out just over ten days ago by the Hadley Centre:

Another warm year as Bali conference ends

13 December 2007

The Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia have today released preliminary global temperature figures for 2007, which show that the top 11 warmest years all occur in the last 13 years.

The provisional global figure, using data from January to November, currently places 2007 as the seventh warmest on record since 1850.

...

The last time annual mean global temperatures were below the 1961-1990 long-term average was in 1985. Since then, mean surface air temperatures have continued to demonstrate a warming trend around the world. 2007 has been no exception to this, even though there has been a La Niña event which usually reduces global temperatures.

Professor Phil Jones, Director of UEA's Climatic Research Unit, said, "The year began with a weak El Niño – the warmer relation of La Niña – and global temperatures well above the long-term average. However, since the end of April the La Niña event has taken some of the heat out of what could have been an even warmer year."

In January the Met Office, in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, predicted that 2007 could record global temperatures well above the long-term average. There was also a 60% probability that 2007 could be the warmest on record and the expected temperature for 2007 is within the range predicted.

Professor Jones said, "2007 was warmer in the Northern Hemisphere, where the year ranks second warmest, than the Southern Hemisphere, where it ranks ninth warmest."

Met Office Climate Scientist David Parker added, "This year has also seen sea-ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere below average in each month of 2007, with record minima sea-ice reported in July, August and September. In the Southern Hemisphere, sea-ice coverage has remained close to average."

Meanwhile, across the UK, 2007 is on course to become one of the warmest years on record. Even if the mean temperature for December is 1 °C below the 1971-2000 long-term average, the year will still be the third warmest since UK-wide records began in 1914. In this 94-year series, the last six years (2002-2007) are set to become the six warmest years.

...

Global top 10 warmest years

Year Difference from average (°C)

1998 +0.52

2005 +0.48

2003 +0.46

2002 +0.46

2004 +0.43

2006 +0.42

2007 (Jan-Nov) +0.41

2001 +0.40

1997 +0.36

1995 +0.28

UK top 10 warmest years

Year Difference from average (°C)

2006 +1.15

2007 (Jan-Nov) +1.10

2003 + 0.92

2004 + 0.89

2002 + 0.89

2005 + 0.87

1990 + 0.83

1997 + 0.82

1949 + 0.80

1999 + 0.78

Difference from average with respect to 1961-90

Difference from average with respect to 1971-2000

The science of climate change – UN Climate Change Summit, Bali

World Meteorological Organisation press releases

Met Office Hadley Centre datasets

Met Office weather records explained

Notes

The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon is a large-scale, natural fluctuation of the ocean-atmosphere system centred across the tropical to sub-tropical Indo-Pacific region. Through teleconnections to higher latitudes in both hemispheres, ENSO impacts can extend to near-global dimensions during strong phases of its El Niño or La Niña extremes.

abatek
24 December 2007 at 14:54

Please read Jaworowski 2007 "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time".

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-1...

Arie Brand
24 December 2007 at 15:17

And after you have read that please read this debunking of him:

http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

Nelson
24 December 2007 at 16:36

'You say that it has been criticised by Real Climate'. That doesn't stop those criticisms from being valid! They show some very obvious failings in the Douglass paper that pretty much hole it below the waterline.

http://realclimate.org is probably the best climate blog on the internet, with some truly excellent contributors. All publish actively in climate research, and entertain some decent discussions. It's unpatronising, doesn't hesitate with (what sometimes seems like pretty brutal) maths, and opffers somre real insight into the whle field of climatology.

It also tackles the Hockey Stick, and there are good discussions on the Little Ice Age and Mediaeval Warm Period with nuance that you don't find on any other climate site - for instance normsmith, the paleoclimate reconstruction you link is a) schematic and b) representative of one location in the UK (iirc). Still, it's interesting stuff :)

Happy Christmas everyone. Eat lots, drink lots, be happy.

frances pologiorgi
24 December 2007 at 16:39

I find the most frightening thing about the global warming debate is the ease with which nuclear energy is now being presented as a clean and acceptable successor to fossil fuels. I grew up in a climate of panic about "nuclear winter",but am now expected to get hot under the collar about global warming- sorry folks, but a think it's a huge plot by the nuclear lobby, which thinks we have forgotten about Chernobyl. I wonder how much the "Greens" who campaign against CO2 emissions realize the aid they give to the nuclear power barons who promote nuclear power as clean, relatively cheap and lower-risk(!) than fossil fuels.

Vaz the Environmental Spaz
24 December 2007 at 20:17

The link i posted has a risk chart!

http://www.msnusers.com/G-W/Documents/Politics%20of%20Change...

What risk is more acceptible to risk?

Vaz the Environmental Spaz
24 December 2007 at 20:18

Not arguing anything but risk management, and why we should do something about global warming. This table is just dealing with the extremes. Will make a lager one after I figure out what I want on the grid. Grid idea started by http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=related

Change=we stop G.W

Ignore=We don’t do anything

No problem=G.W is not real

Big problem=G.W is real Change Ignore

No problem Global Depression

Economic collapse

Clean Air

Clean water,

Better living/environmental standers. Life goes on.

We keep polluting.

Environment does not get better.

Politicians no longer listen to scientist.

Big Problem Economic Collapse

Global Depression.

We survive G.W

New economic growth, in green Industries.

The environment gets treated better

We listen to scientist.

Good stuff!

Were Beat

Economic collapse

Political collapse.

Agricultural collapse.

Destruction!

Environmental destruction

We barley survive!

Climate Change.(bad)

Which column has the biggest risk? Well let’s avoid that column then. Discuss!

Curmudgeon
24 December 2007 at 23:00

Everyone seems to have their own favourite graph or link to prove their point, Here is mine which totally contradicts Whitehead's assertion.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07....

All rather confusing

Avihu
25 December 2007 at 07:17

Let us hope that we shall all find the wisdom to, and promote the idea the need to conserve energy and use renewable energy instead of resorting to nuclear energy!

Cybertiger
25 December 2007 at 08:03

"Let us hope that we shall all find the wisdom to ..."

"Men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all the other alternatives."

jamest
25 December 2007 at 10:47

dear Curmudgeon,

Actiually. If you read it carefully it supports Whitehouse's points.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07....

John West
26 December 2007 at 07:32

I am not confused at all. The earth is responding to the activity of the Sun and it's oscillating climate producing systems such as ocean currents. It always has. We happen to be noticing it because we now have technology to measure it..

We will adapt as we have always done in the past or else we would not still be here.

The global warming scare is a political agenda and we are being lied to .

Al Gore is the king with no clothes.

Hok'tar
26 December 2007 at 10:16

QUOTING: bitin

21 December 2007

I think that the global warming phenomenon is way less related to climate change than it is related to the mass psychology of "Western" mind:

The logic evolves the following way

a. we (Western civilization) are evil

b. therefore we inflict evil changes on the world

c. but we can do something about it

d. let's reverse these changes

Enjoy

END QUOTE

>>>>THIS is what the Great GW Flap is all about. Having worked in the sociological slipstream of several of the local UK GW/green luminaries for a couple of decades, I've always been struck by the psychological malaise of this miserable band. As I always said to my staff, 'Get the people thing right, and the planet will take care of itself - and us.'

The GGW Flap is, in my considered opinion, a stark symptom of Western self-hatred coupled with profound guilt conflicted by overweening ego. If half these Flappers would devote their energies into taking care of their fellow humans, this GW 'problem' would melt away.

piytar
26 December 2007 at 16:12

"Scientists believe those gases absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the Earth's surface, causing heat to be retained."

Real scientists, esp. ones with any actual knowledge of physics, know this is 100% junk "science." Why? CO2 absorbs IR radiation in only a few narrow frequency bands, and the CO2 present in the atmosphere absorbs 100% of the most significant frequency band in the first dozen or so yards of atmosphere (and in a couple hundred yards for the less significant band). You would have to remove about 90% of the CO2 in the atmosphere to stop ANY of those frequencies from being absorbed completely by the atmosphere -- and then all the plants would be dead (and us along with them).

"The working hypothesis of global warming remains a good one, says Mr. Whitehouse."

He's too smart to believe this, but he's probably just just picking his fight here -- not taking on the accepted mythology of the AGW mechanism because attacking the end result is easier. As explained above, the "working hypothesis" is 100% bunk that flies in the face of the laws of phyics.

Linky: http://nov55.com/ntyg.html

Too bad people know so little about basic science and physics that they are buying into this whole mythology. And too bad they don't realize the mythology is being pushed for purely political and economic reasons, not scientific ones. Examples: Gore is positioned to make millions on his carbon offset trading scheme, and for some reason, every "solution" to AGW seems to involve more government spending (esp. to fund climate "scientists" who are pushing the mythology), more government power, and more taxation.

Nelson
26 December 2007 at 19:03

'Flies in the laws of physics', '100% bunk'? The greehouse effect is solid, established physics. It's not often explained well, however. Try these, which debunk the saturation argument very nicely:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-satu...

Nelson
26 December 2007 at 19:12

That nov55 site you linked has some, erm, 'interesting' science on it. It's not one I'd recommend...

mapou
27 December 2007 at 03:41

So if global temps decrease in the next 10 years or so, in spite of ever increasing greenhouse gases, will Al gore and the IPCC give back their Nobel prize money and will they be prosecuted for fraud? Don't hold your CO2-ladden breath.

amos083
27 December 2007 at 07:22

So far, almost all AGW skeptic articles I have read can be divided into 3 categories:

1. "This government / politician whom I hate says there is warming, therefore it must be a hoax".

Well...

2. "These eminent scientists say there is no warming" - which is strange, coming from those who wish to debunk eminent scientists who say there is.

3. "There used to be global warming, but it had stopped in 1998" - The evidence to the contrary is posted right here by Arie Brand.

4. "There were warmer periods in the past before people were around" - which of course does not mean that the current warming is *not* caused by human activity.

5. "This or that scientist has been wrong about something, therefore all scientists are wrong all the time" - which sounds rather fundamentalist.

Even those who know the facts, often misinterpret them. Mr. Whitehouse seems to think that global temperatures should rise in direct proportion to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Well, it is not. The main fear in this regard is that of a *runaway* greenhouse effect.

The main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water, which occurs in much larger quantities than CO2; the trouble is, an unnatural addition of CO2 would cause just a bit of extra warming, but this might tip the balance of evaporation, which might cause more warming by the greenhouse effect of water vapor, which might cause more evaporation, etc.

In any case, the undisputed fact is that there is a global natural parameter - the amount of free CO2 - which has increased by 36% due to human activities. Whatever are its effects, such a large change to the natural environment cannot be ignored, and should be dealt with.

M*G
27 December 2007 at 10:38

Why? Why global warming stopped?????

It is easy. The glacier discharge (Arctic, Antarctic) absorbs the big part of global warm energy just and now. Apocalypse is just beginning

Martin Gres wrote from security zone Czech Republic

jackdromie
27 December 2007 at 12:22

er amos83 - I think you are a bit confused. Dr Whitehouse is pointing out - quite correctly - that there has been a recent change and that requires an explanation.

Er if CO2 is so bad why do commercial growers increase its level in their glasshouses beyond what is in the atmosphere?

Brute
27 December 2007 at 14:22

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote.

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”

This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”

Nelson
27 December 2007 at 16:16

It's Inhofe's list of 400 sceptics again! Woohoo! If it's impossible to argue against consensus in the published literature, just generate a list of the usual sceptics, plus anyone who's ever appeared on a paper used to challenge AGW (whether they're sceptic or not), plus a scattering of random 'experts'. Who needs relevance, anyway?

Cybertiger
27 December 2007 at 16:52

We all consume too much and Americans are by far the biggest consumers. The only way to reduce gasoline consumption is to tax it. I believe Americans should be taxed till their pips squeak.

PS. There are just two ways to wake Americans from their democratic slumbers – tax ‘em to the hilt and abolish the death penalty at home. Achieve those two things and the idiot nation will rise up, solve the problem of world overpopulation … and collaterally save the Earth.

PPS. 'Destroy in order to save' is the modern American motto.

PPPS. In general, experts are liars and should be executed - generally the Americans ones. Indiscriminate destruction is the only way to save the planet

Brute
27 December 2007 at 18:15

Americans can consume more because we can AFFORD to; it’s called PROSPERITY and FREEDOM. Yes, The Brits know all about taxes don't they. Face it, you live in a failed society that's lost its edge; can't compete. Oh well, were just waiting patiently over here for another crisis to arise threatening Merry Old England so we'll have to bail you out AGAIN.

When will you tree hugging crusaders wake up from your drug induced stupor and see the forest for the trees, (pun intended).

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )

UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.”

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK)

A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )

With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists.

Nelson
27 December 2007 at 19:55

'Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired' - a case in point. It'd be unfair to point out that he has no formal qualifications in climatology - just a Bachelor of Architecture.

Anyway, his argument should stand on its own merits, right? Well, it falls over. It's really rather embarrassing. One of McLean's claims is that '60% of [critical comments on one chapter] were rejected by IPCC editors'. Should he have pointed out that one Vincent Grey was responsible for... 572 critical comments, 97% of which were rejected? Hardly surprising given that some were 'Insert after "Bayesian" "(or super-guesswork)"'; 'Insert before "Calibrated" "Bogus"'.

You can read and laugh about this clowning at http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/john_mclean_and_the_...

Brute
27 December 2007 at 21:29

It’s really quite telling when people who are so “concerned” about the Earth’s climate are so visibly unhappy and dismissive when there is good news regarding the planet’s environment. Does this positive news interfere with your agenda?

ONCE BELIEVERS, NOW SKEPITCS

Claude Allegre: A top geophysicist and French Socialist converted from alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!"

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young scientists recanted his belief in manmade emissions driving global warming and now blames the Sun.

David Bellamy: Famed UK environmental campaigner David Bellamy recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the new science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock."

Meteorologist Reid Bryson, who was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears.

Cybertiger
27 December 2007 at 21:39

"Americans can consume more because we can AFFORD to; it’s called PROSPERITY and FREEDOM. "

PROSPERITY in the DEMOCRACY is firmly built on the FREEDOM to plunder the world’s finite resources by brute force.

Brute
27 December 2007 at 21:43

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts

"Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."

The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions."

"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (LINK)

The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists wrote.

"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter added. Note: To read about the latest peer-reviewed research debunking man-made climate fears, see: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears - LINK - & New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds: "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - For a detailed analysis of how "consensus" has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called "Consensus" On Global Warming - LINK ]

The scientists' letter continued: "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions."

"The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts," the letter added. [EPW Note: Only 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers in April 2007, according to the Associated Press. - LINK - An analysis by Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean in 2007 found the UN IPCC peer-review process to be "an illusion." LINK ]

# # #

Complete Letter with all signatories - As published in Canada's National Post on December 13, 2007:

Cybertiger
27 December 2007 at 21:51

@thebrute

"Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young scientists recanted his belief in manmade emissions driving global warming and now blames the Sun."

Anyone who believes in G-d but not in man made emissions ... is a tosser.

Brute
27 December 2007 at 22:03

60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears

Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.

“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?...

“It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,” the 60 scientists concluded.

'Climate Change is Nothing New'

In addition, an October 16, 2006 Washington Post article titled “Climate Change is Nothing New” echoed the sentiments of the 60 scientists as it detailed a new study of the earth’s climate history. The Washington Post article by reporter Christopher Lee noted that Indiana University geologist Simon Brassell found climate change occurred during the age of dinosaurs and quoted Brassell questioning the accuracy of computer climate model predictions.

“If there are big, inherent fluctuations in the system, as paleoclimate studies are showing, it could make determining the Earth’s climatic future even harder than it is,” Brassell said. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10...

Brute
28 December 2007 at 01:25

More “Tossers” ?

His Excellency

Ban Ki-Moon Secretary-General,

United Nations New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ¬government ¬representatives. The great ¬majority of IPCC contributors and ¬reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

*Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

*The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

*Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.p... ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali [Link to List of signatories]:

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology

Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

stargazer
28 December 2007 at 10:58

Brute. I am English and I agree with you.... here are another nineteen thousand scientists who agree too http://www.oism.org/pproject/

I got to say though that what you said don't help to cause any

"Oh well, were just waiting patiently over here for another crisis to arise threatening Merry Old England so we'll have to bail you out AGAIN".

Jacek
28 December 2007 at 11:02

There has never been a global warming as portraied by the Gore group. it is simply another grab for money.

Nelson
28 December 2007 at 11:18

Stargazer, the Oregon Petition you linked to has been thoroughly, thoroughly discredited. It's a joke. Read up about it.

What is this obsession with lists, anyway?

Brute, it's good to see Vincent Gray reappearing (with the usual suspects) in your most recent Wall of Text. He's the one who had 97% of his 572 proposed changes to one chapter of the IPCC report rejected. He labels himself an 'expert reviewer' - which means he asked to read the draft report. What a leading climatologist he is!

I could find 200 PhDs or peers who believe in Intelligent Design. What a list that would make - but how does that legitimise their 'science'? Ah, it doesn't.

Hitch
28 December 2007 at 16:44

Only one simple fact is needed to debunk the whole anthropogenic global warming scandal - Mars has also warmed - same degree, same period of time.

'Nuff said! Unless of course, you wish to blame little green men for driving martian suv's.

The whole of society ought to come down hard on this "consensus science". Historically, consensus science has always been wrong.

We ought to doubt far more what the "scientific community" claims.

It's all money, politics, personal agendas and power these days wherein one cannot get grants unless one follows the sheep.

The same pattern of political agendas is more than evident in the whole intelligent design vs materialist Darwinism controversy. The consensus Darwinists fight tooth and nail to protect their materialist edifice from any questioning at all.

Now the AGW "scientists" have learned the same tactics of crying "Heresy!" against any one questioning the "most scientists agree" dogma.

Shame on Al Gore, and double shame on the Nobel committee!

bean3422
28 December 2007 at 16:46

Never underestimate the ability of human beings to place themselves upon a pedestal, especially the pedestal of "science and technology". It comes along with our innate desire to be superior.

If you honestly think that the science behind the "Global Warming hysteria" is one hundred percent accurate and infallible, then nothing I can write here will change your mind.

If you are listening to your internal "common sense", and in the back of your mind you realize that despite many scientific and technological advances in the last 100 years, we still have only touched a drop in the bucket compared to what we do not know, then maybe you have a chance to be rational and perhaps question the science and look at both sides of the coin. I find it astonishing that anyone can even claim to accurately measure the earth's temperature with any type of infallibility.

Along with the desire for superiority comes the desire for power, and with the desire for power comes the necessity to control people, and how better to control people than guilt. Even better if you can make millions at the same time.

We are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Tyranny is a shape-shifter extraordinaire, which is able to re-appear in many forms throughout history. When boosted by scientific "fact", it may have finally found it's master shape.

The real question is: Is the earth here for us, or are we here for the earth? The philosophical fine line presented there is of utmost importance.

We love to make ourselves seem much more important than we are. It is an amazing dichotemy to me that those who place themselves upon the pedestal of "intellectuality" are most often the same who bow down to "mother earth" even when it interferes with human progress, comfort, etc. (Most often as long as it doesn't interfere with their comfort I should add.)

If all this hysteria does is give everyone more awareness, and cause people to not waste our natural resources, great. I can jump on that bandwagon. I can't think of anyone I know who would not.

But no one caught up on the global warming scare seems to be able to see the more sinister sides of all of this. (And there are many.)

In the end, there may be nothing we can do. Freedom will only remain when it is valued, and people can recognize it.

"Those who will not govern themselves, are begging to be governed."

Nelson
28 December 2007 at 17:20

'Mars has also warmed - same degree, same period of time.' - Er, no. How do these myths perpetuate? Evidence for warming on Mars is pretty much restricted to some before-and-after photos of sublimated CO2. We know virtually nothing about the Martian climate - far less than the Earth's - and looking there for any insight is pretty pointless. It doesn't exonerate us in the slightest.

Science is not dogmatic. If you dispute the consensus, then publish your scientific evidence that it is wrong. Anecdotal evidence of warming on Mars/intelligent design/pixies in your garden does not a compelling argument make.

Cybertiger
28 December 2007 at 17:28

“Shame on Al Gore, and double shame on the Nobel committee!”

The Nobel committee did not cover themselves in glory by awarding a peace prize to Henry Kissinger in 1973.

Cybertiger
28 December 2007 at 17:33

“Along with the desire for superiority comes the desire for power, and with the desire for power comes the necessity to control people, and how better to control people than guilt.”

I wonder who on earth would consider that Americans could be controlled by guilt – or an appeal to conscience - where neither exists.

“If all this hysteria does is give everyone more awareness, and cause people to not waste our natural resources, great. I can jump on that bandwagon.”

And would that wagon be an SUV, old bean?

Brute
28 December 2007 at 18:36

Stargazer,

And to all of the British reading this site, I apologize unreservedly. My country was attacked and I retaliated; I should have been more mature in my response(s). Great Britain has been a loyal ally and great friend to the United States. I tend to get frustrated with the constant criticism of my country and take it personally. It seems at times that every country in the world unjustifiably blames the United States for their woes and "perceived injustices" as opposed to being introspective.

The environmentalists have misdirected their vitriol. The environmental zealots should be attacking Indian, Chinese and Russian environmental policies, (if they are truly concerned about the planet’s health); these countries pollute massively and make no bones about it. The aforementioned countries do not have an equivalent to The Environmental Protection Agency to my knowledge as does the United States and I would assume the United Kingdom. Western societies, in general, at least attempt to implement and enforce environmental policies/practices.

The Global Warming hysteria is a fad…… akin to pet rocks, disco and hula hoops promoted by the likes of Al Gore who just brokered a deal with his cronies to cash in on the 6 TRILLION dollar “Green Energy” movement; a complete and absolute fraud. I have nothing against Al Gore making a buck; however, denigrating the United States and portraying his own countrymen as evil, greedy, uncaring, selfish and exploitive should not qualify him for a Nobel Peace prize, especially when the assertions that he makes are based on false and thoroughly discredited information. Initially, his assertions were taken seriously; but after close scrutiny, his arguments are falling apart one by one. Al Gore and his buddies just spent several days listening to each other pontificate about the evils of the industrialized world in Bali; each flying their own personal jet to a meeting halfway around the world dining on gourmet meals in air conditioned hotel rooms and surfing on the luxurious beaches in absolute splendor. The entire conference could have been conducted via video conferencing sans the $1000.00 per night hotel rooms….doesn’t sound like their “concern” for the planet’s welfare is genuine.

The irony of this situation is that automakers and various other purveyors of “Green Technology” are making money hand over fist hawking their wares to people who fall for this line of brainwashing. Automobile hybrid technology has existed for decades and the industry, (capitalists), are selling these automobiles at rates 20% higher than conventional vehicles leveraging the guilt mindset of the masses; the same capitalists that many people posting on this site despise. They’ve turned the tables and are profiting from this mania; good for them. There’s one born every minute……..

I happen to be an Engineer by trade and familiar with energy efficiency and energy conservation. I don’t believe anyone would argue that human beings should be good stewards and responsible with energy, it simply makes sense both personally and commercially; good business practice…..but to tax and regulate in the way that many Environmentalist advocate is regressive and irresponsible. I will use the same amount of energy whether costs increase or not; commercially the costs will be passed along to the end user, (my customers). If someone figures out a way to produce energy efficiently and satisfy everyone's concerns; more power to them, (pun intended). I will not however live in a cave and burn candles for light or drive an unsafe vehicle...isn't going to happen.

My opinion is that the Environmentalist have a quite different agenda than “saving the planet” which is redistribution of wealth, a.k.a. Marxism/Collectivism. As stated earlier; good news concerning the environment is met by them with derision and ridicule. Their ideology and “reasoning” is based on emotion and class envy as opposed to reality, logic and fact.

Take the time to study BOTH sides of the argument and decide for yourselves.

Cybertiger
28 December 2007 at 20:10

"My country was attacked and I retaliated; I should have been more mature in my response ..."

The brute is clearly no Jesus freak like the majority of his countrymen - and the beloved leader. What would Jesus have done? Jesus would have turned the other cheek. The reality is that Americans don't follow Jesus, they follow the ways of the casual, vengeful brute.

tluxon
28 December 2007 at 20:19

Nelson wrote:

"I could find 200 PhDs or peers who believe in Intelligent Design. What a list that would make - but how does that legitimise their 'science'? Ah, it doesn't."

Nor does it illegitimize it. The whole point is that science comes up with hypotheses on the basis of assumptions. If you haven't made assumptions, you're not doing "science", you're collecting data.

Keep in mind that in science "proof" is not required to equate to "truth", much like selective evidence and a clever lawyer in a court of law do not always add up to justice.

The debate may be "over" a court of law or a "consensus", but it is never "over" to a true and honest scientist.

Brute
28 December 2007 at 20:29

Cyberkitty,

Wrong again! As a matter of fact, I am what you would consider a "Jesus Freak".

I don't understand what Intelligent Design, (posted by Comrade Nelson a few comments back), or my religious beliefs have to do with a discussion about Climatology. Please enlighten me; are we now discussing The Global War on Terrorism?

"It should not surprise us that environmentalists demand sacrifices, for any religion demands sacrifices. And like other religions, environmentalism is a human-centered one. Yes, in its purest form, it is Earth worship; its reverence is directed at something decidedly non-human. However, the beliefs and tenets of the faith concern humans and their role in natural history. Inevitably, in the modern world, this role is an antagonistic one for the environmentalists. Humans are the problem, and the solution will demand some bane to human beings. It is this simple fact that has led Peter Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace and a man who has become disaffected with the environmental zealots, to call environmentalists "anti-human."

Flybert
28 December 2007 at 20:31

@ David et 'al that have referenced the NASA charts

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/USHCN.2005vs1999.lr...

learn how to read a chart and make projections please

from 1998 draw an averaging line on either the global or US charts .. the trend since 1998 is slightly downward to 2005 where the chat ends, so if 2006 and 2007 about the same as 2001 through 2005, this would appear to be a plateau in the graph

so the NASA charts are in agreement, it just seems some people's education and skills in science, mathematics and logic are lacking

not to mention global warming has always been a generally good thing for man and the earth's biomass totals .. we emerged as Homo Sapiens / Modern man during the last warm interglacial period about 130,000 years ago, and really didn't get going until about 12,000-15,000 years ago when the glacial ice started to receed ... we are likely near the end of about 8000 years of this warm period actually, and what would very bad to man, would be a mini ice age (the most recent, really just a blip in the occilating pattern of the last 8000 years) ... what would be a disaster for much life on earth would be a genuine shift back towards an ice age .. where in 130,000 years from now, humans will be finding polar bears flash frozen with seal meat in their guts, and Albert Arnold Gore 5235th will be elected President of Europasia on a new Global Warming Crisis platform

guy the gorilla
28 December 2007 at 22:25

Just about anybody with enough time on their hands can deconstruct anything. All you need is:

1) A receptive audience

2) A cursory (at best) understanding of the subject-matter

3) A conspiracy theory

The standard approach to deconstruction is to search the mass of data and commentary on your target subject for a few pieces of information that support the position that the audience wants to hear, while ignoring everything that contradicts that position. This only works if the target audience is at least slightly more ignorant than the author. Then of course one needs a conspiracy theory to explain why everyone who actually studies the subject for a living disagrees with the author.

So we have Mr. Whitehouse (is that his real name?) with an audience of neo-cons, no scientific training, and a conspiracy theory linking Al Gore, so-called “carbon taxers,” and several thousand scientists around the world whose backgrounds literally cut across dozens of cultural, religious, and language barriers. We also have the Swift Boat Veterans with their audience of angry Republicans, made-up biography of John Kerry, and an imagined liberal media conspiracy. We have the Flat Earth Society with an audience of cranks, a fairly complete misunderstanding of astronomy, and a global scientific conspiracy to push the anti-biblical notion that the Earth is round (yes, the Bible says the Earth is flat). And don't forget the Holocaust deniers with a receptive audience of anti-semites, bogus historical information, and a conspiracy theory too sordid to mention.

The list goes on and on -- The Moon Landing Hoaxers, OJ, and yes, Mr. Whitehouse. Whitehouse’s audience is obviously the same dittoheads as listen to Rush and Glenn Beck, and not an objective adherent to the Scientific Method are we to find in the whole wretched lot. Most silly of all is that his conspiracy theory requires coordinating the unethical behaviour of pretty much the entire scientific community, comprising thousands of individual in various disciplines, located all around the world.

The problem is that, while deconstruction is easy, science is hard. Jobs and funding in science are extremely difficult to come by, and competition among scientists is fierce. No idea is even considered unless it is supported by copious evidence, and even then it is subjected to ruthless scrutiny in peer-reviewed forums. There is simply no way that a massive, worldwide conspiracy could succeed in such an environment.

In short, OJ is guilty, Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, the Earth is round, the Holocaust happened, and global warming exacerbated by mankind’s activity is a fact. If you really want to learn about climatology on this planet, pick up a book by an actual scientist, and don't waste your time with articles like this

Brute
28 December 2007 at 22:51

I agree. I suggest reading this author, (an actual scientist).

Patrick J. Michaels

Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies

Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials such as the Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and Journal of Commerce. He was an author of the climate "paper of the year" awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004. He has appeared on ABC, NPR's "All Things Considered," PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC and Voice of America. According to Nature magazine, Pat Michaels may be the most popular lecturer in the nation on the subject of global warming. Michaels holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979.

Books and Book Chapters

Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media

The Satanic Gases

Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming

"Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories," Policy Analysis no. 576, August 23, 2006.

"Review of the 2001 U.S. Climate Action Report," White Paper, June 3, 2002.

"Long Hot Year: Latest Science Debunks Global Warming Hysteria," Policy Analysis no. 329, December 31, 1998.

"The Consequences of Kyoto," Policy Analysis no. 307, May 7, 1998.

Trends in Precipitation on the Wettest Days of the Year across the Contiguous United States. International Journal of Climatology 24, pp. 1873-1882, 2004.

A Test of Corrections for Extraneous Signals in Gridded Surface Temperature Data. Climate Research 26, pp. 159-174, 2004.

Decadal Changes in Summer Mortality in U.S. Cities. International Journal of Biometeorology 47, pp. 166-175, 2003.

Opinion and Commentary

"Not So Hot," American Spectator, December 27, 2007

"Inventing the Whirlwind?," American Spectator, December 13, 2007

"Unnatural History," American Spectator, November 28, 2007

"The Fires This Time," American Spectator, October 29, 2007

"Gore's Noble Challenge," American Spectator, October 12, 2007

[View more Opinion and Commentary]

Events

"Global Warming: Some Convenient Facts," May 7, 2007 [Capitol Hill Briefing]

"Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media," November 18, 2004 [Book Forum]

stargazer
28 December 2007 at 23:01

Brute

28 December 2007

"Stargazer, And to all of the British reading this site, I apologize unreservedly. My country was attacked and I retaliated; I should have been more mature in my response(s). Great Britain has been a loyal ally and great friend to the United States. I tend to get frustrated with the constant criticism of my country and take it personally. It seems at times that every country in the world unjustifiably blames the United States for their woes and "perceived injustices" as opposed to being introspective. "

Ok excepted...thanks... Shame cybertiger was not big enough too....

And 'Guy the gorilla'... I AM an Astronomer and no I don't subscribe to any of the 'conspiracy's on your very long rant list!!! You use name calling even to the point of wondering if Mr Whitehouse's name is real... shame.

not an idiot
28 December 2007 at 23:03

Guy the gorrilla and Brute are obviously complete idiots. Perhaps Patrick Michaels (biologist) has something to say, I dunno. Dr Whitehouse (astrophysicist) certainly has. Dr Whitehouse (real name - check him out dummy) is absolutely correct.

Question is, now what?

kenzrw
29 December 2007 at 04:09

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice area is the highest it's been in 30 years:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area....

Why?

OilMonkey
29 December 2007 at 04:15

All the AGW skeptics need not worry.

We -- as a species generally and as Americans and Westerners specifically -- are clearly not interested in doing anything substantive about the problem (which doesn't exist).

So "pack up your troubles in your old kit-bag and smile, smile, smile".

Our sacred, "not-negotiable" way of life gives us the power to reach glorious new heights of profligacy, hubris and indifference in the New Year.

I'm very proud and excited and I know you are too.

Have a safe, healthy and happy New Year!

Peace to you and yours.

Vail Beach
29 December 2007 at 05:05

I was afraid this would happen.

Global warming is dubious. The environmental damage done in the here and now by fossil fuel extraction, use and disposal should be sufficient motivation to pursue alternatives aggressively, but now the idea of alt-energy is inextricably tied to AGW. If AGW turns out to be mass hysteria, how does the environmental movement recover?

Please, no more "the debate is over." It makes enviros look like fascists, when all we should be about is saving lives and protecting habitats.

dennisk
29 December 2007 at 05:22

For a fascinating review of global warming, cooling, and climate change over more than 100 years, see the following: http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandi...

See the bibliographies and the related articles about federal spending on this subject.

Brute
29 December 2007 at 06:49

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU

CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.

Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated

by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the

average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for

electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural

gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property

consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.

This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's

in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction

can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and

is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central

closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water

through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67

degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The

system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes

25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling

system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000

gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets

goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The

collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers

and shrubs native to the are! a blend the property into the surrounding

rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of

Nashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist

(and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford,

Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private

residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Nelson
29 December 2007 at 11:50

Flybert, you've fallen into the very common trap of just drawing a straight line through the temperature data. And commited a cardinal statistical sin of cherry-picking 1998 so you get a downward trend. What if you had picked 1997? Or 1999? Your trend is gone...

That's why you need rigorous trend analysis. The noise is too great and the signal too small for a simple linear trend -

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

Heaven forbid that I accuse people of playing games with numbers to pretend that the world isn't warming, of course.

cgw
29 December 2007 at 14:46

Will someone please tell me what is the correct temperature for the earth?

Brute
29 December 2007 at 15:25

Gore's 'Carbon Offsets' Paid To Firm He Owns

Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.

Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms," writes blogger Dan Riehl.

Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere."

But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming," reports blogger Bill Hobbs.

Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice.

Hobbs points out Gore stands to make a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, which is disputed by many mainstream scientists.

"In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks."

As WND reported, Gore, whose film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made "global warming" won two Oscars, has a mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service.

The think tanks says since the release of Gore's film, the former presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.

cheading
29 December 2007 at 16:04

cgw

Unknown. Yet I do know that the sky at night is majestic, and far beyond anything we will ever even start to comprehend. Our arrogance is no better now than the blood letting by Royal appointed Scientists of the 15th Century. Scientists can't even build me a cat or a blade of grass, yet they know it all. Ignorant beyond belief. Oh and the Sun doesn't appear to me to be constant temperature, which might be a slight clue.

guy the gorilla
29 December 2007 at 17:55

Brute

One thing we appear to have in common is that "not an idiot" thinks we are both idiots. Another thing we probably have in common is that neither of us are losing any sleep over that.

Thank you for the links to other writers. Whether they actually know what they are talking about I shall assess with all due speed. I also thank you for pointing out information on Whitehouse' s credentials - the truth is that before I launched my earlier rant I googled the name and only came up with information on an archaeologist and also on another individual who is the curator of a museum of glass. Thus my initial thought that this person might be just another shill for Big Oil using a cognomen. Since I am American I am not familiar with him - apparently he is a reporter of some import in the UK. Thanks to your prompting I dug a little deeper and observed that this individual really is a degreed astrophysicist. I stand corrected sir, and thank you for pointing me in the right direction.

Having read your other postings I must disagree strongly with "not an idiot's" assessment of your intellectual prowess. While we appear to disagree somewhat, you sir, are no fool.

But anyway, back to Whitehouse and his degree in astrophysics. Does this really qualify him as an expert in climatology? I'm thinking of Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, who certainly knew his chemistry, pontificating on the crackpot idea that Vitamin C cures the common cold, when he really had zero medical training to speak of. To take the analogy a little further - would you rely on your podiatrist to do your vasectomy?

Thus, I'm more interested in what bona-fide experts in the field have to say about the topic, Mr. Whitehouse, Linus Pauling, and my podiatrist's credentials in other fields notwithstanding.

So really - how do you account for the huge number of scientists who DO take this seriously?

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

Is it your position that they are all lying? Why would they do that? Who would organize such a conspiracy?

Do you really believe that pouring billions of metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere can be expected to have zero effect on anything?

And have you ever noticed that only two out of potentially hundreds of scientific issues appear to have been politicized? Strange that you don't see arguments breaking out all over the place regarding the mechanics of continental drift. My car mechanic appears to have no opinion on the accretion processes at work during planetary formation, and my paper boy doesn't seem to care whether or not the universe will continue to expand forever. Why is it that people only seem to be arguing about evolution and global warming?

In other words, who is behind the outcry over these two topics, and these two topics only? I would argue that someone, and someone with deep pockets, is responsible for raising the holy stink. And why is it, curiously enough, that if the positions that most scientists are arguing for - that evolution and global warming caused by mankind's activity is fact - become accepted views with the majority of the unwashed masses, that this will result in the loses of billions of dollars of revenue for some pretty powerful entities? Neither religious organizations nor Big Oil want to see their revenue impacted, do they?

So aren't you in the least suspicious that it is only these topics that are being batted around so loudly? Doesn't that raise a red flag in your mind that maybe the confusion and discord being sowed is being created by folks whose primary interest is not finding the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me god?

Jonathan S.
29 December 2007 at 19:27

cgw

You nailed it. Only those impressed with their "knowledge" of the climate have a number for you. And, guess what? They are wrong.

Has cybertiger gone to bed or just taken his meds?

Cybertiger
29 December 2007 at 21:29

@brute

"Cyberkitty, Wrong again! As a matter of fact, I am what you would consider a "Jesus Freak"."

Ho, ho, ho, ... who can help but laugh out loud ... at the brutish "Jesus Freak" that can't turn that other cheek! Dontcha jus' love that cutish Bush baby, eye for an eye blind, to its own brutal irony deficiency.

Cybertiger
29 December 2007 at 21:38

@Jonathan S.

"Has cybertiger gone to bed or just taken his meds?"

I just escaped from the big Zoo in San Francisco .... miaow x2 ... and now flying way over the cuckoo's nest!

PS. Jonathan - fine Biblical name - are you a Yankee cuckoo too?

Maz
29 December 2007 at 22:51

At the risk of pushing this discussion back on track or terminating it altogether:

What David Whitehouse has said is that the global temperatures appear to have levelled off over the last seven years. You don’t have to Google the guy to see if you can find some tenuous connection with an oil company. I don’t care who he is. Just look at the graphs http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/Ha... and use your own head! He’s right. You don’t need any fancy stats or trend analysis Nelson. Whether it is just a blip to be followed by another rise or whether it signals the onset of a downward trend is something that no scientist (whatever his/her credentials) can tell you. We just don’t know. That’s the point of the article.

One could argue that if CO2 is the main driver (as the AGW enthusiasts would have you believe) then it must quickly start to rise again. If it doesn’t then the theory is in trouble. There are signs that the sun might be entering a quiet phase with possibly a Dalton type minimum. Still very speculative, but it would be helpful. If the temps start to drop (as they seem to be doing in the Southern Hemisphere already) then I think most sensible people in the field will have to admit that the big yellow thing in the sky has far more control over global climate than CO2.

Catastrophe cancelled. We need to find another scare story.

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc.
30 December 2007 at 00:44

Nelson refers to a really ignorant article called "Wiggles", which can be found here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/.

I have previously shown a graph of mean monthly world temperatures, over 120 months. This graph can be seen here: http://altice.blog.is/blog/altice/entry/398432/ (click twice on the picture for clearest graphics).

You can see that there is a lot of "noise" in the data as it is called in the "Wiggles" article mentioned before. This "noise" is actually a measure of the quality of the data. In the real world, there is very little difference between world mean temperature from one month to the next. Obviously this applies also for temperature from one day to the next. In reality, the change in atmospheric energy is a continuous process and the mean monthly values should reflect this better than daily values. Notice that the temperature is a proxy for heat energy in the atmosphere.

I have calculated the numerical mean difference of monthly temperature over the 120 months period and find that this value is 0,170 C-degrees. Therefore, this figure can be understood as mean accuracy of the measurements. It is useful to compare this with the slope of the regression line, mentioned in my last comment, which was found to be 0,108 C-degrees in 120 months. When a regression line is determined, this "noise" is eliminated by the process, as far as allowed by the method used.

The conclusion is, that during the last 120 months the mean world temperature has been constant ! What is important in this connection, is the fact that mean world temperature has reached a level top, which has lasted this long (about 3.600 days). No-body knows what will happen during next few years, but it should be obvious to all people that the upward trend has stopped. Will the temperature stay at this level for some time, or will it continue the bending trend and go down ?

Most people who are interested in the climate debate know about the "Hockey Stick" graph. For the mean world temperature, such faulty graphs can easily be generated by taking averages over longer and longer periods. This is because during the Little Ice Age (say 1500-1700), the temperatures were obviously very low, compared to present situation. The 400 years period since middle of the Little Ice Age, can for example be divided into 10 years periods and we would have 40 points on a graph, which has a sharp upward bend towards the last 10 years and beyond. This is exactly what the climate fanatics are doing.

Such manipulations say nothing about current trend, or what can be expected to happen during the immediate future.

8498693
30 December 2007 at 03:19

Once you cut away all the fat, global warming is essentially an organised effort by nations to deal with a post Cold War United States. Nobody can beat them militarily or economically so countries feel they need to try and guilt them into some kind of order. It has almost nothing to do with any perceived warming that may or may not be taking place (for reasons we can speculate upon but have no concrete idea as to why). If there was a serious global warming problem then

Chinese co-operation would be needed in an effort to find a solution. Until that happens, it's all just a cloud of left-wing smoke and babble that will serve as background noise for mature thinking people for many years to come.

Bill Wright
30 December 2007 at 06:02

Goog god - I looked at the graphs. Dr Whitehouse is right - global warming stopped 7 years ago. Why isn't this front page news? Why is it not leading BBC TV news, CNN? How will Al Gore explain it? Give the good doctor a medal.

Seriously - does news come any bigger than this in this day and age? Especially since it's been under our noses for years.

FiftiesKid
30 December 2007 at 07:53

As some of the posters have alluded to, the real discussion should be how to reduce emissions just because it is the sensible, not to mention moral, thing to do, and not because the use of fossil fuels to produce the greatest prosperity and comfort level in the brief history of humanity is somehow perceived as evil.

Chernobyl was an obsolete design (carbon pile) of nuclear plant; the newer designs work properly. The by-products can be safely contained.

The fact that some rabid environmentalists (I used to be one back in the 60’s) reject even this option (can you imagine the idea of completely electric cars being charged by this non-fossil fuel, which is also not subject to any embargos, etc.) merely shows that their main motivation is not the saving of the environment, but is the reduction of a prosperous lifestyle that they find, for one reason or another, distasteful.

With all due respect, Cybertiger (I won’t consider the Freudian implications of someone who calls their self “tiger”, especially given this individual’s apparent high level of hostility) reminds me of the early proponents of communism. In their personal lives, they could not make a go of it in their respective societies, so they chose instead to tear down those societies to a very base level, where their lives would then have meaning and they would then exhibit relative success (especially if they were now the leaders of these new societal movements. Sound all too familiar?).

All of this west/successful, prosperous living-bashing is just another symptom of jealousy by individuals who, for whatever reasons, are similarly unable to adjust to and/or live successfully in the current culture. They are one tiny step removed from the Islamic radicals who wish to take this entire planet’s civilization back to the seventh century (when men were men and women were trash), or some other religious fundamentalists who wish to take us back to an earlier time when high priests decided who would burn at the stake for looking at the stars in the night sky a little longer than the rigidly prescribed maximum, instead of praying to some imaginary father figure in that sky, and coincidentally, where women were also trash (I’m a male, by the way).

The current debate is clouded because of distrust of the messengers on both sides of it. Those who feel that prosperity is a good thing don’t trust those on the fringe of the environmental movement, because of their seeming desire to throw out the baby of prosperity with the bathwater of the real and imagined environmental problems facing this planet. As a poster pointed out, they don’t seem to be raising as much of a stink about China as they do about America. This speaks volumes to their personal agenda of west/success-bashing jealousy, as described above.

Those on the environmental side don’t trust those who have seemed to fight any reductions in threats to the environment in the past. This includes those who fought emission reductions in manufacturing, energy production, and transportation. As for DDT, natural controls are always better, longer lasting, and safer. Those who fought against these safer and necessary changes to our habits regarding the environment are perceived to be the ones currently fighting against the AGW true believers.

I personally think that the truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle, but just want the facts, whoever the messenger happens to be. And, as any English teacher will point out, a fact is something that has been proven to be true.

Cybertiger
30 December 2007 at 08:46

George Bush emits a lot of hot, fetid air, is corrupt, brutal, and greedy - and believes in his own design intelligence. Al Gore suppresses a lot of hot emissions, is venal, brutal and corrupt while believing in G-d and the man made heat of the Earth.

Q. What is the commonality between these two gentlefolk?

A. They’re all-Amerikan jerky.

Cybertiger
30 December 2007 at 08:54

"Nobody can beat them militarily or economically so countries feel they need to try and guilt them into some kind of order."

With all due respect, 8498693, Amerikans don't do guilt any more than they do conscience ... this idea of order is preposterous.

Paulo
30 December 2007 at 10:34

Including some references would help. Or else it is just a war of words, as one can see by this Wired Magazine article which states that 2007 "was also shaping up to be the hottest year on record in the Northern Hemisphere."

Paulo
30 December 2007 at 10:36

link: click here

Paulo
30 December 2007 at 10:37

oops, full link here:

http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/Y/YE_CLIMATE_RECORDS?S...

Maz
30 December 2007 at 11:03

Hats off to whoever figured out earlier on that the term "Global Warming" was a little risky to use to scare people. "Climate Change" was a lot better. It covers everything. This way one could lump any weather, that's not quite a fine sunny day, under evidence thereof. So the same physical process can now be held responsible for very hot or very cold, very wet or very dry and any windy phenomenon. Heck in some circles even earthquakes & tsunamis!

The point is how many "extreme" weather events you can find is determined by your definition and how hard you look.

When we have the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, at the start of the year, declare that 2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record and then several weeks before the year ends declare again that it's heading to be the Nth warmest year you know something's not right. A truly independent scientific organisation would have made one announcement at the start of 2008 with the facts (even if it would be coloured somewhat by their interpretation of the data)! But that's not current climate science is it?

Cybertiger
30 December 2007 at 12:42

@FiftiesKid

“With all due respect, Cybertiger (I won’t consider the Freudian implications of someone who calls their self “tiger”, especially given this individual’s apparent high level of hostility) reminds me of the early proponents of communism.”

Like communism, appeasement simply doesn’t work. FiftiesLad (sniggering aside to Freud) seeks to appease hypocrisy, double standards and the trashing of the planet. The communist Chinese recognised the problem and forced family size limitations on their people. The Chinese may have hoped that the West would limit fossil fuel consumption as a quid pro quo. However, the question of overpopulation and resource consuming are big American taboos. Of course, breaking the American taboo simply will never, ever be done.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/demographic.disentrapment/Chapter29De...

It'll never work but I believe the US needs a very hard kick in the goolies.

“Genu robustum ad inguen gentes superantium acerrime applicandum”

But Americans have no balls - except the bare-faced cheek to throw daisy cutters and cluster bombs indiscriminately from 30,000’ - and then, of course, they’re very smart, courageous folk. Professor Maurice King, above, agrees with me.

Robin Guenier
30 December 2007 at 13:02

I got involved with this thread when I challenged the view that the so-called Millennium Bug’s failure to bite (much) was a prime example of a consensus of experts getting things wrong. Not so – see above. But I have watched the thread’s “my expert is more expert than your expert” discussion with amusement. The Millennium Bug’s real lesson, incidentally, was not that those who warned of the need to fix it were wrong but that the “experts” who allowed computer software to use two digits to represent the year were extremely foolish. Conclusion: be cautious about any expert. Nonetheless, it seems reasonably settled that the globe is warming and that recent warming has largely coincided with human industrialisation. It also seems reasonably settled that continued warming would be harmful to mankind. The big question is: can we do anything about it? That, in turn, seems to depend on whether or not it is the result of human activity – especially carbon emissions. Judging by the debate here, the answers are far from clear and to claim that the matter is settled surely foolish. It seems to me, however, that that should not be a reason for inaction: it can hardly be wise, in any event, for mankind to continue its current consumption of fossil fuels. Therefore, action is needed. The challenge is to get global agreement. And that will not be achieved if large numbers of voters in the Western world see the whole issue as a scam, the developing Eastern economies are quite reasonably focused on continuing their development and the poor world is desperate for the growth necessary if it is to achieve freedom from poverty.

It seems to me that the essential first step towards a practical solution is to get the initiative out of the hands of the growth-hating, America-hating green fanatics, particularly those with a visceral hatred of nuclear power.

Nelson
30 December 2007 at 13:14

Lotfur, what is ignorant about that article? Its author is an expert in trend analysis. I'm not sure if you are (despite your appeal to authority with your M.Sc.). He generates a mock data set with a known warming trend and superimposes noise on it (i.e. mimicking GISS/HadCRU data), and shows that you can get an apparent cooling trend, even though we know that one does not exist. He created the data set, remember?

Patrick Hadley
30 December 2007 at 13:43

Robin, while I think I agree with you on global warming, even after looking at your examples I still consider that the millennium bug was vastly over-hyped. I would agree that it would be wrong to pursue our discussion of it on this thread.

Nelson, if you look closely at Tamino's final graph where he shows with a red line the five year moving average of the HadCRU data you will see that it is now pointing downwards, which is basically what Mr Whitehouse said in the article.

Grumpy
30 December 2007 at 15:13

Skyhunter Your the liar!!

Only using part of the facts to support you conclusion.

We are at the bottom of a 11 year cycle which peaked mid 2000. A warm year 1998 was.

Now temp have stabized solar activity at a min.

Goto and see for yourself if you not to lazy.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast22jul99_1.htm Oh, the charts about a third of the down.

Maz
30 December 2007 at 15:29

Robin,

thank you for your learned comments about the Millenium Bug - interesting.

Although I can agree that recent (100yrs) has coincided with industrialisation the relationship is very tenuous and causation cannot be assumed. In fact I believe even the IPCC agree that pre-50s warming was natural not CO2 related.

But I cannot agree that it is reasonably settled that further warming is detrimental. There is simply no evidence for this. In fact the evidence from history is to the contrary. An example from modern data is the fact that although more people might die from heat stress far far more will not die from cold. So the net effect is beneficial in terms of deaths. Of course the likes of the BBC and other outlets are unlikely to give the public the full picture. A little like we've all heard of Arctic Sea Ice being at its lowest for 30yrs but not that Antarctic Sea Ice is at its highest for the same period. But there you are. That's the way it is at the moment.

As you rightly point out we need to wrench this issue out of the hands of the new age socialists, eco-pseudoreligious fanatics and their blinded followers. The scary thing is that we are being diverted from seeking proper long term (>100yr) solutions. If we stunt our economies, place restrictions on developing economies and leave whole countries mired in poverty we are less likely to be able to deal with actual natural disasters in the future. Happy New Year to all.

Brute
30 December 2007 at 16:04

Guy The Gorilla,

Sorry, been out all day. Made a quick 600 mile round trip down to North Carolina in the Hummer to check out a custom made racing car I’m having built. Ironically, it’s a replica of a British race car with an American V-8 stuffed into it…… coming along. (I’m sure the last few sentences will prompt some responses). Made good time, good highway driving; traffic was a little tough through Richmond. Virginia has good highways for the most part.

But seriously;

It wasn’t me that corrected you about Whitehouse, if that’s what you meant; another guy.

Examples of mass manipulation of populations: Fanatical Islamists, Germany 1930’s, Imperial Japan, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung. Granted, the goals of these examples were achieved through brutality and homicide/genocide, but hundreds of thousands followed “the party line” as warped and twisted as they are/were. Censorship of the media, confiscation of firearms, (the first thing the Nazi Party did), deportation/ murder of dissidents, indoctrination of the youth, were used to control the population in order to indoctrinate and condition the remainder…you know the story. It can and has been done.

As for the rest of your questions….how the hell should I know? I’m an Engineer, but I do work in Washington D.C….see it first hand, and I can read and do research on my own. I’m not a Climatologist or a Scientist; but I do recognize a Confidence Scheme/Fraud when I see one. I know that even though Al Gore was a miserable failure as Vice President and Senator, he travels in influential circles and has very deep pockets; he also has access to tons of money through his involvement with the Democratic National Committee and access to the media. Al Gore has made loads of money from his involvement with Google, (he bought in very early), and he has substantial investments with Occidental Petroleum and owns a Zinc mine on his property in Tennessee that has polluted the immediate area for years….one of the wealthiest men in the country…look it up. The majority of the people that have posted here are probably genuinely concerned about the environment. Al Gore’s motives are anything but altruistic.

Politicians are very adept at raising funds for causes from suckers and Hollywood types; New York elitists. They are also very good at generating publicity. What could be a better cause than “saving the world” from “evil”, “greedy” corporations. It’s an easy sell (advertisements with baby seals, those big round eyes…Bambi….) who could resist?

Corporations are faceless entities…who are they anyway? They are all of us. The reality is that all of our lives are interdependent on these corporations, the food we eat, the jobs that we have, the clothes we wear, the computer that typed this comment, our medical needs, the homes that we live in…..Everything that we do is dependant on these “evil” corporations.

As far as religion, humans having been arguing over that since the beginning of time…. hell, we go to war over it. The only thing that will illicit a more violent response is insulting someone’s mother.

Many motives involved, primarily it’s the David vs. Goliath syndrome; the United States being the only “superpower” in the world right now after The Cold War. Class envy has been going on for time eternal and many of these environmentalists are exploiting it.

Most of the “scientists” that Gore and the IPCC refer to are PAID to study the effects of “Global Warming”. If they find that there is no evidence of it, their Federally and UN Funded programs and grants would not be needed, so they publicize what he wants them to and refuses to debate or ridicules the rest. He’s a SALESMAN and CON ARTIST, and a good one. He’s also a fraud, as well as his “science”.

Al Gore and his pals state that “the debate has been settled” and that “a consensus exists”…Hardly…. even judging from the comments generated on both sides of the Atlantic from Mr. Whitehouse’s paltry article above.

Brute
30 December 2007 at 16:11

Gore Isn't Quite As Green As He's Led The World To Believe.

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Nelson
30 December 2007 at 16:59

Patrick, that tiny inflection in the HadCRU dataset? You think it's fine to claim global warming has stopped from that? It's clearly one conclusion too far :) (and also noticeably absent from the GISS data...)

p walsh
30 December 2007 at 17:39

Nelson, It's not a blip - it;s glaringly obvious. Global temperatures have remained static since 2001 - as Whitehouse points out it's an observational fact. LOOK at the data - it's staring us in the face. The latest warming period has lasted 25 years of which 7-8 have been static. That's highly significant.

Huh some "paultry" article!

Brute
30 December 2007 at 17:50

Fifties Kid,

WELL SAID. Reminds me a many college professors....Couldn't compete in the real world, so they chose to hang out with the children where their rhetoric goes unchallenged.

“In their personal lives, they could not make a go of it in their respective societies, so they chose instead to tear down those societies to a very base level, where their lives would then have meaning and they would then exhibit relative success (especially if they were now the leaders of these new societal movements. Sound all too familiar?).”

“All of this west/successful, prosperous living-bashing is just another symptom of jealousy by individuals who, for whatever reasons, are similarly unable to adjust to and/or live successfully in the current culture.”

Nelson
30 December 2007 at 18:44

p walsh, your claim that it's 'highly significant'. Is that from your statistical analysis, or from eyeballing the graph? The link to tamino's Wiggles post shows rather beautifully that short-term blips are an intrinsic property of the data set. You have to be very cautious about claiming whether warming has stopped, is faster, has reversed. Especially careful, in fact, since this blip everyone is crowing about is only present in one of the two data sets...

Brute
30 December 2007 at 20:42

Mr. Walsh,

I beg your pardon, paltry was a poor choice of words; I agree this should be headline news worldwide. I suppose that I should have written that this revelation doesn’t fit the current myths or “party line” espoused by the media elites and will be suppressed and go unnoticed by the general population. How shameful. There is a tremendous amount of information debunking the global warming hysteria; however, it is usually buried deeply because it doesn’t fit the Left’s agenda. I stumbled upon this article quite accidentally.

Very interesting and vigorous debate…healthy. The hallmark of a free society......

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc.
30 December 2007 at 22:31

Neslon, initially I phrased my opinion about "Wiggles" much more harshly. Perhaps "deceiving" is a more correct description of "Wiggle" than "ignorant", because the "unknown author" surely knows what he is doing and should not be excused by ignorance.

The "unknown author" does not distinguish between long-term and short-term trends in his treatment. This is deplorable, because this is very much at the heart of current debate. Are we interested in the historical aspects of temperature changes or are we concerned about the near future ? I personally am interested in both, but the David Whitehouse article was clearly about short-term trend of world mean temperature.

In my earlier remarks, I tried to explain that we have a "long" record of 120 months, which show no upward trend in temperature. The "unknown author" would probably like to take 100 years for observation. He is thus fixed on the theory of CO2 influence on temperature, which is unproven and in my opinion wrong. Any natural trend will eventually change direction. For how long must we observe such a directional change, before we accept it as real and not a "noise" ? For all his statistical knowledge, the "unknown author" does not give an answer to this important question.

Actually, there exists somewhere a record of the 3600 days making up the period of 120 months, but unfortunately this does not seem to be published. It is always advisable to work with basic data, rather than averages over longer periods. There is much truth in the statement, that "averages always lie". The "unknown author" unveils his ignorance or deceiving intentions when he says:

>>>"Another way to get a better picture of actual trends is by taking averages…….Now we see a much more steady progression. That's because taking longer-term averages actually reduces the effect of the noise without affecting the trend. But there's still noise. By taking averages over longer time spans we don't eliminate the noise, we just make it smaller."

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc.
30 December 2007 at 22:34

continued:

We can see how absurd this approach is, by imagining that we reduce all data of a series into two average points (or even one point). With two average points, we would have a clear trend line, without interference of the "noise". With one average point we would be in even better position to intrepid the "climate change". If Al Gore sees this blog, he will be in a position to defend any trend line that he wishes to terrify us Earthlings with.

The deplorable act of the "unknown author" is that he shows -correctly- how "short-term noise" can mask a basic long-term trend, but then he indicates that this must always be the case. He does not show how his knowledge of "noise" can be applied to the 120 months. He only insinuates and this approach is far from being scientific. He is clearly promoting the climate fanatic's view and thus departs strongly from science.

Zordana
30 December 2007 at 22:35

Will Al Bore have to give back the Nobel prize and any other gongs he got...wasn't aware you could get one for lying? LOL

Nelson
30 December 2007 at 22:46

Loftur, thanks for your post. Obviously it's difficult to extract any underlying trend from tempertaure data. I saw your gaph of 120 months of temperature plots - I'd argue, though, that this is still too short a period for meaningful analysis (although it's interesting that you still see a warming trend). What happens if you include the previous 10 years data? Or 20 years?

If you feel the author is 'deplorable', you're welcome to criticise him at his blog. He is far better qualified than I to defend his work. I look forward to seeing you comment there.

Lelande
30 December 2007 at 23:56

Why is it that most democrats, in this country, socialists, communists, greeners, and the like tout global warming: higher taxes and fear.

Why is it most Republicans, except a few RINOs, Christians, Conservatives, and members of the right wing conspiracy do not believe.

You know why? It's hogwash and just before Iowa caucases.

Ken Fabos
31 December 2007 at 04:34

Just some points on why I think this misleading article has nothing useful to say, and why Dr Whitehouse, as someone well educated and well informed ought to know better.

First, the claim that global warming has stopped being an observational fact is not beyond dispute - others have used GISS and CRU temp data to show there has been a clear trend of warming over the 10yr period mentioned, even starting with the year with the record highest global temperature. Saying it stopped 12 or more times doesn't make it 12 times more true.

Second, Dr Whitehouse did not inform us how many of those years still showed no warming after including the effects of aerosols. (I realise it's not as simple as adding or subtracting, but...) All, none, some? So what if the effects of aerosols is not a perfect explanation - it's a real effect and it's not wrong to include it; quite the contrary, it's wrong to not include it. And Dr Whitehouse appears to have promptly gone back to that temperature series that doesn't take it into account. Put politely that's sloppy and misleading.

Third, as for Second point, but for ocean circulation changes as well as aerosols. We can add all the other known influences on climate as important omissions as well.

Fourth, although there was a mention of not knowing if "stopped warming" was temporary or permanent, this very important issue was not followed up, certainly not 12 or more times to emphasise how important it is.

Fifth, If there is some cause for this stopped warming that Dr Whitehouse is aware of, why not mention it? It is very important that he do so (and I know that he does have an opinion on this, which, given that NASA is predicting Solar Cycle 24 should be a strong one, it's one that reasonbly means that the answer to the question arising in Fourth above is that the stopping of warming is short term temporary). To be fair the Cycle 24 thing is just in, but the failure to follow up the issue of the temporary nature of the phenomena he believes responsible, is irresponsible.

Sixth, The reference to global cooling fears in the 70’s, without mention that there was next to nothing in the scientific literature to back it, or that it bears no relationship to the vast body of scientific work on climate of recent years is gratuitous and implies that global warming concern is a media construction without sound basis.

Seventh, Dr Whitehouse makes no mention of the statistical problems arising from using such a short term period as he has used.

Eighth, Dr Whitehouse makes no mention of the statistical problems arising from using a data series that begins with a record high temperature, (one that has sound explanation in el Nino/Southern Oscillation ocean circulation changes).

Ninth, The claim that having effects precisely balancing, without indicating just how precise the various effects do " balance", implying that this is unlikely, without explaining how unlikely, and further, that the unlikeliness implication would equally apply to his own - unstated here - opinion of what is causing "warming to stop" is deceptive.

Tenth, Dr Whitehouse provides numbers for CO2 concentration changes but by failing to provide numbers for the concentration of other Greenhouse Gases, or strength of all the other effects, that combined, are considered part of climate change, he misleads readers that climate science is all about CO2.

i have no problem with the inadequacies of science are brought to light, but truly, this is an appallingly bad article by someone who has no excuse for not knowing better.

Cybertiger
31 December 2007 at 10:19

@Brute

“Very interesting and vigorous debate…healthy. The hallmark of a free society......”

I fear for America’s wellness … and am sore afraid of that society’s vigour and freedoms …

Matilda1234
31 December 2007 at 12:08

I'm intrigued, can anyone of those people who are concerned about doomsayers and the prediction of "global warming" ( a rather misleading and vague semantic term for what appears to be a very complex situation) explain WHAT mere mortals ( i.e. people not 100% certain of our ability to be right) should actually DO. If there is climate change ( and here in Adelaide South Australia where we have the lowest water levels recorded, another unprecedented year of drought, trees that are hundreds of years old dying of stress and increasingly hot summers - today was a mere 43C - many people are convinced that SOMETHING is happening) then surely we need to act as though there is indeed something going on. If there isn't will it actually do any harm to make some adjustments? For example, we could eke out the oil supply for another few hundreds years, or save it for some yet undiscovered purpose - I believe they are not actually making any more of it, but I will stand corrected. It seems that a lot of the response to this article is more a contest about being 'right' rather than behaving rationally. I will happily invite you to shout "I told you so" if you turn out to be right, but meanwhile as here at the margins of the planet we are poised to run out of water to grow irrigated crops ( and farmers are being offered money to leave their farms) if we have another year of drought I and many of my fellow inhabitants of the driest state on the driest continent are leaning towards the "just in case" response!

Cybertiger
31 December 2007 at 13:22

“I'm intrigued, can anyone of those people who are concerned about doomsayers and the prediction of "global warming" ( a rather misleading and vague semantic term for what appears to be a very complex situation) explain WHAT mere mortals ( i.e. people not 100% certain of our ability to be right) should actually DO.”

Personally, I believe there are too many Amerikans – and Australians called Matilda – and SOMETHING should be DONE about it.

PS. How do THEY make oil?

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc.
31 December 2007 at 14:20

Matilda, I find you question interesting and valid. What should be done about your particular situation in Adelaide ? Should you ban oil production, or issue laws forbidding the climate in your part of the world to become hotter ? I am not joking, because many people seem to think only along such lines, in order to "solve" their personal environmental problems.

In my opinion, you should solve the problems that you are facing, in the same manner as humanity has been doing for thousands of years, that is by adjusting. You can do this basically in two ways. You can move away from the environment that you find hostile, or you can work harder to cope with you difficulties locally.

If you choose to move away, you can for example come to Iceland. In this country, we have no shortage of water and can take a few degrees of warmer climate. We have huge glaziers that I would be delighted to see melting down. In other words, our climate has a long way to go before becoming as mild as 1100 years ago when the country was settled.

If you decide to stay, there surely must be many options that are open to you. I could not possibly tell you exactly how to cope, but a bad choice must be to trust that other people, such as politicians solve this for you. However, upsetting other nation's environment, or trying to affect the global climate, in the vain hope that this will help your situation, is though the worst option of all.

You voice the same suggestions as many people do, when you say:

>>>

"If there is climate change…….then surely we need to act as though there is indeed something going on. If there isn't will it actually do any harm to make some adjustments? For example, we could eke out the oil supply for another few hundreds years, or save it for some yet undiscovered purpose….."

>>>

The truth is, that this is not an actual option. There exists no authority which can decide who should be allowed to use oil and who should be without. Only the open and free market can decide. If oil reserves are dwindling, prices will evidently go up and consumption will go down. Actually, if the world climate becomes warmer, vast oilfields will open up around the North Pole and even Iceland may become an oil producer.

As a final remark, I must point out that the "life spirit" CO2 is not responsible for any of your local climate difficulties. Actually, we need more of this life giving gas into the atmosphere, so that farmers all over the world can produce more food for a hungry humanity. The over-population is the biggest problem that we face, but strangely only the Chinese seem to understand this.

Keep in good spirit Matilda.

Nelson
31 December 2007 at 15:12

'I must point out that the "life spirit" CO2 is not responsible for any of your local climate difficulties.' - ah, so you reveal your true colours. And to claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase the world's food production is dangerous and misleading. Is it even rate-limiting for crop growth? What about weeds? What about the polar shift of arable regions (even if there is land, what soil quality)? What about the effect of a warmer world on pests?

And apapting. Sure, Iceland might beneft in a warmer world. Who cares about the brown people though, right?

Matilda1234
31 December 2007 at 15:17

Well, that's interesting advice from Loftur. If I have understood the response the suggestion is that in the event of adverse effects due to climate change we should all 'just' move. I must tell that to the first lot of climate refugees, from the Catarets islands off the coast of Papua New Guinea. They don't seem to be that happy about moving, nor are their hosts all that pleased about receiving them. How easy it is to dispense advice when you stand to gain rather than suffer! I wonder how Iceland would actually react if 20 million Aussies actually did arrive, bringing with them a variety of different cultural values, demanding new infrastructure, etc. Not to mention all those Pacific Islanders, Africans, South Americans etc. In case you have forgotten the majority of the world does not inhabit Northern Europe. Intercountry economic migration is already a cause of considerable conflict, so to suggest that the solution is as simple as 'moving' seems rather naive. Ask the people of Dafur what they think about the reality of forced relocation. Or the one million Columbians forced off their land. Let me assure you that Australians are adapting rapidly to the changes we are already experiencing due to the combination of factors, much of which we are responsible for ( overpopuluation, diversion of natural water, increased CO2 production over 150 years, etc). The Chinese policy on population control is a difficult one, a fine example of the imposition of a cold 'scientific' logic to a human problem which actually illustrates the point I was making very well. If you just look at the numbers it has been very effective, but in reality it is much more complex, and perhaps Loftur should ask one of the millions of Chinese men now condemned to a lonely life without a partner or family what they think of the one child policy. Or perhaps they should also join the exodus to Iceland? Simplistic answers to complex issues seem more likely often to create more, or new, problems than they solve.

As for Cybertiger, your response is typical of the nasty bullying that infects these kinds of comment sites. Let's not address the issue or the logic of the argument but rather make a veiled personal attack. Implicit in your response is a xenophobia which if it was directed at another nationality would be unacceptable. What do Americans have to do with what I posted? I didn't mention them, so why should you? Why even bring them into your reply other than to reveal your own prejudices? I apologise if you can't distinguish between literal comments and figures of speech but from the standard of argumentation in other postings I assumed that such simplistic rhetorical embellishments would be clearly understood.

Maz
31 December 2007 at 16:42

Matilda,

"Simplistic answers to complex issues seem more likely often to create more, or new, problems than they solve."

That is precisely the point. It's easy for politicians, environmental lobbyists and plain neo-socialists to travel the world preaching the ONE SOLUTION - CO2 reduction. Climate change will happen regardless. It has happened in the past and will most certainly happen in the future. With or without us.

The real but harder and more complex solution is adapting to it. Loftus might have been crude in his argument but the underlying principle is sensible.

Nelson, just to pick one of your points. What is the definition of a pest? If a warmer world is beneficial for pests what makes you suggest that it cannot be equally beneficial for other living things. History would suggest that warmth is associated with economic expansion and increased prosperity whilst cold is associated with the opposite. Do you have a definition of the ideal temperature for the planet?

Brute
31 December 2007 at 16:59

As the natural cycle of the climate changes, (and or public opinion shifts), and a cooler trend becomes more pronounced and publicized, the Environmental Lobby will claim that it was their efforts that "saved the planet”. They will claim that it was their "concern" and "efforts" that saved the day. 10-15 years from now they will claim that the next imminent catastrophe will be global cooling, (again), or some other contrived apocalyptic scenario that requires immediate, (and taxable), solutions.

For their next trick, they will turn night into day or attempt to reverse the earth’s rotation by holding hands and singing Kumbaya. Stay tuned folks; they'll be here all week..........

Nelson
31 December 2007 at 18:12

My point about pests in a warmer world was in response to the tired claim that we should increase atmospheric CO2 ('we call it life', (c) co2science.org - oh dear) to increase food production. This is simplistic - the net effect could quite easily be reduced crop yields.

I don't think you can give a definition of an 'ideal' temperature for the planet - that would be arrogance on our part. However, our civilisation, society and agriculture have evolved and adapted to a climate that will soon be lost. There are costs to a warming world. Possibly catastrophic costs, so while we can adapt, we need to mitigate. And that means reducing GHG emissions. It's probably cheaper too...

nick wallace
31 December 2007 at 18:42

Ken fabos,

I think you are being very unreasonable about what can be achieved in a 1,000 word article, and I also don't think you are right as well.

Dr Whitehouse clearly shows why aerosols wont work even if they were in the atmosphere - the IPCC actually saus that they have been declining for over a decade - so aerosols are just not an explanation for the temperature standstil.

Also what are you talking about concerning statistics - a standstill of 7 years out of a warming spell of 30 is highly significant no matter what statistics you use.

As for the rst of your comments I don't think that they make much sense. Your first point is stupid. There was plenty of evidence for the predicted global cooling, according to the scientific consensus in the 1970s.

Among your other uninformed points Dr Whitehouse says that the temperature has been constant between 2001-2007. The el nino ffect you say he hasn't taken into account was in 1998!!!!!

You dont know what you are talking about.

Cybertiger
31 December 2007 at 19:40

@Waltzing Matilda

"For example, we could eke out the oil supply for another few hundreds years, or save it for some yet undiscovered purpose ...

Are there not enough contemporary purposes for oil without saving it for something as yet undiscovered? Wouldn't it be more useful to invest in discovering alternative ways of powering Amerikan F16 fighter bombers ... in 50 years time ... when the oil has run out ... than spending all that money bombing Iraq back to the stone age?

"What do Americans have to do with what I posted? I didn't mention them, so why should you?"

I think you may misunderestimate the importance - and superiority, every which way and loose - of the Amerikans.

"I apologise if you can't distinguish between literal comments and figures of speech but from the standard of argumentation in other postings I assumed that such simplistic rhetorical embellishments would be clearly understood."

What was that all about?

Maz
31 December 2007 at 19:41

"However, our civilisation, society and agriculture have evolved and adapted to a climate that will soon be lost. There are costs to a warming world. Possibly catastrophic costs, so while we can adapt, we need to mitigate. And that means reducing GHG emissions. It's probably cheaper too..."

Yes, you've put your finger on it. My view (and that of many many more people than is generally recognised) is that there is precious little, if any, evidence for what you've just stated.

Brute
31 December 2007 at 20:53

Matilda,

If you'd like to move to the United States; we'd love to have you. Welcome.

I understand your predicament; you sound like a lovely person. I believe what previous commentators were trying to say, (and I don’t presume to speak for them), is that we all have choices and the ability to adapt to our environments. Trying to control the weather is akin to herding cats; an impossible task. We do however have the ability to build a house and control the temperature inside of our homes; maybe not the best example, but do you see my point? Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

The Little Ice Age was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer era known as the medieval climate optimum, (no SUVs or oil companies in the world at that time). Starting in the 13th century, pack ice began advancing southwards in the North Atlantic, as did glaciers in Greenland. The three years of torrential rains beginning in 1315 ushered in an era of unpredictable weather in Northern Europe which did not lift until the 19th century. Before the Little Ice Age crops grown in Northern Europe were less hardy and thrived in the warmer climate. As the climate changed, Northern Europeans adapted and began planting crops that required a shorter growing season, (Cereals, Grains) that could withstand harsher environments. Many people attribute American consumption of beer as opposed to wine, (roughly 90% - 10%) to this legacy of Northern European immigration into the United States, (they brought their beer recipes and practices with them).

Southern California was an arid inhospitable desert. Engineers designed and built aqueducts diverting the Owens River into the area and created some of the most productive farmland in the world.

Ancient Egyptians harnessed the Nile River and irrigated vast areas of desert earning Egypt the moniker of “The Breadbasket of The World” during the era of Alexander the Great.

Before the establishment of Israel in 1948 the area produced virtually no agricultural products to speak of due to neglect, deforestation and soil erosion. Irrigation and farming practices implemented by the citizens of Israel have created a situation where Israel produces 70% of its own food. Since Israel attained its independence in 1948, the total area under cultivation has increased from 165,000 ha. to some 435,000 ha. and the number of agricultural communities has grown from 400 to 900 (including 136 Arab villages). During the same period, agricultural production has expanded 16-fold, more than three times the rate of the population growth.

One of the most important factors that contributed to the American Dust Bowl was several periods of extreme drought. It is true that the Dust Bowl occurred during the 1930's, but the entire decade was not a period of drought. Other factors were poor land management and wind erosion. Windbreaks, better soil management techniques and deep water wells as well as central pivot irrigation and crop rotation helped alleviate the impact of droughts over the last 70 years. One of the situations that led to the Dust Bowl actually started almost 100 years earlier. People settled the Great Plains throughout the 19th Century. However, the people who settled there did not understand the climate. Many of them also settled during abnormally wet years, and they experienced success with their crops right away. The Homestead Act of 1862 gave 160 acres of land to anyone who was willing to farm it. As the settlers moved further west, the climate became drier. However, people were under the false assumption that there would always be plenty of rain for their crops. However, as it turned out, most of the areas they settled in actually averaged less than twenty inches of rain per year.

Nelson
31 December 2007 at 21:34

'a standstill of 7 years out of a warming spell of 30 is highly significant no matter what statistics you use.' Even though it's entirely expected given the nature of the data (small signal, substantial noise)? Statistics does have its uses.

Nelson
31 December 2007 at 21:37

'precious little, if any, evidence for what you've just stated.' Of course there is. Take the coastal location of major cities like New York - and sea level is just one variable with potentially devastating effects with climate change. Desertification. Precipitation. These are not minor things you can simply ignore.

Nelson
31 December 2007 at 21:41

The statement that human emissions are 'dwarfed by natural ones' is also misleading. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions may only be a fraction of the natural carbon cycle, but they're sufficient to accumulate in the atmosphere (only about 50% is absorbed into sinks). One analogy is this: the heart pumps 7000 litres of blood a day. So you won't mind if I drain 5 litres from you? It's less than 0.1%...

Matilda1234
01 January 2008 at 00:55

These text dialogues are quite frustrating. I don't need to be convinced either way about whether climate change is real or the product of a campaign waged by environmental fundamentalists, or more or less the result of human activity, or part of a longer meteorological pattern related to meteor showers on Planet Zorb in the outer reaches of Solar system 45YN which happen in a 300 million year cycle. My point is that for a very large number of people finding solutions to problems related to the climate is something that they have to live with on a daily basis. Practical solutions are to them more important than identifying the cause. Human adaptation is obviously the only solution, so why even debate it? Tell me how we are going to manage it. Rather than continue to convince me that you have the best argument for your position tell what the answers are and how quickly we can find them. If you think it is enforced migration from parts of the world where human habitation becomes impossible, like in the Catarets - where the cause of the problem is disputed ( is it climate change, the natural subsistence of the atoll, the result of dynamite use in fishing) then we need to have solutions that will minimise conflict and human suffering. We can absorb 1,000 Cateret islanders, and of course they will adapt, 11,000 Tuvaluans might be more difficult, but 100,000 Kiribati inhabitants will be a big issue. But given the current conditions in the Pacific and projections for the future it is a possibility for which New Zealand in particular is already preparing. By all means we need to continue the discussion of which David Whitehouse's article is just one small part. We desperately need to understand the complex interaction of human activity on a large scale with the even larger forces of nature, but in the midst of uncertainty we also need to prepare for the possibility that climate change will cause real people real harm. All the bluster about cause and effect means very little to people whose livlihood is jeopardised by climate fluctuations that fall outside of both historical understanding as passed on by generations AND scientific models based on data recorded over a couple of hundred years. This year, when the price of wheat based products around the world increases you are likely to be affected by this as the combined effect of the reduced world wheat harvest, the increased demand for wheat from China and the turn towards ethanol production has pushed the world price of grain up substantially, by some estimates doublilng. But, hey, that might help the 'obesity epidemic' in the affluent countries and if thousands of poor people starve as a result it will have a positive effect on overpopulation. Too bad for those people who are the ones eliminated from the gene pool. If I read most of the posts here at face value, we don't need to do anything, just accept this as part of the overall pattern of human evolution and go on with business as usual. Bt perhaps people might think differently about the situation when it is their bread and butter that is affected and the debate becomes more than theoretical.

Maz
01 January 2008 at 02:04

"Of course there is ( "evidence" ). Take the coastal location of major cities like New York - and sea level is just one variable with potentially devastating effects with climate change. Desertification. Precipitation. These are not minor things you can simply ignore.

Sorry Nelson. That's not evidence. That's speculation.

Cybertiger
01 January 2008 at 13:46

Only the uncertainty is certain about global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise. However, there are simply too many people - particularly simple Americans - over dependent on dwindling supplies of fossilised energy ... and those are absolute certainties.

As Benjamin Franklin (simply clever American) once said,

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain but death and taxes."

... and he was absolutely right ... death and taxes are the only certainties that might save this world.

PS. I believe the UN should apply a carbon energy tax throughout the world (including America) and the funds used to develop alternatives to fossil energy ... for the benefit of all mankind.

Nelson
01 January 2008 at 17:12

Maz, sea level will rise as the world warms. Coastal cities are vulnerable - it's not speculation.

Maz
01 January 2008 at 17:33

Of course sea level will rise - as it has done since the last ice age. The rate has actually slowed down!

The speculation, is that it will be catastrophic and that somehow cities like New York are going to allow themselves to be washed away. Of course poorer areas such as New Orleans might have a different fate! It depends how much money people wish to invest, where and on what.

I happen to think that the chase to reduce CO2 is as pointless and misguided as it is expensive. You obviously do not.

That is not to say that other environmental initiatives are similar. Far from it.

AuroraBorealis
01 January 2008 at 18:38

Let's for a moment presume that increased emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is not causing AGW. The atmospheric CO2 concentrations is still going up, due to burning of fossile fuels and deforestation. Now, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is lower than emissions would predict, since about 1/3 of CO2 emitted so far has dissolved in the oceans. Now, when CO2 dissolved it is in part converted to carbonic acid, which is - an acid. Thus, the oceans are gradually becoming slightly more acidic. Since the oceans are large and their chemistry makes them resistant to acidification, this will not be the dramatic process seen in Canadian and northern European lakes due to burning of oil with high sulphur content (aka acid rain). But the problem is that the base of the food chains in the oceans is plankton and corals with calcium in their exoskeleton. And at a certain point of acidification, these organism will no longer be able to survive. At this tipping point, they will just cease to exist, be gone. Which then means that the base of fisheries will also be gone. For references see a NOAA publication http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf and University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science (2007, March 9). Ocean Acidification From Carbon Dioxide. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2007/03/070308084525.htm

Now, this is just another example of the non-linearity of natural systems. Does anyone remember the cod fisheries on the Newfoundland banks? Stopped in 1992, still no sign of a comeback. Fact is, we still lack a lot of knowledge about how climate and other large scale systems react to stress. Which brings back the AGW issue: Consistent data points to this being a fact, accepted by the general scientific community (see eg

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm) but neither the absolute rate nor the endpoints are know. So while we may experience a year with less warming or less glacier loss than the year before, this may be a variation and we don't know what will follow the year after. Finally, for years, the skeptics (or AGW deniers) kept saying that one warm year does not prove a trend. Now, a snow storm in USA seems to be proof that an ice age is at hand. As long as the skeptics can not come up with a plausible mechanistic explanation that can be scientifically proved or disproved of why global warming should suddenly have stopped, their talk is of zero value.

Robin Guenier
01 January 2008 at 18:42

Maz: thanks for your helpful and interesting comments. If you Google me, you’ll see that I claim to know a lot about why computer projects fail – but that I make no such claims to understand global warming. So I’ve found all this correspondence illuminating – and (as I said before) the “my experts are more expert than your experts” amusing. Below is a summary of my current (imperfect) understanding of the issues and I’d welcome your (and others’) further comments. (You’ll note that I don’t fully agree with some of your observations.)

1. Objective measurement has established that the global climate has become warmer over the past 150 years or so – by about 0.6 degrees centigrade.

2. This process has coincided with industrialisation. An unambiguous causal connection has not been established although such a connection seems at least plausible although it should not be ignored that global temperatures have always varied.

3. It is said that a possible factor in (even cause of) global warming is the increased emission of so-called “greenhouse” gases – carbon dioxide (CO2) in particular.

4. A problem with this hypothesis is that increasing CO2 emissions have not neatly coincided with temperature change. For example: (a) in the period from about 1940 to 1970 – a time of rapid industrialisation and increased emissions – temperatures declined and (b) major temperature increases since then appear to have levelled off soon after 1998 despite a continued growth in emissions. Of course, both these periods may well be too short to be regarded as significant.

5. Another uncertainty is whether or not global warming is harmful to mankind. Possible consequences (e.g. rising sea levels) appear to be largely speculative so far – which is quite surprising: is there no evidence of levels rising in line with temperature increases? Some warming would clearly be beneficial for some people.

6. One related puzzle (for me at least) is that, although everyone seems to agree that the arctic icecap is declining, that seems not to be true of the Antarctic. If so (is it?), the whole “industrialisation / greenhouse gas emissions / global warming / dangerous consequences” hypothesis would seem to be seriously threatened. Why doesn’t this get more attention? Or have I misunderstood?

7. Plainly, however, some claimed consequences of severe warming (more than 3 degrees C?) such as increased flooding, desertification and drought would be extremely harmful.

8. There seem to be too many uncertainties to accept the reported IPCC view that the science is settled, the causal relationship with human activity established and that, if action is not taken, the effect on humankind will be calamitous. By definition science is never “settled”.

9. Nonetheless, that does not mean that the IPCC conclusion is wrong: as noted above, a causal connection is certainly plausible.

10. Therefore, as taking actions such as the reduction in CO2 emissions and a halt to the destruction of rainforests would seem to be beneficial anyway, it would be wise to pursue them. Arguably it would be even more valuable also to invest in initiatives to offset the deleterious effects of warming.

11. But this should not be at the expense of economic growth – otherwise support from voters in the western economies, from governments of the developing eastern economies and from the world’s poor will be unattainable and exhortations to change will be rhetoric only. That will benefit no one except those who enjoy preaching to others.

12. In particular, therefore, an essential and urgent step must be to wrest the initiative on this matter from the growth hating “greens” whose apocalyptic and quasi religious warnings are plainly getting nowhere – e.g. the Bali conference.

PS to Patrick Hadley: if you really want to discuss the date change issue further, perhaps you would publish your email address.

Brute
01 January 2008 at 19:05

Environmentalist Predictions & Quotes

Do these sound like reasonable people?

Paul Ehrlich

Author of the The Population Bomb (1968)

Stanford University Biologist and Advisor to Al Gore

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer"

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." (1970)

"We already have too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure."

David R. Brower

"All I know about thermal pollution is that if we continue our present rate of growth in electrical energy consumption it will simply take, by the year 2000, all our freshwater streams to cool the generators and reactors."

John Davis

editor of Earth First! Journal

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."

Dave Forman

Founder of Earth First!

"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight."

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."

Aldo Leopold

"We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect."

David Graber

biologist, National Park Service

"I know scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line ... we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.... Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

Pentti Linkola

"Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed."

Dr. Reed F. Noss

The Wildlands Project

"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."

Prince Phillip

World Wildlife Fund

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

Lyall Watson

The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

Cannibalism is a "radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.

Lamont Cole

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem."

Carl Amery

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels."

Peter Gwynne

Newsweek 1976

"This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

Kenneth E.F. Watt

Earth Day (1970)

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."

Lowell Ponte

"The Cooling" (1976)

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.

Judi Barri

Earth First

"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."

Richard Benedict

an employee for the State Department working on assignment for the Conservation Foundation

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

David Brower

Friends of the Earth

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

Keith Boulding

originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state."

Brute
01 January 2008 at 19:21

What follows is a very brief summary of the science that the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way:

• He promoted the now debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate

•He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age

•He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences confirm does not exist.

•He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmer

•He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.

•He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing

•He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices

•He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.

•He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing

•He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits

•He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving

•He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004

bobclive
01 January 2008 at 20:16

Matilda1234

I believe the rainfall in Australia this year is above the long term average and as Australia is the driest continent on the planet you would expect the occasional dry spell.

You mention the extra cost of wheat this year, that extra cost is not because of a world shortage of wheat, but because of a change of use from food to bio-fuel especially in the US. Fuel or food.

By the way CO2 is a fertilizer not a pollutant, higher CO2 levels increase plant growth hence more food for the increasing millions if it is not turned into Bio-fuel.

As for global temperature increases read this, http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859

The majority of the temperature increase recently seen is man made not from CO2 but from ground based thermometers and the UHI effect. Armagh has the longest unbroken rural temperature series in the world and shows just a steady increase over time, just a recovery from the little ice age.

Read the science not the hype and don`t forget the SUN. Don`t have blind faith in your leaders, see

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

Maz
01 January 2008 at 20:41

Thank you Robin. A very reasonable position statement and one with which I generally agree.

I would like to see the argument move away from CO2 reduction which to my mind is basically just the convenient "bete noire" of the looney greens and their ilke to a debate about future sources of energy. We simply cannot rely on fossil fuels indefinitely. By the end of this century the planet's main source of energy is going to have to be something else. And it's not going to be wind farms or whatever people mean these days by renewables. They have a place, of course, but they cannot REplace what we use at the moment and certainly not what we are likely to require in the future.

The debate needs to move away from a leftist neo-socialist agenda - ie how do we put the brakes on the greedy industrialised West to - how are we going to power our progress into the next century?

The answers/solutions to this question are never going to be achieved by giving way to the restrictive policies advocated by pressure groups flocking to Conferences similar to the farce in Bali.

You might be interested in a book by Bjorn Lomborg, an environmentalist with a mind for number crunching. The book is called COOL IT. He looks at the economics of dealing with future climate. He is actually a believer in AGW theory but not in its proposed solutions. I found it a far more robust review than the piffle produced by Stern. I think you'll find it illuminating.

Regards & Happy New Year

Robin Guenier
01 January 2008 at 22:32

Thanks, Maz. It seems to me that the priority now for anyone really wishing to "save the planet" (as opposed to posturing about it) must be to switch their focus from carbon reduction at any cost to greater use of clean energy in a way that does not impact economic growth. It seems to me that the only way to achieve this is to put far greater emphasis on nuclear power as the only practical route to an acceptable outcome. I wholly agree that, although renewables (and “clean burn” use of fossil fuels) may have some part to play, they cannot possibly meet the world's expanding energy needs. To refuse this solution would be to ignore the practicalities of the developed and developing economies and, worse, to dismiss the needs of the world's poorest people.

All the best for 2008. Let’s hope it sees the marginalisation of the tearful tree huggers and some real progress in this vitally important field.

AuroraBorealis
01 January 2008 at 23:02

Robin: Some comments to your post

re 4: One explanation that has been proposed for the lack of temperature increase following 1940 is particles generated by burning and this in turn causing increased cloud formation

As to post 1998 temperatures, there is to my knowledge no data showing such a leveling off. See eg this link, which shows both a number of model data and instrumental records: http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_6_1_large.jpg

Also, the fourth assessment report from IPCC published in november show no such levelling off.

AS to your #5, there are a number of scientist as well as scientific papers published during 2007 (after the deadline for entry of data into the IPCC report) that point sea level increases far above the predictions by IPCC. It should be noticed that they included a caveat that some of the processes effecting the Greenland ice sheets are so complex that there are not any good models yet, but it is likely that the error is on the "bad" side, i.e. higher sea level.

As to the consequences, I live in Scandinavia, a region that might initially benefit from some global warming. But any such gains will vanish quickly if cost of adaption increases, eg due to forced migration within Europe. A recent study on societal consequences of global warming entitled "THE AGE OF CONSEQUENCES: THE FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE" describes this: http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view...

It is just released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Center for a New American Security, tries to bring the social sciences, in particular history, geography, and political science, into the forecast of climate change in the coming century.

AS to #6, this is mostly a question of physics and geography. Antarctica is a continent and most of the 3000 m of ice resides on land. The annual mean temperature is around -20°C, so it will be a long time before anything happens. In contrast, the Arctic ice cap is floating on water and as ocean temperature increases, this ice becomes even more vulnerable. Furthermore, due to the uneven distribution of land vs ocean, the northern hemisphere has warmed more than the southern part.

As to #8, science is not settled ( I am a scientist by training but in biomedicine) but there are still areas which as knowledge increases becomes accepted as common ground. There was a time when the link between disease and bacteria was thought ridiculous and during those day women died in large number as doctors walked form autopsy to maternity wards without washing their hands. And as I state and refer to in my previous post, the deniers fail to come up with a better and/or more credible explanation to global warming than the accepted greenhouse gas emission model.

We will need all our creativity and new technology to solve this problem, but we can not wait with getting started in the hope of finding tech based fixes for our predicament. And we will have to give up something to gain other things, but that does not necessarily means bad things. Most people drive in far to big and powerful cars for their real needs and on top of that you can change you behaviour. A smaller car and change of driving technique has made it possible for me to cut gas use by 40 % and I don't feel this as a neither personal of societal sacrifice.

Lets hope that 2008 will be a happy year

Nelson
01 January 2008 at 23:36

bobclive, 'By the way CO2 is a fertilizer not a pollutant, higher CO2 levels increase plant growth hence more food for the increasing millions '. This is dangerous assertion. Firstly, just because it's required by plants and respired by animals doesn't matter. You could argue the same for carbon monoxide: it's generated quite deliberately in your body for cellular signalling. That doesn't excuse it from being a pollutant.

CO2 is required for plant growth - but it's a significant step to conclude that crop yields will increase as atmospheric CO2 rises. Firstly, is CO2 availability rate-limiting for crops outside of carefully controlled greenhouses (not in most of the world); secondly, pest species may thrive more; thirdly, CO2 does more than just provide a substrate for photosynthesis. It's a greenhouse gas and will have highly complex effects on climate. Such as the polar shift of crop zones - if you're in SE Australia you've run out of land for the crop zones to migrate to...

Nelson
01 January 2008 at 23:38

Maz, I don't want to put brakes on technological development. I don't subscribe to a 'leftist neo-socialist agenda' (whatever that vacuous label means). But I do appreciate the science, and I do appreicate the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

grapedoctor
02 January 2008 at 03:20

To dismiss global-warming is to givemulti-national corps approval to pollute without restriction. Politically the terms are entertwined.

Maz
02 January 2008 at 12:20

AuroraBorealis, you touch on a number of complex issues so apologies for the relative brevity of some of my comments.

The failure of temps to rise after 1940s is far more easily explained by looking at the Sun as the main climate driver. Aerosol (industrial particles) modelling is very poorly understood and I believe the IPCC actually admit there is a great degree of uncertainty. The models have been tweaked repeatedly to get the result desired. That’s hardly validation. To my mind the simplest solution (the Sun) stands unless proven otherwise and IMO this hasn’t happened.

You link to a graph of 1400yr climate reconstructions, from a handful of paleoclimatologists, embellished by a superimposed instrumental record to illustrate what exactly? This article was always about the fact that, for whatever reason, the global temperatures over the last seven years have levelled off. Actually, the instrumental record (HadCRU) is technically out of place on a proxy reconstruction and shouldn’t be there but here is that same record (HadCRU) zoomed right in and up to date! http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/Ha... Try looking at it and you can see immediately, with all the caveats that we’ve already been through, what Dr Whitehouse is saying.

Well over 80% of the planet’s ice is in Antarctica. When I said that the ice sheets in Antarctica have reached their greatest extent for 30yrs I made it clear I was talking about Sea Ice. The interior of the Southern continent has actually COOLED as well. The physics and geography you invoke does not explain this. AGW theory states quite unequivocally that both poles should warm faster than the rest of the planet. They haven’t. You rightly state that the Arctic Ice sheets’ dynamics are very complex. Ocean currents play a far greater role than is generally made known in the popular media. The low point of Arctic Sea Ice is not due exclusively to the fact that the planet has warmed - as I suspect you are well aware. There is also the question of whether the Arctic Ice situation was similar to this in the 30s. But we don’t have the data.

“The science is not settled”. Yes, we can all quote selectively from history on this one. I might pick Galileo, Copernicus or even Einstein. When told that there were hundreds of scientists trying to prove him (Einstein) wrong he said “It only takes one!” Science is not a democracy. I do not believe our knowledge of the climate system is anywhere near good enough to predict what will happen in a decade’s time let alone fifty years or more. I am not encouraged by the obvious and sometimes blatant way in which politics and ideology have distorted the “science” either. I earlier referred to the UK Met Office’s speculative announcements on 2007 as an example. But more serious is the lack of robustness in a lot of the work, the fact that a handful of climatologists run a closed shop, peer reviewing each other’s work, lead authors of IPCC chapters giving extraordinary prominence to their own work and suppressing alternative viewpoints, errors in data left uncorrected, the appalling lack of adequate disclosure of methods, code and restricted access to data leaving others unable to verify the work done. I could go on. Check out Steve McIntyre’s website www.climateaudit.org. if you care to examine it further. Your area is biomedicine. Try comparing the standards of climate science to those in your field. You’re in for a shock. No wonder the paleoclimatology folks at Real Climate persistently refuse to recognise that the site even exists.

I note your use of the term “deniers”. I do not “deny” the planet has warmed, AB. But the case for humans as the cause of the warming is completely circumstantial and would be thrown out in a court of law. As to the future I see no problem in first getting the diagnosis right before advocating the correct cure. I would not dream of lecturing you on medico-pharmacological disasters of the past. We do however, have the diagnosis of a number of other conditions and predicaments (eg. poverty, AIDS, lack of clean water) so I’d rather we use our limited resources on tackling them instead of going on what I see as a wild goose chase. Regards.

tom
02 January 2008 at 15:06

Any scientist can manipulate data or rubbish the methodology of opponents to make "the science" suit their agenda. Rather than stall on petty arguments about the detail can we concentrate on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels? Oil and coal resources are finite are they not? And now we are irresistibly reduced to horrible violence to wrest control of what's left. Is this not as good a reason as any to seek alternatives and progress? AGW OR NOT, WHERE EXACTLY IS THE HARM IN TRYING TO SWITCH TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE?

Cybertiger
02 January 2008 at 15:28

"WHERE EXACTLY IS THE HARM IN TRYING TO SWITCH TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE?"

Nicely put, Tom.

A sustainable future is 3 billion rather than 6 billion people. Sustainability will also be achieved by switching off one out of every breeding pair of Amerikans.

Maz
02 January 2008 at 15:52

"AGW OR NOT, WHERE EXACTLY IS THE HARM IN TRYING TO SWITCH TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE?"

Without getting into the semantics of exactly what is meant by that term, Tom, no harm at all.

It would be on my global list of things to do but nowhere near the top. Where would you put it? Ah! Then the argument isn't petty anymore is it?

Brute
02 January 2008 at 17:14

Tom,

You mean this isn't about Global Warming? That was all a ruse? Has the real point all along been to find cheap, abundant sources of energy?

So we really don't have to kill every other American as Cybertiger advocates or tax prosperous countries to redistribute wealth to countries that choose not to compete?

Whew, thank God. I thought that the planet was doomed and sea levels were going to rise 20 feet.

We'll, you and Al Gore really fooled us! Really funny joke.

Robin Guenier
02 January 2008 at 17:51

Maz and AuroraBorealis (especially AB). Thanks to you both for commenting on my post. FYI, I got involved in this thread only because I wished to dispel the myth that Y2K (the Millennium Bug) is a prime example of a scam promulgated by self-serving “experts”. It isn’t – see above. That (and computer disasters generally) is a subject I know something about. Climate change isn’t and I saw this as an opportunity to learn something about what I had already appreciated was a most important issue. My posts above are a summary of my understanding to date – also noting a few of the matters I found unclear or unsatisfactory. My conclusions are: (1) That it hardly matters whether or not the AGW hypothesis is accurate: reducing the world’s dependence on fossil fuels is necessary anyway. (2) The way to do that is to stop focusing on carbon reduction at all costs (apart from anything else this, this is bound to be bogged down by fruitless arguments such as those in this thread) and to get the main focus onto developing alternative energy solutions. (3) But it is essential that any such solutions are acceptable (a) to voters in the western developed world (otherwise whatever politicians say, new solutions just won’t be adopted – not least because far too many people are totally bored by talk of global warming), (b) to the eastern developing economies (otherwise they’ll simply ignore them – after possibly giving them some lip service) and (c) to the world’s poorest people. (4) Therefore, such solutions must not undermine economic growth. (5) The only alternatives to fossil fuels available now (so far as I know) are renewable energy and nuclear power. (6) Although renewable energy has a part to play (also “clean burn” fossil fuels may offer part of a short-term solution), it cannot on its own provide an alternative vehicle for economic growth – at least not using current technology. (7) Therefore, the only solution available now (and waiting for new solutions is not an option) is much greater use of nuclear power. (8) The above means wresting the initiative away from the environmental fanatics, calming down the media frenzy and getting the initiative into the hands of practical people. (9) Also I am persuaded that it is important (per Bjorn Lomborg – I have now read his recent comments: thanks, Maz) to use the fruits of economic growth to give far greater priority to tackling the ghastly problems (AIDS, inadequate water supplies, malnutrition, etc.) facing so many of the world’s population.

That’s where I’ve got to today – I could be persuaded that I am wrong. Comments?

Cybertiger
02 January 2008 at 18:22

@Brute

“So we really don't have to kill every other American as Cybertiger advocates or tax prosperous countries to redistribute wealth to countries that choose not to compete? “

It is America that is the thoughtless killing machine - who said anything about killing Americans? Actually, my thoughts were of involuntary castration as the Yanks are unlikely to compete with the ‘one child’ of the Chinese family.

Maz
02 January 2008 at 18:53

Again Robin, I find little to disagree with there. Just a couple of points.

Clean burn fossil fuel still needs fossil fuel. So it's not really a solution when we run out.

Nuclear fuel is also not limitless but I agree that it is a viable option. Fusion? Still a good distance away. We might have enough of the first two to last till then. Don't have the info on that one though. Regards.

tom
02 January 2008 at 19:39

Has anyone seen the TREC proposal and the studies in support by the German Areospace Center to provide solar power to the whole of Europe? Coupled with the recent third wave of solar technology, is this not worth our attention? I personally find this more palatable than the nuclear power option.

Brute
02 January 2008 at 19:40

Hydrogen?

Patrick Hadley
02 January 2008 at 20:37

Robin is not only wrong about the millennium bug. Whether or not AGW is real and dangerous is extremely important. If the threat is as real as the IPCC says then we must all alter our lives radically. On the other hand if the threat is vastly exaggerated, then it would be very foolish indeed to act as if it were real.

For example the world has very plentiful known cheap supplies of coal. If CO2 is the major problem facing the planet then we should leave the coal in the ground and cover the countryside with wind farms and build lots of nuclear power stations.

But if an increase in CO2 will not have serious harmful effects then it makes perfect sense to build many more "clean" coal power stations. These greatly help the people of the poorest countries in the world to share in some of the benefits of technology which we enjoy.

Following the "precautionary principle" might mean some inconvenience to us in the rich world as we change our light bulbs and offset our carbon. For the poorest people it would mean that their chance to share in the benefits of technology are greatly reduced.

Cybertiger
02 January 2008 at 21:07

"Hydrogen?"

Hydrogen needs energy to produce. Where's that going to come from Brute? Outa Dubya's arse?

AuroraBorealis
02 January 2008 at 21:14

Robin (and Maz)

Being pressed on time today, I will not go into lengthy discussions, just point to some critical aspects and that is timing and positive feedback (cascading) mechanisms. We don't know at what point of temperature increase that forests will turn form carbon sinks to sources. We don't know at what point ocean CO2 uptake becomes saturated. We don't know when methane emissions from thawing tundra will start dominating the greenhouse effect.

But this lack of knowledge is no more difficult to handle than not knowing if there will be a traffic situation on my way to work. I just stick to speed limits, stop at the red lights, drive a 5 star car and keep my seat belt on. In the case something occurs, I will be able to manage the situation.

Therefore, we need to stick to the precautionary principle and not err on the bad side. Thus, starting with carbon reduction mechanism in time might be critical, as was pointed out in the last IPCC report. And although I would reluctantly accept nuclear energy as a intermediate solution, the problem is that it will take decades to get a significant number of plants up and running.

There is however already technical solutions to most of our needs and they have been described in detail eg in "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problemfor the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies" a paper found in: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/305/5686/968.pdf

The main thing is that it will be cheaper in the long run to take action now and this action will depend on bright people, smart companies and trustworthy leaders. And there are more examples than you might think of companies that are going radically green.

To me, it would be great if we could stop spending time on lengthy discussion about if there is an AGW problem and start coming up with solutions! Sustainable entrepreneurship is something I have started introducing in our curricula at my university.

AuroraBorealis
02 January 2008 at 21:23

Just an addition from this weeks issue of nature that corroborates my previous post:

An analysis of variations in atmospheric CO2 and ecosystem CO2 fluxes in the Northern Hemisphere shows that warmer autumns have been associated with an earlier autumn-to-winter CO2 build-up in the atmosphere. This seems counter-intuitive: warm autumns surely imply long growing seasons and a beneficial effect on terrestrial carbon sinks as trees and plants make more biomass. An explanation is provided by satellite observations and numerical modelling. Enhanced respiration caused by higher temperatures causes carbon losses that offset photosynthetic gains, limiting the potential of these ecosystems to act as carbon sinks. And CO2 loss due to autumn warming may offset most of the increased CO2 uptake during spring. If future warming occurs more rapidly in autumn than in spring, the ability of northern ecosystems to sequester carbon may diminish more rapidly than previously predicted.

Robin Guenier
02 January 2008 at 22:17

Patrick: re AGW I accept that, on the face of it, you to have a point. But you postulate a rational world where we can establish unambiguously whether the IPCC is right or not. Thus, if it is, we alter our lives radically, covering the land with wind farms and (if the greens allow it) building lots of nuclear power stations. And if it is not and CO2 emissions are not a problem, we build lots of “clean” coal power stations and thereby help the world’s poor and ourselves. All very simple.

The problem is that, although highly desirable, your clear position would never be established – viz. the entrenched positions being adopted by contributors to this thread. I wish it were otherwise but that’s how people are: the “truth” will not be agreed and the debate (my expert v. your expert) will rage on and on, getting increasingly heated. And nothing will get done.

So I propose another approach – imperfect perhaps but providing at least a possibility of reconciliation. First, we sideline the green fanatics (admittedly not easy but, in global terms, they are a tiny minority). Then we seek agreement that, although the truth cannot be finally settled, the world accepts that the IPCC might be right (your “precautionary principle”) and that, in any case, the continued use of fossil fuels is unwise. But we also ask world leaders to accept that the probable social/political damage caused by halting or reversing economic growth is unacceptable and dangerous. Then we move to the practicalities that would reconcile these positions. I suggest (I’m no expert): (1) a mix of practical renewables, “clean burn” fossil fuels (probably your coal) and nuclear power, (2) continued research into other energy sources, (3) continued development of lower energy transportation etc., and (4) a programme to ameliorate any climate induced problems (flooding etc.) that might still emerge. We should IMHO get on with all this now. But if, say, within the next ten years it became clear that the IPCC is wrong (perhaps temperature does level off or even fall), we have a radical rethink. Little harm would have been done.

As to the dear old bug, I’m not wrong. If you wish to pursue this without wasting everyone else’s time, suggest how I might contact you.

bean3422
02 January 2008 at 22:29

This has been fun reading...I should add to my commentary on the general arrogance of the human race that in some cases the arrogance level increases to make up for the low level of the IQ. Attempting to overcompensate for the inability to formulate a proper argument, and resorting to vile stereotypes of entire nations and people.

Fortunately the statesman does not have any grammar or spelling checkers on this forum so the IQ of certain posters is painfully obvious.

There have been many long and very good arguments here, many well written and logical.

I do not have the time nor inclination to continue those long arguments, so I will try and succinctly make a final statement.

I cannot say for certain whether "man-made global warming" or "climate change" or whatever is occurring in any form.

The only thing I am certain of is that no one has enough data to be absolutely certain of anything. There are layers upon layers here. We have no precedence here. Technology has changed so rapidly that we have nothing with which to compare our findings. It is so easy to jump out of the realm of scientific and into the realm of hearsay or speculation.

So to those who would regulate the world under some world-wide eco-government, I cry tyranny.

Let's educate, let's research, let's continue down the path of learning. But we are a long way from a consensus (if we can ever reach it), and frankly, time will most likely tell the truth long before we all agree on the answer.

And cybertiger, I will be getting into my little hatchback in a few minutes. Though I am in favor of the freedom to purchase what you want, the moral decadence of purchasing an SUV over a hatchback or wagon because of simple vanity disgusts me. But this is not an environmental issue, it is a moral one.

Anything involving morality is intensely complicated. It is a floating target. And it is not something that I have the right to judge. Everyone answers to themselves for their own decisions.

It is when people or governments start forcing their own morality and individual decisions down onto those who disagree that we start having big problems. I would wager that Hitler could argue that his tyranny was justifiable to fix some "moral" issues.

Brute
03 January 2008 at 00:36

"Hydrogen needs energy to produce. Where's that going to come from Brute? Outa Dubya's arse?"

No, that would be Methane. I suggest you return to grammar school chemistry class. Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe.

U.S. Department of Energy current project focuses on harnessing photoactive material from the sun to generate hydrogen. Hydrogen is one of the cleanest forms of energy, and studies have shown that it is 33 percent more efficient than liquid fuels. In Northern Nevada the average energy from the sun is around one kilowatt per square meter area. In Reno it is much higher than that. Because it is so bright and sunny here in Reno, we have in many ways the perfect location for photo-hydrogen generation."

US Research teams have created a new hydrogen material that has more than a billion nanotubes, which gives it excellent potential to produce hydrogen from another abundant resource -- water. DOE’s small-scale hydrogen generation system, located in the Laxalt Mineral Research Building, produces the material through an electrochemical process from applied ultrasonic waves.

"We are currently using simulated solar light in the lab," Misra said, "and we are finding our system to be a good and robust way to facilitate the movement of electrons by the incident light to produce hydrogen from water." By the end of the decade, Misra estimates that the system could grow to a more industrial size scale, which would allow power companies to produce hydrogen that could be used to power automobiles or power your home. The new power source is extremely cost-effective.

Brute
03 January 2008 at 00:46

Stirling Engines are also showing promise, (solar powered). I have one providing partial energy to my home.

The last leg of a two-decades-long effort by the U.S. Energy Deaprtment to unleash superefficient solar power by 2011 is homing in on the so-called Stirling engine, which is being used to drive solar generators. DOE test site measurements suggest the setup could bring the cost of solar power on a par with traditional fossil fuels and hydroelectric sources — assuming the project engineers can balance the separate power feeds from farms of thousands of simultaneously online 25-kilowatt Stirling solar dishes.

The heart of the design, the engine itself, was invented by the Scottish minister Robert Stirling in 1816.

"The Stirling engine makes solar power so much more efficiently than photovoltaic solar cells can," said Robert Liden, chief administrative officer at Stirling Energy Systems Inc. (Phoenix). "That's because the Stirling solar dish directly converts solar heat into mechanical energy, which turns an ac electrical generator." The bottom line, he said, "is that large farms of Stirling solar dishes — say, 20,000-dish farms — could deliver cheap solar electricity that rivals what we pay for electricity today."

jimbob37
03 January 2008 at 09:21

There are some very interesting videos on this topic at http://www.theglobalwarmingdebate.net - especially good is the Prof Carter's lecture which is well worth watching.

neilrieck
03 January 2008 at 11:38

Climate is a very complicated topic to discuss in a blog so let me mention just one of many possible explanations for the David Whitehouse’s observation: One calorie is the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 °C. Many people in this blog have forgotten that 79.7 calories are required to convert 1 gram of ice to 1 gram of water (a.k.a. “enthalpy change of fusion”). So while the Earth is currently holding onto more heat (which is covered 4/5 by oceans), hurricanes are stimulated to move excess ocean heat from the equator toward the poles which results in the melting of polar ice. Once all the ice is melted I expect ocean temperatures will jump since there will then be a one-to-one relationship between heat and temperature vs. the current 80:1 ratio.

A1 03 January 2008 at 12:10

Try checking out orbital variations that take place of 1000's of years, variations in axial precession, & axial tilt. The Earth is tilting upwards by 2.4 degrees & we're around half-way there, where the northern hemisphere will get more sunshine & the southern hemisphere slightly less. This tilt effect will take another 10,000 years or so to complete before we start back down again over another 21,000 years or so. These cycles are known as Milankovitch Cycles & were first put forward in the 1920's & 30's. Take also into account variations in solar output, regularly reduced by the IPCC for its own ends so that Hocky Stick graphs work. The Medevil Warm Period & the Little Ice Age both occurred & scientifc studies clearly show these were world events & not as the IPCC claim, merely isolated local northern hemisphere events. They also correlate with known solar output variations! The science is clear to those who want to see instead of burying their heads in flawed science & green lobbying.

The IPCC grudgingly acknowledge these cycles of obrital variation but bury them in an obscure short sentence in a small paragraph in the middle of the 4th Assessment Report 2007, perhaps hoping that nobody will actually read the report.

The world should consider adaption, rather than flawed science & panic scaremongering!

Nelson
03 January 2008 at 13:45

http://www.theglobalwarmingdebate.net - ah, so debate is a one-sided argument, I see. I'll pass on Bob Carter's presentation, thanks: it's rubbish.

Nelson
03 January 2008 at 13:52

A1, of course climatologists are aware of natural climate cycles and solar variation. It's not 'hidden' in the IPCC report, it simply isn't that relevant to current warming.

The mechanisms behind current and historical warmings are not necessarily the same.

You run into a problem if you want to invoke them to explain current warming. There's no natural orbital variation that can account for it (they operate on timescales of millennia, and are orders of magnitude slower). So what about the sun? Well, there's no significant change in solar output. On the other hand, we're emitting gigatons of greenhouse gases each year.

Kind of awkward to argue away, I think.

jimbob37
03 January 2008 at 15:03

Why rubbish Nelson? Please elaborate and tell me what is wrong with the presentation - genuinely would like to hear a critique as no-one else seems to be offering one...

Maz
03 January 2008 at 15:05

"Well, there's no significant change in solar output."

Where did you get that idea from? The IPCC?

Solar activity has been anything but constant. We have geomagnetic data (Aa index) going back to the 1800s. Have a look at the Aa index data here http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/3/1/4 and see if you can repeat that assertion with a straight face!

I think you already know that correlation does not mean causation so I'll ignore your penultimate sentence.

Maz
03 January 2008 at 15:24

http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html

You might prefer this letter published in Nature for your source. It's a bit technical and I cannot claim to fully understanding the math. But the data picture is pretty clear. A doubling of the Sun's coronal magnetic field during the last 100yrs (June 1999)

Before you rubbish the author. Lockwood is the same guy who rushed a paper out earlier this year to counter the program "The Great Global Warming Swindle" 's claim of a solar connection with global warming. Interestingly, if I remember corrrectly, he left out the Aa index from his latest contribution. I don't think he said why.

Nelson
03 January 2008 at 16:29

The question is, how might the coronal magnetic field influence climate? You can find a lot of variables that correlate with global temperatures. But it doesn't mean causation: you'd need to propose a mechanism. Direct measurements of solar radiance and cosmic rays show no increasing/decreasing trends that could account for warming, so it'd have to be something strange indeed. That, and the vertical profile of temperature change (decreasing with altitude) supports a strengthening greenhouse effect rather than increasing insolation.

I'm sure it does have an effect - just that it isn't strong enough to explain all the warming [and you still have to explain away GHG emissions. Why aren't they contributing to warming?]

Nelson
03 January 2008 at 16:41

Correlations (or rather, attempts to find...) are handled nicely here. It's a very interesting read, but apoologies for the long URL - the apostrophe gets mangled by TinyURL.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/les-ch...’ordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-ii-courtillots-geomagnetic-excursion/

Brute
03 January 2008 at 16:44

Nelson,

So, the Sun has been warming the Earth at varying degrees through time eternal but in this instance the Sun, (THE ENORMOUS NUCLEAR FURNACE AT THE MIDDLE OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM) has nothing, or very little as you say, to do with it? It's different this time?

Could it be that the theory of green house gases causing warming is flawed?

AuroraBorealis
03 January 2008 at 16:56

Brute,

This is from the Royal Society's web site about climate myths: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233

What does the science say about solar activity?

Change in solar activity is one of the many factors that influence the climate but cannot, on its own, account for all the changes in global average temperature we have seen in the 20th Century.

Changes in the Sun's activity influence the Earth's climate through small but significant variations in its intensity. When it is in a more active' phase as indicated by a greater number of sunspots on its surface it emits more light and heat. While there is evidence of a link between solar activity and some of the warming in the early 20th Century, measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years there is even evidence of a detectable decline and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures.

The magnitude and pattern of changes to temperatures can only be understood by taking all of the relevant factors both natural and human into account. For example, major volcanic eruptions produce a cooling effect because they blast ash and other particles into the atmosphere where they persist for a few years and reduce the amount of the Sun's energy that reaches the Earth's surface. Also, burning fossil fuels produces particles called sulphate aerosols which tend to cool the climate in the same way.

Over the first part of the 20th Century higher levels of solar activity combined with increases in human generated carbon dioxide to raise temperatures. Between 1940 and 1970 the carbon dioxide effect was probably offset by increasing amounts of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, and a slight downturn in solar activity, as well as enhanced volcanic activity.

During this period global temperatures dropped. However, in the latter part of the 20th Century temperatures rose well above the levels of the 1940s. Strong measures taken to reduce sulphate pollution in some regions of the world meant that industrial aerosols began to provide less compensation for an increasing warming caused by carbon dioxide. The rising temperature during this period has been partly abated by occasional volcanic eruptions.

AuroraBorealis
03 January 2008 at 17:02

One should also remember Occam's razor. This is (cited from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor ) a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Thus, if there is a mechanistic understanding of global warming (greenhouse gases) that fits in with observations (increased CO2) other explanation (cosmic rays, unknown solar mechanisms) must be validated by both data and theory in order to replace the current understanding of the science. Possible does not equal plausible.

Patrick Hadley
03 January 2008 at 17:03

Robin, I will stop bothering you about Y2K. I do go along with your last post on the correct approach to AGW.

Incidentally the Met Office Hadley Centre has today published its prediction for 2008 global temperature. They expect it to be the coolest year since 2000, and if they are right (they were very wrong about 2007) this will confirm a cooling trend on both a five year and ten year moving average. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr200...

Nelson
03 January 2008 at 17:06

jimbob37, if you want a healthy, scientifically balanced overview of global warming, you can do far better than Bob Carter.

Firstly, he's marine geologist, and definitely not an actively publishing climatologist. But that matters not: his arguments should rest on their own merits.

That's where we run into problems.

He's claimed that CO2 contributes to about 3% of the greenhouse effect (he can't do maths, it's 9-26%), that global warming stopped in 1998 (he can't do maths)...

You can google Carter to find out more of his lamentable and easily refutable claims. Here's some to whet your appetite:

http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/

I didn't watch all of the presentation, but I skipped to one bit where he covered the surfacestations.org project. Ostensibly, this was started to survey US temperature stations and ensure that none were inappropriately sited. Unkind observers suggested that it was merely to seed doubt on the quality of the temperature record, i.e. to claim that we're not warming at all. Anyway, they claimed that the record was contaminated. The whole fuss seems to have died down though. Might it be because you still see warming (in fact, stronger warming) if you analyse data from the best-sited stations...? Surely not!

Anyway, I digress :)

Nelson
03 January 2008 at 17:07

Interesting, Patrick Hadley, that the Met Office link is entitled 'Global temperature 2008: Another top-ten year'.

Nelson
03 January 2008 at 17:09

Oh, and 'Sharply renewed warming is likely once [2008s] La Niña declines'.

John Ward
03 January 2008 at 17:35

This has just been posted on the Met Office website. game set and match to Dr Whitehouse I believe...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr200...

Note bullet point 3;

The forecast value for 2008 mean temperature is considered indistinguishable from any of the years 2001-7, given the uncertainties in the data.

There you have it. Well done Dr Whitehouse.

AuroraBorealis
03 January 2008 at 17:35

This is from the Swedish Met Office (SMHI), quick translation by me:

Annual mean temperature 2007 was 1.5 to 2 °C above normal, making it close to record warm. // Winter started warm or extremely warm, in the north even warmer than the previously extrem warm December of 2006.

Anyone remember the models predicting that polar regions will have larger warmer than rest of world?

Brute
03 January 2008 at 17:48

AuroraBorealis,

And there are dozens of reports that state that the Sun does influence temperature and can account for the warming.

Mr. Hadley,

With all due respect, (I think that you and I are on the same side in this, I've sort of lost track), but I don't trust that Meteorologists/Climatologists will get that prediction, (or any other), right either. If they are right, it will probably be due to dumb luck.

I think the only "consensus" we can all agree to is that we should explore cheaper, abundant, clean energy sources for mankind. No, I do not like being held hostage by terrorist run, oil rich nations or eco-minded Socialists, but research and development takes time. We'll get there. It took thousands of years for mankind to utilize the internal combustion engine as opposed to horse drawn carriages and another hundred or so years to create the technology to travel to the moon. We'll figure it out; have a little faith.

Robin Guenier
03 January 2008 at 17:50

But Nelson, Patrick's Met Office prediction is nonetheless very relevant to this thread. As I understand it, the point is not to challenge the fact that we are experiencing a warm period (plainly we are) but to point out that there appears to be some evidence (early days yet) that the recent trend of rising temperatures may be levelling out. Were that to be confirmed, it would be encouraging news - except for those who appear to be hoping for a human comeuppance.

Nelson
03 January 2008 at 18:10

I just dispute the claim that it's levelling out. It doesn't matter what the data are, a small signal with substantial noise means they have to be handled carefully - it's easy to ascribe to the signal what is really noise.

John Ward, it might be useful to quote that in context. 2008 is predicted to be one of the 10 warmest years on record - despite the strongest La Nina since 1999-2000. And 'sharply renewed warming is likely in 2009'. Oh, and the following quote which you've conveniently ignored: 'What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000'. That doesn't exactly support the claim that 'global warming has stopped', does it?

I think Whitehouse just served into the net.

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc.
03 January 2008 at 18:24

I have found this discussion both educational and encouraging. The New Statesman has probably never had such a large crowd visiting. It would be interesting to know how many have read the article by David Whitehouse and our discussion.

Previously, I submitted my graph of Global Monthly Mean Temperatures during last 120 months (10 years). That graph clearly shows that the temperature is staying on a stable level. The big question is, where is this trend leading ?

Some help with forecasting temperature during the next few years, may be obtained by taking a bit longer period than I did use to show that we are located on a "temperature hill". In order to reveal current short-term trend, I have refreshed one of my graphs for 180 weeks (15 years). Also, for the benefit of those who have English as their mother tongue, I have placed some English explanations on the graph.

This new graph can be found here: http://altice.blog.is/blog/altice/entry/398432/

In this case, a polynomial is best fitted to the data. It has the formula:

Y = -0,0000170X2 + 0,00580X + 0,171

The curve has also been extrapolated to cover the next 180 months. If the world mean temperature follows this curve, we will have the same temperature in about 15 years as we had 15 years ago. However, we better understand that the polynomial is fitted to the temperature trend -a physical reality- and not the other way around. There is no known reason why the temperature should follow any mathematical trend.

The polynomial has its maximum at month 171, which corresponds to January 2007. Thus we are already one year into a cooling period ! Again this is mathematically speaking. Actually, I would not be surprised if coming years reveal that the maximum occurred as far back as three years ago. The drop in temperature will obviously tell, if it drops at all.

I am hoping that this graph will explain better than words how precarious it is to draw a straight line through the data of most resent years. Besides measurement errors, the slope of the line will much depend on where on the curve we are situated. Because of this fact, I decided not to show any regression line on my previous graph.

Brute
03 January 2008 at 18:28

"It doesn't matter what the data are"

Well said. I would think that Environmentalists would be happy at any glimmer of good news; (unless there is an ulterior motive).

JZ Smith
03 January 2008 at 18:28

AuroraBorealis:

"To me, it would be great if we could stop spending time on lengthy discussion about if there is an AGW problem and start coming up with solutions!"

How can we come up with solutions if we don't know the source of the "warming"? Read some of the early posts in this thread about replanting vast areas to support ethanol crops... just one of the potential problems with trying to "fix" something that may not be broken.

Robin Guenier
03 January 2008 at 18:53

JZSmith: perhaps you didn’t see my proposal yesterday.

Having I commented that there is unlikely to be a solution based on agreed “truth” and that the likelihood is that the debate (my expert v. your expert) will rage on and on, getting increasingly heated with nothing being done, I proposed another approach that might provide a possibility of reconciliation (a pity the NS doesn’t number these comments): “First, we sideline the green fanatics (admittedly not easy but, in global terms, they are a tiny minority). Then we seek agreement that, although the truth cannot be finally settled, the world accepts that the IPCC might be right and that, in any case, the continued use of fossil fuels is unwise. But we also ask world leaders to accept that the probable social/political damage caused by halting or reversing economic growth is unacceptable and dangerous. Then we move to the practicalities that would reconcile these positions. I suggest: (1) a mix of practical renewables, “clean burn” fossil fuels and nuclear power, (2) continued research into other energy sources, (3) continued development of lower energy transportation etc., and (4) a programme to ameliorate any climate induced problems (flooding etc.) that might still emerge. We should IMHO get on with all this now. But if, say, within the next ten years it became clear that the IPCC is wrong (perhaps temperature does level off or even fall), we have a radical rethink. Little harm would have been done.”

Isn't that a solution that doesn't require that we know the source of "warming" or attempts to fix something that may not be broken?

Patrick Hadley
03 January 2008 at 18:59

Nelson, surely as a New Statesman reader you should recognise "spin" when you see it. Global warming implies an increase in temperatures. That certainly did happen between 1975 and 1998. As a result of the that warming in the past the planet is still warm. But over the last nine years it has not got any warmer - for the time being at least warming has stopped. Will it start up again soon? I have not got the faintest idea, and frankly neither has anyone else - there are far too many unknown factors. Why do the Met Office "spin" the results - could it be that they make money out of the global warming scare?

Loftur - the link to your chart appears to be broken. I wonder if you could check it please?

bobclive
03 January 2008 at 19:08

2007 The year of global cooling

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In north-eastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina’s peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina’s apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver’s temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

JZ Smith
03 January 2008 at 19:19

Robin Guenier: Yes, I did miss your earlier post, but it is a good one with an excellent suggestion that I could support. No one wants to foolishly pollute the Earth, and I strongly support efforts at curbing emissions, recycling, sustainable resources, etc., etc., but I fear that the radical green eviros want to arrest further economic development and put in place Big Government solutions and taxes that will only serve the goals of those same radicals anti-capitalist objectives, the affect (net negative or positive) on the economy and environment notwithstanding.

How do you propose to implement your proposal?

bobclive
03 January 2008 at 19:31

Crusade against sloppy mathematics

A London-based Canadian mathematician, Douglas Keenan, has made it his mission to lead the battle against the sloppy or malicious use of mathematics. You might think there isn't much scope for different opinions in mathematics, but when you're dealing with the interpretation of data, it's entirely possible for divergences of views to arise. The wrong interpretation can be made at times, and even consciously made. In particular, in the field of climate studies, opposing points of view are often backed up by scientific research that is based on the mathematical analysis of data. Because mathematics gives such pieces of work a stamp of credibility, politicians often rely on them. It is therefore all the more important for them to be carried out with care.

After studying mathematics at the University of Waterloo, Keenan worked on Wall Street for a few years, but in 1995 devoted himself completely to the forensic study of mathematics. Since then he has been leading—completely independently—a real crusade against shady mathematical machinations. The targets for his often vigorously worded attacks are numerous, and range from the misuse of statistical methods in determining the origin of volcanic ashes to the questionable use of tree-rings in evaluating the date of a shipwreck.

Three years ago, the scientific journal Nature published a study that used the ripening process of Pinot Noir grapes as an indicator for the warmth of the climate. The official start of the harvest in August is determined by the ripeness of the grapes, which in turn is determined by the temperature of the summer that has just ended. Since the dates for the beginning of the harvest in Burgundy have been recorded in city archives since 1370, they could conceivably be used as indicators for the way temperatures have developed over the past six centuries. A French research team came up with a model based on this data. The model showed that the summer of 2003 was the hottest in 600 years. The conclusion was clear: Burgundy is warming up.

The work aroused Keenan's suspicion, and he wanted to test its mathematical foundations. In order to do this however, he needed the raw data—but the authors were not prepared to hand it out. It was only after two requests to Nature that they finally handed their documents over. Keenan immediately made a find. The authors had smoothed the data for their study, confused standard errors with standard deviations, used incorrect parameters, and confused daily temperatures with average temperatures. Once all these sources of error are taken into account, the year 2003 does indeed display high temperatures, but not unexpectedly high ones. It's no surprise that the Nature editors hadn't noticed anything, since the data was never put at their disposal, and they never asked for it either. Had they done so, they would easily have seen through the authors' game. The mere fact that the grape harvest model gave a temperature for 2003 that was 2.4 degrees Celsius above the temperature actually measured by Météo France should have made the editors suspicious.

Keenan's most recent targets are two pieces of work that examine the influence of urbanization on climate change between 1954 and 1983. In order to be able to compare measurements made over different periods, it is absolutely crucial that the location of the station where the measurements are carried out not change throughout the observation period. For example, because a city generates warmth, a measuring station that is moved from the center of the city to its periphery would record lower measurements. On the other hand, the measurements would be more likely to rise if a measuring station was moved from a position upwind from the city to a position downwind. Even small changes of location, like for example from a field to the asphalt road next to it, lead to deviations. Keenan was above all doubtful about the measurements made in China. He didn't believe that during Mao's Cultural Revolution, when scientists were thought very little of, a scientific study would have been carried out with much care.

When he asked which stations had been used to make the measurements, Keenan once again found himself running into a brick wall. “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”, asked one of the authors. But the professor had not reckoned with Keenan's obstinacy. Since the professor was working at a university in England, he was subject to the Freedom of Information Act, which obliges employees of public institutions to release data. He was thus forced to hand over the list of the Chinese measuring stations to Keenan. And lo and behold: out of 35 measuring stations, 25 had been subjected to a change of location, sometimes even several changes, which often covered dozens of kilometers. For a further 49 measuring stations, documentation did not even exist.

Global temperature increase is man made, also see

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&eurl=http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31660

bobclive
03 January 2008 at 20:13

More on sloppy mathematics

As stated Douglas J. Keenan, checked the documentation used by the IPCC's chief climatologist, Dr. P. D. Jones in the IPCC's latest report. This report states there is little or no difference in temperature between rural and urban sites, the statement is based on the Jones paper.

Jones of the infamous University of East Anglia UK, in conjunction with several other scientists published a paper purporting to use long-term data from 84 weather stations in China. The authors claimed these stations were chosen on the basis that they had not been changed or relocated since 1954 so that their data stream would provide a reliable record of temperatures over a 30+-year period.

The United States Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences issued a joint report, which stated that 49 of the 84 weather stations had no history as to location, or instrumentation changes available. The remaining 35 stations, Keenan discovered, had indeed had changes in instrumentation and movement, in one case, movement as much as 41 kms.

The results of this paper enable the IPCC to show a 0.6 degree warming where the actual warming may be as low as 0.3 or even zero if the true urban heat island effect is taken into account.

Maz
03 January 2008 at 20:35

Bobclive,

So the professor you quote as saying "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" is the same Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia (Hadley) who has just qualified the METO forecast for 2008 with the words

"The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away."?

And would his co-author be another professor currently being investigated by his own university (at Albany, State University of New York) for suspected research misconduct related to claims later repeated in Jones et al 1990, a crucial paper quoted in IPCC 2007 on urban heat islands?

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc.
03 January 2008 at 22:00

Patrick Hadley. The link to my graph is now working.

http://altice.blog.is/blog/altice/entry/398432/

Regards

bobclive
03 January 2008 at 23:07

BBC News at Ten tonight.3.1.07

2007 'second warmest year' in UK

UK, according to figures released by the Met Office (and manipulated by the BBC)

The average mean temperature across the UK was 9.6C - slightly cooler than in 2006, but continuing the

RECENT TREND towards warmer temperatures.

1998: 0.52C (above the 1961-1990 average)

2005: 0.48C

2003: 0.46C

2002: 0.46C

2004: 0.43C

2006: 0.42C

2007 (provisional): 0.41C

2001: 0.40C

1997: 0.36C

1995: 0.28C

What a load of propaganda the BBC continually spew out, they should have said,

2007 was cooler than 2006 which was cooler than 2004 which was cooler than 2002 which was the same as 2003 which was cooler than 2005 which was cooler than 1998 and 2001was also cooler than 1998, there is no mention of 1999 or 2000, I assume they must have been cooler,

I can only see a downward trend.

williams
03 January 2008 at 23:08

That Met Office press release refereed to a few posts ago is a disgrace - it's full of spin and one sided. Read it carefully and with an open mind and it supports David Whitehouse's contention 100%.

Whitehouse should be congratulated by pointing out something that we had taken for granted and for changing the nature of the debate.

Why isn't this leading BBC News or Sky?

Nelson you are talking rubbish.

bobclive
03 January 2008 at 23:19

Sorry I got the years a bit mixed up but makes no difference.

BBC Dec 2001.

David Parker, of the Hadley Centre, said this year's CET was expected to be between 0.5 degrees C and 0.6 degrees C above the 1961-1990 average, but more than half a degree short of the warmest years, 1949, 1990 and 1999.

There had been between 30 and 40 years warmer than 2001 in the 343-year history of the CET.

Nelson
04 January 2008 at 01:41

Patrick Headley, 'for the time being at least warming has stopped.'

We're having a battle of semantics :) To a climatologist, the data simply don't let you conclude this. The very nature of the data (small signal, large noise) means that an underlying warming trend will occasionally be obscured. While this means warming has stopped to you, I'd argue it's just being obscured with noise dominating the underlying warming trend.

This is entirely expected - we shouldn't be surprised and leap on every cool year as a saviour:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

Remember also that noise operates in both directions. What happens if 2009 is another powerful El Nino year? (2008 will be cooler than expected due to a strong La Nina, so I fully anticipate having this same argument next January :)

Nelson
04 January 2008 at 01:47

Lotfur, your fitting of the temperature data (15 years is till too short) with that polynomial... How do you justify that bizarre extrapolation?

Nelson
04 January 2008 at 01:53

Brute, 'Could it be that the theory of green house gases causing warming is flawed?'

Changes in solar insolation simply aren't great enough to account for recent warming - there's no arguing around it. There's also no arguing around the increase in greenhouse gas forcing due to anthropogenic emissions. You _must_ take it into consideration :)

If you want to learn more, http://www.realclimate.org is invaluable. It's not easy to navigate, but persevere and you'll be rewarded.

Nelson
04 January 2008 at 01:55

'"It doesn't matter what the data are" ' I'm a scientist, and it most definitely does matter what the data are!

Nelson
04 January 2008 at 01:59

Bobclive, your downward trend in the temperature data.

The UK is a tiny fraction of the globe - we're interested in global, not regional data.

jimbob37
04 January 2008 at 02:12

Nelson - "I am a scientist" - yet you initially told me the Bob Carter presentation was rubbish and then by your own words stated that you hadn't actually watched it all.

Not what I would call particularly scientific!

stargazer
04 January 2008 at 11:22

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Nelson
04 January 2008 at 12:10

'Not what I would call particularly scientific!' Bah, you're right. I'm scared it'll be a litany of his usual cherry-picking and distortions, in which case refuting it is beyong this text window. Understanding global warming requires nuance - just look at the arguments we've had over the statistical treatment of global temperature data!

So: rehash of tired, discredited arguments or a balanced, scientifically rigorous and cogent argument? I'll watch it all this weekend.

bobclive
04 January 2008 at 12:10

Nelson

WMO’s global temperature analyses are based on two different sources. One is the combined dataset maintained by both the Hadley Centre of the UK

Meteorological Office, and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK, The other dataset is maintained by the US Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which indicated that 2007 is likely to be the fifth warmest on record, WE ALL KNOW WHAT STEVE MCINTYRE DID TO THE U.S DATA SET RECENTLY, THIS IS STILL ONGOING.

The U.S data set was supposed to be the GOLD standard.

2007 was one of the 10 warmest years ever, based on global recorded temperatures, according to the Met Office they say last year was certainly a top-10 year, Barry Gromett, a Met Office spokesman, said It was maybe the seventh-warmest year based on preliminary figures, since estimates began around 1850, SO THERE HAVE BEEN 6 WARMER YEARS, Gromett said. 1998 is currently the warmest year to date, when global temperatures were 0.52 degrees above the 14.0-degree-Celsius (57.2 Fahrenheit) average from 1961 through 1990, I wonder who did the global average temperature study, would it be the same P.D.Jones who did the dodgy heat island study.

It appears these temperatures are GLOBAL, but can you TRUST THEM. A new 2007 study in China shows annual and seasonal urbanization-induced warming for the two periods at Beijing and Wuhan stations is significant, with the annual urban warming accounting for about 65~80% of the overall warming in 1961~2000 and about 40~61% of the overall warming in 1981~2000. This result along with the previous researches indicates a need to pay more attention to the urbanization-induced bias probably existing in the current surface air temperature records of the national basic stations. I think this may blow a hole in the Jones study the IPCC rely on. I wonder if Jones ever leaves his desk. The link to the new study.

Nelson
04 January 2008 at 12:17

Stargazer, that link is to a press release by the Space and Science Research Center. I'd like to see some published science rather than something from an organisation that, erm, doesn't seem to exist.

Looks like another hoax to sucker in credulous sceptics (so much for critical analysis :P)

Nelson
04 January 2008 at 12:19

Bobclive, the Urban Heat Island effect has been discredited. It's carefully accounted for in temperature data.

It doesn't explain ocean warming; atmospheric warming; polar warming either.

stargazer
04 January 2008 at 12:35

Looks like another hoax to sucker in credulous sceptics (so much for critical analysis :P)

YEP looks like a Hoax...That will teach me to do a internet search first (at least I accept being wrong when I am)

Matilda1234
04 January 2008 at 13:56

What I have learned from following posts to this story:

1. People do not read other posts properly, preferring to give unsought, patronising advice, or information which has already been posted

2. Most people try to 'prove' their argument by quoting selectively from their expert of choice

3. The majority of people use the term 'global warming' literally, and seem to expect that there will be a uniform effect from whatever climatic change occurs - making the selective use of information very easy.

4. The concept of multiple causes for climate change seems to beyond the imagination of the majority of posters.

5. When all else fails resort to argument ad hominem and/or insults based on ideological grounds

Generally the commentary here is analagous to people watching a neighbour's house burning down while standing around pondering what the cause might be, rather than calling the fire brigade and acting to prevent it spreading to their own home. It also reminds me that for a long time people argued that slavery could not be abolished because the economic consequences were unacceptable. I believe passionately that we already have the knowledge and technology to adapt to many of the possible human causes of climate change and to adapt to ones that might be part of the dynamic of planetary meteorology, unfortunately we lack the vision and the goodwill to change.

BobClive mischieveously posts 'information' about colder temperatures in Australia, but only presents part of the picture on this continent - while today the Australian Bureau of Meteorology announced that temperatures in South East Australia are again warmer than average ( although I admit I don't know whether the information about the effect of urban development on monitoring stations has been factored in). See: http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/200801...

2007 a record warm year in southern Australia

For many Australians, 2007 was the warmest year on record, although when averaged across the whole of the continent, it was only the sixth warmest year.

Other features of the Bureau of Meteorology’s 2007 Climate Statement, issued by its National Climate Centre, include near average rainfall but with a dry winter and spring following rain in southern Australia earlier in the year.

Statistically, the mean temperature for Australia was 0.67°C above average in 2007, making it the sixth warmest year since high quality Australia-wide records commenced in 1910.

But in the southern half of the continent temperatures were well above normal, with the Murray Darling Basin, South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria all recording their warmest years on record.

A grim feature of the year has been extremely low water availability across parts of Australia. Despite promising rains during the first half of the year, July to October was particularly dry. It was not until November that rain returned to much of the continent with the emergence of a La Niña event.

bobclive
04 January 2008 at 15:55

matilda,

The supposedly warmest year recorded in new Zealand is 1998 same as in UK and same as in US until the US data was changed in 2007 to read 1930 as the warmest. I think that is global. We in the UK supposedly had the worst rainfall and flooding for 50 years in 2007. The BBC as usual blamed the flooding on global warming, actually the flooding was caused by the poor maintenance of the old drains together with a vast amount of building on flood plains.The Brits were not surprised the flooding occured. Most churches and cathedrals were build in the UK in the medieval warm period when the climate was warmer and had more precipitation, All these buildings if near rivers were built on the highest ground and hence did not get flooded in 2007.

Perhaps they knew something in the distant past.

If you live in a wet climate you can expect heavy rainfall from time to time, If you live on the driest continent on the planet you can expect a drought from time to time.

Don`t believe what your leaders tell you, go to an independent site try John Daly, he had no axe to grind.

You state you are unsure of the accuracy of the ground stations, do some research.

Marked differences in air temperature are some of the most important contrasts between urban and rural areas. For instance, Chandler (1965) found that, under clear skies and light winds, temperatures in central London during the spring reached a minimum of 11 °C, whereas in the suburbs they dropped to 5 °C.

Indeed, the term urban heat island is used to describe the dome of warm air that frequently builds up over towns and cities.

The Jones study used by the IPPC states there is little or no difference in temperature between urban and rural stations therefore the difference shown in London sited above is ignored. If the data is wrong how you you tell to 0.01 that the planet is warming.

gnuneo
04 January 2008 at 16:22

1. we are affecting our 'natural' environment - does anyone doubt that?

2. CO2 affects global temperatures (and is affected BY them) - and in conjunction with water vapour, and solar cycles (along with a myriad of other smaller effectants) regulates the planet's temperatures - does anyone doubt that?

3. the developed economies will GROW with the measures needed to combat GW, there will have to be new investments in production and 'waste-recycling', along with sustainable energy production.

all this will actually boost economic growth, *but* there also has to be awareness that some politicos and corporate types will use this for corrupt ends - such as the largely misleading "carbon neutralising" forests. This does NOT mean that ALL 'greenising' projects are corrupt however, just we should be aware that some will try to take advantage of them.

5. there are FAR better methods of energy capture than nuclear, for instance:

http://www2.theiet.org/oncomms/sector/power/magazine.cfm?iss...

6. it is certainly possible that some are "scare-mongering", and that there is now a growing body of scientists who oppose this tactic - however any scientist who opposes actual progress on our societies switching to lower impact technology, and all the other measures proposed by the AGW crowd (well, perhaps not *all*! ;) is throwing out the baby with the bath-water.

in summary, whether or not AGW is 'real', is somewhat irrelevant. What is MORE important is actually implementing the very policies anyway, as they are not only beneficial for our planet in absolutely essential ways, but will also be beneficial for our long-term economies - certainly far more so than the colossal sums being spent upon arms and warfare.

i do wonder why those who eagerly grab onto any scepticism on AGW because they 'worry' it is just a scam to bilk us of tax-monies, do not seem to even lift a finger to keyboard when those same sums are spent upon mass destruction.

i will love to see how they explain this strange value system to their grandchildren.

Nelson
04 January 2008 at 16:36

'until the US data was changed in 2007 to read 1930 as the warmest. I think that is global.' No - that's for the continental US. 1998 is still the warmest year globally.

The UHI effect is carefully controlled for, Bobclive - its contamination of the temperature record is a lot less than you might hope for (although I trust you're viewing this dispassionately :). It's a dead horse, and anyway cannot contaminate other evidence for global warming: ocean temperatures, arctic melt, glacier retreat, polar migration of species, atmospheric temperatures...

The assault on the temperature record isn't new:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man...

tom
04 January 2008 at 17:14

gnuneo

1. I already mentioned the TREC proposal and got no comment from the mic controllers.

2. You cant mention anything that requires VISION or COMPASSION. You'll get shouted down.

TREC want to completely power Europe via the sun by 2020 - now thats vision. (google it guys. I dont believe in the whole my web-link is better than your web-link thing)

And Matilda,

I'm sure i've seen the climate change in Australia after 30 years of residency, 15 spent pouring over BOM synoptic charts. Isnt it sad seeing even drought proof eucalypts give up waiting for rain and rainforests burn that have never burnt before because they are dry enough for the first time ever. Dont let someone on the other side of the world tell you like it is in our country. You hit the nail on the head - VISION is what we need now. Absolutely possible.

Bernie
04 January 2008 at 17:34

For Brute & NORMSMITH,

I was interested by that letter sent by scientists to the Bali Climate conference that you posted on Dec 28th. 400 scientists signed this and I thought I'd take a bit of (repeated) advice from NORMSMITH and "Follow the Money".

A quick search of the 1st 50 names on the list of signatories that you so kindly provided revealed that 15 of these have worked for institutes and/or right wing think tanks directly funded by Exxon alone! That's 30%. To the amount of US $5,930,800! See www.exxonsecrets.org for references to accounts etc.

Now I'm not suggesting that this necessarily means that these people are wrong or that receiving massive grants from big business is going to sway their impartiality. That NEVER happens, surely. But an interesting observation, and this is only one oil company. Would I be being presumptuous to think that all oil/gas/coal/car/plane/or other corporations with a vested interested in maintaining the carbon hungry world economy will be acting in much the same ways.

Thanks for your advice Norm, remember FOLLOW THAT MONEY!

Cheers xx

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc.
04 January 2008 at 17:34

Neslon, you are absolutely wrong. A record of 180 months is actually a "long record" and the curve fits the data rather nicely, considering the dubious measuring method used by CRU. Furthermore, there are other indications that I have, which support this form.

Taking a longer record does not add any useful information to current problem, only shows the past, blurs the present and distorts the future. I have worked on scientific problems in several fields, with less data than what we have here. As I have repeatedly explained, we are concerned with a short-term trend. The research question is: which way is the temperature curve turning ?

Extrapolation of a regression curve is exactly what it says. You extend the mathematical formula that fits the data best, into an outside area, which in this case is the nearest future. Perhaps, you are not aware that the IPCC mob is extending their curves till 2100 ?

Guessing probabilities is not scientific, but in this special case I would bet that there is a 60% chance that the temperature curve for the next 15 years will follow the polynomial given.

Brute
04 January 2008 at 18:06

Bernie, You are wrong! 50 BILLION spent by Eco-Socialist vs.19 Million spent by so called "skeptics" is a huge disparity. Al Gore and the rest of his disciples do have a dog in this fight and are making tons of money from this charade. The guilt ridden, hand wringing, Earthdog, 60's retreads are falling for it. Don't pull us down with you. Drive your go carts and live in mud huts; meanwhile, I'll be thinking of ways to capitalize from the hysteria. And I'm certain that any "website" titled "Exxonsecrets" will be truly objective. Follow the money!

The Hot Air Cult

You don't have to be religious to qualify as a fundamentalist. You can be Al Gore, the messiah figure for the global warming cult, whose followers truly believe their gospel of imminent extermination in a Noah-like flood, if we don't immediately change our carbon-polluting ways.

One of the traits of a cult is its refusal to consider any evidence that might disprove the faith. So it is doubtful the global warming cultists will be moved by 400 scientists, many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis." In a report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, these scientists cast doubt on a "scientific consensus" that human-caused global warming endangers the planet.

Like most cultists, the true believers struck back, not by debating science, but by charging that a small number of the scientists mentioned in the report have taken money from the oil industry. A spokeswoman for Al Gore said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobile Corp. Exxon Mobile spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the claim, saying, "The company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories."

The pro-global warming cultists enjoy a huge money advantage. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, noted in an EPW report how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions: "In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," he wrote on June 18, 2007. The $19 million spent on research that debunks the global warming faith pales in comparison.

Also included in the Republican report are comments by Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes: "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a 6-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit. I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home-heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Oklahoma Sen. James M. Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore's claim that the "debate is over." In fact, the debate hasn't even begun because the global warming cultists won't debate. Despite numerous challenges, Al Gore has refused to debate the issue with any credible scientist who is a skeptic. Shouldn't the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize be willing to debate such an important issue? What does he have to fear? If his theory cannot stand up to scientific inquiry and skepticism, it needs to be exposed as a false religion and himself as a false prophet before he and his followers force us to change the way we live and alter the prosperous society that generations of Americans have built.

Mr. Gore and his disciples will still be living in their big houses, driving gas-guzzling cars and flying in private jets that leave carbon footprints as large as Bigfoot's, while most of us will be forced to drive tiny automobiles and live in huts resembling the Third World. But hypocrisy is just one of many traits displayed by secular fundamentalists like Mr. Gore.

Before adopting any faith, the agendas of the people attempting to impose it, along with the beliefs held by them and their disciples should be considered. Al Gore and company are big government liberals who think government is the answer to all our problems, including those they create. As Ronald Reagan often said, in too many cases government is the problem.

The secular fundamentalists who believe in Al Gore as a prophet and global warming as a religious doctrine are being challenged by scientists and others who disbelieve and who think we ought to spend more time developing new technology and energy sources for the future and not preaching gloom, doom and retreat. Let them debate the issue. If they won't, we can only conclude all they are spewing is hot air.

Brute
04 January 2008 at 18:23

"There's little incentive for scientists to do anything but emphasize the negative and the destructive. Alarming news often leads to government funding, funding generates research, and research is the key to scientists' professional advancement. Good news threatens that arrangement."

"This is the reality that all scientists confront: every issue, be it global warming, cancer or AIDS, competes with other issues for a limited amount of government research funding. And, here in Washington, no one ever received a major research grant by stating that his or her particular issue might not be such a problem after all."

Cybertiger
04 January 2008 at 18:37

I don't think Brute is very bright - but I am sure he could do a neat waltz with Matilda down under.

tom
04 January 2008 at 18:37

Brute

Google or Youtube "How it all ends" and tell me if you think Greg Craven is in it for the money.

Nelson
04 January 2008 at 19:01

'the curve fits the data rather nicely'. You can't just fit that arbitrary parabola to the data and conclude that we're at a peak. It's butchery of statistics. Why not choose a linear fit, or a double exponential - ah, they'd predict future warming!

'Taking a longer record does not add any useful information to current problem' What is your expertise in trend analysis? You need a longer period to extract the underlying signal.

bobclive
04 January 2008 at 19:23

Cybertiger, it`s about population control, you can place carbon credits on anything that exhales CO2 and that includes you. Its like the UK after the second world war and food vouches, once you had used your allowance no more food, here in the UK we have more surveillance cameras per person than anywhere in the world plus geo- stationary satellites watching over us, if you consider a sat-nav useful, you watch what your government will use the satellite for, the new ones can trace you down to less than 10ft. If this carbon tax is globally agreed you will never stop it increasing, it is a tax on life itself. If you fly B.A you get a form asking for a voluntary payment to offset your carbon footprint, how long do you think this will be voluntary. Carbon credits are already being traded on the stock market.

You had better hope that the world temps do not increase further, but my view is that now most of the weather stations are urban you wont see any significant increase. The problem is if it cools they will blame that on CO2.

kelvin shawl
04 January 2008 at 19:50

“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Hilarious! This has got to be a contender for the funniest sentence ever written.

Brute
04 January 2008 at 20:13

Tom,

Ok, not in it for the money for the sake of arguement. How about Tree Hugging Liberal or Befuddled Luditte?

I heard a lot about "what we had to do". Why don't you do whatever the hell you want to do. If you want to live in the Stone Age, go ahead. Set an example.......

bobclive
04 January 2008 at 20:13

Nelson, If you visit climate audit, you will observe that the good folks there are doing real research by visiting, photographing every weather station in the U.S and checking all data from these stations. This work is already showing major problems with many of these stations as you will see. I cannot see how the UHI effect is as you say carefully controlled for when the IPPC believe it does not exist.

see:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL027927.shtml

This study shows annual and seasonal urban warming for the two periods for Beijing and Wuhan stations is also positive and significant. The annual urban warming at the city stations can account for about 65~80% of the overall warming in 1961~2000, and about 40~61% of the overall warming in 1981~2000.

DID YOU READ THAT, 65-80% THAT`S ALMOST ALL THE WARMING THAT HAS OCCURRED.

London shows up to 8 deg C warming compared with nearby rural, how do you get rural near London, the difference could even be greater if it were truly rural.

Go here below and read it all you may learn something

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859

Cybertiger
04 January 2008 at 20:29

@cap'n bobclive

"Cybertiger, it`s about population control ... "

I agree, there are far too many Brutes in the world and they're all exhaling methane outa their rear ends. Summat should be done about their carbon farts ... tax 'em or do something to stem the sheer numbers ... of toxic farts!! I agree, it's about controlling populations.

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc.
04 January 2008 at 21:40

Et tu Brute? I did not know Nelson that you are on the IPCC payroll. Only an IPCC servant could make such a remark:

"Why not choose a linear fit, or a double exponential - ah, they'd predict future warming!"

Real science does not work this way. You can not decide yourself what form a natural variable follows. The polynomial simply traces the natural variance better than a straight line. Also, as mentioned before: "there are other indications that I have, which support this form."

Nelson, you are still under the influence of Wiggles and unfortunately your mind seems to wiggle!

Matilda1234
04 January 2008 at 22:09

Bobclive - you continually prove my point that people don't read other posts properly. I accepted your point about the problem with temperature variation in monitoring stations as a valid one. I'm not sure what research you are suggesting I should do, although I would venture to say that in Australia the monitoring stations are less influenced by urban heat overall than elsewhere because they are more widely dispersed. Also because of the size of the country and the low population density ambient heat is really only an issue in the 6-8 large cities we have. What is a concern is that you seem to think that the significant amount of heat generated from and by urban centres is not an environmental problem by itself ( regardless of the reality or otherwise of climate change) and also why the heat variation is not worthy of consideration in your interpretation of the data. If the temperature variation is as significant as you claim, surely that is a real consistent, variable that has to be accounted for because of the effect on the environment and its inhabitants, and how we manage the extra heat e.g, in Hong Kong and Singapore , and the growing cities of Asia, air conditioning is more a necessity than a luxury, surely this has significant environmental impact, even if, as you seem to be arguing, it has no bearing on global climate.

gnuneo
04 January 2008 at 22:46

"If this carbon tax is globally agreed you will never stop it increasing, it is a tax on life itself. If you fly B.A you get a form asking for a voluntary payment to offset your carbon footprint, how long do you think this will be voluntary."

then spend your energies on ensuring that our govts are democratically accountable.

you worry about 'air-travel' carbon? Soon there will be a move towards low-impact airships for air travel, which will be made far more attractive by the jet engines being taxed *for the damage they cause*.

do you really beleive that people shouldn't pay for the environmental damage they cause? That all environmental costs can continue to be "externalised", paid for by future generations and everyone else?

well i'm sorry, but i for one no longer accept that rainforests can be chopped down, desertification increased, continental water shelves drained, rivers, seas and oceans poisoned, our whole biosphere harmed, just so the oil-lobby can squeeze out a few more $billions into their corporate tax-havens.

as i posted earlier, there is already tried and tested means of fulfilling all our global energy needs through the use of directed sun-light, transmitted through the latest

gnuneo
04 January 2008 at 22:50

[sorry]

superconductors to where it is needed, for homes, agriculture, transport, business, and maintaining the internet.

this would rapidly and highly efficiently take care of most of our pressing environmental problems, with the only losers being the oil lobby, the oil lobby, and those paid for by the oil lobby, and the oil lobby.

gee, now i just have to wonder why so many of these "sceptics" are given bonuses by the... oil lobby?

beats me.

Brute
04 January 2008 at 23:58

Gnuneo,

Did you use your bathroom today? How many times and for how long?

How often do you travel? To where?

How many children do you have?

How far is your commute to work?

Did you wash clothes today? Was the washer completely full? Hot or Cold Water?

Did you take a hot shower today? How long did you let the water run?

Do you wash dishes by hand or machine?

How often do you cut your lawn?

How often do you watch television?

How many minutes/hours are you on-line?

How often do you use your telephone?

How often do you have sex?

At what temperature do you keep your thermostat?

If your answer to these questions is “none of your *@#$@#ing business” I applaud you. However; if the position you describe above is ever implemented you will be required to answer questions such as these by your government. Do you want your government to have that much control over your life? Reductio ad absurdum; IT ISN’T. Absurd? That's what the German people said in the 1930's and the Russians said about Stalin.

It’s called incrementalism and it is has been practiced by governments since the beginning of time….heat the water slowly and they won’t feel a thing.

Have you ever heard of a government abolishing a tax because it was no longer needed?

Matilda1234
05 January 2008 at 00:27

Taxes abolished by governments either because they were not popular ( and governments were called to account) or no longer required - to name a few.

Poll Tax (UK 1991)

Bread tax (Corn Law)(1849)

Window Tax ( UK 1851)

Inheritance tax (Australia, Russia)

Taxes on Bank Deposits (Australia)

Agricultural Tax ( China - admittedly it took 2600 years, but I guess that shows how long change can take when humans are responsible for it.)

Capital Gains Tax (Malaysia)

Overseas Remittance Tax (Vietnam)

telephone excise tax (USA)

Brute
05 January 2008 at 00:59

Hmmmm. Maybe I should relocate. I stand corrected. My point is that, (at least here in the US), we spend the first 4 months of the year working to satisfy personal tax burdens.

No Capital Gains Tax in Malaysia? No wonder politcians invest their money there.

Table 1: Tax Freedom Day and Tax Burden, Selected Years 1900 - 2007

Year Tax Freedom Day Taxes as a Percentage of Income

1900 22-Jan 5.90%

1910 19-Jan 5.02%

1920 13-Feb 11.96%

1930 12-Feb 11.61%

1940 7-Mar 17.98%

1950 01-Apr 24.87%

1960 12-Apr 27.88%

1970 20-Apr 29.90%

1980 22-Apr 30.68%

1990 23-Apr 30.80%

2000 5-May 33.98%

2001 1-May 33.01%

2002 21-Apr 30.27%

2003 18-Apr 29.51%

2004 19-Apr 29.69%

2005 26-Apr 31.53%

2006 28-Apr 32.29%

2007 30-Apr 32.69%

Source: Office of Management and Budget; Internal Revenue Service; Congressional Research Service; National Bureau of Economic Research; Tax Foundation.

Matilda1234
05 January 2008 at 02:11

I understand the point that people don't like paying tax, but they don't usually seem to mind using the services or benefiting from the systems they fund. Generally I would even prefer to be overtaxed than live in a country without functioning infrastructure or a reasonably efficient administration as flawed and imperfect as these things are ( reflecting the human factor again), To bring the argument back to Climate Change, the question Brute raises appears to be the one everyone keeps avoiding, what do we do about it. I am glad that there are good people here on the planet concerned enough to establish what is really happening, and to sort through the mass of data, but as it may take some time to establish a definitive answer I can't see the problem in taking a precautionary approach. Investment in scientfic research to better understand the global climate and how it really works, what factors influence it, the time scale of climatic patterns etc seems to me to be a great investment in humanities future. If human beings and various other species get wiped out for one reason or another the planet will adapt and go on ( hot, cold, steamy, barren, whatever), but I think that it would be a shame if we hasten that project. Investment in accurate scientific research seems like a less futile investment of capital than say military research ( I think we've got quite a range of high tech weaponry now) the Olympic Games, celebrity magazines, or well name your own preferred, subjectively determined waste of money. What if all that money was actually diverted to resolving this argument. We could do if it we wanted, but the law of the suppression of radical potential seems to be in operation here.

Brute
05 January 2008 at 02:51

Speaking of obscene profits, what do Federal and State Governments do with the obscene taxes that we already pay? 0.62 cents tax per gallon vs. 0.10 cents profit for "Big Oil", (a business enterprise employing thousands of people who in turn pay taxes). Government officials love to demonize oil companies but wouldn’t think twice about extorting more money from citizens and business.

After crude oil costs, gasoline taxes are the second largest contributor to the price paid at the pump. Together Federal and State excise taxes on fuel account for an average cost of approximately 62 cents per gallon. That's a combined tax of about 20% per gallon of gas.

The federal tax per gallon is 18.4 cents per gallon, and the state tax per gallon varies by state.

Average profit per gallon of gas for oil companies: 10 cents according to the EIA.

NORMSMITH
05 January 2008 at 08:17

AL GORE IS HELPING TO DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT - HERE ARE THE FACTS THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WON'T TOUCH:

Gore wants to make money for his company called Generation Investment Management(GIM) and is raking in millions and millions.

Gore is Chairman of GIM:

http://www.generationim.com/philosophy/

GIM invests in Corporations that cause massive toxic waste and deadly air pollution. Here is their mandatory SEC disclosure:

http://www.secinfo.com/d13P5q.u1q.htm

Note that Gore invests heavily in GE (a major player in the Military Industrial Complex) and Becton Dickinson (a champion of Toxic Waste)

Learn more about Becton Dickinson's environmental scandals here:

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

And here is a marvelous flying gattling gun that spreads depleted uranium (DU) all over the Middle East - thanks to GE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

GE is also a leader in nuclear submarine systems which I would describe as weapons of mass destruction.

It's pathetic that this guy got a Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe the interrogation staff at Guantanamo Bay will get the next one.

So now you know where your "carbon offset" money goes.

Best wishes to all - May ye all become truth seekers.

This isn't about right or left - it's about the truth.

BritishAirman
05 January 2008 at 11:39

A very interesting article by the author of this subject, David Whitehouse. I do agree that scientists must not remain complacent in believing that they have 'full knowledge and understanding' of the effects of climate change and global warming. However, before Bali, readers will recall the gathering of world scientists in France where, without reservation, the incidental impacts and damage created by those countries opposed to climate agreements was having a devastating impact on the environment.

David Whitehouse in-effect mentions the non-linear trend of global temperatures over the last few years, indicating that it has remained fairly static. I think however, the assumptions used in calculating and measuring temperatures should be analysed to see if there has been any major departure from how it was once measured. Factors that may have been added or deleted from the original equation.

Global warming and climate change are not just necessarily issues pertaining to the hard physical sciences, many areas within the social sciences such as people's personal habits, lifestyles and rational or irrational decisions they take is becoming an integral part of political discourse. The need to continue to frame legislation though cannot be achieved by small countries like Britain; the net-effect of Britain’s carbon outputs is minimal compared to the levels being emitted by the United States and China, for example.

In supplementing this article please read Professor James Lovelock's hypothesis 'Gaia Theory' which suggests an opposing view to what David suggests here.

http://markatscotland.blogspot.com

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc.
05 January 2008 at 14:41

Thanks NORMSMITH for showing us what kind of "human waste container" this Al Gore actually is. Brute also has supplied useful information about the scumbag, for example on 01.January and 30.December.

I would like to add following points, which explain how Gore's swindle scheme works***:

 First, Gore sets up a company that will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming alarmism

 Second, Gore gets some Hollywood types to fund and produce a movie designed to scare the c-c-carbon out of the population

 Third, Gore travels the world promoting this movie, while pushing the view that a cataclysm is imminent if the world doesn't immediately act

 Fourth, an adoring media falls for the con hook, line, and sinker. Rather than debunking the flaws in the theories, the media promote every word of it while advancing the concept that Gore's views represent those of an overwhelming majority of scientists

 Fifth, scared governments and citizens across the globe invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore's group has already invested in

 Sixth, Gore and his cronies make billions as they laugh all the way to the bank at the stupidity of their fellow citizens

***Information from Newsbusters: http://www.newsbusters.org/node/11149

tamino
05 January 2008 at 14:56

A reader named "Nelson" referred me to comments made on this blog by a certain Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, regarding this post on my blog. Mr. Þorsteinsson has seen fit to refer to me and my writing in such colorful terms as "really ignorant," "deceiving," "deplorable," "ignorance or deceiving intentions," "far from being scientific," and "clearly promoting the climate fanatic's view."

He has also presented his own analysis of temperature time series. He begins by stating:

Diagram showing world mean temperature, calculated for each one of last 120 months, can be found at my blogg site. This period obviously equals full 10 years...

The best fitted regression line through the data, shows a slightly positive slope, which my computer gives as: a=+0,09% (+0,0009) C-degrees/month. This corresponds to 0,1 C-degrees in 100 years!

The first thing to note is that Mr. Þorsteinsson seems to be having a little trouble with his arithmetic. At a rate of 0.0009 deg.C/month, the warming over 100 years would be 1.08 deg.C, not 0.1. Perhaps he has forgotten that there are 12 months in a year.

The second thing to note is that strictly speaking, Mr. Þorsteinsson hasn't shown a graph of "world mean temperature." He's used the CRUTEM3 data set from the Hadley Centre for Climate Change Research. There's nothing wrong with this data set that I'm aware of, but it doesn't represent the world; it's surface temperature for land areas only, and land covers only about 30% of the planet's surface. It so happens that because of the large thermal inertia of the oceans, land areas are warming faster than the planet as a whole; about 35% faster over the last three decades. If Mr. Þorsteinsson wishes to study temperature trends for the entire globe, he should use the HadCRUT3 data set from the Hadley Centre, or the GLB_Ts+SST data set from NASA GISS, or the Smith and Reynolds Blended Land and Ocean Dataset from the National Climate Data Center.

Mr. Þorsteinsson does compute the correct linear regression trend rate for the data set he plots (probably using Microsoft ExCel), 0.0009 deg.C/month, or 0.0108 deg.C/yr. But he doesn't (here, or anywhere else) state the probable error or the error range (also known as the "confidence interval") for that figure.

He goes on to say:

The conclusion is, that during the last 120 months the mean world temperature has been constant !

It seems that Mr. Þorsteinsson is not aware that the standard way to compute the "scatter," or "noise level" in data, is not to compute the average difference but rather the root-mean-square difference from the mean, also known as the standard deviation. In so doing, he underestimate the noise level; the standard deviation for this data is 0.2115.

He also seems unaware that determining a regression line doesn't eliminate the noise. The noise causes our estimate of the trend rate to be uncertain. We can measure the size of the noise and its characteristics, and combining this with the number of data points and the time span of the data enables us to compute the probable error as well as the error range.

More important is the fact that Mr. Þorsteinsson confuses the noise in the data with the accuracy of the measurements. The data noise is caused both by measurement inaccuracy and by random fluctuations in the actual surface temperature of the earth. There are numerous sources of random fluctuations in global surface temperature, including fluctuations of earth's albedo (reflectivity) due to constantly changing amount and location of snow, ice, and plant cover and land use by human society, changes in atmospheric concentration of reflective aerosols from volcanic eruptions and human industrial activity, changes in global biosphere activity, and the exchange of heat energy between the atmosphere and the oceans. Because these processes are essentially random they are referred to (and treated analytically) as "noise," but they are unrelated to accuracy of the measurements. Mr. Þorsteinsson's remark that "during the last 120 months the mean world temperature has been constant" is just nonsense.

Mr. Þorsteinsson also seems to think that the noise level gives the limit of accuracy with which a trend can be determined. This is a common misconception which reveals naivete about the nature of statistical analysis. As the length of the time span grows and the number of data points increases, the precision with which we can determine a trend increases, and is not limited by the accuracy of the individual data points. Those interested in this particular issue may enjoy this post.

If Mr. Þorsteinsson had used any of a number of standard statistical packages which compute the probable error range for the trend rate from linear regression, he might have mentioned that for his ten years of temperature data the 95%-confidence (a standard choice for scientific analysis) error range on trend rate for this time period is 0.011 +/- 0.013 deg.C/yr. This means that there's a 95% chance that the actual rate of change lies between -0.002 deg.C/yr (slight cooling) and + 0.024 deg.C/yr (extremely rapid warming). He would probably conclude that because it's possible from this analysis that the rate is zero, earth's temperature has been constant for this 10-year period.

But that would represent a failure to notice two important things. First, the trend for this 10-year period could be as high as 0.024 deg.C/yr; that's 33% faster warming than the 0.018 deg.C/yr which has been observed since 1975, and is the most often quoted (in the scientific literature) figure for the current warming rate. So these data alone are consistent with much faster warming than is claimed by the global climate science community. Second, the width of the error range is so large (0.026 deg.C/yr from maximum to minimum probable value) that we can come to only one clear conclusion: the time span of 10 years is far too short to draw any reliable conclusions about the current trend in global temperature.

And in fact this analysis would also be mistaken. Error ranges for linear regression estimated by standard statistical packages are based on the assumption that the noise in the data is white noise, i.e., noise that is uncorrelated. It's well known (and easy to establish by analyzing the autocorrelation structure of the data) that noise in temperature time series is red noise, which increases the uncertainty of estimated trend rates. The actual 95% confidence interval for the given 10 years of data is 0.011 +/- 0.022 deg.C/yr, so the actual rate, judging by this data alone, could be as low as -0.011 deg.C/yr (notable cooling) or as high as +0.033 deg.C/yr (alarmingly rapid warming). Properly to estimate which is more likely, it's essential to study a longer time series of data.

Mr. Þorsteinsson's apparent ignorance of these issues may explain why he states:

The "unknown author" does not distinguish between long-term and short-term trends in his treatment. This is deplorable, because this is very much at the heart of current debate.

On the contrary, I do indeed distinguish between long-term and short-term trends. Far more critical, and something Mr. Þorsteinsson seems not to understand, is the need to distinguish between trends that are statistically significant and those which are not. Mr. Þorsteinsson's analysis not only ignores this crucial issue with respect to linear regression, his failure to apply it leads to a "rookie mistake" when attempting to project future temperature:

In order to reveal current short-term trend, I have refreshed one of my graphs for 180 weeks (15 years). Also, for the benefit of those who have English as their mother tongue, I have placed some English explanations on the graph.

This new graph can be found here:

http://altice.blog.is/blog/altice/entry/398432/

In this case, a polynomial is best fitted to the data. It has the formula:

Y = -0,0000170X2 + 0,00580X + 0,171

If Mr. Þorsteinsson understood the need for computing probable errors, and were able to do so, he would find that the quadratic term in his polynomial regression is not statistically significant. This means that it's really more due to the noise -- a random process -- than any trend that exists in the signal. Hence none of his prognostications based on this formula are valid.

Thus we are already one year into a cooling period !

One might as well say that because today is not as warm as yesterday, we are already one day into a cooling period !

I am hoping that this graph will explain better than words how precarious it is to draw a straight line through the data of most resent years.

When the time span is very short and the noise level is high (as with global temperature data) it is indeed precarious to use linear regression to draw conclusions about actual trends in the climate system. It's a pity that Mr. Þorsteinsson doesn't understand how much more precarious it is to use a quadratic fit to draw conclusions, and how much more precarious still it is to predict the future based on a curve fit which is nowhere near statistically significant.

"Why not choose a linear fit, or a double exponential - ah, they'd predict future warming!"

Real science does not work this way. You can not decide yourself what form a natural variable follows.

At last Mr. Þorsteinsson makes a correct statement. Unfortunately he still fails to understand that fitting a curve can only be used to draw conclusions when the fit passes statistical significance tests. Mr. Þorsteinsson's choice, a quadratic function, fails such tests.

Many of Mr. Þorsteinsson's mistakes and misconceptions could be cured by careful attention during any undergraduate statistics course. As it stands, we can be quite sure that when it comes to the statistical analysis of time series Mr. Þorsteinsson is not just an amateur, he's an untalented amateur.

Alas, almost all of the commentary and analysis by those (both amateur and professional) who dispute the reality and/or danger of global warming, are no more statistically savvy than Mr. Þorsteinsson's. That includes this article by Dr. Whitehouse for New Statesman.

Brute
05 January 2008 at 15:00

Thank you Normsmith.

I knew that Al Gore and his cronies were frauds, but I had only scratched the surface. Follow The Money...............

Matilda,

I apologize for shifting the topic; it seemed pointless to continue arguing with people who have been indoctrinated into the cult of Environmentalism. Didn’t seem to be going anywhere. These people seem to want to drastically change the world but will do nothing personally to reduce their “carbon footprint” aside from purchasing Indulgences to assuage their guilt for being successful. What a pity.

World Top 10 - Foreign Aid Donors Countries

Country In Billion Dollars

United States 12.9

Japan 9.2

Germany 5.4

France 5.2

United Kingdom 4.8

Netherlands 3.4

Italy 2.3

Canada 2.0

Sweden 1.8

Norway 1.8

Seems to me that the Industrialized Nations of the world are already paying a "carbon tax" (blackmail).

Brute
05 January 2008 at 15:09

Here are the top 16 recipients of U.S. foreign aid for 2005:

1. Israel 2.58 Billion

2. Egypt 1.84 Billion

3. Afganistan 0.98 Billion

4. Pakistan 0.70 Billion

5. Colombia 0.57 Billion

6. Sudan 0.50 Billion

7. Jordan 0.48 Billion

8. Uganda 0.25 Billion

9. Kenya 0.24 Billion

10. Ethiopia 0.19 Billion

11. South Africa 0.19 Billion

12. Peru 0.19 Billion

13. Indonesia 0.18 Billion

14. Bolivia 0.18 Billion

15. Nigeria 0.18 Billion

16. Zambia 0.18 Billion

source:

CRS Report for Congress: Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S.

Programs and Policy Updated January 19, 2005, page 14

http://shelby.senate.gov/legislation/ForeignAid.pdf

Here are the top 16 recipients of U.S. foreign aid for 2004:

1. Iraq 18.44 Billion

2. Israel 2.62 Billion

3. Egypt 1.87 Billion

4. Afghanistan 1.77 Billion

5. Colombia 0.57 Billion

6. Jordan 0.56 Billion

7. Pakistan 0.39 Billion

8. Liberia 0.21 Billion

9. Peru 0.17 Billion

10. Ethiopia 0.16 Billion

11. Bolivia 0.15 Billion

12. Turkey 0.15 Billion

13. Uganda 0.14 Billion

14. Sudan 0.14 Billion

15. Indonesia 0.13 Billion

16. Kenya 0.13 Billion

source:

CRS Report for Congres:: Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S.

Programs and Policy, April 15, 2004, page 13

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/trade/files/98-916.pdf

Here are the top 15 recipients of U.S. foreign aid for 2001:

1. Israel 2.82 Billion

2. Egypt 1.987 Billion

3. Jordan 0.227 Billion

4. Kosovo 0.184 Billion

5. Ukraine 0.178 Billion

6. Russia 0.174 Billion

7. Indonesia 0.149 Billion

8. Ethiopia 0.124 Billion

9. India 0.122 Billion

10. Georgia 0.107 Billion

11. Bangladesh 0.101 Billion

12. Serbia 0.10 Billion

13. Peru 0.097 Billion

14. Armenia 0.092 Billion

15. Bosnia 0.089 Billion

CRS Report for Congress: Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S.

Programs and Policy Updated April 6, 2001, page 12

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/98...

(Note that these documents are in PDF format, so the Adobe Acrobat

Reader is required. If you don't have that, visit:

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html )

Brute
05 January 2008 at 16:41

The Global Warming Tax Scam Kicks In

Fresh studies, polls conclude climate change being used as revenue raising tactic

Steve Watson

Infowars.net

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

The British government is raising almost double the revenue in so called "green taxes" that it needs to offset the social cost of CO2 emissions according to a new report. An accompanying opinion poll also reveals that nearly two-thirds of people think politicians are using the green issue as an excuse to tax more.

The conclusion of a report by the TaxPayer's Alliance watchdog, states that "In many cases, individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope."

The study found that the social cost of Britain’s entire output of CO2 was £11.7 billion in 2005 but in the same year, the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9 billion. Meaning that even two years ago taxes were £10.2 billion in excess of the level agreed to meet the Britain’s CO2 emissions. The Alliance calculates this excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain.

"We need more honesty about the costs of extra green taxes when British taxpayers already pay some of the highest pollution charges in the world," said Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers' Alliance.

The report also reveals that the main “pollution taxes” of fuel duty; vehicle excise duty (road tax); the Climate Change Levy; Air Passenger Duty; the Landfill Tax and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, each have serious flaws which indicate that the government is less concerned about the environment and more concerned with raking in excessive revenues.

In addition a second study by accountants UHY Hacker Young backs up this claim by revealing that the Government gives back in tax breaks just two per cent of the money it collects through environmental taxes.

UHY Hacker Young tax partner Roy Maugham said: "It's surprising just how lopsided the Government's approach to green taxes has been over the last ten years.

"At the moment it's all stick and very little carrot."

If the government were really concerned about climate change then they would be offering incentives not punishments for reducing CO2 emissions in the form of tax breaks. But tax breaks aren't a giant cash bonanza for our exalted guardians of Mother Earth, the loving government, who are going to tax the living hell out of us for our own good and for the very survival of mankind, while lining their own pockets.

The Treasury has said the claims in the studies are "ridiculous" and has dropped the green bomb on the TaxPayers Alliance, reminding it that climate change is a justification to do anything.

A spokesman said: "In arguing against these taxes, the Taxpayers' Alliance are being doubly dangerous - it would mean cuts to public services, schools and hospitals, as well as higher carbon emissions leading to accelerated climate change."

Meanwhile Corin Taylor, research director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, has reminded the government that over vamped green charges, far from being a solution, are a primary cause of cuts in public services. "Green taxes and charges impose substantial costs on, amongst others, the National Health Service." Taylor commented.

Released alongside the TaxPayers' Alliance study, a new YouGov poll of more than 2,000 adults (double the usual sample) was commissioned into public attitudes towards green taxes.

When asked what they thought the primary motivation was for new green taxes, 63 per cent agreed with the statement: “Politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes.” Only 20 per cent thought that “Politicians are serious about the environment and are bringing in new green taxes to change people’s behaviour to help reduce carbon emissions.”

Remember that these studies encompass two year old figures and naturally do not even take into account newly proposed "carbon taxes" which would see a sky rocketing in costs sought by the Treasury.

In recent months we have seen proposals in the UK and the US to impose steep new taxes that would raise the cost of burning oil, gas and coal even at a time when the cost of energy is already through the roof.

Such calls for a carbon tax on energy have been echoed by globalist groups such as the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg group whose members are coincidentally made up of many big energy company heads and CEOs who stand to gain from long term hikes in prices to offset an initial drop in demand that a new tax would bring.

We have previously pointed out that while many green activists aim their criticisms at the energy companies and big government, it is the elite structures within and surrounding those very areas that are pushing global warming fears, in addition to their tax proposals.

Global warming also acts as a convenient veil for the real environmental crimes that will continue on behalf of the mega corporations and scientific establishment that are in bed with the very government imposing draconian measures on us in the name of the environment. GM contamination, toxic waste dumping, bizarre cloning mad science, and the destruction of the rain forests will continue apace while we are still being lectured about light bulbs and beer bottles.

There is also actual discussion of imposing a carbon tax on humans for the air we breathe!

Meanwhile less than half of all published scientists endorse the theory that human activity constitutes a significant contribution to climate change, hardly a "consensus" as the UN appointed panel on climate change calls it.

The climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of man-made global warming.

If the cause is not even agreed upon how is it that the solution is?

Because governments throughout the world love convincing people that they are in danger and that they can only be saved by letting them take control. Globalists imagine and invent problems and then they offer us the solution, but the solution is always more government, more corporate monopoly, less sovereignty and less free market economy.

The global warming tax scam has kicked in. There's no time left for a debate they tell us - we don't want to hear about the medieval warm period, we don't want to hear about how temperatures dropped as carbon emissions increased for four decades from the 40's to the 80's, we don't want to hear about how the troposphere shows no build up of greenhouse gases, we don't want to hear about sun activity and its direct correlation with climate change, we don't want to hear about arctic ice samples showing how CO2 lags behind temperature increase. There's money to be made and there's peasants to flog.

Eco-fanatics and power-hungry elitists have taken total control of the global warming bandwagon. Before they choke the life out of modern industrialized civilization by eliminating the source of 80% of the planet's energy, and in the face of fierce silencing techniques, it is vital to further understand why scientific evidence is not on the side of the theory of human-caused warming.

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.

AuroraBorealis
05 January 2008 at 23:42

The number of post is becoming overwhelming, but I really try to do what Matilda advocate, namely reading other peoples post. If I may point to some of what I myself have previously written, so far none of the "skeptics" (Brute among others) have commented on my post re Occam's Razor (use your find function to look back)

Also, I have seen no reaction to my post that data Swedish for 2007 shows about 1.5-2 degrees above average, i.e. about twice the global average

Temperature data from Sweden 1860-2005, corrected for change of station location:

http://www.smhi.se/cmp/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=6413&l=sv

And being rather sparsely populated, the UHI effect is probably not significant in our country

Now let's look at another data set, what is called proxy data, namely ice in the Baltic, with mean date for start ice cover:

http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/islaggning.pdf

And compare this with present ice cover:

(clic on the box "Karta (png)" below the text "Iskarta färgkodad (dagligen under issäsong)"

I might add that I did research on ice living bacteria in early 1990 in Umeå located at 63.7°N and we had 1 m of solid ice in mid april. This kind of ice cover has not been present for at least the last 5 years. The mild ice winters are also commented on this page (http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/ifs/ifs2007/en_GB/iceseaso...), starting with a description of the 2006-07 winter: "The ice season 2006/2007 was very late, short and mild in terms of ice extent"

But the lack of ice could of course be attributed to liberal minded scientist running around with motor boats purchased by their fat research grants, thus stirring up the water and preventing ice formation......

Another interesting data set: Historical Trends in Lake and River Ice Cover in the Northern Hemisphere:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/289/5485/1743.pdf

Another neglected area by the UHI advocates, the effect of CO2 on ocean acidity. Any comments on that Brute?

At to Brutes comments re his fear for "government" intrusion into privacy, we have in other areas where common safety is of concern accepted such things as mandatory laws for seat belts and air cushions in cars. And I do not think we need to have a timer on the TV or the shower, a simple rise of energy cost would create the incitament to save. I lived in Mass during the winter 90-91 and in the house I rented I could see how the energy costs soared in winter. And it easy to see the cause, the total lack of insulation and the ridiculously draughty windows. In Sweden we have for decades had rules for such things as isolation and window quality and of course we use far less energy in our houses.

BTW, Brutes figure on foreign aids shows that the US gives about 1/5 or 1/7 of the aid given by Sweden and Norway respectively, calculated on a per capita basis.....

stargazer
06 January 2008 at 10:45

and yet.....

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warmin...

AuroraBorealis
06 January 2008 at 13:39

Stargazer, do your homework!

What is the residence time in atmosphere of CO2 and water vapor respectively?

Or just try using Wikipedia:

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% [10]. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields).

Current state-of-the-art climate models include fully interactive clouds[11]. They show that an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.[12]

AuroraBorealis
06 January 2008 at 13:44

Anyway, there are people who have understood the need to address the global warming problem now and not in some undisclosed future and who can not be discredited as being "leftist", "tax-loving" or "green fundamentalists". You will find them writing in eg Harvard Business Review under the headline "Climate business | Business climate" http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/hbsp/hbr/artic...

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc.
06 January 2008 at 15:21

Why is it, that AuroraBorealis does not mention the possibility that increased water vapour content of the atmosphere may increased cloud cover and thus act as a "negative feedback" ? Is it because "positive feedback" is more alarming ? He is close when he says: "Current state-of-the-art climate models include fully interactive clouds", but no he does not fully make it !

May I point out, that the commonly held belief that "residence time" of water vapour is short, is not really correct. As one water molecule falls another molecule is rising. As there is no shortage of water, the correct description of water "as a substance" is, that it has a very long "residence time" in the atmosphere.

The same applies also for most of the "life spirit" CO2. It is naturally renewed through natural fires and other means. Why are some people worried about maintaining the normal state of nature ?

I am pointing out, that "residence time" of individual molecules is probably not an important concept, in connection with climate change. The anthropogenic part of heat sensitive gases in the atmosphere is minute.

stargazer
06 January 2008 at 16:15

AuroraBorealis I have been doing my homework.

The Fact is that the worlds temp had gone up... and now its going down. AGW dose not account for this, nor the fact that antartic is at a record level of ice mass.

and the loss of artic ice last summer is likly due to (unusual) currents.

look at the last graph on this

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warmin...

taghioff.info
06 January 2008 at 17:59

I'm not sure if this point has been raised, but lets compare the two possible types of error we could make here:

1) No Global warming but strong response. This will cost money, and slow growth down by perhaps a few years in every half decade. Not the end of the world.

2) No response but strong climate change. 6 degrees of warming is well within the range of what happens under business as usual in the latest coupled models of the IPCC. 6 degrees of warming wiped out 95% of life on earth last time it happened.

So which risk would you rather be taking?

stargazer
06 January 2008 at 18:33

taghioff.info

And what if it goes the other way and we get major cooling. More will die from cold than warm... we can live with warm.But If we get cold I can see a time when we are TOLD to put Co2 into the atmosphere to counter it

AuroraBorealis
06 January 2008 at 18:43

From the scientific literature:

Nature Reports Climate Change

Published online: 12 December 2007 | doi:10.1038/climate.2007.78

Summertime snowmelt

Alex Thompson

Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L22507 (2007)

NASA

Summertime melting of the Greenland ice sheet has been increasing over the last 34 years and was most extreme in 2007, finds new research.

Thomas Mote from the University of Georgia in the US monitored melting of the Greenland ice sheet from 1973 until 2007 by detecting changes in microwave radiation measured by satellites. Comparing the extent of melt to seasonal averages, he found that melting during June, July and August significantly increased over the past 34 years. This trend was related to increasing air temperatures observed at three coastal Greenland stations. But in 2007 there was 60% greater melting than in 1998, the previous highest-melt year — more than expected from the temperature trend alone. This may be the accumulated effect of increased melting over the prior four years, because, for instance, more heat is absorbed by the Earth's surface when it is snow-free.

This latest study is an important step towards understanding how rapidly the Greenland ice sheet is vanishing, which has important implications for global sea-level rise.

Does this indicate "end of global warming"?

AuroraBorealis
06 January 2008 at 18:54

And this is snow data from Alps: (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003IJCli..23..733L)

Title:

Long-term snow climate trends of the Swiss Alps (1931-99)

Authors:

Laternser, Martin; Schneebeli, Martin

Publication:

International Journal of Climatology, vol. 23, Issue 7, pp.733-750

Publication Date:

06/2003

Origin:

WEB

Keywords:

climate change, snow cover, spatial variability, trend analysis, Switzerland

Bibliographic Code:

2003IJCli..23..733L

Abstract

The mean snow depth, the duration of continuous snow cover and the number of snowfall days in the Swiss Alps all show very similar trends during the observation period 1931-99: a gradual increase until the early 1980s (with insignificant interruptions during the late 1950s and early 1970s) followed by a statistically significant decrease towards the end of the century. Regional and altitudinal variations are large; high altitudes show only slight changes, and the trends become more pronounced at mid and low altitudes. At any particular time the southern part of the Alps often has different conditions than the north. Shorter snow duration is mainly caused by earlier snow melting in spring than by later first snowfalls in autumn.Trends for heavy snowfall events are somewhat different: at elevations above 1300 m a.s.l. a very weak increasing trend towards heavier snowfalls has persisted since the 1960s, and only low altitudes below 650 m a.s.l. show a marked drop since the early 1980s, indicating that heavy winter precipitation to an increasing degree falls in the form of rain instead of snow.A literature review confirms that, throughout the temperate and subpolar Northern Hemisphere, a similar general pattern of temporal snow variations occurred during the 20th century.

AuroraBorealis
06 January 2008 at 18:55

stargazer, still worrying about freezing to death? Come live in northern Sweden, we have lived by the polar circle for at least the last 1000 yrs.....

bobclive
06 January 2008 at 19:40

If you are a global warming sceptic you will not get your paper published in Nature, it appears in the magazine there is no debate.

AuroraBorealis
06 January 2008 at 19:56

bobclive, how many scientific papers have you published / reviewed? What do you know about the peer review process? I am quite sure that any data based paper showing that AGW has stopped would make the front page of both Science and Nature. And no sane scientist would refrain from publishing such a result, considering the enormous impact it would have and certainly guarantee funding for a long time. The point is, no data not story.

bobclive
06 January 2008 at 20:39

The Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. There, the undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influence of vegetation and human activity are ideal for monitoring the greenhouse gases that can cause climate change.

You would have thought that this remote location would also have been ideal for ground temperature measurements from 1986, I cannot find any information or graph relating to temperature, this site is truly rural.

Try this

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Spinning%20temperature%20out%20...

the World Meteorological Organization recently announced in its annual greenhouse-gas bulletin. Based on samples from 40 countries, the level of carbon dioxide in the air reached 381.2 parts per million, up fractionally from 2005 -- concentrations not seen in 650,000 years.

If CO2 levels are based on recent samples from 40 counties, why are these CO2 levels not compared with past CO2 levels, namely the measurements sited in Ernst-Georg Beck's paper 180 Years accurate CO2 Gas analysis of Air by Chemical Methods. Are theses recent CO2 levels actually at record highs,

Brute
06 January 2008 at 20:47

AuroraBorealis,

BTW, Brutes figure on foreign aids shows that the US gives about 1/5 or 1/7 of the aid given by Sweden and Norway respectively, calculated on a per capita basis.....

I wish this site contained more font options………………….

Typical Socialist mindset; Collectivism........You have more than I do so what you have should be confiscated to "make it all equal". No matter how hard you worked to get what you have or how much I wasted and squandered it all should be “redistributed equally”. Is it a contest to see who is more philanthropic? Whatever happened to gratitude and simply saying thank you no matter who is providing the handouts? No one owes me anything and I don’t expect anything from anyone, (including my government or your government for that matter). I simply do not understand this sense of entitlement; ("I exist; therefore the world owes me something"). Make your own way, don’t depend on others or your government…..For God’s sake; grow a pair.

Private charitable donations per capita for a handful of countries. The amounts are in Euros-per-capita. I’ve always found that voluntary contributions is a more accurate indicator of a particular group’s largess/generosity as opposed to “compulsory charitable contributions” (i.e. foreign aid through taxation…..also known as Marxism.)

COUNTRY................GIVING

Spain..........................122

Belgium.......................120

U.K.............................117

Netherlands.................110

Ireland........................100

France..........................74

Finland..........................70

Austria..........................50

Germany.......................39

Hungary........................32

Slovakia........................25

Czech Republic...............25

Romania.........................5

U.S..............................278

The U.S. Record

• Top importer of goods from developing countries in 2004 with $661 billion

• World's largest single country donor of foreign aid. According to preliminary figures, annual official development assistance nearly tripled from $10 billion in 2000 to $27.5 billion in 2005

• $2.7 billion in HIV/AIDS funding through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in 2005

• $7.8 billion in bilateral humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance in 2005. This expenditure consisted of $3.6 billion for humanitarian relief and $4.2 billion for reconstruction

1 All figures in the fact sheet represent the most current data available.

Can't you understand that you and most every other individual in the world hold the key to their own happiness and their own prosperity? Instead, you expect someone else to provide it for you. 12.9 Billion isn't enough! 1/5th or 1/7th isn't enough! You sound like my ex-wife or a whining child that wants an advance on his allowance.

Where is my compassion? I sent my last bit of compassion along with 1/3 of my family’s income to the taxman.

I’ll go back and look at your reference to Occam's Razor...............

Mr Fnortner
06 January 2008 at 20:47

It is incredible to me how many of those commenting here resort to attacks on their fellow man rather than on confronting the issues being debated. Credentials, popularity, authority, tradition, reputation and the like all have nothing whatever to do with the quality of an argument or the science involved. If I tell you that since two lines are parallel, a straight line intersecting them forms equal internal angles, you cannot refute that by noting that I beat my wife, pick my nose, cheat at cards, worship other than your god, or hate kittens. You might try finding out if my lines are on a plane, for starters. Same here: stick to science and logic like the adults you are.

Brute
06 January 2008 at 21:03

AuroraBorealis,

By the way; it seemed pointless to debate whether "Global Warming" exists or not and continuing to argue about the cause; mountains of evidence would not convince you.

Assuming you are correct in your assertions how do you plan to resolve/combat the problem? If you would...possibly a 10 -12 point plan......but be somewhat specific; who would be involved, timelines, financing, goals, etc. Not a novel; you must have given this some thought.......

I'm not trying to sound condescending; I'm genuinely interested on how you would propose to change the weather on a global scale to achieve whatever your goal is. What is the ideal temperature/weather condition on the planet anyway?

Still looking at Occam's Razor.....

AuroraBorealis
06 January 2008 at 21:41

Brute, now we are talking! I accept the challenge and will respond to you, but not tonight due to writing applications that much be finished before deadline.

Brute
06 January 2008 at 21:54

AuroraBorealis,

Sure; understood. Sounds good. Kind of cool talking to someone on the other side of the planet this way.....

I'm sure glad that Al Gore invented this Internet thing. It’s like having the Library of Alexandria in my home without all of the cumbersome scrolls.

I'll watch the site.

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc.
06 January 2008 at 23:04

Bobclive, you ask an important question that I have also had for some time:

"The Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. There, the undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influence of vegetation and human activity are ideal for monitoring the greenhouse gases that can cause climate change…….You would have thought that this remote location would also have been ideal for ground temperature measurements from 1986, I cannot find any information or graph relating to temperature, this site is truly rural."

We may also ask: why has the IPCC group not produced a correlation graph between CO2 and global temperature ? Is it because no correlation exists, or because other factors are disturbing the correlation ? Surely there must have been some short periods where tiny correlation can be shown ?

I have somewhere seen a CO2 graph from Shetland Islands, showing even more regular annual curves and regular rise that those of Mauna Loa. It sure would be interesting to see also the temperature curve from there.

Robin Guenier
06 January 2008 at 23:47

JZ Smith: on 3 January, you kindly described my proposal for action as excellent and asked how I proposed to implement it. Well, I apologise for not responding until now: I was waiting to see if anyone else might contribute. Now, especially in view of the recent Brute/AuroraBorealis exchange, I will attempt an answer. First, I will recap the background.

On 22 December, I responded to comments by Maz and Patrick Hadley about the so-called “Millennium Bug”: no longer a relevant matter. But I stayed with the discussion and became increasingly dismayed by the “my expert is more expert than you expert and my graph more authoritative than yours” dialogue. So I tried, as a non-scientist and layman with no set view on AGW, to determine what might be done to move matters forward: see my posts of 30 December (and Maz’s comment), 1 January (and Maz’s and AuroraBorealis’s comments) and 2 January (and Maz’s and Patrick Hadley’s comments). On 3 January, I summarised my proposal on these lines:

There is unlikely to be a solution based on an agreed “truth”: the debate (my expert v. your expert) seems likely to rage on and on, getting increasingly heated and more remote from agreement. The following, however, might reconcile most reasonable people: (1) we sideline the green fanatics (admittedly not easy but, in global terms, they are a tiny minority); (2) we seek agreement that, although the truth cannot now be settled, the IPCC might be right and that, in any case, continued reliance on fossil fuels is unwise; (3) we accept, however, that the probable social/political damage caused by halting or reversing economic growth is unacceptable (to voters in the developed economies and to governments of the developing economies) and damaging, especially to the world’s poorest people; and (4) we adopt solutions that reconcile these positions, viz. 4.1 a mix of practical renewables, nuclear power and the interim use “clean burn” fossil fuels, 4.2 continued research into other energy sources, 4.3 continued development of low energy heating, transportation etc., and 4.4 a programme to ameliorate any climate induced problems (flooding etc.) that might still emerge. I proposed that we get on with all this now but if, say, within ten years it became clear that the IPCC was wrong (perhaps temperature levels off or even falls), we would have a radical rethink. In the meantime, little harm would have been done and arguably substantial benefit achieved.

JZ Smith: realistically only the political leaders of the “western” world can initiate implementation of this. And they have an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, the media and “informed” opinion has been captured by the Gore view that, unless drastic action is taken to reduce carbon emissions, the consequences for humanity will be dire – to question this is akin to Holocaust denial and any politician tempted to do so fears media excoriation. Yet, on the other, the majority of the voters are probably at best dubious about AGW and at worst believe it to be a hoax. And it’s voters that really matter. Therefore, the UK government for example pays lip service to the need for action but, in effect, does little but set ambitious targets – most of which are to be realised long after they have left office – and, in the meantime, expands airports, invests in road transport and plans for coal burning power stations.

I believe my proposal resolves their dilemma and that’s how implementation can be initiated.

Peter Martin
07 January 2008 at 01:38

http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/tmp.xls

Using the same sources as David Whitehouse, I've plotted out the data using a rolling five year average on a spreadsheet which can be downloaded from the above link.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who still thinks that the Global warming problems is over, after they've seen it!

Brute
07 January 2008 at 03:14

AuroraBorealis,

Are you certain that you want to use Occam's Razor to support your position?

BigSkeptic
07 January 2008 at 04:47

As someone with a mathematical and science background (but not a practicing scientist nor a climatology expert) I have been arguing against AGW for some time with friends and associates, some of whom have unfortunately become charter members of The Cult Of The AlGorian Hystericals (I claim copyrights for this group description but feel free to use it without attestation!).

Most of what I have learned about global warming has come from blogs such as this and numerous articles posted by skeptical scientists. Some basic questions remain for me and I would appreciate some clarification. Advanced thanks to any who take the time to respond:

Let me just address one basic topic now:

Mean Global Temperature(MGT)

It appears that the IPCC models use surface temperature gauges located around the planet to measure MGT. But these are by no means evenly distributed nor do they cover a significant amount of the surface. By my own calcualtions, if there WERE, say 2000 of them eveny distributed, each one would cover an area roughly the size of Oregon - clearly current instruments must cover much much larger areas. If these thermometers report the average temperature for the day at that specific location, and then these figures are averaged after mysterious statistical corrections to account for heat island effect, etc., and then averaged again to calculate an annual MGT., of what use is the MGT thus calculated - it is an average of an average of questionable averages, in itself a very questionable math calculation at best? But both pro and anti AGW arguments center around MGT.

Doesn't climate change result mostly from DIFFERENCES in a whole host of non-linear variables of very large and poorly understood systems such as oceans and the sun and the clouds, etc. , of which simple averages are not representative, and of which temperature, and its current proxy, MGT, is only one variable, and maybe not the most important? WIth one foot in a 164 degree oven and the other in an bucket of 32 degree ice water, on average I should feel quite normal! But this says nothing about the state of my blood circulation.

Anti AGW arguers also seem to use various conjured up, statistically corrected, and otherwise massaged MGT numbers to bolster their arguments.

The whole MGT argument seems to me a waste of time that distracts us from getting to the real facts of the matter. It is based on essentially meaningless numbers that have nothing to do with climate change - unless you describe climate change as changes in meaningless numbers!! .

Where am I wrong?

Do satellite data provide better coverage and more accurate measurements? Do they agree with surface based measurements? Who uses which data sets?

By the way, I just happend upon this terrific blog and am happy I did. The responses here are enlightening and thoughtful.

bobclive
07 January 2008 at 11:08

Bigskeptic,

From what I have read, When satellite temps together with radiosond temps showed no global warming, the satellite data was altered to try to match it to the dodgy

ground temps, I believe the radiosond data was considered unreliable by the AGW brigade.

AuroraBorealis you say (I am quite sure that any data based paper showing that AGW has stopped would make the front page of both Science and Nature.

Read this link to understand what happens to any studies by skeptics.

http://csicop.org/doubtandabout/deja-vu/

Second Para of this article reads,

(These "skeptics" find what they consider to be a weak point in the mainstream theory and critique it. Not by conducting ORIGINAL research; they simply review previous work. Then they find a little-known, not particularly influential journal where an editor sympathetic to their viewpoint hangs his hat.)

IS THIS NOT THE WHOLE POINT OF THE EXERCISE, TO REVIEW PREVIOUS WORK AS DID M&M on MBH 98-99.

I presume all data used to construct the flawed Hockey stick graph by Mann & co was their original work, the only original part of that study I believe was the rubbish maths and the iffy computer code which has still not been fully released into mainstream science.

If these AGW advocates truly believed their studies are bullet proof they would archive all their data together with the computer code used in the study.

This would enable other scientist to fully verify the results. As Einstein said it only takes one student to disprove a theory. We are all looking for the truth of this matter but you will not find this until there is full disclosure.

bobclive
07 January 2008 at 11:24

One thought Coal Is bad say AGW brigade, Thatcher destroyed the miners union and closed the majority of the coal mines in the UK, we now have dwindling oil supplies and rely on Russia to provide our gas supplies, the greens don`t like Nucear, yet there is I believe a thousand years of coal stocks under the UK, should we use this coal.

Brute
07 January 2008 at 13:05

When an analogous course of events unfolded in the world of climate science, the skepticism was notably absent. When the Soviet Union was falling apart from 1989 to 1992 people there didn’t much care about keeping temperature monitoring stations. Thousands were closed and it’s important to note that many of these were in cold regions. Others around the world closed at the same time. Could this have helped making the decade that followed the "hottest decade" ever?

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc.
07 January 2008 at 13:14

Peter Martin, you are on the correct track. This is what everyone interested in the climate change should do. Make your own graphs and think for yourself !

Next you should draw a graph with the mean monthly values and compare the results. You will now notice that you obtain different results. On the one hand you have obtained averages of averages (five years running means of mean annuals) and on the other hand less averaged mean monthly values. On one hand you have produced a perfect Hockey Stick graph and on the other somewhat less so.

Below your comment, BigSkeptic is thinking about another aspect of the same problem. He says:

"If these thermometers report the average temperature for the day at that specific location, and then these figures are averaged after mysterious statistical corrections to account for heat island effect, etc., and then averaged again to calculate an annual MGT., of what use is the MGT thus calculated - it is an average of an average of questionable averages, in itself a very questionable math calculation at best?"

Peter Martin, are you more interested in the historical aspect of climate change ? Then you should make a lot of hockey stick graphs and study the long-term trend. These graphs will not be useful to predict temperatures in the near future, because all finer details will be lost.

However, if you are interested in current state of affairs and the near future, you use the actual measurements and avoid averages. The best data is always the uncorrupted data, in our case daily mean values. Unfortunately, these daily measurements do not seem to be available to us. Why should that be ?

Brute
07 January 2008 at 14:33

Mr. Genier,

Seems like a reasonable approach as long as it is propagated by private industry and there is no government involvement. My opinion is that it’s best to let individuals risk their money as opposed to politicians using other people’s money to fund their programs/agendas. No clear thinking individual would risk their own fortune on a losing proposition; politicians will, (it isn’t their money).

(1) We sideline the green fanatics (admittedly not easy but, in global terms, they are a tiny minority).

(2) We seek agreement that, although the truth cannot now be settled, the IPCC might be right and that, in any case, continued reliance on fossil fuels is unwise.

(3) We accept, however, that the probable social/political damage caused by halting or reversing economic growth is unacceptable (to voters in the developed economies and to governments of the developing economies) and damaging, especially to the world’s poorest people.

(4) We adopt solutions that reconcile these positions.

4.1 A mix of practical renewables, nuclear power and the interim use “clean burn” fossil fuels.

4.2 Continued research into other energy sources.

4.3 Continued development of low energy heating, transportation etc.

4.4 A programme to ameliorate any climate induced problems (flooding etc.) that might still emerge.

Cybertiger
07 January 2008 at 15:00

Who do you think will win the war on oil, the war to end all wars? My vote is on God's country ... the land of freedom and democracy ... and big oily geysers.

PS. I hope to bag the 400 spot in AGW/carbon wars.

Robin Guenier
07 January 2008 at 15:45

(Damn it, Cybertiger – I was aiming for the 400 spot.)

Bruce: maybe you’re right but there’s just no way you can keep the politicians out of this. Like it or not they set the agenda, running, for example, the Kyoto and Bali conferences. I was responding to many posts noting that, while the debate about the reality of and reasons for global warming rage on (for example on this thread), nothing gets done. It seems to me that genuine action (as opposed to lip service) depends on reasonable people finding common ground. I suggested that this is possible based on three propositions: (1) that the green fanatics are sidelined; (2) that we accept that the IPCC may be right and that, even if they’re not, continued use of fossil energy is unwise; and (3) (most important in my view) that we accept that action must not halt or reverse economic growth: otherwise nothing western politicians say will be acceptable to their voters, the developing eastern economies will just ignore them and the poorest people in the world will be left even further behind. My proposals (4.1 – 4.4) were an attempt to address that. But first IMHO the terms of debate have to be changed. That can be done only by politicians – based (I would hope) on the above three propositions.

And it’s wholly in their interest to do so: it resolves (as I indicated yesterday) the basic dilemma they face with regard to climate change.

Brute
07 January 2008 at 17:04

Mr. Guenier,

You're awfully optimistic. If politicians or governments are involved it either will not happen, will cost 200 times more than budgeted, or the revenue earmarked for the project(s) will be diverted to some other project/porkbarrel set-asides. (See my rather lengthy post on January 5th “The Global Warming Tax Scam Kicks In”). The majority of revenue from “Green Taxes” remitted to the government of the United Kingdom is used for purposes other than reducing “greenhouse gases”. A private industry operates, for the most part, much more efficiently/economically and is held accountable by their investors, (unless the industry is subsidized by a government).

I’m certain Al Gore, George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Clinton and other drumbeaters could raise enough capital to fund research and development.

Curiously, they won’t put up their money; however, are quite generous with our money.

Robin Guenier
07 January 2008 at 17:58

Brute:

Not optimistic, realistic.

Of course, I agree with you about the inefficiency of governments. I know about the misuse of tax revenues. I’m aware of the (relative) efficiency of private industry. I was a CEO in the private sector for 25 years and, based on that experience, I worked for a short time as CEO of a government agency. So I understand the problems only too well. But, unless you’re proposing a world revolution whereby all western governments are deposed and societies run by boards reporting to investing shareholders (are you?) we have to work with the way things are. That means that society’s priorities are set by the people we elect – and how (or whether) we deal with climate change has to be one of those priorities. Therefore, it is the inevitable role of political leaders to determine the terms of debate. IMHO, if we are to get anywhere these have to be changed and I’m proposing three propositions as a basis for this. When that’s settled, much of the work will have to be done by private industry. But, until it’s settled, I fear we will get nowhere.

Brute
07 January 2008 at 19:08

Mr. Guenier,

World Revolution? Western Governments Deposed? Of course not. Well, maybe a few, (I’m joking), but I disagree that change must be implemented through legislation or government fiat. Innovations/technological advancement are generally put forth by private industry, (risk takers) motivated by profit. The airline industry, shipping, automobile industry, medical industry, information technology, just to name a few, all provide goods and services for profit and have made tremendous advancements in technology in a relatively short period of time. It would be wonderful if human beings made advancements because “it’s the right thing to do” or out of a sense of “helping their fellow man”. Of course, there are such rare examples but generally they are few and far between. In many cases they accomplish both, but the incentive in all cases is usually profit.

I’m having a hard time grasping this child-like, almost infantile dependence/reliance on government to solve problems displayed by people posting on this site. Is this a European thing? Let the marketplace decide; don’t depend on an Oligarchy to resolve your problems. Let people vote with their purses whether they want to participate in this experiment. If the evidence to support the Global Warming Theory is so strong, people will invest/participate. If the evidence is weak, (as I believe it is), they won’t.

Robin Guenier
07 January 2008 at 20:26

Brute:

Let me be clear. I’m wholly in agreement with you about the accomplishments of those motivated by profit and am insulted by your associating me with “infantile dependence”. My essential point is not about the process of technological advance – always best left to private business. No, I’m concerned here with the overall international agenda that must precede implementation.

Or course it would be a fine thing if international priorities were to follow the marketplace – e.g. fix AGW only if enough genuine investors see it as an opportunity. No place for political agonising. The trouble is that it’s not the marketplace that’s deciding. Like it or not, that’s what our political leaders are doing and it’s living in a dream world to pretend otherwise. If you want to dream on, fine – but I don’t. And I think they’re getting it wrong. So I’m proposing that they change their agenda to embrace my three propositions: (1) that the green fanatics are sidelined; (2) that we accept that the IPCC may be right and that, even if they’re not, continued use of fossil energy is unwise; and (3) (most important in my view) that we accept that action must not halt or reverse economic growth: otherwise nothing western politicians say will be acceptable to their voters, the developing eastern economies will just ignore them and the poorest people in the world will be left even further behind.

Mr Fnortner
07 January 2008 at 20:37

Peter Martin,

Terrific chart, but data is only evidence, not truth.

Also, what is the next number in this series: 1, 2, 3, ... ?

If I am using the algorithm y=x, then the next number is 4.

If I am using the algorithm y=x - (x-1)(x-2)(x-3) then the next number is -2.

What is to say that your graph does not form a great plunging curve at the extreme right and portend many years of colder weather?

Extrapolation is much more dangerous than interpolation. Or as New York Yankees manager Casey Stengel once said, "Never make predictions, especially about the future.”

bobclive
07 January 2008 at 20:52

Gnuneo

You say - well i'm sorry, but i for one no longer accept that rainforests can be chopped down, desertification increased, continental water shelves drained, rivers, seas and oceans poisoned, our whole biosphere harmed, just so the oil-lobby can squeeze out a few more $billions into their corporate tax-havens.

It`s nothing to do with the oil lobby, they have no problem as there is very little else other that nuclear that can compensate for oil, if oil becomes in short supply the oil companies will stand to make even more billions. As far as CO2 is concerned it is I believe not a Pollutant, it is a beneficial trace gas that just happens to be rising at the same time as temperatures, which I consider are not rising nearly as fast as the ground stations would suggest.

If in 1,000,000 years a new race of say giant ants rules the planet and a computer with training slides for fire fighters on its hard drive was unearthed and these slides were viewed by the ant scientists, they would see a fire engine at a fire, other slides would show other larger fires with more fire engines, having no idea what fire engines were but observing that at every fire there was a fire engine could the consensus conclude that the fire engines caused the fires and the more fire engines the bigger the fires would become just because the fire engines happened to be in the same vicinity at the same time as the fire.

Temperature rising CO2 rising.

bobclive
07 January 2008 at 21:41

Aug 2007.

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."

Worth pondering

Royal Astronomical Society fellow Benny Peiser, of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University in Great Britain, recalls the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

bobclive
07 January 2008 at 23:28

I appear to have found a temperature graph from Mauna loa, this is rare, it appears to show a level temperature trend from 1996 to 2000 and then a decline from 2000 to 2007, this means the temps have not risen at this site for 11 years yet the Mauna Loa CO2 level has been rising during that time, it is hard to see any link between temps and CO2 see-

http://www.sunandsky.org/Sun_and_Sky_Data.html

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, M.Sc.
07 January 2008 at 23:31

Has anyone heard about the terrifying warming climate around the arctic ? Well, we have also heard about this in Iceland. What we find strange though is, that the local climate has been much warmer in the history of this nation.

Written sources date the first settlement of the country to 874. At that time glaciers were certainly around but much smaller than what we find now. The largest glacier called Vatnajökull is 8.100 km2, which is about 8% of the country's surface area.

Guess what, in the time of the first settlement Vatnajökull had a different name ! It was called Klofajökull, which means "a split/cleft glacier". It actually was split through the middle and the valley was wide and accessible enough to allow travel through. Around 1400 this valley became filled by ice and has been closed ever since.

Unfortunately, we will not be able to build a highway through the Klofa valley, because all signs indicate a cooler climate in the future, not warmer.

Some information about Vatnajökull can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatnaj%C3%B6kull

Keep warm !

Brute
07 January 2008 at 23:32

Mr. Guenier,

Alright, fine. How will all of this be financed? How are we going to convince the Chinese Communist to abandon their, (literally), dirt cheap coal and purchase scrubbers. How are we going to convince the Russians to slow down production, reducing their use of fossil fuels, and switch to a fuel source and method of process that is more expensive? Russia is currently enjoying a bonanza of oil and gas discovery; China is currently opening a coal powered generating plant monthly, (or weekly I can’t remember). How are we going to convince the Indians, Chinese and Russians to alter their economy in an attempt to resolve a problem that they don’t think, (or care), exists?

I think it will only work from the bottom up; not the top down.

Brute
07 January 2008 at 23:35

Here's a case where the treatment is worse than the disease.

Which is Greener: the Prius or the Hummer?

The Recorder argues that when the environmental costs of building a Prius are factored in -- such as mining the nickel for its battery -- the race between the Hummer and the Prius for the Green Riband isn't even close. (hat tip: Samizdata) A quotation from the article demonstrates the power with which a change in perspective can alter the accounting of what seemed at first glance to be an easy decision.

As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the “dead zone” around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside, said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce nickel foam. From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet. When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust”, the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

One of the most subtle problems in public policy is to decide what exactly one is trying to optimize. By changing the definition of Green-ness to include total pollution rather than simply minimizing a "carbon footprint" it may well be the case that a Hummer is Greener than a Prius. But given that Canada is a friendly country an energy security case might be made for being more dependent on nickel from Ontario than oil from Saudi Arabia. By that measure a Prius might be better than a Hummer. The sage advice of all public policy professors is to redefine a problem until it is expressed in terms favorable to one's self. And, faced with the energy security argument, it might be countered that since a Prius is made by a "foreign" corporation, then that additional factor might make it "better" to buy a Hummer after all. And so on.

The sad fact about most of these environmental questions is that it may require us to trade off one set of objectives against another. Maybe the "world" should decide which it values more. In the case of "Global Warming" for example, many of the policies designed to reduce "Greenhouse Gases" may exacerbate poverty in the Third World. How does one rank different goals -- such as for example reducing "greenhouse gases" and reducing hunger -- and combine them into a single policy?

What is nearly certain is that the process of arriving at the tradeoffs will be hard. Nobel Prize Winner Kenneth Arrow formulated what would later come to be known as the Arrow Impossibility Theorem in 1950. "In voting systems, Arrow’s impossibility theorem, or Arrow’s paradox, demonstrates that no voting system based on ranked preferences can possibly meet a certain set of reasonable criteria when there are three or more options to choose from."

The need to aggregate preferences occurs in many different disciplines: in welfare economics, where one attempts to find an economic outcome which would be acceptable and stable; in decision making, where a person has to make a rational choice based on several criteria; and most naturally in voting systems, which are mechanisms for extracting a decision from a multitude of voters' preferences.

The framework for Arrow's theorem assumes that we need to extract a preference order on a given set of options (outcomes). Each individual in the society (or equivalently, each decision criterion) gives a particular order of preferences on the set of outcomes. We are searching for a preferential voting system, called a social welfare function, which transforms the set of preferences into a single global societal preference order.

Arrow's theorem says that if the decision-making body has at least two members and at least three options to decide among, then it is impossible to design a social welfare function that satisfies all these conditions at once.

So it turns out that it is hard to create a consensus of our acceptable tradeoffs even in principle. Which is why some wags have remarked that "the only voting method that isn't flawed is a dictatorship," which would suit the Greens just fine. So maybe we do need some nature "activists" like Frank Albrecht of the preceding post to simply tell us what Gaia thinks. And it seemed like buying a Green-friendly car was a simple task.

elcuervo
08 January 2008 at 11:45

David Whitehosue says: "For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact."

As a scientist mysel I invite everyone to think about why this science journalist did not include any reference to support this"fact"?

Please note that it is not straightforward to measure the temperature of a whole planet, as you need to process data from many weather stations, remove noise following complex statistical procedures, etc., etc. Earth does not come with a thermometer! So this "fact" should come in the form of a scientific article.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is constituted by some of the 2500 world’s top climate change scientists. Who are you going to believe: thousands of top scientists or a journalist without any solid evidence? Unfortunately, those with commercial interests won't have a doubt...

ripley62
08 January 2008 at 12:08

I do find it interesting that since accurate temperature measurements, thus directly comparable what the author is using, only exist since1850 or so. Plus any type of reasonably large area distribution of accurate temperature readings only exist for just over a 100 years. It is interesting that 7 years of data is too short to be relevant to indicate a trend change. I'm not sure I know of any type of distribution where a period equalling at worst 5% of period a reading is not significant to the trend. Seven years might not be significant over a long scale climate trend, hundreds or thousands of years that is, but it certainly does within the time frame of similarly acquired readings - otherwise its comparing data with a conversion factor. Then that brings into question what effect the conversion does to the weight given to differently acquired data points.

draco
08 January 2008 at 13:18

elcuervo

I don't think you have actually read Dr Whitehouse's article and do bear in mind that it is a magazine article not a scientific paper. Dr Whitehouse has impeccable evidence, in fact the UK govt agrees with him in the form of the met office that says the global temperature has been statistically indistinguishable every year since 2001.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr200...

look at bullet point 3.

I think you should be a little wiser before acusing a respected journalist of not having any sold evidence. As you can see, even if you don't like it, Dr Whitehouse's evidence is rock solid.

elcuervo
08 January 2008 at 14:12

Draco,

Thanks for the link. I am afraid it is you who is not reading well. In the governmental link you provide, Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia says: "The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000.". That is, the UK Government is stating very clearly in the press release that does NOT agree with Whitehouse's "rock solid evidence".

What Prof. Jones means is evident for any competent scientist. Unfortunately, "Dr" Whitehouse takes a sentence out of context, reach a WRONG conclusion and writes an article about it. Quite frankly, If I was him I would write a rectification as soon as I could...

science spin doctor
08 January 2008 at 14:49

No so elcuervo

It's Prof Phil Jones who should be embarrased not Dr Whitehouse. The Met Office press release is contradictory and biased and I also don't think you have actually read Dr Whitehouse's article.

the met office press release states quite clearly based on observations that the period 2001-2007 has shown no temperature change - that's what Dr Whitehouse has been saying.

It's prof phil Jones who then muddys the waters by saying something contradictory to his own data.

elcuevo - read Dr Whitehouse's article - he says that the past decade was warmer than previous decades, as the average temperatures show, but that the evidence is that since 2001 the word hasn't got any warmer - that is EXACTLY what the met office data says - exactly. Dr whitehouse has taken the DATA produced by the met office and not used the personal interpretation of Prof Jones - you seem to perfer personal comment and ignore data.

I think you are seeing what you want to see and cherry picking. If you actually READ Dr Whitehouse's article and the Met office press release you will see that Dr Whitehouse is totally consistent with their data.

Prof Jones is in effect saying that he knows that the past 7 years have seen no change but global warming is still here because it is in any case warmer than it was 30 years ago. Dr Whitehouse says it is warmer but since 2001 it has become

Has global warming stopped?

More related to Climate Change

A planet in peril

Climate change - are we doing enough?

Has global warming really stopped?

Nuclear fallout

1290 comments from readers