May I, as an average punter, for the time being, be sufficiently presumptuous to believe that 8 out of the 10 warmest years on record, have occurred in the 21st century? Therefore, why do you claim that "People who have been fooled by the global warming hoax are waking up?"'

If you switch on an oven it heats up. If you turn the oven off, it doesn't go back to room temperature immediately. The bigger the oven, the longer it takes. The world was getting hotter from at least 1970 to 1998. Naturally it will take some time to cool down again -- it's a big place. As I have already pointed out, the best estimate of next year's temperature is this year's temperature. But there is no sign of an INCREASE in temperature, which is what the global warming models are predicting, since 1998, although there has been an increase in CO2 levels over the same period. It's up to the climate modellers to tell us why, or to acknowledge that the models are broken.

Thank you John J for your response though I must say I am disappointed that you did not address the official figures for global average temperatures that I had provided.

Unfortunately I find your hypothesis about a “hot oven” implausible and to my knowledge, it has never been supported by any reputable climate scientist.

I also regard your cherry picked claim, that 1998 was the hottest year without subsequent increased warming, misleading:

“The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year.

“Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century:”

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

"An improved data set, which incorporates innovative algorithms that better account for factors such as changes in spatial coverage and evolving observing methods, results in 2005 being slightly warmer than 1998:"

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/ann/global.html

Then: “Climatologists at NASA’s GISS in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century:

"The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998.

ihttp://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth_temp.html

And on a regional scale Australia has officially recorded 2005 as its warmest year on record. Data collected by the Bureau of Meteorology indicate that the nation’s annual mean temperature for 2005 was 1.09°C above the standard 1961-90 average, making it the warmest year since reliable, widespread temperature observations became available in 1910. The previous record of +0.84°C was set in 1998:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20060104.shtml

Please address my previous question: If 8 out of the 10 warmest years for a global record, have occurred in the 21st century, why do you claim that "People who have been fooled by the global warming hoax are waking up?"'

Ono

1. “What would it take for you to believe carbon is not causing climate change?”

A complete re-write of our accumulated scientific knowledge of physics and chemistry that we have acquired over the last 100 years or so ... but that’s somewhat facetious.

Carbon per se is not causing climate change; it is contributing to it. If you remove ‘greenhouse’ gases as a significant contributor to global warming then no other ‘forcing’ can explain the time-series warming we have been experiencing. The ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ is superimposed on natural climatic variation.

2. “Is it possible your opinion could be changed, or are you secure in your belief?”

Of course, my ‘professional’ opinion (about AGW) can be changed ... but it would require robust research that has passed the rigor of scientific review to sway me (not the opinions of my accountant, doctor, electrician or local school headmaster). This has not been done, IMO.

Having said that, I think more research into ‘negative feedbacks’, attribution and climate sensitivity is important ... indeed, it is being done.

I trust and feel secure about the scientific process. It is not a “belief” or faith that one attributes to a religious doctrine.

3. “How many years of cooling will it take for you to admit "global warming" has stopped, 10, 100 a thousand years?”

Barring any unforeseen natural climatic event (like a major-major volcanic eruption) I would expect the current “warming trend” to ramp up by 2015, if not much sooner. If it hasn’t, then you could then say the globe has cooled.

4. What's your definition of Global Warming?

The planet undergoes glacial and inter-glacial periods (always has, always will) and if Milankovitch is right, we’re heading for another ice-age in about 30,000 years. Ergo, if you view the long term geological time-series, then the planet is in a cooling trend.

However, if you view the ‘anthropocene’, then the planet is warming. Whatever time-series is used, you will always get the ups and downs, bumps and wiggles.

Cont’d

Cont’d

What we have to do (and we are) is delineate the noise (e.g. weather) from the signal (climate change) – this requires a time-series analysis of at least 15 years.

It gets a little more complicated: we also have to delineate other ‘noise’ like natural variation (sun spots, GCR, ENSO, PDO, etc)

So, in answer to your question, “global warming” is the trending upwards of ‘global temperature’ (however that is measured) over a time period that will separate out the noise, typically about 30 years.

5. You appear to believe the earth is constantly warming ... but at some stage you have to admit that the cooling "variation", actually is "cooling" - when will you know that?

No I don’t – see above.

6. What's your reason for believing humans cause warming ... an actual paper and some facts please?

Put simply ... humanity (and all that it implies – population, technology, economics, ideology, etc) has been pouring billions and billions of tons of ‘energy’ into the Earth’s environment at a rate that the oceans, atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere cannot absorb quickly enough. The Earth system tries to equilibrate and in doing so, becomes warmer and wetter insofar as climate is concerned.

The enhanced greenhouse effect is well known and accepted by AGW sceptics (in the scientific sense). What some would dispute are the details (e.g. the amount of warming caused by CO2) – not the science of GW per se..

The vast amount of papers/facts can be found in a cursory perusal of the science journals published by scientific institutions and academies (but you know this) and you want me to give you only one? Tell you what, do some homework – do a ‘google scholar’ search and type in your search field ‘carbon isotope attribution global warming’.

_________

Jon J

Did you actually understand what the Met Office was saying? You don't understand the graph. Do you really want to reinvent the wheel?

Have another look:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html

You say “global temperature changes cannot be attributed solely to CO2 levels” – who said they were?

______

Spindoc, tbc

Q&A "The vast amount of papers/facts can be found in a cursory perusal of the science journals published by scientific institutions and academies (but you know this) and you want me to give you only one?"

Yes, that's all.

So, stop sneering and put one up, it should be so simple for you really, any one of the papers that proves global temperature rise and carbon dioxide are linked. (Then we will then know how much the temperature will rise for any given amount of CO2.)

Argue all you want about climate change or warming, the question relates to whether the emissions trading scheme will be thrown in the too hard basket as was the republican debate. It's an ideological debate which can't be won or run on ideological grounds, it requires common sense to take action which helps resolve the situation. That's the dilemma and the ideologically inclined fail on every aspect towards a sane and survivable future.

An emission trading scheme is irrelevant, it'll make no difference, just put more money into the hands of the rich. Whilst the thing we should all be worrying about, yet doing nothing, is ecological collapse and environmental destruction. What's the use of an economic scheme when the natural support base for life is collapsing around us rapidly, city people don't see it, but country people do.

There should be no emission trading scheme, but a complete change of direction, which addresses the ecology, climate, environment and not just money and greed. Climate warming climate cooling, who cares, we are turning the earth into a barren, smelly heavily polluted garbage dump. But the ideology is more important it seems to most, than sane approaches.