radiosonde observations 2km over the tropics disprove the hypothesis that there is variation of temperature there. breaking up of the Antarctic ice sheet isn't mentioned, nor the Arctic Ocean becoming ice free.

What is really needed is something to convince everyone - one way or the other - that there is really a change and something definitely needs to be done. Consensus doesn't cut it enough.

I would also suggest that you don't also confuse climate with weather. Isolated areas of particularly hot or cold weather do not necessarily mean that the climate is getting either hotter or colder respectively.

David

I listened the other day to a program on the ABC with regards to the impact on the northern countries. It was interesting to see that with longer warmer summers that life and productivity was increased.

A couple of weeks ago when it was particularly cold and miserable, my son said "Where's global warming when you need it?"

As soon as VK3AUU warns against conflating climate and weather, Shadow Minister does just that. It was cold on Tuesday, ergo global warming has come to an end! No wonder we have so little faith in the Opposition.

Agnostic of Mittagong

ROFL

the modeling is fraud
how hard could it be to test the modeling?

begin with their start date
and CHECK if the next 'day' matched the model
TOO EASY...it dont...

so if its WRONG in one day
how much more wrong about 50 years

to give a simple egsample
[of things the model hasnt included]
see how whale numbers..are up 35%..THIS YEAR ALONE

now we know..the theory is to add iron oxide to the sea
[to suck up c02]...it has found whale poop..IS RICH IN IRON

but normal iron..is heavey and soon sinks
BUT whale poop..has its iron..suspended in fats..so it floats
taking out much more c02..than iron fillings could ever do

more floating greasy ironoxide whale poo..absorbing more c02
now how to model that?

THE MODELING IS FLAWED*
check the details it put forward
to WHAT ACTUALLY HAS HAPPEND...so far

ok lie revealed

se the latest scam..seems of the 'only 1000''
[who we are ASSURED alone..will pay the big new tax...lol]
more like only 1000 will COLLECT the tax from the rest of us..!

anyhow petrol is now excluded
DO WE STILL ONLY HAVE 1000?

strike two..!

its a fraud
[constructive colluded FRAUD]
thus criminal...if juLIAR..lied..to do a fraud
thats a criminal offence..go directly to jail

party loyalty is TREASON*
odious debt*...is a crime

stike 3
dont vote for any party
HOWARD THUNK OF THE SCAM
noe the labratters are delivering it

*by fraud lie SPIN
[name calling]..destraction..and model/bling*

ie constructive..COLLUDED* FRAUD*
go directly to jail..
[do not collect generouse govt pension

no aussie honours..

its two-party treason*
two party patsies get jail

stop lying to the people

"What is really needed is something to convince everyone - one way or the other - that there is really a change and something definitely needs to be done. Consensus doesn't cut it enough."

All that is needed to convince people that there is global warming is global warming. Unfortunately the earth and sun don't seem to want to cooperate. That's a much larger 'consensus' right there than the supposed '97% of climate scientists' (out of the third who could be bothered to respond).

Chris Gollis places all his eggs in one tiny frail basket when, by going back 30 years, he manages to find one case in which the agreed views of 99.999% of relevant scientific experts were found to be wrong. Could he tell us how many cases there were in that time frame in which the agreed views of 99.999% of relevant scientific experts were found to be right? Could he also tell us what his decision would be if 99.999% of all relevant medical experts told him that his only chance of surviving his illness was to agree to a certain surgical procedure that he didn't fancy? Would he gulp hard and agree to the surgery, or search the history books for a case in which 99.999% of relevant medical experts came to a wrong decision in order to justify ignoring his doctors' advice?

Considering it is our politicians of the ALP/Green/Indy coalition who regularly use weather events, drought, flood and hot/cold weather to justify AGW is caused by excessive generation of CO2 and the need for a great big new tax, it's amusing to see the regular hysterics get into kniptions immediately that SM makes an ironic, tongue in cheek comment.

Such is "debate" in Australia, but there is no debate, there is invitation on one side to discuss evidence, or such, and the other side is always busy that day, or doing their nails or such.

Mind you they can always find time to band (collude? conspire?) together to write letters demanding skeptics not be allowed into venues.

I see the ABC has daily articles of mindless accusation, insult and general spleen venting at skeptics, but no debate or discussion. (science, seems so unnecessary, and inconvenient)

Do alarmists now fear, as they fall into a minority as the popularity of AGW falls and the looming tax brings some reality to the citizens, that it is going to affect them, they will be ostracized?

PM Rudd said it would be a few cents a week, then a dollar or two, now we should be relieved when the tax will not be on petrol for many bring $2B of relief. $2B, hey hang on, that would have been $1,000 per person per year! (not everyone drives either, I say that because hysterics tend to go off without thinking, until they discover someone to tell them how to think, or so it seems)

You'll still pay tax when all the road companies increase their charges though, don't worry, you'll still be able to "contribute".

Will we have marches after the tax comes in, of people taking pride and responsibility of it? Will they demand more taxes?

The reality of trying to stop climate, I suspect, will morph into just adapting to it pretty quickly, but how do you take a tax away from a Labor government?

So, there are for points to contend with:
Scientists have been wrong in the past so they might be wrong now. Yep, no worries there, but you would need to be pretty selective where you apply that kind of thinking to everyday life.
Look at all those climate disasters etc: Climate scientists consistently warn about interpreting weather-induced disasters as evidence one way or the other for climate change, so the point has no merit.
Doing nothing is reckless: This confuses climate change with what to do about it. Completely different subject, irrelevant here. It is possible to be perfectly comfortable with IPCC climate science and still oppose a carbon tax, for example.
Is there a critical experiment...? This is the only question that is truly relevant to the science. But I think it is framed wrongly because it concentrates on the models and the future. The primary issue for a sceptic ought to be, has climate change been occurring in a way consistent with man-made greenhouse emissions being the cause? And the correct answer is yes. You can't do experiments with climate, only make measurements. The measurements have convinced the climate scientists and in particular the IPCC that emissions are affecting climate. They haven't convinced Chris Golis. Who to believe? I have no idea whether the specific measurements that Golis cites would, on their own, 'disprove' whatever hypothesis he says they disprove. I rely on the climate scientists to do that for me. Obviously Golis does not. That's the difference. Perhaps he should submit a paper on the topic for peer review.

GlenC
No Chris was only using the stomach ulcers case as an illustration of just how far off the track experts can go. In fact they have done whole studies on whether the forecasts of experts are of any use in their own field.. the results of a very large study can be found in the current book Future Babble by Canadian journalist Dan Gardner.
Sorry, no better than layman.

Now this obviously does not apply where the expert/specialist has a well-established forecasting system with a proven track record, such as the specialists you cite. In that case they can point to studies showing that if this happens, then there is a percentage chance of this result. There is nothing like that in climate science.

This goes to the very heart of the present confusion over the use of experts. The key question is not that they agree, but what forecasting track record can they point to. You pay attention to the system not the experts.

AM,

The point I was actually making, was that global warming is not bad for everyone.

As for "Shadow Minister does just that. It was cold on Tuesday, ergo global warming has come to an end!" is such twisted leap of logic on your part that it is no wonder we have no faith in the government.

Dear Chris, another interesting article.

As an exponent of Daniel Goleman’s EQ it would be interesting to hear from you in relation to those in our society who develop such passionate belief in alarmism.

Armstrong and Green have identified 60 public alarm phenomena since 1780, 26 of which correlate precisely with the AGW alarm phenomena. So what is the emotional “difference” between those who are described as deniers, flat earthers, unintelligent and criminals for “not” believing the current alarm orthodoxy and those who have so passionately embraced this phenomena?

We have had previous threads along these lines on OLO however, since then we have seen the development of an “entity relationship analysis” that describes the advocacy block, its components and the interrelationships.

The advocacy block is represented by; Political Advocates, Media Advocacy, Academic Advocacy, Scientific Advocacy, Celebrity Advocates, Public Advocates, Commercial Opportunist Advocacy and NGO advocacy.

This is a powerful block and in terms of traditional IQ there would have to be the assumption that, apart from the usual suspects, they were all well educated.

So is there anything that can be drawn from EQ that might explain this paradox?

It’s also worth noting that as many advocates sense impending collapse of the AGW phenomena, the new “alarms” are already starting to emerge, namely “overpopulation” and “food production” alarms.

If society doesn’t get its collective head round this “alarmism” challenge soon, we might just end up shredding ourselves

From the article:

"This is what climate change needs; an hypothesis that is proved or disproved by experimental observation. The best attempt at this I have been able to find is in a 2006 report, Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere by the US government's Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)."

You didn't look hard enough Greg. Read up on James Hansen's climate models he developed in the 1980's. Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections

He developed some models around what was some far out theory on the effect of increasing CO2 concentrations, and on the basis of those models made what were at the time some controversial predictions on what would happen in the next 20 years. It turned out he was right.

It was classic science: develop a model explaining the data, make some predictions, and then have predictions confirmed. Because it was classic science it convinced a lot of people. One of the people who sat in Hansen's classes, listening to his wild theories was a politician named Al Gore.

I gather he wasn't completely convinced at the time, but when they came true ... well, the rest, as they say, is history.

Whether Hansen is right is another question. 20 years is not a long time in climate science. If you look at the land temperature record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_%28NASA%29.svg

You will see the graph is clearly going up. Yet if we cherry picked 1940 as our starting point the world didn't get that warm again for 40 years. If 1998 marks a similar point climate science is in for a real battle.

The point being 20 years isn't really long enough to be sure if you are just going by global temperature, and besides a single match isn't that convincing.

Fortunately we won't have to. The limitation in the models has been the amount of computer power we can devote to the task, and I gather we are now entering a new era where they can make predictions for various parts of the world. 100's of accurate predictions about local climate around the world would be a slam dunk.

I am no expert on emotional intelligence unlike the author, but believe it encompasses:
- interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people); and
- intrapersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations)

I have to wonder at the author's understanding of his own motivations in writing and promoting such an article.

I reject the idea that the medium and long term interests of people are best served by cherry picking items from the climate change literature (as pointed out in a previous post by GlenC) and ignoring the mass of evidence and scientific opinion that points in the other direction.

I also sense double standards in the article. The author doesn't believe in models but is happy to unequivocally state that the economic costs of the policies being proposed are going to be "catastrophic" for Australia without offering any evidence and without contemplating the size of the risk we are trying to minimise.

Other problems in the article seem to me to stem more from a layman trying to understand science (eg: hotspot), rather than the science being flawed.

We are putting up 90 million tonnes of CO2 (a known greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere every day through burning fossil fuels. Temperatures are on a clear upward trend as is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. I would like to see articles such as this go the extra mile and post a hypothesis - that hasn't already been disproved - as to why that wouldn't be a problem. It would be the equivalent theory to the "bacterium" theory that the author mentioned in his article and by implication believes is out there.

rstuart, as was said in the UK when the Met claimed their predictions would be so much better if they had bigger, faster, much more expensive computers to run their models ...

"They would merely get the wrong answer, faster."

The very basis of modelling is the primary concern of skeptics of AGW, there are so many variables, so many millions of inputs, that since we are not nearly advanced enough to consider or understand them all, we ignore most as irrelevant and many we just use a "constant" for, e.g clouds and everything about them (is poorly understood).

Hanson's models predict all manner of things, some appear correct, the majority are not .. this is shotgunning science, not precision research. Ask yourself why people doubt Hanson?

In 50 or 100 years time, the science may be better understood, but to claim right now it is a mature science, is nonsense, not withstanding the enormous egos involved, as you get with enormous amounts of money.

Climate Science cannot be compared to other better understood science fields, and no other field makes as strong use of models, and that is because, it is not as advanced.

So I am not denigrating scientists, or the science, I merely point out it is in it's infancy, and should be treated as such, with a bloody huge grain of salt.

To those who say, well most climate scientists say this so we should not take the risk .. science is not gambling, and that is exactly what the current government's philosophy is as was Pascal's Wager.

not having sufficient data is not justification for tossing a coin.

It is not good enough to say there is a consensus of scientists in an immature field, so we should gamble everything on it .. the same scientists who collude to deny debate and to allow data to be free and no other scientific field does this ask us to trust them when it suits them.

I remain, skeptical.

It is wrong to claim, as the author does, that a tropospheric “hot spot” is evidence of AGW. It could equally be evidence of an increase in solar irradiance. It is only possible to distinguish between the two by looking at what is happening in the stratosphere where solar radiation should be causing warming and greenhouse gases be causing cooling. Satellite and radiosonde data clearly show cooling.

@Amicus: Hanson's models predict all manner of things, some appear correct, the majority are not .. this is shotgunning science, not precision research. Ask yourself why people doubt Hanson?

I can't know why people doubt Hansen (note the correct spelling of the man's name).

But I do know why I doubt you, Amicus. You don't give a single reference or link to back up your assertions. In the era of instant fact checking, that can mean only one of two things: you are lazy, or you are just making it up as you go along.

For what it's work, I think it's the latter, because I have never seen any credible evidence that most of Hansen's models were wrong.

Agnostic of Mittagong,

My point was actually that global warming is not bad for everyone.

Your weird twisted logic from the joke my son made to: "Shadow Minister does just that. It was cold on Tuesday, ergo global warming has come to an end!" is an indication that supporting labor defies logic.

rstuart, I don't see any point in posting links, you can finds links to anything you like, prove or disprove anything you like. Goading me is amusing, but all part of the alarmists toolkit, is it not?

Some people demand links so they can then scour through them to find some sentence or minute fact to refute and then ignore the rest and hail victory , like this

"Hansen (note the correct spelling of the man's name"

Then of course, you make similar mistake, which makes you look childish and petty "For what it's work, I think it's the latter", do you mean "worth" ? (note the correct spelling) Glass houses and all that.

"I have never seen any credible evidence", and you won't if you don't look, you need to try skepticism, then you don't end up believing everything that suits your philosophy.

Will I do the job for you, no of course not, if you're too lazy, it's your problem.

The fact that Hansen, is not held in high regard, and you don't believe he is tainted, clearly means you have a blinkered view. Why recently he is accused of accepting $1.6M in benefits from organizations he has "worked for", this is still in dispute .. had you heard?

Since you find great merit in correct spelling, and make a point of it, tends to reinforce the casual view that you are a combative AGW believer, and nothing anyone says or does will change that.

People who believe not only in AGW being caused by CO2, but that hysterical solutions should be invested in, are now in the minority in Australia .. unless of course, you are in denial?

@Amicus: rstuart, I don't see any point in posting links, you can finds links to anything you like, prove or disprove anything you like. Goading me is amusing, but all part of the alarmists toolkit, is it not?

Yes, I believe asking for truth and demanding you prove it is part the alarmists toolkit, but also at the very heart of rational debate, scientific discourse, fair play and any number of other things we hold near and dear. The one mob who don't seem to vigorously disapprove of it are charlatans. Which is perfectly understandable. So would I, if I were in their position.

rstuart

"The limitation in the models has been the amount of computer power we can devote to the task"
No, sorry, completely wrong. The limitation has never been the amount of computing power. If you make those models more detailed, then you may simply make them more unstable. The problem has always been choice of starting conditions and choice of adjustable parameters. That's all a long story, but despite the vast problems with such models there have been efforts to forecast for each 25 square kilometres in the UK. These should just be ignored as far beyond present abilities.

Rich2
"Temperatures are on a clear upward trend as is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere."
This statement is wrong. If you look one temperature record, compiled by the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences, there is a very slight upward trend over the past 13 years or so. But that trend is not apparent on the records compiled by Hadley (the most commonly used one) or the satellite data compiled by the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Even the Goddard result is generally not considered to be signific antly significant. Basically global temperatures hit a plateau around the late 90s.

Well, according to Hansen himself in 2004:

"...the current uncertainties in the TSI and aerosol forcings are so large that they preclude meaningful climate model evaluation by comparison with observed global temperature change..."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/30/reality-leaves-a-lot-to-the-imagination/

Oddly enough, that didn't stop him from making dramatic and hysterical predictions long before that, or from calling for sceptics to be prosecuted and jailed. But I guess things are different when you're asking for more money...

Curmudgeon,

Like I said there is a clear upward trend in temperatures since about 1970:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

"We know the planet is warming from surface temperature stations and satellites measuring the temperature of the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere. We also have various tools which have measured the warming of the Earth's oceans. Satellites have measured an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. Glaciers, sea ice, and ice sheets are all receding. Sea levels are rising. Spring is arriving sooner each year. There's simply no doubt - the planet is warming.

And yes, the warming is continuing. The 2000s were hotter than the 1990s, which were hotter than the 1980s, which were hotter than the 1970s. 2010 is on pace to be at least in the top 3 hottest calendar years on record. In fact, the 12-month running average global temperature broke the record 3 times in 2010, according to NASA GISS data. Sea levels are still rising, ice is still receding, spring is still coming earlier, there's still a planetary energy imbalance, etc. etc. Contrary to what some would like us to believe, the planet has not magically stopped warming."

"No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

Though humans love record-breakers, they don't, on their own, tell us a much about trends -- and it's trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables -- like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity -- not by cherry-picking single points"

Reference www.skepticalscience.com

Come on Curmudgeon this is old stuff and I thought well accepted by all ......

@Curmudgeon: No, sorry, completely wrong. If you make those models more detailed, then you may simply make them more unstable.

Here, from the second hit returned by Google on "climate model computing power":

"A disadvantage of GCMs is their inability to resolve features smaller than about 50 miles by 50 miles. However, as computing power continues to increase, models are being constantly improved."
http://ccir.ciesin.columbia.edu/nyc/pdf/q1d.pdf

I choose the second hit because the words seemed clear, but the same sentiment is expressed in all hits. This is from the Wikipedia hit:

"Although researchers attempt to include as many processes as possible, simplifications of the actual climate system are inevitable because of the constraints of available computer power and limitations in knowledge of the climate system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

This by the way is a general feature of all finite state analysis simulations, which is what most models are. The sad thing is you spout this crap off without having a clue, or doing even the most basic research.

Amicus: take note. This is how references are used to make a point. Also note how failing to do even basic research before posting (ie finding links) can lead to embarrassment.

@Jon J: Well, according to Hansen himself in 2004

Your quote lies. Hansen didn't say that. Here is the original paper, containing the original quote. Hansen wasn't an author.

http://glory.giss.nasa.gov/aps/docs/SPIE_7826-26.pdf

Oh, but its not an exact quote. In fact no one said it. The original didn't sound good enough, so some liar inserted a few words in here in there to make it sound better. Here is the original:

"Current uncertainties in the total solar irradiance (TSI) and aerosol radiative forcings of climate are so large that they limit quantitative evaluation of climate models against global temperature change."

How mean of them to mislead you like that.

Amicus: take note. Notice how Jon J's like failed to show what he thought, thus disproving you claim that you can "prove or disprove anything you like" with links. I hope you are learning something from these excellent examples provided by your mates.

oh no another fail you know what they say,

Isn't cute when peoples ignorance doesn't stop them from trying to do science. Hell maybe he could give us his thoughts on Relativity or knock out a cure for cancer, why waste these none talent on climate change.

I find it tells you a great deal about a person, when they are more interested in the spelling of a word, or a name, than they are in the meaning, or identity referred to. It shows what's important to small minds.

I believe it is interesting that many of the old global warming supporters have drifted off. Probably they were here long enough to get their eyes opened to the the total lack of evidence presented by the gravy train conductors.

I think it would be fair to say that most of the global warming shrills left are those who's income is likely to be dependant on that gravy train. That is definitely the impression I am getting.

Climate doesn't kill people

Weather does ..

and ..

If the world has become 1 degree C hotter in the last 150 years, why aren't we celebrating such a period of incredible climatic stability?

I see some people have moved on, and are now skeptical of population explosions and food shortages being the next "problem" events, seems reasonable.

Google wars .. what fun, not. Look, it's not science, and it's not convincing, so what's the point?

It's just serve and volley in the sport of internet blog combat. Amicus had rstuart picked right, and look, there he is claiming victory and points in Google searches. rstuart, you're a winner, ok, can you stop now please?

The game right now is Carbon Tax, what it will or will not do for us.

The government's defense is other people are doing it and as well, we need to set an example.

If anyone out there gives a rat's bottom what Australia thinks, I'd be amazed, we're universally laughed at for small minded thinking and having a huge cultural cringe and ego, we have enough expats all trying to prove this point that we should just shut the fork up in public.

Did you see today's piece by little Johnny Pilger, jeez John, let it go! Attacking Australians has become your trademark, we get it, you win, we're awful, now please leave us alone already!

The tax won't do anything, except fill the government's coffers for long enough for them to claim they have balanced the budget, beyond that .. as usual, they have no plan.

For those who want to "do something", you need to either just do it, or go somewhere else, as a nation, we're done.

rstuart
Okay, to anyone familiar with the computer models, the section you cited is straight nonsense.. and I don't care how many times its repeated on google. You are not to blame for this, the reference you cite at least excuses you from that, but the computer modelling community who have foisted this nonsense on the public. Those models as they stand are extremely sensitive to starting conditions and rely on a series of assumptions about atmospheric conditions. In any case they are chaotic, non-linear systems. A global figure (that is to say an average over the whole globe) may be right if the theory is right (which it probably isn't) because they're averaging over such a large system. but 25 square kms.. what rot..

Roses2
most of your post is irrelevent to the point I made. What happened
was that there was a peak in the 1940s then temps went down until the mid-1970s (hence the warnings of the time about a looming ice age) then they went up again until around the turn of the century. Since then nothing. A couple of years ago it was just possible to claim a slight cooling trend since the turn of the century (hence the reference in one item you quoted - it must be old), but that seems to have gone away. Temps are right down now, of course, due to the la Nina, but that has to be averaged with the high temps of last year.

So why have temps flat-lined for more than a decade, and why have they varied so much in the past? will they keep going down like they did in the 1940s, or go up? Will the collapse of the solar cycle have an effect as many think it will? Stay tuned.

Curmudgeon,

With the greatest of respect my last post was very relevant to the incorrect assertion that you were making that there was no clear upward trend in temperatures. I provided you with a link to numerous charts from numerous sources all allowing the reader to visually see the clear upward trend that exists. Can't get more relevant than that.

Check out www.skepticalscience.com for an explanation of why there was a slight cooling between 1940 and 1975.

rstuart, I'm not embarrassed as I'm not the one entering a Google war .. good luck with that, oh, and by the way, Wiki is hardly an objective source since it is way tainted, and well known to be.

"stuart .. Okay, to anyone familiar with the computer models, the section you cited is straight nonsense.. and I don't care how many times its repeated on google"

So you've entered the loop and now have to keep at it, quoting source after source .. none of which convince the average Australian who just sees you and your ilk as hysterical arm wavers screaming for attention, when it has passed you.

Claim counterclaim, insult counter insult .. and yet you want to insult me because I won't battle on your turf, which is the claim/ counterclaim Google battleground.

So seriously, does any of this support the PM claiming a great big new tax will .. what?

This is the big game now, what is it the tax will do?

Maybe you're one of the folks who insist you need to pay yet more tax ..?

Anywho, good luck with the Google war .. have fun .. did I mention goading just amuses me?

Mark Lawson, you know very well "Hadley" (sic) do not include data for the Arctic region (showing significant warming).

If they did the warming trend would be evident.

You know this. But yet again you distort the facts for yor own agenda.

This may help other readers, it has been posted elsewhere:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/5t12.jpg

There are 5 major sources of global temperature data which are most often referred to. Three of them are estimates of surface temperature, from NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), HadCRU (Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K.), and NCDC (National Climate Data Center). The other two are estimates of lower-troposphere temperature, from RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and UAH (Univ. of Alabama at Huntsville)

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/

VK3AUU, David

The vast majority of the Northern Hemisphere experienced the coldest winter for 100 years. That's hardly an isolated area.

The Southern Hemisphere experienced it's most severe summer wet and coldest winter for years.

These facts are probably the precursor to a cooling. In fact when these are factored into average surface temps (the warmists cornerstone) then a cool trend is evidenced.

Agnostic of Mittagong, Tombee, rstuart, Rich2 you are all part of the warmist rump and you consensuel scientists have deserted you.

None of your comnsensuel scientists wrote any peer reviewed article that predicted the southern hemisphere summer torrents of rain or the massive snows across the northern hemisphere.

Now no-one would dare to write any scientific article claiming the current weather is the result of anything other than caused by naturally recurring events.

The weather is refuting your claims to warming. Try arguing you case with the weather.

Rich2/Bonmot

my apologies I seem to have confused you with Roses1. No, the post was largely irrelevent. The clear upward trend you speak off becomes very confused when you look at the details. Overall, temperatures shifted upwards between the mid-70s and the turn of the century, but why did it shift upwards? They fell betwen 1940 about and the mid-70s. Why? they have been static, mostly, for the past decade. Why?

Bonmot
the business about the Artic is the excuse Goddard uses for why its results are different to everyone else's. They had to do something to show some sort of warming trend, but even then the shift is very small. Hadley broadly agrees with the satellite data from UAH, which should now be the default series. Nothing has happened for more than a decade.

rstuart
It has occured to me where the problem lies. You, and the references you make, are confusing resolution with accuracy. The computer models can certainly be made to have greater resolution - that is, the results are in finer detail, but that does not mean they are more accurate.

Mark

So called "sceptics" trash HadCrut data and slam the Climatic Research Unit for their 'dastadly deeds' over 'climate-gate'.

But, wait for it ... they then, in typical 'denier' fashion - use HadCrut data to try and prove their inane and illogical point.

The epitome of hypocricy.

bonmute..quote..""Mark Lawson,
you know very well "Hadley"(sic)
do not include data for the Arctic region""

last years cold winters
that doubled the ice thickness...may well be the reason

plus the absurdity of drowning polare bears
[one of the best swimming mammels]

""If they did the warming trend would be evident."'

yep the cooling trend
NOTING YOU DIDNT EVEN 'present it'
not even a volumous link

""yet again you*""
*Mark Lawson..?

""distort the facts for yor own agenda."'

WHO DONT?
think of who is getting the $$$$$$
they must have a MUCH bigger adgenda
[i know im not getting a penny]..mark MIGHT get some for writing
but betya...scientists adjusting the figures/numbers/data..are getting heaps more

FOLLOW THE MONEY*
read THEIR WORDS*

""This may help other readers,..""[edited]..""There are 5 major sources of global temperature data..which are most often referred to.""

read THE LAST WORD...!
YOUR WORDS..!

"""Three of them are estimates..""
*!*!(!]

GET IT
ESTIMATES
models
bling

the spin is in their ESTI-MATES*

""The other two are estimates*!*!""


so WHO GETS THE CASH
to make GUESSti-mates?

follow the money sonny

corrupt govt..
from corrupted..[sorry estimated] data....makes corrupted law
off corrupted collusions..via dirty money..seeking green cash flow

please note
only drug money
is keeping the whole finance system alive

the powers that be
want to stop the drug income
to turn it into tax income..but its the bankers
and money traders..that love trading in ever smaller carbon polution dispensations

the great white hope
of the next tradeable commodity
carbon credits...but ask yourself who will make them
when commodity traiters trade in them...who gets the cash

ever wonder why former bankers and accountants NEED this lie?
[they are broke
and they know it]

this is just another..'bailout'
of the vile money changers
wanting more cash

DIRECT..
not via them drug merchants
or indeed via govt..but nice neat carbon trading
trading a fear based fiction..with lies threats and namecalling

[noting the one
who owns the trade
controles the value]..

no reserve board to set intrest rates
just the backroom backdoor rich trading dudes..

of enron..goldman sax..haliburton..et'al
[in their latest incarnation
doing their latest scam]

for cash..bying nothing but air/fear/lies spin
ie sending good tax/cash after bad

real assets
for worthless c02..
carbonated..*promises..not even on paper

that YOU NEED TO BUY..EVERY YEAR..anew
so their mates can get free income
credit/bonus*/commisions/income
for the next hundred years

basedecon fear and their next fiction

this is near as clever as the eu..[pheewww]
paying farmers..NOT to farm

Curmudgeon,

You say "The clear upward trend you speak off becomes very confused when you look at the details."

Now I see where you are going wrong. When you are looking to see if a broad underlying trend exists on a chart you don't look at the details. Temperatures fluctuate for all sorts of reasons what is important here is the trend, not the details or short term variability.

You then say temperatures "fell betwen 1940 about and the mid-70s. Why?". In my last post which you (again) wrongly said was largely irrelevant I said "Check out www.skepticalscience.com for an explanation of why there was a slight cooling between 1940 and 1975."

You obviously didn't so let me be more explicit. Go here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
and check out argument number 45.

In fact next time you have a query go to this link again, find you query and read up about it before posting it on this site.
So for example all the other questions you have on the temperature record are also addressed here.

Bonmot - no, I always use the UAH satellite data. Its audited and not subject to the vast problems of the ground network. However, it does tell much the same story as Hadley, so the Hadley data must have something going for it, despite their bad behaviour during Climategate. I only referred to Hadley for your benefit. It also remains the mostly commonly used one, for better or worse.

Rich2 - looked at your reference. That is not an explanation, it is an excuse, and in fact its now known to be wrong. The major trend in climate at the moment is the identification of climate cycles.. The switching of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is now thought to have caused the change in the mid-1970s, just as its switch from warm to cool mode is thought to have caused the present hiatus in temps. The AMO (Atlatnic Merdional Oscillation) has also switched. I haven't heard anyone talk about aerosols for years.

So what causes the changes in ocean cycles? No one has any idea.

Curmudgeon,

Re explanation for a slight cooling between 1940 and 1975 "That is not an explanation, it is an excuse, and in fact its now known to be wrong."

Really?! - please reference the peer reviewed scientific literature.

"The switching of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is now thought to have caused the change in the mid-1970s, just as its switch from warm to cool mode is thought to have caused the present hiatus in temps."

Please reference the peer reviewed scientific literature.

@Curmudgeon: Okay, to anyone familiar with the computer models

You are taking so someone who has written a few computer models in his time...

@Curmudgeon: the section you cited is straight nonsense

and so I know this is plain wrong.

@Curmudgeon: Those models as they stand are extremely sensitive to starting conditions

No. Weather models are sensitive to starting conditions. Climate models aren't. The output wouldn't be so useful if they were, so they test and allow for it http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/265.htm :

"it is now becoming common to repeat the prediction many times from different perturbed initial states"

@Curmudgeon: but 25 square kms.. what rot

What a poor understand you have of simulations. No one is claiming the simulation is accurate over 25 klms. The element size of the simulation is 25 kms. Smaller would be preferred, but every time you half the dimensions of the element the computing power goes up by a factor of 16.

@Curmudgeon: the results are in finer detail, but that does not mean they are more accurate.

The point I made originally was increasing computing power means they can produce more localised predictions, not that they were more accurate. So apparently we agree.

@Rich2: Temperatures are on a clear upward trend as is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I wouldn't get too hung up on this. Climate is measured over decades not years. Even 10 years of consecutive drops wouldn't tell us much about the accuracy of the climate models.

I don't see how they have a hope predicting year to year temperatures, as their understanding of ocean currents seems crude. The energy released/absorbed by a 0.001 degree change in the sea water below the column of air it supports is enough to change the entire column temperature by 1 degree (assuming a sea depth of 2klm). So an unexpected upwelling of cold water will have huge effects - as El Nino shows us. It must take decades to average the effects of the oceans currents, so Curmudgeon nosily pointing to temperature trends over a few years is just that - noise.

rstuart
"No. Weather models are sensitive to starting conditions. Climate models aren't."

Look, where have you been? Climate models most certainly are. I stopped reading your riposte at that point. Go to the IPCC site, and read the stuff they have on climate models. They admit this point, and its always been the case. Some of the latest crop of models don't have to worry about starting conditions but they have some other trade-off which I don't recall. I dunno how seriously to take your claim about building models given your coments, but climate models to date have had to be run repeatedly with different starting conditions to get a stable result. Go and read the stuff on the site.

rich2
Peer reviewed? You're joking right? You haven't heard of this stuff before. Look, search on NASA and PDO. I also wrote about this in some detail on this site as Mark Lawson see
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11563&page=0
where I talked directly to the scientists concerned (a revamp of an earlier feature I did as a journalist). This talks more about rainfall, where everybody agrees that the PDO is a factor, rather than temperature. For more of a taste of the debate on climate search on Don Easterbrook a Professor at Western Washington University. also look for Mojib Latif, New Scientist, 9 September 2009, 'World will cool for next decade'.. He's a well known modeller. or Noel Keenlyside 'Advancing decadal-scale climate predictions in the North Atlantic, Nature, letters 1 May, 2008'.. most of that is about the AMO sadmittedly, but it should give you enough to go on with..

Leave it with you guys..

Mr Golis writes, "In our climate, water vapour concentration is closely tied to temperature. A reduction in temperature reduces water vapour concentration, which reduces the effects of clouds more than the greenhouse effect so the temperature goes up. A rise in temperature increases water vapour, which increases the effects of clouds more than the greenhouse effect, and the temperature goes down again".

I'm not sure what climate Mr Golis is living in, but it's not the one that I'm in, or have studied and taught for decades. Not only that, but there seems to be a lot of confusion getting about lately regarding air temperature and water vapour so I'm going to rewrite his paragraph to conform with the climate that I and the rest of us Earth dwellers live in.

Here's how the story really goes - In our climate, water vapour concentration is closely tied to (air) temperature. A reduction in (air) temperature increases relative humidity, which has no effect on clouds or greenhouse effect, so the (air) temperature is not affected. A rise in (air) temperature decreases relative humidity, which has no effect on clouds or greenhouse effect, and the (air) temperature is not affected.

Now that's how that paragraph should have read.

However, in addition, in any given parcel of air, should the relative humidity reach or exceed 100% then water vapour will condense out of the air as water droplets, appear as a cloud or fog, experience a change of physical state, and release heat energy to the air. The water droplets will be cooler than the water vapour and the air will be warmed by the equal amount of emitted heat energy. Nothing mysterious will take place.

So folks, I don't want to read any more nonsense about increasing air temperature causing increases in water vapour concentration. It simply isn't true. Just because it's stinking hot on a desert day, doesn't mean the air is chock-a-block with water vapour. There is no fixed relationship between air and water vapour concentration. You can have hot dry air and cold soggy air. Think about it.

@Curmudgeon: Go to the IPCC site, and read the stuff they have on climate models.

Notice I gave and quoted an IPCC link? Good. Notice I asked you for a similar link? Well perhaps not, as you didn't give one. It would be helpful if you did, so I have a clue what you are talking about.

To put this request into perspective, did you notice many people have made all sorts of claims right here on this thread, and once even the simplest of background checks were done on them many of them were done they turned our to be flat our wrong? Did you notice I did look up some of the statements you made, every link returned made you look wrong? You should have, as I quoted a few, but obviously not.

This is why I am asking you to link to references for your facts. In the circumstances it is not a big ask.

Three small points:
• The story of Drs Warren & Mitchell was to demonstrate that consensus is not equivalent to scientific proof despite the claims of Labor politicians.
• The 2006 Report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere by the US government's Climate Change Science Program is a document trying to prove anthropogenic global warming as are all its other reports. However if such a document says the models and the data conflict you have to take notice. The report alludes that the data may be in error. Me, I am a simple soul. My 25 years in venture capital have taught me that if the model and data conflict that it is not the data but the model that is usually wrong.
• Finally I should state my background. My first degree was at Cambridge where I read Part I Natural Sciences and Part II Economics. For my two year Part I, I majored in Chemistry with minors in Mathematics, Geology, and Experimental Psychology with only moderate success (I got a 2.2 now known as a Desmond). However if there is one institution that teaches you the scientific method and evidence based methodologies, it is Cambridge with its 88 Nobel Prize Winners

EQ (and others)

I invite you to have your say here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/06/24/clearing-up-the-climate-debate/

Cheers

"Keiran, on 1 September 2008 at 10:40 AM said:
Barry, it is indeed a most incomplete list that exposes a glaringly obvious monumental anthropocentric bias. From the very first posting i have ever made on climate years ago is this constructive point. “One of the glaring oversights with these high priests of humans causing global warming is an assumption that our largest plasma discharge formation the sun doesn’t do anything and that it is just perfect, regular and constant. Just how terribly wrong can one really get to be unable to see outside the earth’s troposphere?”

All i can say is if we open our eyes and mind a bit we would understand that the universe is just full of material constituents that PUSH each other ….. it’s a universe full of pushers. The over-riding question here relates to what drives changes creating derivatives. Just what are the biggest pushers and what becomes a derivative or product of the process? Most science groups you mention in your article about yourself cannot see outside the troposphere and hence see only the product. The biggest pusher in our part of the world is good old sunnyboy and various cosmic processes.

My question, Barry, is why solar and astro physicists are not top of the list when it comes to understanding our climate. Secondly, why you have somehow completely been blinded to this essential science?"

Bonmot, Is this what you want us to read on the AGW supporting and your referenced site?"

@ voxUnius, Tuesday, 5 July 2011 5:29:53 p.m.

With all due respect vox, it is more complicated than that.

There are many good studies on the subject, this one is particularly good and is recent (check-out the references):

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Seager_Naik_Vecchi_2010.pdf

Of particular interest is part 8, consideration of the Clausius–Clapeyron relation.

.

juliasnutter

>> Is this what you want us to read on the AGW supporting and your referenced site? <<

Actually, I gave the precise link, here it is again:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/06/24/clearing-up-the-climate-debate/

Please feel free to comment there.

What has Keiran's comment in 2008 got to do with the above link - are you Keiran?

To Chris Golis. Precisely the point made by Dr David Evans who was on the Government's Greenhouse Advisory Committee. When upper atmospheric temperatures showed no hotspot above the tropics he changed from a warmist to a sceptic. He realised that temperature measurements taken at urban hotspots next to air conditioners or on concrete tarmacs at airports were fraudulently depicting rising global temperatures. In fact there has been no increase in upper atmospheric temperatures since 1998 while atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were increasing. He is to be commended for his courage. Most scientists on the Government's global warming gravy train are more concerned with their careers and salaries than objective science.I wonder how convinced the average Brit is that the planet is warming after experiencing their coldest winter in a century.