Grace,

You didn't answer my questions!!

You also chose to ignore observational data and research into climate and the factors that influence it.

I find it hard to understand that you claim an interest in the subject and yet seem so unwilling to properly explore the evidence.

John

Snowman,

I followed the link to "...and for 2004 see the WMO webpage at http://www.wmo.ch/news/news_december2004.html. (If that doesn't work directly, go to http://www.wmo.ch/index-en.html, then go to "news", then to "Archive", then to "Dec 2004" where you will find the comment and link to a Word document about half-way down the page. Sorry but the WMO website uses frames" in your recent posting.

However, it TOTALLY contradicts your comments about temperature rises not being observed in the last 7 years!!

<<

WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 2004:

GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IN 2004 FOURTH WARMEST


GENEVA, 15 December (WMO)—The global mean surface temperature in 2004 is expected to be +0.440 C above the 1961-1990 annual average (140C), according to the records maintained by Members of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This value of 0.44o C places 2004 as the fourth warmest year in the temperature record since 1861 just behind 2003 (+0.490C). However, 1998 remains the warmest year, when surface temperatures averaged +0.540C above the same 30-year mean. The last 10 years (1995-2004), with the exception of 1996, are among the warmest 10 years on record.


Calculated separately for both hemispheres, surface temperatures in 2004 for the northern hemisphere (+0.60oC) are likely to be the fourth warmest and, for the southern hemisphere (+0.27oC), the fifth warmest in the instrumental record from 1861 to the present.

Globally, the land-surface air temperature anomaly for October 2004 was the warmest on record for a month of October. The blended land and sea-surface temperature (SST) value for the Arctic (north of 70°N) in July and the land-surface air temperature value for Africa south of the Equator in July were the warmest on record for July. Significant positive annual regional temperature anomalies, notably across much of the land masses of central Asia, China, Alaska and western parts of the United States, as well as across major portions of the North Atlantic Ocean, contributed to the high global mean surface temperature ranking.
Over the 20th century, the global surface temperature increased by more than 0.60C. The rate of change for the period since 1976 is roughly three times that for the past 100 years as a whole. In the northern hemisphere, the 1990s were the warmest decade with an average of 0.38oC. The surface temperatures averaged over the recent five years (2000-2004) were, however, much higher (0.58o C).
>>


You need to be carefull citing sources that you have read incorrectly!

Peter, Peter...

You asked where I found the temperature data and I told you.

I see in the WMO report that...

(a) the mean global temperature in 2004 was 0.44 above the 1961-90 average and that it was the fourth highest year on record

(b) "However, 1998 remains the warmest year, when surface temperatures averaged +0.540C above the same 30-year mean."

Question: Did the 2004 temperature exceed the 1998 temperature? No.

Question: Has the temperature in any year since 1998 exceeded that 1998 value? No (as the WMO says, but you will have to look at my other references to get the numbers)

I did not say that in the last 7 years there have been no increases in temperature (which would be demonstrably false because year to year increases have occurred). What I did say was that no annual mean temperature has exceeded the 1998 value - and that is exactly what the WMO document states.

cheers

John

** This is a 5-page, 16-point response. You have been warned! :-)


Des,

You seem to be shifting the basis for the discussion again but no matter, I will shift too.

Point 1

You summarise the position of sceptics reasonably well but let's make them more readable (because this format does not lend itself to long sentences).

The general sceptical position is as follows (and I say general because sceptics have various opinions but they don't regard that as an issue because there is still an awful lot to learn about climate).

- recent warming (since 1970 and maybe ending in 1998) is more than likely within natural levels. (There is a point of contention over what is normal and hence the dispute over Mann's graph but there is little doubt that temperatures have been warmer today about 2000 and 3200 years ago)
- the cause of this warming is not known with any certainty. (Many possible natural factors exist but there is no evidence that CO2 plays any more than a very minor part and no firm evidence that a significant part of the warming is anthropogenic.)
- climate models have insufficient credibility because they have known errors, numerous questionable assumptions and they produce output that fails to match observations
- the Kyoto Accord has no solid scientific evidence to justify its implementation (let alone any extensions to it)

Sceptics also question the extent of global warming and point to numerous studies which detail Urban Heat Islands, where urban areas influence any local measurements - or some European studies, influence measurements several kilometres away in the countryside.


Point 2

Your argument "contrary to these assertions, various businesses, US States, European countries are pursuing measures to address CO2 emissions, including through carbon trading." is not contrary to these assumptions because to be properly contrary you would need to directly oppose them. The fact that people are implementing emission controls is in no way proof of theory; it is an acceptance that this action is what is expected of them but not a confirmation that the reasons for the expectation are valid.


Point 3

Your second argument about the large number of scientists who believe that rapid warming is occurring and it is due to human activity is a CONTRADICTION to your previous comments that you were not talking about consensus. For my views on this idea of consensus, that scientists should essentially be voting on some topic, see elsewhere.


Point 4

As I have said, I don't read RealClimate or Wikipedia. The former claimed to be a website for discussion and debate but it is no such thing. There is no discussion and no debate, just the operators of the site defending their position. I have posted comments and questions to that site and the response failed to answer the question and attempted to ridicule me for asking it. Others have had similar experiences. It appears that if they cannot answer they will attempt to ridicule the poster.

If you want a website for actual climate debate try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics/ where you are free to ask question and discuss issues. I warn you though, you may not be happy with the responses because they come from climatologists, meteorologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists and others.

Also, restricting your reading to just RealClimate and Wikipedia is doing yourself a disservice. This is like US people restricting themselves to watching the Fox News channel. (If you saw "Outfoxed" on ABC television this week you should understand the reference!)


Point 5

You drag out the old hoary chestnut that if research is funded by some organisation then the results will be in accord with their wishes. Do you honestly believe that only funding by eco-political groups such as WWF or Friends of the Earth - or government funding - buys "the truth"? Are you entirely unaware that scientists' work is usually subject to peer review and that they have reputations to consider ?

Are you also aware that Michael Mann's "hockey stick" was subject to a "mates' review" or that Michael Mann himself was the lead author of the chapter in the IPCC report of 2001 in which the graph was widely discussed?


Point 6

The political aspects of global warming appear to be that "green" parties regard global warming as their iconic campaign. It fits well with their notion that humans are to blame for everything.

In most countries the greens aren't strong enough to take any kind of power and it is often the left-leaning parties who have jumped on the band-waggon in order to try to gain the popular vote. is this attempt political opportunist or political good sense? The judgement is yours.

Yes indeed. One really should ask how much is driven by economic interests and political alliances (and ideals) rather than careful analysis. This fact is something that we do agree on however I put it to you that neither you, Peter or Grace have shown much interest in looking at the facts - by which I mean going right back to the observational evidence rather than simply adopt someone's assertions.

Your reasons in regard to therapeutic cloning and population control are logical but why do you not adopt a similar approach - the examination of scientific evidence - to climate change? It really appears that you never attempt to look beyond the claims and assertions.

Your title "Global Warming is Happening Right Now" confirms my point because as I showed from official data, temperatures in neither the world nor Australia have exceeded values of 6 years ago. You appear to have only listened to someone's assertions and you failed to look at the data.


Point 7

Your comments about a consensus appear to deal with the mechanics of that consensus. Does it really matter if metaphorically I said that scientists vote if what they do is unquestioningly repeat the statements of others and thus assign a credibility that is not deserved?

Case in point from yesterday: Tony McMichael an epidemiologist who was talking of deaths during the European heatwave of 2003 and implied that this was global warming. He seems to have taken your approach and listened to the assertions of a group of self-interested scientists rather than listen to the meteorologists, including those from the UK's Met Office, who were adamant that the heatwave was due to a stationary pressure cell. McMichael is simply wrong in his claims but the repeating of ill-founded comment is all part of the consensus.


Point 8

I have exchanged emails with John Zilman of the Bureau of Meteorology. He said that he cannot find any natural factors to account for warming and therefore it MUST be caused by carbon dioxide. I regard that as being like police who say that they can't find any other suspects therefore the one they had MUST have committed the crime. Zilman's argument is unacceptable when climatologists and meteorologists continue to say that our knowledge of climate is very poor.


Point 9

It is not of "little benefit" to look at comments by McIntyre, von Storch and others. Mann's "hockey stick" is a linchpin of the whole anthropogenic global warming argument. If his graph is wrong and conclusions about warmer periods in the last 1000 years is correct, then we have proof that warming even by more than 0.5 degrees is quite natural AND THAT THE WORLD COOLS QUITE NATURALLY. (I don't like using upper case but I can't see how else to highlight something.) In other words it would be proof that climate change can take place without human involvement and, by extension, claims that recent warming has been caused by human activity must be view very sceptically.

Of course RealClimate is going to try to cast doubt on von Storch's paper. What did you expect? That the creator of the "hockey stick" would acknowledge that von Storch's argument is very persuasive and yes he, Mann, did use dodgy methods and dodgy data to create that graph. DO you seriously believe that a lead author of a chapter in the IPCC's TAR would admit to what amounts to scientific fraud?

This accords perfectly well with my description of the site - defence and justification of the position of those who run the site.


Point 10

I find it odd that you believe that one should look at the facts and yet you will not consider the dispassionate analysis of global problems by Bjorn Lomborg.

I have not seen the Quiggins responses and have no idea to what you refer. I have just found the article "Justice Danish Style" (at http://www.ntu.edu.au/faculties/lba/schools/Law/apl/blog/stories/environment/general/187.htm) and I see that Denmark has a Committee on Scientific Dishonesty. I'd have more faith in it if it was called the Committee for Scientific HONESTY. From what I recall that committee took action against Lomborg and then rescinded it.



Point 11

Are RealClimate's comments on Chrichton PR? I must admit that I don't read RealClimate - I did for a few days then dismissed it - so I can't help you. If memory serves RealClimate dredged up articles in support of their claims but don't forget that Chrichton included extensive references for the reasons behind his statements.

RealClimate, like others, would not like to find that the emperor has no clothes!


Point 12

Are Hadley Scientists advising the government to take certain action for personal gain? Statements from Hadley clearly state that their purpose is to advise government. Do you honestly believe that these scientists, many who have made their name as proponents of global warming, will change their tune? Surely this would be trying to force the Labor party to admit that it was wrong about climate change - and that is simply not going to happen. Do you also believe that scientists who take up employment at Hadley Centre would contradict previous statements from that establishment?

The myth has become self-perpetuating. Hadley Centre won't contradict government, government continues to make statements and to support Hadley Centre. (What was your earlier inference to the effect that he who pays the researcher calls the tune?)

You say "What was the furore over David Kelly about?" and that supports my contention. Look what happens when someone who advises the government, albeit indirectly, and then contradicts what the government says! They get hounded out of office with talk of stripping their pension from them.


Point 13.

Did I claim or imply specifically that Fred S Singer was a retired scientist? What about William Kininmonth, the retired BoM senior scientist for whose book John Zilman wrote the foreword? What about numerous other scientists who work mainly in other areas of science, such people as McIntyre and McKitrick who are statisticians who analysed Mann's graph in their own time and from their own pockets?


Point 14.

I think it shows your questionable understanding of the situation if you cannot see the relationship between meteorologists and climatologists. One looks mainly at short-term weather conditions and the other at long-term conditions. Many mathematical models of climate use very similar principles to mathematical models of weather - they both use short time steps and evaluate energy flows between regions.

Point 15.

I believe that you did not comment on the times that temperature increase preceded CO2 increase because there are far too many of them and they don't fit with your explanation. Contrary to your comments, as far as I know the media have shown no interest in this fact so your comment "media interest is not scientific evidence" is totally without merit. If you had read my "summary" document (see previous posting) you would find research papers that clearly conclude that there are many instances where temperature increased before CO2, in fact one paper which studies ice-cores says by about 800 years and another quite recent paper about tropical environments indicated a 6 to 8 month lead time.


Point 16.

You say "... the statements you make are a mix of broad generalisations and selective items to support your generalisations." Well, yes, that is the idea. I do clearly state that the "summary" is purposely simple and directed at the general reader and journalists but that I also provide many references (more than 60) for those wishing to read further.

What would you have me do? Write a detailed paper that goes above the heads of most people and thus fails to properly communicate anything about this important topic? Or do what you do and simply write broad generalisations, many unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiable) ? If I say something that I at least back up my comments and that is far more than your assertions do.


cheers

John

Snowman, you say: "You didn't answer my questions!!" No I didn't, Snowman, and I am under no obligation to answer your questions. At the moment, rather than climb into the boxing ring with you and Des, I am enjoying the view from the sidelines. Your rhetoric is warming up and you are starting to repeat yourself.

"You also chose to ignore observational data and research into climate and the factors that influence it." No I haven't, Snowman. In fact, by my reading, Peter seems to have just given you a bit of a left hook. Perhaps you should not have let him into the ring.

"I find it hard to understand that you claim an interest in the subject and yet seem so unwilling to properly explore the evidence." As I said before, I am reading your increasingly heated explorations of the evidence with interest, and I still find Des more convincing.

My apologies for repeating myself but it takes too long to back-track to see what I have already said. It is also probably best to repeat it because there seems to be a good chance that it didn't sink in the first time. Besides, this is probably how the myth of anthropogenic global warming got traction with its audience - repetition!

Peter doesn't bother me. It was clear that he hadn't read what I posted. (I'll credit him with failure to read rather than deliberate misconstruing!)

The evidence on which I base my efforts is far more than I could include here. I suggest that if you want to see this wider evidence that you read my summary and follow the references - and please, understand that it is deliberately written a certain way as I explained to Des.

cheers

Joh