What global warming?

[cjd]

Oh what nonsense - just silly conspiracy theory. Carbon offsets are just way that big companies have found of conning governments out of billions. Governments are just stupid, blundering coffers full of money and good intentions.

So put your objective head on and make the argument that disputes this:

"The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming."

Because it's an obvious criticism which must have a good answer.

 

[cjd]

Since we're questioning sources, let me just confirm your source: It's Wikipedia, right?

Yup, I quoted the source the first time I used it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
(seems to be broken atm)

Can you guarantee that this entry was written by an objective scientist and not a political ideologue?

Yes

I'd also point out that the vast majority of the organisations announcing their support are government organisations. Plus, the IPCC is not a neutral body of scientific experts; it's a political body that includes many non-scientists with the specific mandate to justify the claims of man-made global warming

This is what the IPCC is:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations. The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President of the United States Al Gore.[3]
The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[4] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.[5] The IPCC is only open to member states of the WMO and UNEP. IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.[6][7] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

Which I reckon is a better source that crackpots in the Daily Telegraph.

 

[casado]

Yes

Since you can warranty it, I suppose you wouldn't mind to tell us who he or she is, so who is it?

 

[cjd]

Since you can warranty it, I suppose you wouldn't mind to tell us who he or she is

........................yes

it was a dumb question that got a dumb answer - it's a bloody wiki.......

(What the IPCC is and does is a matter of public record.)

 

[casado]

Oh what nonsense - just silly conspiracy theory. Carbon offsets are just way that big companies have found of conning governments out of billions. Governments are just stupid, blundering coffers full of money and good intentions.

So put your objective head on and make the argument that disputes this:

"The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming."

Because it's an obvious criticism which must have a good answer.

This is very easy to answer actually, because is false. Next time I would appreciate a reference to the quote to corroborate that the author is a member of the IPCC.
It is false because periods as worm as in the late 1990's, the maximum or the temperatures since the beginning of the XX century so far, have been identified, the most obvious the Medieval Warm Period. Since you so much like references to the wikipedia I give you one so it can save me a lot of typing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
As you can see there only the IPCC rejects this as a proof claiming that it only affected Europe (which goes a long way to establish the scientific credential of its members who can not obviously distinguish between an open and a closed system). Yet, you can read about the climate change in that period in many partas, as far as Anatartica.
There are suggestions of other warm periods in different epocs, one that could, for example explain the existence in isolation of cocodriles in isoleted ponds in the Shahara desert, and so on.
But proving the existence of a climate change by it self does not win the argument for the GW alarmist. To justify all the scare mongering they need to show three thigns:
1- That the climate change is happening and is umprecedented. They failed as far as the umprecedentet part goes.
2- That is caused by human activity. They clearly faild since it is inconsitent with cooler periods in the XX century where an enormous expansion of industrialization on the planet took place.
3- That, it it is man made, by stoping the human action that took us here, the change can be stopped or even reversed. Otherwise we would be waisting resources needelessly. Computer models, which can not even reproduce the climate of the recent past years, are far from reliable sources of scientific facts.

As for the argument it would be silly to ignore.... that you give in another post, is also very easy to answer. Risk is not the severity of a threat, otherwise we would be expending as much or even more to try to protect ourself from the event or a metorite strike that can actually hapen at any time and many other situations that can come naturally from nature. Risk is the severity of the threat times the probability that it hapens. So, in the case of metoerites the threat is big but the probabiltiy small, therefore the risk is very low. Well, in our case the situation is even worse. Not only the claims of unprecendented climate change are far from been proven but the assesment is laughfable. The last time there was a situation like this, the one mentioned before, in the Middle Ages, non only the conditions did not worsen for humans but allow them to prosper, like the case of the Vikings, the claims that a climate change like that would bring huracains, droughts etc. are based in scare mongering wishful thinking.

Acording to your line of reasoning we should be isolating every person who catches the flu virus, the common flu virus, because there is always the posibility that the virus can mutate into an strain that would kill us all.

 

[casado]

........................yes

it was a dumb question that got a dumb answer - it's a bloody wiki.......

(What the IPCC is and does is a matter of public record.)

Yes, but I had a look at the IPCC website and I could not find information on the CV of their members, which I find unprecedented. Well, we can take the time to research one by one, but that would take time. I find it odd, because even the smallest of ortanizations would show a short cv of their more prominent members.

 

[Cornish Steve]

What about comments from someone who worked with the IPCC?

We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all.

"This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.

"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible."

Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.

Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous. "They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad is head of the Geological Museum within the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo. Formerly, he was head of the Mineralogical-Geologic-al Museum at the University of Oslo, director of the Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo, and program chairman for mineralogy/petrology/ geochemistry at the University of Oslo. His research projects include geological mapping in Norway, Svalbard (Arctic), Sweden and Iceland, and have involved geochemistry, volcanology, metallogenesis (how mineral and ore deposits form) and magmatic petrogenesis (how magmatic rocks form). He was an expert reviewer to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's Third Assessment Report.

 

[Cornish Steve]

What about a former IPCC member who authored two IPCC reports?

A group of prominent Argentine scientists disputes the theory that human activity is the cause of global warming and demand a "more serious debate". Eduardo Tonni, head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata, notes that, while it's not politically correct to dispute this theory, the evidence for global warming being a "natural" occurrence is far more compelling. As reported by Perfil magazine, scientist Rosa Compagnucci, a researcher with the National Science and Technology Commission and former member of the IPCC stated at a recent conference at the Military Geography Institute that global warming is actually a phenomenon that has occurred quite frequently over the past 2,000 years. And, she noted, rather than being caused by carbon dioxide emission produced by human activity, which many scientists accept as "irrefutabe truth", it is much more likely related to "capricious" solar activity which, over a period of decades and centuries, has not been at all homogeneous.

As author of two of the IPCC's 2001 reports, and an expert on the El Nino phenomenon, Campagnucci points to the period of global warming that occurred during the medieval period, between 800 and 1300. With all the emphasis today on preparing for global warming, she warns, this could leave man unprepared to deal with the possibility of a new ice age. She notes that South America's Southern Cone just went through a brutal, record-breaking winter, which could be repeated in North America. As for natural disasters such as tsunamis or Hurricane Katrina, Eduardo Tonni warns that there is little evidence that they are more frequent today than in the past. "The alarmism we see today", he argues, "is justified by the fact that it generates funds. Unfortunately, this is just another product of the market."

 

[Cornish Steve]

And what about this former member of the Dutch IPCC committee?

Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, a former member of the Dutch IPCC committee and a snow forecaster for Dutch wintersports, who holds a masters degree in environmental science and has presented his research on soil moisture's role in global climate models at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, reversed his views of man-made global warming. "After the range of very warm years and 'advent' Al Gore, I became a reluctant climate change believer for about 6 months", Smit wrote EPW on April 11, 2008. Smit credited Gore with ultimately turning him into a skeptic. Gore "prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp," Smit wrote. In addition, Smit critiqued the climate models that predict future catastrophe. "I am troubled by the practices I had seen at work GCM (global climate models), the whole field seemed highly suspicious to me." "During my full year working at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagn, I became suspicious about the way modeling science is done. Odd arbitrary parameterizations seemed the rules rather than the exception," Smit explained. The "practice of simplifying models so that accurate measurements can be used to calibrate them, seemed to be abandoned by GCM groups in favor of a childish delight in presenting colorful computer printouts of when and where which temperature changes will occur. Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact," Smit wrote. "The vast amount of new research since my graduation points to clear cut solar-climate coupling and to a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently, I hardly believe any more that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2-emissions and climate change," he added.

 

[cjd]

Let's just assume that you can produce lots of articles and credible scientists prepared to say skeptical things about climate change should we? That'll save a lot of time.

With that behind us, I would still like to hear why 'we' think global warming is happening at all.

 

some interesting UK temperature stats here.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/datasets/Tmean/ranked/UK.txt

Earl

 

[cjd]

some interesting UK temperature stats here.

fantastic - now tell us whether there's anything statistically significant about them (apart from winter being colder than summer)

 

fantastic - now tell us whether there's anything statistically significant about them (apart from winter being colder than summer)

well it does show that the climatic change in the UK is no different from 1914 to 1950 as from 1950 till now.

hence one would suppose the planet was warming up in any case from 1914.

Especially when you take into acount the very low carbon emissions for the earlier period.?

Earl

 

[cjd]

well it does show that the climatic change in the UK is no different from 1914 to 1950 as from 1950 till now.

How do you know? All you have there is un-analysed data, you're only looking for a slight average change, you'd need to do a bit of number crunching

 

[cjd]

Let's just assume that you can produce lots of articles and credible scientists prepared to say skeptical things about climate change should we? That'll save a lot of time.

In fact the list is here, along with the various dissenter's opinions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

How do you know? All you have there is un-analysed data, you're only looking for a slight average change, you'd need to do a bit of number crunching

Have you always had an aversion to facts,assuming the met office have not been tampering with the figures.?

Earl

 

[Subbynet]

well it does show that the climatic change in the UK is no different from 1914 to 1950 as from 1950 till now.

hence one would suppose the planet was warming up in any case from 1914.

Especially when you take into acount the very low carbon emissions for the earlier period.?

Earl

Here is the last 25 years. I think it shows a general rise in temps, and that if you were to plot out the rest of the dataset it would give you a pretty chart too.

ANN Year
9.73 2006
9.59 2007
9.5 2003
9.47 2004
9.47 2002
9.45 2005
9.41 1990
9.4 1997
9.38 1949
9.36 1999
9.28 1989
9.27 1959
9.27 1921
9.18 1945
9.17 1995
9.14 1998
9.09 2000
9.05 2008
8.96 1938
8.95 1953
8.93 1943
8.9 1983
8.89 1934
8.88 1994

 

[Subbynet]

Very very bored... I decided to do it myself. Confirms what I thought, there is a general trend upwards.

 

[Cornish Steve]

In fact the list is here, along with the various dissenter's opinions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Timothy Ball's comments in the first article at that site is crucially important. He wrote: "The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." This is something that many people miss: The most trustworthy data on earth temperatures comes from satellites because they are not influenced by other factors (e.g., warming associated with city versus rural locations). He's quite right in stating that, when we consider only satellite data, there has been no perceptible warming.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Another dissenting author in the list is Professor William Gray. He lost funding and was pushed out of his job because of his opinions. Here's an excerpt about this:

A professor of public relations at Boston University, Donald Wright, questioned why the university would want to pull back its support for Gray now, after he has published his forecasts for a quarter-century. "It's seems peculiar that this is happening now," Wright said. "Given the national reputation that these reports have, you would think the university would want to continue to promote these forecasts." Gray, he said, seems to deliver a lot of publicity bang for the buck. The seasonal forecasts are printed in newspapers around the country and splashed across the World Wide Web. There also seems to be little question that prominent climate scientists have complained to CSU about Gray's vocal skepticism. The head of CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Dick Johnson, said he has received many comments during recent years about Gray - some supportive, and some not. The complaints have come as Gray became increasingly involved in the global warming debate.

At U.S. universities, threats to the rights of scientists who hold minority viewpoints are generally frowned upon. A prominent legal scholar, Stanley Fish of Florida International University, said university public relations offices should not pick and choose where resources go, based upon the content of a professor's work. "If it can in any way be established that (Gray's) global warming views were the basis of this action, then it is an improper action," Fish said. In his memo, Gray clearly indicates that he believes his academic freedom is imperiled: "For the good of all of us in the Department, the College and at CSU, please believe me when I say this is not a direction any of you want to go," he wrote. "Our department and college are strong enough to be able to tolerate a dissenting voice on the global warming question."

 

[Cornish Steve]

Ever wonder what happened to the botanist David Bellamy? I used to love his appearances on TV - so full of passion for his subject. But then he denied global warming, and look what happened.

 

[benker84]

I'm afraid that you're right

 

[cjd]

Have you always had an aversion to facts,assuming the met office have not been tampering with the figures.?

Earl

I love facts, I'm ONLY interested in facts.

But what you have there is a list of numbers that don't tell me anything. I can't tell just by looking at them whether the temperatures are simply random or whether there is a trend - up or down - because any trend that might be there will be small and hidden by the chaos.

It was a genuine question - some maths geek will have analysed those numbers properly; where is the analysis?

This is what a trend line through those data might show if analysed (or not)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

If you look at that graph (which is from a climate change denier btw) there is a massive variance year to year which masks a slight trended increase over the measured period.

 

now here's an interesting one for central England.

The cooling at the end of the Maunder minimum can be clearly seen in this line graph along with the sudden recovery after 1695 leading to a relatively warm 18th century. (It is a fact that 18th century CET summers were on average warmer than 20th century CET summers.) The 18th century was followed by a cooler 19th century noted for three quite cool periods in the 1810s, the 1840s and the 1890s. The 20th century starts cool, warms from 1920 to 1950 and then a cooling sets in which lasts until 1986. This is followed by a warming which has lasted until 2008. This is followed by a warming trend culminating in 2006 being the warmest year in the record. The years 2007 and 2008 have been cooler, the latter being nearly a full degree centigrade cooler than 2006.

Earl

 

[cjd]

now here's an interesting one for central England.

So what I see in that chart is about 50 years of cooling, then about 40 years of warming, then from about 1740 to 1875 pretty stable, then a gradual warming to today. The warming coinciding with the industrial revolution which presumably is the eco case.

I have no idea how they remove natural causes from their arguments nor how they prove that the warming is man made. And no-one here seems to want to illuminate me.

 

Statistics are tricky at the best of times. I suggest looking at the Greenland ice cap. The melting there can be easily seen by comparing photos or satellite views. Is it due to global warming? Well that is an academic question. What matters is that it is clearly going to melt completely and dump an awful lot of cold fresh water in the northern hemisphere. That will definitely raise the sea level significantly and display a vast number of people. It may actually stop the gulf stream and that will change the weather very dramatically in places like England.

The times that are a' changing hotter or colder it is not good news for most of us. I suggest that you start your planning from there.

 

[Subbynet]

now here's an interesting one for central England.

The cooling at the end of the Maunder minimum can be clearly seen in this line graph along with the sudden recovery after 1695 leading to a relatively warm 18th century. (It is a fact that 18th century CET summers were on average warmer than 20th century CET summers.) The 18th century was followed by a cooler 19th century noted for three quite cool periods in the 1810s, the 1840s and the 1890s. The 20th century starts cool, warms from 1920 to 1950 and then a cooling sets in which lasts until 1986. This is followed by a warming which has lasted until 2008. This is followed by a warming trend culminating in 2006 being the warmest year in the record. The years 2007 and 2008 have been cooler, the latter being nearly a full degree centigrade cooler than 2006.

Earl

Yes, it varies. But overall it shows an upward trend. (Much the same as all graphs shown on this thread so far)

 

Yes, it varies. But overall it shows an upward trend. (Much the same as all graphs shown on this thread so far)

Interesting thing is that one would have expected a rise during WW2 owing to the ammount of extra production allied to a few heat generating munitions being dumped around the planet.?

Earl

 

[Subbynet]

Interesting thing is that one would have expected a rise during WW2 owing to the ammount of extra production allied to a few heat generating munitions being dumped around the planet.?

Earl

Yeah, but I wouldn't expect to find this so displayed so prominently in the mean numbers.

Also remember that while production of arms went up during WW2, virtually everything else went down.

 

[casado]

I love facts, I'm ONLY interested in facts.

But what you have there is a list of numbers that don't tell me anything. I can't tell just by looking at them whether the temperatures are simply random or whether there is a trend - up or down - because any trend that might be there will be small and hidden by the chaos.

It was a genuine question - some maths geek will have analysed those numbers properly; where is the analysis?

This is what a trend line through those data might show if analysed (or not)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

If you look at that graph (which is from a climate change denier btw) there is a massive variance year to year which masks a slight trended increase over the measured period.

Are you sure Robert A. Rohde, a PhD student, is a climate change denier?

First, if your where to play the stock market with that kind of sophisticated analysis you would be broke in no time.
1.- Those two lines are drawn by hand, to make a fit to the data, to an straight line or any other kind of line you need to do it properly and give the regression of the curve so we know the error: value of the slope (the rate of increase) and the error in the estimate. From what I have see, and I have done this many times professionally and published it, you can as well fit an horizontal line.
2.- The analysis is more questionable as long as no error bars are given for the data collection, which should be use as input when calculating the fit.
3.- Why only date from 1975? if I can choose the time series that I do please, I can proof anything, so if I take from the year 2000 onwards, and using the same curving fitting techniques I have a proof that the climate is cooling. More so if I take the time series from the late fifties to the early seventies of the last century, where the emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere increased dramatically I can even prove that the emissions actually contribute to a cooler climate.
4.- The longer the series the better the fit, or more reliable the trend. Some one has placed here a longer time series and proves this point. But it dosen't go long anoubh, since if we were to use a 2000 years time series (as the intercepted emails quoted here by Steve) the picture would be much more different.
6.- Why to fit it to an straight line when it is obvious from the data (with no error bars) that it doesn't fit well to a linear function? this is text book data analysis. Much better fits (with less errors) can be obtained with, for instance the next level of complication, a quadratic function, some thing that would look like a*t^2+b*t+c, rather than only b*t+c, and that would show that from around 1998 we have a downward trend.
7.- Another thing is that, as you inadvertently show, there are only satellite data from nearly 1980. Previous records are either only from surface readings and, if we go back in time, from proxy data (tree rings, etc.). There is now the chance to check the satellite readings against proxy readings in during the 80's and 90's, to recalibrate previous results and that, as simple as it is, hasn't been done.
8.- Even if we were forced to take those had drawn line as the true trend, this data in isolation means little. It certainly would mean that there is warming but it would not point to the cause of warming. But the same data could shed some light on the issue because the same satellites that take readings of the Earth temperature, also take readings of Venus and Mars temperature, why not compare them? If a similar trend is seen on those other planents, where as far as we know there are no humans burning oil, the reason for the changing of the climant can not be human activity. But unfortunately for you, those readings exist and show consistency among them.

 

[Subbynet]

1.- Those two lines are drawn by hand, to make a fit to the data, to an straight line or any other kind of line you need to do it properly and give the regression of the curve so we know the error: value of the slope (the rate of increase) and the error in the estimate. From what I have see, and I have done this many times professionally and published it, you can as well fit an horizontal line.

Otherwised summed as, I should follow up and read what you've been given.

2.- The analysis is more questionable as long as no error bars are given for the data collection, which should be use as input when calculating the fit.

No, its only more questionable if no error margins have been given or acknowledged. You don't need error bars, just a margin of error. This isn't a stock market, you don't win by finding discrepancies, we want the long term trend.

3.- Why only date from 1975? if I can choose the time series that I do please, I can proof anything, so if I take from the year 2000 onwards, and using the same curving fitting techniques I have a proof that the climate is cooling. More so if I take the time series from the late fifties to the early seventies of the last century, where the emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere increased dramatically I can even prove that the emissions actually contribute to a cooler climate.

This is answered by attempting to follow the information you've been given. RSS is a private company set-up in 1974 to study the microwave data gathered by NASA. Hence, the results start from 1975, probably because we didn't have much sensing equipment on sats before that date.

4.- The longer the series the better the fit, or more reliable the trend. Some one has placed here a longer time series and proves this point. But it dosen't go long anoubh, since if we were to use a 2000 years time series (as the intercepted emails quoted here by Steve) the picture would be much more different.

Yes, it would probably show that we periods of hot and cold. That doesn't take away the fact that the data shows an increase in the speed of change later in the thrend. (But this little nugget would be masked by asking for a larger dataset)

6.- Why to fit it to an straight line when it is obvious from the data (with no error bars) that it doesn't fit well to a linear function? this is text book data analysis. Much better fits (with less errors) can be obtained with, for instance the next level of complication, a quadratic function, some thing that would look like a*t^2+b*t+c, rather than only b*t+c, and that would show that from around 1998 we have a downward trend.

Fancy coming up with a function everyone can agree on?

7.- Another thing is that, as you inadvertently show, there are only satellite data from nearly 1980. Previous records are either only from surface readings and, if we go back in time, from proxy data (tree rings, etc.). There is now the chance to check the satellite readings against proxy readings in during the 80's and 90's, to recalibrate previous results and that, as simple as it is, hasn't been done.

You mean the proxy readings which were no doubt compared to the surface temps? And the sat readings, which are compared to the surface temps?

It wouldn't matter if you recalibrated, it wouldn't result in any better data.

8.- Even if we were forced to take those had drawn line as the true trend, this data in isolation means little. It certainly would mean that there is warming but it would not point to the cause of warming. But the same data could shed some light on the issue because the same satellites that take readings of the Earth temperature, also take readings of Venus and Mars temperature, why not compare them? If a similar trend is seen on those other planents, where as far as we know there are no humans burning oil, the reason for the changing of the climant can not be human activity. But unfortunately for you, those readings exist and show consistency among them.

Maybe something to do with a very small dataset? Which like you said earlier, doesn't show the full picture, and doesn't give us an idea of variation?

 

[Cornish Steve]

I have no idea how they remove natural causes from their arguments nor how they prove that the warming is man made. And no-one here seems to want to illuminate me.

It's pretty straightforward to show what changes, in recent years at least, must come from natural sources, and I explained this early on in the discussion. Just compare the earth's temperature changes with those witnessed on other planets and moons in our solar system. The correlation is impressive.

 

[Cornish Steve]

So we're back to short-term changes again, ignoring the long-term trends? Am I mistaken, or does this data include some estimates for this year? Also, if we use only the UAH data, the trend curve is pretty much flat. One other interesting thing about this graph is that it's showing temperatures every few weeks and not the average for each year. This in turn can bias the data because an occasional hot or cold week attracts our eyes.

 

[cjd]

First, if your where to play the stock market with that kind of sophisticated analysis you would be broke in no time.

I wish you'd read the thread rather than just the bits you feel like.

The point of my graph post was in answer to sirearl - I was explaining that you can't tell from a bunch of raw data whether there's a trend in it and giving him that chart as an example of how you start to see one.

I had no other interest in it than that; I'm not showing it as any kind of proof of anything. But as you bring it up - it rather suggests that warming has happened since at least the 70s doesn't it? As measured by satellite or from land (despite Steve's earlier assertion).

(I know all about regression analysis - thanks - I do it every month; there's even an r squared function in Excel - it aint rocket science. I'd love to see the r squared of a horizontal line thru that data - tosh. The full paper will no doubt have the relevant information for you if you're that interested.)

But unfortunately for you, those readings exist and show consistency among them.

You claim to be a scientist. Why don't you re-read this thread and make a note of the times that I've said that a consensus is not proof and where I've said that I too am sceptical and asked for anyone to show how the warming we are seeing now (which I assume is not too contentious) can be separated from the other periods of natural warming/cooling that we know the earth has already seen and then how we can be so certain it is man made.

The consensus came from somewhere and as it's a highly unattractive finding on any measure; economic, political, human - it didn't happen easily

I am not defending the consensus, merely pointing out that there is one so we have to be a tad circumspect with our own ignorant opinions.

 

[Subbynet]

It's pretty straightforward to show what changes, in recent years at least, must come from natural sources, and I explained this early on in the discussion. Just compare the earth's temperature changes with those witnessed on other planets and moons in our solar system. The correlation is impressive.

So we're back to short-term changes again, ignoring the long-term trends? Am I mistaken, or does this data include some estimates for this year? Also, if we use only the UAH data, the trend curve is pretty much flat.

In the above, you appear to be using short term data to conclude other planets are heating around the same rate as us.

Below, you say we are ignoring the long-term trend.

What is it?

 

[Cornish Steve]

now here's an interesting one for central England.

The cooling at the end of the Maunder minimum can be clearly seen in this line graph along with the sudden recovery after 1695 leading to a relatively warm 18th century. (It is a fact that 18th century CET summers were on average warmer than 20th century CET summers.) The 18th century was followed by a cooler 19th century noted for three quite cool periods in the 1810s, the 1840s and the 1890s. The 20th century starts cool, warms from 1920 to 1950 and then a cooling sets in which lasts until 1986. This is followed by a warming which has lasted until 2008. This is followed by a warming trend culminating in 2006 being the warmest year in the record. The years 2007 and 2008 have been cooler, the latter being nearly a full degree centigrade cooler than 2006.

Earl

I can imagine scientists in 1735 proclaiming "woe is me", and they were then greeted by some of the coldest years on record. A more appropriate phrase this time around might be "deja vu".

 

[Cornish Steve]

In the above, you appear to be using short term data to conclude other planets are heating around the same rate as us.

Below, you say we are ignoring the long-term trend.

What is it?

That's because we're considering two different things:

- For trends, we need long-term data, especially since warming and cooling trends have appeared on earth for thousands of years.

- For correlation, we need less data. When temperatures on earth rise in sync with temperatures on mercury, mars, pluto, and the moon of Saturn, it's a bit of a clue that the sun might be influencing our planet - something that has always been conveniently left out of the IPCC models.

As a small aside, I remember reading years ago in the Guinness Book of World Records that the weather forecasting models in Portugal got the weather right 49% of the time. In other words, if you believed the opposite of their predictions, you had more chance of being right! I can believe it. When I did computer modelling for my PhD, I had trouble getting time on government Cray machines because they are mostly running weather forecasting models. They are notoriously complex and rely heavily on past data.

This ties in with one of the quotes I mentioned yesterday, namely that models in this field are best at analysing previous trends; they are not so good at making predictions. It's therefore ironic that we're planning to spend billions of pounds and push our economy back decades based on computer models in a notoriously unreliable field of prediction.

 

And the statisticians will still be talking about the best function when the water from the greenland icecap overwhelms the thames barrier. Use a log/log plot because that always produces a straight line and then can we have a bit more planning for change.

 

[Subbynet]

That's because we're considering two different things:

- For trends, we need long-term data, especially since warming and cooling trends have appeared on earth for thousands of years.

- For correlation, we need less data. When temperatures on earth rise in sync with temperatures on mercury, mars, pluto, and the moon of Saturn, it's a bit of a clue that the sun might be influencing our planet - something that has always been conveniently left out of the IPCC models.

I think we all understand "short term" correlations and "long term" trends, so I don't think we had a any problem in communication, other than where its convenient.

You're ignoring the long term trend in favour of a correlation which suits you. In other words you're pretty much cherry picking an answer.

There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouse gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity.


The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too.html

As a small aside, I remember reading years ago in the Guinness Book of World Records that the weather forecasting models in Portugal got the weather right 49% of the time.

There was a time when they completely guessed. The point being, yes models are a bit dodgy, but as data becomes available they do get better. I doubt the weather dept in Portugal is quite so bad today at predicting the weather.

 

[Subbynet]

Another thing... Climate Change leading to toxic seas...

A lot of people deny, or don't believe in the link between Co2 and temps, fair enough, but what about Co2 and toxic seas?

Is this not a reason to act?