Comments on: Media enable denier spin 1: A (sort of) cold January doesn’t mean climate stopped warming

By: Jay Alt

Jay Alt — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:34:21 +0000

Disinformer works, but the root suggests something they aren’t.

Confusionist is very clear and it alliterates with climate.

By: Hmm

Hmm — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:57:52 +0000

Uh, where do you get the figure that it’s only one month that’s been cold? Looks like 12 to me.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:00:37 +0000

January was cold — though not relative to the mean. 2007 was hot.

By: Elbarto

Elbarto — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:09:40 +0000

2007 global land and ocean monthly temperature (ºC) anomalies from NCDC.

2007 1 0.8314
2007 2 0.6254
2007 3 0.6077
2007 4 0.6728
2007 5 0.5261
2007 6 0.5078
2007 7 0.4676
2007 8 0.4685
2007 9 0.5289
2007 10 0.4991
2007 11 0.4484
2007 12 0.3975
2008 1 0.1779

source: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/ pub/ data/ anomalies/ monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

All well above mean, a slight trend down at the end of 2007 consistent with strengthening la nina. Jan 08 still above mean. Given minimum solar activity and relatively stong la nina, temps should be below average. Lets see what happens in 2010-11 with peak solar + el nino.

I predict denialism will evaporate along with our water supplies.

By: Hmm

Hmm — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:29:37 +0000

“Denialism” is a term people use to describe holocaust deniers. Surely you have a better word to describe thousands of recognized scientists. “Skeptic” maybe?

Elbarto: GISS, Hadley and both of the atmospheric satellite monitoring services note a downtrend. Lower atmospheric temperatures are typically mirrored by land/sea trends a year later. I won’t even bother to cite the dozens of studies that show NOAA has bad data problems (urban heat island, poorly calibrated monitors)

Or do you disagree with every scientist on both sides of the argument that atmospheric temperatures have decreased in the last year?

By: John Mashey

John Mashey — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:32:21 +0000

Actually, somebody just did do a bet, as reported by James’ Empty Blog or Durango Herlad.

Roger Cohen is a retired ExxonMobil exec who has been challenging people to bet, and somebody finally got him to take a plausible one:

Global average 2005-2007 vs 2015-2017, with all bets off if VEI>=5 volcano happens after 2012. Presumably they figured to take their cahnces with El Nino / La Nina..

By: Elbarto

Elbarto — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 02:04:55 +0000

NOAA GISS HADLEY(HADCrut3)
2007 1 0.8314 0.87 0.632
2007 2 0.6254 0.63 0.520
2007 3 0.6077 0.59 0.441
2007 4 0.6728 0.66 0.473
2007 5 0.5261 0.55 0.374
2007 6 0.5078 0.53 0.376
2007 7 0.4676 0.51 0.404
2007 8 0.4685 0.56 0.369
2007 9 0.5289 0.50 0.410
2007 10 0.4991 0.55 0.360
2007 11 0.4484 0.49 0.265
2007 12 0.3975 0.40 0.202
2008 1 0.1779 0.12 0.037

sources:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/ pub/ data/ anomalies/ monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ gistemp/ tabledata/ GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ cru/ data/ temperature/ hadcrut3gl.txt

The datasets are quite similar. HADCrut3 are 1961-1990 anomalies hence the offset between the other two datasets. All are significantly above mean except jan 08 which is close to mean.

A month of average temperature during a la nina at a solar forcing minimum does not constitute a cooling trend.

This was the point of Joe’s post.

By: Andy Revkin

Andy Revkin — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 02:13:36 +0000

Hi Joe,

Picking on a heading for a graphic seems a bit forced, considering that my entire article essentially says precisely what your headline says — that a little short-term cooling and telegenic snow, while it may produce headlines, doesn’t mean climate has stopped warming.

There’s not a single scientist in the piece who supports the assertions of the political operative, including one from his own camp.

When you complain that I only “eventually” get around to saying this, you avoid mentioning it comes a mere 140 words into the story. If a reader can’t get that far, then we’re doomed regardless.

Also, you seem to think this only is a story because some clever media manipulator floated a ‘meme’ on the Web. Are you telling me that with all that coverage of Chinese blizzards and all, no one’s been asking you what’s up with the weather/climate?

Maybe it’s just the bane of climate reporters, and not energy-climate bloggers, to have heaps of people asking them all the time about such things whenever extreme weather events make the news.

I personally think it’s useful, for all those folks out there who might find cold snaps and warming talk confusing, to explains what’s up (or down). The introductory paragraphs lay out context that’s hard to avoid, hopefully engage readers who’ve been wondering about weather and hype, and frame the rest of the story.

And our graphic, by Jonathan Corum is simply superb, showing both the short-term wiggle and setting it in long-term (warming) context.

To have my story lumped in with a quick blog post that did cite some of the spin as fact is neither accurate nor useful.

I look forward, nonetheless, to Par 2.

- Andy

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 02:40:29 +0000

Andy — Thanks for you comment and I take your points. Yet, in fact, nobody has asked me about the short sort of cold spell we’ve had. But then I have blogged many, many times on the general issue.

I was told, at least on the blogosphere, a lot of people never get past the headline. And after that, a lot of people don’t get past the first few sentences.

I thought the same was true for newspapers. My father was a newspaper editor for 30 years.

So that shapes my writing. Blogs do have the luxury of more repetition and links back to earlier/other articles, so they can say more with less.

And, of course, I write my own headlines, and I know that is rarely the case with the traditional media.

By: Ronald

Ronald — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 03:09:20 +0000

We’ve got somebody predicting that the artic may disappear this summer. Don’t know the guy or the organization, maybe it’s all made up, but somebody from Norway might know something about the artic.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/ english/ 2008-03/ 01/ content_7696460.htm

I haven’t read of any guesses lately of the year the artic polar cap disappears. Somebody thinks it’s this summer.

By: Paul K

Paul K — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 03:28:49 +0000

I think “Disinformer” is a winner. Climate science now has a recent annual peak (1998) and monthly peak (Jan. ‘07). GISS annual rankings differ from other rankings. One reason may be in the difference in what 30 years are used for the mean. Another may be changes made in the way they computed the annual global temperature that were not made by the others. When computed by the method that had long been employed, the 2005 temperature appeared to be cooler. Adjustments were made and these improvements enabled GISS to compute 2005 as, in fact, much warmer. GISS is an outsider in 2007 as well.

By: Jay Alt

Jay Alt — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:47:19 +0000

Paul K-
One difference is the GISS has more data from polar regions. The Hadley data set uses mostly weather stations, they’re sparse up north. But NASA now has satellites that are calibrated to record near-surface temps in remote areas. So the GISS data set includes a few of those measurements, along with polar temps measured more traditionally. That raises the contribution of Arctic measurements (and Antarctic) into line with the real proportion of polar surface area. And since the Arctic has had the fastest recent warming, GISS numbers have run slightly higher than Hadley. Similarly, if an ‘immanent ice age’ should somehow appear, GISS would give the first warning. ( But as mentioned, don’t bet on it . . . )

Andy -
Denialists misuse any information and your explanation works for me. Recently a local forum included one of the atmospheric scientists you quote. He was asked for his thoughts on the cold and hard winter. The question came from a broadcast meteorologist who has clearly dealt with the same question(s) from the public. His response suggested he was put off by the question and he merely noted that ‘weather wasn’t the same as climate.’ That of course is true. I’m glad you can bring to a wider audience his more considered response. (And also that he didn’t ban you from his mailing list, as punishment for your ‘third way’ article.

By: Mark Lazen

Mark Lazen — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:48:52 +0000

This is a subject I’ve addressed–with a little black humor–in the past:

“…First, how is it that the overwhelming majority of scientists have come believe that man made global warming is a reality?

Let us dismiss the obvious: it is not because of the weather. Let it snow in July or broil in December, we can never reliably attribute any individual weather event to global warming. Even an anomalous season, or ten such seasons in a row is of dubious import. This is perhaps the only thing that climate change skeptics and believers agree upon. If the public does not display the same sangfroid towards hurricanes in June, the experts must bear some blame. They pay lip service to the statistical insignificance of singular examples. But like recovering alcoholics on a booze cruise, they cannot resist the opportunity when nature sends the drink tray around again, delivering the warmth, the cool, the rain, whatever supports their cause. Their hands shake and beads of sweat bud upon their brows. Maddened, they pounce, appearing on CNN to score their points with the public. How they loathe themselves in the morning.

The fact is we really don’t understand the weather, and even less the cycles within cycles within cycles, oceanographic, geologic, and atmospheric over centuries and eons, that impact the weather. Weather is hopelessly complicated and infinitely sensitive, the penultimate poster child of nonlinearity. It may be that every weather phenomenon we’re experiencing, however odd, is just the product of natural cycles that haven’t been recognized. Even if we are barreling towards a climate catastrophe, it may have nothing to do with car exhaust or ovine flatulence. It may be that god is sick of us and has decided to call it a day.

Who could blame him?…”

The rest is here: http://onlysayin.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 08/ nuclear-holocaust-was-better-than.html

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:42:35 +0000

Thanks for this Joe-

Andy, Why not write an article every above average temperature day (It’s 54 today in NYC)?

These types of pieces confuse the public, which I would think is the exact opposite of your job.

By: Uosdwis

Uosdwis — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:55:50 +0000

I know it’s a tired cliche, but I’m sure a lot of doomed people thought “Great, we’re not going to sink!” when the Titanic split in two and the stern briefly leveled out.

By: Sorghum Crow

Sorghum Crow — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:19:42 +0000

Thanks Joe. This is a great explanation and analysis.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:14:13 +0000

Really, now it is the sun that is causing cooling? The sunspot minimum? Show me someone, anyone, who predicted that. The 11-year solar cycle has a minuscule impact on forcings relative to GH gasses.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:17:08 +0000

Re: Jay Alt: GISS doesnt have more data in the Arctic, they simply extrapolate existing land data and estimate temps in the Arctic Ocean. Look it up, it is on their web site. Others don’t do that. Whether it is appropriate or not is a matter of opinion.

By: Peter Foley

Peter Foley — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:32:03 +0000

Your response “denies” the problems with the quality of the the ground stations data over the the last 30 years in the US, One could backtrack through the various blogs to see how every datum that could be stretched to support the AGW dogma was emphasized and every contrarian fact was back paged.
One of the fundamental problems with the whole idea of carbon “forced” AGW is the science behind it just doesn’t fit the observed data very well.
Long term trends such as the ever rising sea levels and urbanization of weather stations are used to present the idea as fact.
Obvious experiments to confirm GISS data sets haven’t been done–siamesing urban stations with an up wind rural data point crosses the mind of a dilettante. Part timers have show the ground station data has been corrupted to fit the carbon model.
Historical weather facts that don’t support the mania are expunged from the working reference base.
Please post what it would take for you to rethink the need for ending the use of carbon based fuels. What if the global temps stabilise at +0.5 degrees? are we still going to cut off our economic legs to return to a ‘natural’ temp average?
If you actually believe that we’re on a one way trip to the hot zone, why don’t you support the development of Geo-engineering to return temperatures to “normal”. Almost every scheme postulated would cost only a fraction of the cost of decarboning our world in the manner desired by the greens.
I’d suggest you study the post non-event disintegration of other millennium groups whose Armageddon events failed to eventuate. Society needs to learn how to reintegrate the anti-productive AGW cultists back into rational society. Some unfortunately will remain beyond our mental health care industries ability to reshape into productive units of the community and will remain as a financial and social burden for the balance of their lives.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:31:44 +0000

How about “climate ostriches”?

Not as punchy but how about “the Neros of Climate”…fiddling while Rome burned..

Peter,
Accusing others of mental illness when you use language so oddly is perhaps an indication of what they might call “projection” in the psychology field. I’ve been told that what they call a “thought disorder” displays itself in the stilted use of language…maybe you’re the one in the need of a little “integration” as you call it.

On the other hand, in the murk of your prose there is a valid question about geo-engineering. The most intelligent discussion of geo-engineering can be found here:
http://www.ted.com/speakers/view/id/172
It may function as a rip cord to be pulled once we have set ourselves on the course of reducing our carbon emissions. It is not something to be undertaken lightly and though it looks “easier”, the consequences of direct manipulation of the climate are largely unforeseeable given the complexity of the climate system.

By: John Liungman

John Liungman — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:44:50 +0000

Thanks for another good piece. Here in Sweden, the breaking news tonight was not a great surpise: this winter actually WAS the warmest this country has seen in a century. My skis and skates are stowed away nice and dry in the attic, while flowers were blossoming in February. Yes, know, this is not proof of anything but an extreme anomaly. The good thing about this one, though, is that it at least keeps the disinformers quite for a few months.

By: Peter Foley

Peter Foley — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:31:52 +0000

Nick, I think some of the fuzzy AGW logic has infected my thinking. Maybe I should have used Social worker instead of Mental Health Care. Could you just be suffering from a intelligence deficit–I can’t follow a derivatives traders methodology, but does that make him a head case?
If my questioning the AGW dogma has me classified as a Denier, I think that frees me to disregard some of the conventional conversational manners. But the returning fringe lunatics to even a slightly more rational world view should have some social utility. I might of went just a little over the top with the irony. Maybe some sort of tax on green taxes to fund a reeducation camp. We could get some input from the UN WHO of course.
All kidding aside, we are looking at a real problem when the mania collapses causing some members to have a physic break.

By: Ronald

Ronald — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:33:13 +0000

Peter,
You really don’t give people enough credit. What will happen to climatologists after this whole global warming being human made is exposed as a hoax? Most will go back to being subprime mortgage brokers that they were before. Some will go to the UN and try to drum up a new Oil for Food program. Some will run those internet and phone banks in Nigeria that is making them so much money. They certainly can’t go back to academia since they were exposed as frauds so easily, who would want to hire them, it’s makes it so much harder to get federal funding for another fake cause.

And what of the Climatologist groupies? They’ll probably latch on to some communist or socialist group. Then there is all the save the whales and save the trees money to be made.

Do you really think the fraud from climatology is that bad? It might be possible to fake out a few countries of scientists. But we have world wide agreements about the problem. I can’t do justice to summarize the science, but you maybe, just maybe might want to do a full study of it. It may take a large amount of thought, but it’s very important to do the work.

My view is that most people study questions of how the world is with at least these 4 categories, Science, Philosophy, Psychology and Politics. What people have a hard time doing is separating the 4 areas, their science is influenced by their psychology and politics. They don’t want global warming to be true because of their politics. They don’t want it to be true because that might admit that they and people they listen to aren’t powerful enough to solve problems in a complicated world. What they do then is to believe in their minds that those who think that global warming is human caused are not real human beings, but caricatures of real human beings who are helpless in a complicated and demanding world. But truly, as much as you need to believe that those who have thought the problem thru as human made are not capable, that is not true. There are some things that humans don’t do very well, but human beings science is getting very good.

You may have heard that saying ‘If we can land a man on the moon, how come we can’t do something about. . (insert here some problem that we should have solved) . . The reason we were able to land a man on the moon was because NASA could hire and fire because of competence. Making change in Society and Politics is a lot harder than landing on the moon because those who are part of it aren’t fired if incompetent, or even deceitful.

There’s just to much on the side of human caused global warming to not be concerned.

By: Peter Foley

Peter Foley — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:43:17 +0000

Ronald, The fraud is the( If A is true then society must do D,E,F, and G to stop A). While the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is important just for its effects on the rate of plant growth,(some part of the change in plant zones will most likely be attributed to CO2 rise.) its correlation to a global temperature changes is weak and getting weaker daily. The idea that AGW can be used to force human civilization to turn to an anti-technology negative growth commune offends me, and I won’t permit my culture to be obliterated to slow a minor crisis.
If AGW is true let us just pull the soot filters off the coal plants– soon we’ll have global cooling. And still have a financial future. The greens as group see this alleged crisis as a means to impose their questionable world view.
The AGW ers have more in-common with jihadists now then concern citizens trying to prevent a problem from worsening. Let us have some more measurable science and less believing. Leave the faith driven movements to the priests and con-men.
I think the massive over reaction is a result of a generation of teaching ecology with out any hard sciences- no math, science, chemistry, statistics, and logic. Without the ability to judge the alleged science on any level of expertise, the victims of the crappy schools must trust the media for its opinions which is usually just as shallow.
I am concerned about the environment but the world doesn’t need another DDT ban that still kills 500,000 Africans a year. Or the banning of CFC–oops it was the sodium bromides that actually damage the Ozone. MTBE anyone? we got to have it to cut smog in LA.
I spent some time studying the science, The sea temps pre 1979 are nearly non existent. the southern Hemisphere is mostly here be dragons pre 1970. How do we have a long term base line? We had similar delta Ts at least three times in the last two thousand years with out a disaster.
I think some of the problem is just the med students’ disease combined with a little Munchhausen’s by planet proxy disease. Even scientists want attention.
As a society we need to redirect the efforts of the AGW groupies toward more productive ends. It might be like herding cats, but even cats kill more wild birds every day then all the nasty wind mills do all year long world wide.–That was a poke at the Anti wind-mill Audubon bird lover greenies.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:06:37 +0000

Peter Foley said “DDT ban that still kills 500,000 Africans a year. Or the banning of CFC–oops it was the sodium bromides that actually damage the Ozone.”

False. DDT is continues to be used in the malarial zones of Africa.

False again. It was, and continues to be, the florines.

You might actually do some research and determine the facts, rather than demonstrating your ignorance here, which others then need to correct. Jeez.

By: Jim Clarke

Jim Clarke — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:01:43 +0000

I am no longer surprised when I find a website like this, pretending to be authoritative about climate science, while spending most of the time contemplating the best ad hominem to launch at legitimate atmospheric scientists. What would be unusual would be finding an author supporting the consensus view that didn’t launch personal attacks at those who disagree. Anybody know of such a site?

The above article mischaracterizes what is being reported. The NYT reported that the weather has been unusually cold in many places, not that the planet has been unusually cold. No one is claiming that the last year was colder than the 60 year average, just that it was cooler than before in many areas. The crisis skeptics all readily admit that one year does not a trend make, yet the above article blames them for sending out disinformation. What exactly have they said about the recent trends that is incorrect?

I guess if the planet cools, climate crisis skeptics should not be allowed to call attention to the fact, since it is not proof that they are right about climate change. The rule seems to be that AGW crisis supporters can speculate without proof and demand that all must sacrifice, but crisis skeptics can not even talk about the real world measurements least someone get the wrong impression. That sounds fair!

The article is basically arguing that a cooling trend is not defined by falling temperatures, but by temperatures falling below an arbitrary mean!
Means are irrelevant in determining a trend. Also, cooling trends must start at the end of warming trends, so the first several time periods of the cooling trend will be nearly as warm as the warmest readings. No matter how you spin it, the recent cooling does not support that the planet is still warming. In fact, the temperature must return to and surpass the warmest readings of the last decade before one can say that the long-term warming trend has resumed.

While recent cooling does not refute an AGW crisis, it certainly doesn’t bolster it. It does however, lend some credibility to those who have been predicting global cooling when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation returned to its negative phase. I first heard Dr. Bill Gray (Hurricane Climatologist) make the prediction at least 15 years ago. Many others have made similar arguments over the last 10 to 15 years. If you weren’t aware of such predictions, then you may not be that well informed about climate change science. The ‘comprehensive’ reports of the IPCC tend to ignore a lot of science!

Now, about that wager… Where do I sign up?

By: Peter Foley

Peter Foley — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:56:19 +0000

David B. Benson, DDT use in Africa could save nearly 600,000 kids a year. Uganda was threatened by the EU over DDT use.
Bromines are 60 X as reactive to Ozone as chlorine. The CFC scare did push atmospheric chemistry along though. A little learning is a dangerous condition.
But there is more than one road to ZPG. Dar-fur and Idi Amin have nothing on the failure to make DDT available for Malaria control.

If you want to help people, stop the DDT insanity.

By: Dano

Dano — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:29:10 +0000

Ahhh, good ol’ Jerel/Jim Clarke and his arguments from incorrect premises.

Welcome Jim and his FUD, everyone.

BTW, society has moved on to solutioning. You can quibble if you want, but please quibble about how you don’t like solutions because they reject your chosen worldview - don’t quibble about the science you need to misrepresent to have an argument. Societal direction, not denialist quibbling. Thank you in advance.

And there are numerous wager sites out there Jim. You of course know about them - how much have you wagered so far?

Best,

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:04:09 +0000

Jim — just what bet are you prepared to go for. Next decade not warmer than this? Pick an accepted global T database. Or we can use all 4.

By: Jim Clarke

Jim Clarke — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:53:12 +0000

Dano, how ya doin? I hope you didn’t strain yourself hand waving at any of the points I made. I am a little worried about carpal tunnel syndrome.

By: Jim Clarke

Jim Clarke — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:10:33 +0000

Joe,

Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner. It has been a busy couple of days.

On one hand, I could really use an extra $1,000 because Exxon has yet to send me one penny of the zillion dollars they are supposedly sending to all the other crisis skeptics. Go figure!

On the other hand, it would be nobler to pledge my winnings to charity. So how about this? We take the monthly global anomalies from one of the satellite data basis from January, 1998 to December 2007, add them all up and divide by 120, giving us the average monthly anomaly for the ten year period. We do the same for January 2008 through December 2017 and see which number is bigger.

If the latter is bigger, I donate $1,000 dollars to a charity of your choice. If it is smaller, you do the same for a charity of my choosing. Said charities must be recognized as legitimate by the federal government and can not include legal defense funds!

The charity fund raiser can be canceled by either party in the event of a climate altering volcanic eruption, global nuclear war, asteroid strike or other exceptional event, provided said event can be quantified as large enough to impact the outcome of the fund raiser.

Corrections in the satellite data will be applied upon publishing. The average monthly anomaly for each decade will be recalculated based on the latest understanding of the science, but no corrections will apply if published after December 31st, 2017.

The winner will be declared after the temperature anomaly for December, 2017 has been made public and entered into the calculation.

Does this sound okay with you?

By: Dani of Great Reliability

Dani of Great Reliability — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:05:29 +0000

If I was in an internet bet I’d want someone neutral to hold the stakes. How ’bout both of you send your money to me, and I’ll hold it for the 10 years? I modestly note that I am willing to do this without any compensation, and I’ll even be willing to act as mediator for any controversies there may be in determining the winner! Couldn’t ask for a better deal than that, could you?

By: John Lederer

John Lederer — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:40:07 +0000

The essential global warming prediction is that the earth will continue to get warmer because of man.

Therefore we need to do something, or as it warms, there will be serious human and economic costs.

The prediction is not that earth will stay as warm as it is. Though there have been minor costs, there have also been gains, and overall we are not suffering at thre present temperatures.

For the last ten years 3 of the 4 major global temperature records, the two satellite records and one of the instrumental temperature records, have essentially show no warming trend. One , GISS, has continued to show warming.

Now, that may be fluke, it may be “noise” in a long term record, or it may indicate that warming has peaked and is no longer increasing. I know of no way to know between the two possibilities for a decade or two.

To pretend that it is other than weak evidence that global warming is not continuing to occur is an error. To pretend that the evidence is not quite weak is also an error.

While we “wait and see”, it might be quite valuable to try to determine why GISS is an outlier, so far as trend goes, from the other records. If GISS is a better record, then that ends the argument. If there is something wrong about GISS’ portrayal, let’s track it down and fix it.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:11:38 +0000

Warming has continued throughout this decade — hence the unbelievable collapse in Arctic ice. “Wait and see” = destroy the planet’s livability, at least if one believes in science.

By: Peter Foley

Peter Foley — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:10:37 +0000

Joe, just what proof do you have that the arctic ice didn’t melt out occasionally pre WWII? How do you explain the reversal in ice area on both Hemispheres?
I’d like to see some non- Russian’s data from the central Siberian region to confirm the FSU isn’t playing the AGWers for their economic gain. Wait and See = The US economy growing at least 1% more per year, thus all possible futures will have more money to throw at any problem. A 3% real growth rate leads to 2 to 4th power GNP increase every 96 years. That’s 1600% for the products of our public schools. (This explains how a state with low tax rates always ends up with more money for the government to spend/waste on the poor and deadbeat government employees then a socialist/communist system.) JFK and Reagan won the cold war by lowering income tax rates allowing the USA to outspend the USSR’s economy in the pot-latch of military spending. It’d be foolish for the USA to beggar itself in misguided attempt to unilaterally lower CO2 10 to 15 PPM in the next 100 years. Even if you’re right about AGW your responses are nationally self-destructive. I’d come up with a list of objectives you could support and a rational actor that doesn’t believe the Oceans are/going to rising/rise 1 foot a year could support
.

By: sparky

sparky — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:12:47 +0000

Jim Clarke, John Lederer, Peter Foley,

You deniers are hilarious! Climate change denial is so *1990s* — it’s almost quaint! If you can ever come up with a new argument that hasn’t been refuted a hundred times before, let us know. Good luck with that.

For the rest us, let’s play Skeptic Bingo!
http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo/

Sad, very sad.

–Sparky

By: Peter Foley

Peter Foley — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:55:20 +0000

Sparky, Wake up and check the average global temps. The heart of your movement’s reason to exist is just an exaggeration of the ongoing warm up during the interglacial era. If you truly believe spend your own money to forward the notion. Quit stealing from the public to react to some immature sciences notion of the week. Crack open a new spreadsheet including the last 10 years of data. Why haven’t we orbited more sensors to “prove” your theory?
Here is a head scratcher, What is the typical “Brownian” variation from the long term average temps? Just what is an exceptional temperature excursion?
I’ll repeat for the learning disabled, even if your AGW hypothesis is partially true most of the responses given are self destructive now and even more so in the future. The alleged carbon AGW is being used to stampede the Herd over the cliffs to anti-growth, ZPG, anti-nuke, Anti-energy, and anti-personal freedom memes that will retard human progress until discarded.

By: joe mama

joe mama — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:33:17 +0000

Singularly one of the dumbest articles so far.

A bunch of graphs without the data behind them to determine what they mean, and a bunch of statements coming from experts who aren’t named.

Tell you what - I’ve got a graph that says that the more of your money you give me, the less likely you are to get cancer, and that comes from every frigging genius in the world, just ask them

By: observer

observer — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 04:43:14 +0000

Sure, the coldest january does’nt disprove “global warming” and likewise the hottest day in in January in 35 years doesn’t prove it.

By: Chicken Little

Chicken Little — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:31:07 +0000

If the sky doesn’t fall today it will surely tomorrow.
And when it fails to again tomorrow I will ensure it for another day.
And when another day goes by and the sun is still in the sky…
Well then I will just explain it away and start all over on yet another day.

The only thing ‘deniers’ are guilty of is pointing out the fallacies of your argument…based on faulty models with millions of variable many of which no one truly understands. As time moves on and the Global Warming alarmists crawl back under their rocks and all the fear mongering is finally disproven, I am quite certain you will all return and tell us of the next calamity that will kill us all….

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:30:31 +0000

The sky isn’t falling, but the planet is heating up, thanks to us. Sadly for you, this particular catastrophe is not only happening, but your denial helps ensure we don’t act in time, and that means this is the last calamity.

By: Richard Sharpe

Richard Sharpe — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:11:38 +0000

And the best way to convince yourself the climate is going to keep warming is to challenge anyone to make a $1000 bet that the next decade will not be warmer than this one. Heck give them 2-to-1 odds.

Can you please spell out in more detail that bet?

For example, which time series you are prepared to bet on?

If you are giving 2-1 odds does that mean that if the next decade (starting when?) even stays the same in any time series I can find (anywhere in the world) as last decade (which decade are you dealing with) you will pay me $2,000, otherwise I have to pay you $1,000?

I’m game. Lets get serious.

By: Ronald Smirthing

Ronald Smirthing — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:21:15 +0000

Heating up? What is direct empirical evidence for that assertation?

No, calculated numbers or means don’t cut it. I want directly measured energy balance numbers for the planet, including every aspect from the center of the earth to the end of the atmosphere.

Too bad for you we can’t even do that now, much less could have done it in the past.

Your outrage and passion are commendable, but in the end, it’s just your opinion of what the data means. Give it a rest.

By: Richard Sharpe

Richard Sharpe — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:11:55 +0000

To follow up on my earlier posting, lets select 26-March-1998 to 25-March-2008 and the last decade, and 26-March-2008 through 25-March-2018 as the next decade, eh?

I still have a good 20 years left in me. I have a good chance of collecting from you.

By: Fran

Fran — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:02:40 +0000

Peter Foley says:

“Please post what it would take for you to rethink the need for ending the use of carbon based fuels. What if the global temps stabilise at +0.5 degrees? are we still going to cut off our economic legs to return to a ‘natural’ temp average?”

Seriously Peter, whatever one thinks of the nexus between atmospheric greenhouse gases and global temperature increases, measures to staunch combsution of fossil fuels amply fit the descriptor ‘no regrets measures’. The kind of re-engineering implied are things we ought to do even if there were no reasonable basis for attributing heating to atmospheric GHG inventories. It’s not as if the main fossil fuel — crude oil — is going to be around for very much longer at something like current prices. It is of course, a serious pollutant in its own right, as is coal. Between them directly and indirectly they account for a very substantial part of human morbidity and destruction of the biosphere. In the developing world, this is truer still.

What’s not to like about using energy more efficiently? About redesigning cities around better tailored provision of transport options? About PEVs and PHEVs? About shorter commuting distances?

The era of cheap fossil fuels has contributed to urban sprawl and longer commute times. It has discouraged the design of energy-efficient buildings. The urban landscape is awash with motor vehicles full of angry people who hate nobody quite so much as the person in front of them holding them up. On every day of the week in every place where there is more than one motor vehicle, somebody dies or is maimed for life. And yet the stats tell us that raod trauma is the principal function of the concentration of vehicles on the road. In Africa, the middle east, Russia and Asia, there are few activities as deadly as getting behind the wheel of a car, unless it’s being a pedestrian near one. I’m sorry Peter, but that kind of ‘freedom’ is one I can easily forsake. You talk about ‘cutting off our legs’ but it’s the current organisation of the economy that is doing that each day. High fossil fuel costs will get people out of cars and into trains, or buses or in some cases into car pools driving on less demanding roads breathing in cleaner air and with shorter travel times and distances.

Maybe you like the idea of making our oceans acidic? Maybe you think it a very fine thing that those great CO2 sinks should dissolve those coccolithophores and begin stripping the food chain from the bottom up? Maybe you’re happy for the coral centred ecosystems to vanish as the oceans heat? Maybe you’re happy for predators hitherto prevented from moving towards the Antarctic by cold waters to enter and insert themselves into these ecosystems? Maybe you’re not worried by diminishing biodiversity in the Arctic? Who cares about the health of polar bears, penguins or sea birds more generally?

Reducing fossil fuel usage sharply now is a damn fine thing. As things stand, we can determine the rate and do so in an orderly fashion. We can adapt. If we don’t do it now, the restructure will be chaotic and we’ll get nothing like the advantages we will enjoy if we start now. And of course, by then, with a figurative knife at our throats, we will have little time to contemplate the world we will have lost.

While I find it extraordinary that anyone can, these days, doubt the basic science around climate change and its etiology, I find it even more astonishing that whatever doubts you may harbour should be more important than the here and now cost of existing arrangements. It seems to me that your position cannot be based on anything like general utility. I’d be curious to know what it was based on.

Fran

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:04:05 +0000

I love these LIBERAL Nut Jobs that want to scare everyone into changing the way they live. Got a few news flashes, 1. More Deaths from cars because of more people driving. 2. People get angry about everything need I mention the fact that fatalities from stabbings, beatings, shootings, medical incompetence, cancer etc… are equally high? 3. The “Scientific process” is being used by both sides, more so by the side against global warming than those for it. 4. Al Gore is not a scientist, has made millions of dollars selling his alarmist views and should be taken to task as the biggest con man for last 100 years. 5. In order for the Co2 to be in the fossil fuel means it was in the atmosphere at one point in time so the natural cycle would be for it to end up back in the atmosphere again. 6. Science is a natural process, or is physics no longer natural? 7. 1998 is the hottest year in the last 10 years…….. Need we ask if the earth were heating up why has every year since than not been hotter? Why has this winter been particularly cold? 8. Are you still driving a car? Heating your home? Have you converted to off grid living on electricity from solar and wind only? Better yet are you living like a dear? No than until you want to lead the way quit being a damned hypocrite like good old Al Gore. Mr waste more CO2 emissions flying to one of his speaking seminars than my family uses in a year. 9. Check the history books. Climate cycling is a part of history. Just because we dont have the “recorded information” does not mean that we cant look at the history books and see a record of it. Than again history is only for remembering important people according to you Global Warmest, And my all time favorite #10 Why have I been freezeing my nuts off every morning in what is one of the hardest, meanest winters in the last 130 years? Oh wait Maybe because those wonderful climatologist that cant even predict the weather properly from day to day got it wrong on the year to year basis. But Oh well we must bow down to a mans feelings over what the fact of the situation is.

Oh and just for the record I support getting onto other forms of energy besides fossil fuel, but lying is not the way to do this. Far from it. Simply use economic facts to support it. And instead of throwing away millions of dollars to a “campaign” to get elected as the party representative why not put that wasted money into something useful like building the platform for these other energy sources? Instead of wasting 1 trillion dollars on Kyoto or what ever it is, try spending the money building solar generating stations to begin to help lighten the co2 foot print. But wait that makes sense and would eliminate the income for scam artists like Al Gore. Thanks I prefer to think with my head and not, well I am not sure what you people are thinking with because there doesn’t seem to a whole lot of thought coming from you people.

Also you people want to protect nature so much, well a broken arm is a natural thing. So are Cancer, STD’s, aging, etc…. But I dont see you psycho nut jobs standing up against the treatment of these things. Yeah before you swing you wing to the far side of any topic learn to think.

Thanks for your time come back when you are not being a hypocrite.

By: colin K

colin K — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:55:29 +0000

Hi Dano!

I’ve wandered into this blog by accident, good to see you here: have been a bit busy of late and found that Mark L’s blog has fossilised on a recent visit. All the old familiar rhetoric going on here though: Peter Foley: Hi there, you’re not Norbert of another blog-life are you? you sound awfully familiar!!

Well, can’t stay I’m afraid, got some trees to hug and I’ve printed of lots of the denialist/disinformationist/whistling-in-the-dark-ist bullsh*t to improve my compost heap. By the Way Dan Kellog’s doing well and we’re exchanging lots of theoretical data on tidal range power generation ready for peakoil/gas/coal and the absence of sufficient generating capacity in the UK for 2014-20. Should be fun!

all the very best

Colin

By: Peter Foley

Peter Foley — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 01:39:38 +0000

Fran, At least your semi-honest you state right off the bat we should destroy the basis of our economy even if it isn’t needed because it makes you FEEL better, try some Prozac and stay away from my wallet.
Look up how dangerous horses were/are before you talk bad about Autos. You are not required to use or ride in them.
What was the morbidity rate pre-oil. Your lack of knowledge about basic history saddens me. Flush toilets and refrigerators have saved more lives then doctors.
Call someone at the CDC and ask them if the USA reverts to 19th century London big city population density what the the cost in influenza deaths would be? Suburbs were invented in Rome about 2000 years ago–just little bit before the oil era.
As technology rises, energy costs will always go down in the long run. Get over it,
Arctic biodiversity has been increasing since the end of the last Ice-Age– ice isn’t very food chain friendly.
Read up on the raw data and how its “tuned” up to cover the whole worlds surface when actual data isn’t available. How do you explain the failure of Sea temps to increase? The ever greater ice mass in Antarctica? CO2 numbers have gone up several more ppm without any matching increase in average temps the last ten years.
What’s the general utility of dooming billions to extra years in poverty to satisfy some delusional AGWers? Any thing that raises taxes and lowers the annual growth of the worlds wealth
will result in shorter lives of billions and deaths of millions more then any possible consequence of the use of carbon for another century.
If you hate technology go Amish without dragging the rational with you.

By: rj

rj — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:51:04 +0000

wow - Peter is smarter than the rest of you and he writes better too. Recognize!

By: John A. Jauregui

John A. Jauregui — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:50:56 +0000

I just returned from visiting Yellowstone and was struck by the devastation of the 1988 fires, which were preceeded by acute drought and record setting dry lightening. I began to wonder what solar activity occured leading up the 1988 fire storms. Solar cycle 22 started just a couple of years before that summer of drought and dry lightening. Check this out. Relative to other cycles, that solar cycle had 1) a very fast rise time - 2.8 years, 2) a very short cycle length - 9.7 years, 3) a high minimum sun spot number - 12.3, and 4) a high maximum sun spot number - 158.5

“Cycle 22 certainly provided us with many highlights. Early in the cycle the smoothed sunspot number (determined by the number of sunspots visible on the sun and used as the traditional measure of the cycle) climbed rapidly; in fact more rapidly than for any previously recorded cycle. This caused many to predict that it would eclipse Cycle 19 (peak sunspot number of 201) as the highest cycle on record. This was not to be as the sunspot number ceased climbing in early 1989 and reached a maximum in July of that year. Whilst not of record amplitude, Cycle 22 still rated as 4th of the recorded cycles and continued the run of recent large solar cycles (Cycles 18, 19 and 21 were all exceptional!). A very notable feature of Cycle 22 was that it had the shortest rise from minimum to maximum of any recorded cycle.”
Material Prepared by Richard Thompson. © Copyright IPS - Radio and Space Services.