Nicely written FUD.
"Warming" is not necessarily temperature related, it mostly manifests as phase changes. ie. melting ice, and system wide circulation changes. There is ample evidence that these changes are happening much faster than the conservative estimates. Global warming=Temperature increase is a nice over simplification to argue about, but it is the tip of the iceberg in reality. When all the ice has gone (!) *then* extra heat = extra temperature.
Yes, the climate science is messy and hard to understand. This is why we need years of training and super computers to get accurate daily/weekly weather reports. We now take 7 day forecast for granted and they are remarkably accurate. The same physical models can be run over and over again with many different assumptions until a "phase space" of potential futures is mapped. Up until recently the politics was such that only the "safe" forecasts have been considered. New data suggests the "safe" models are *way* too conservative. Ice sheet collapses seen in Antarctica were expected in another 20-60 years time, not last year.
The longer term forecasts are indeed subject to *much* more uncertainty and may indeed be way off but: theory tells us something must change when energy balance is altered. Theory and data show it will not happen linearly, but in a jumpy fashion. Theory and data show that we have pushed the dynamics *way* further than nature has managed for a few million years (Deccan Traps, Gulf of Mexico crater, etc)
Over-simplifying an immensely complex topic, cherry picking data and relying on ignorance is a common tactic. It is also a common assumption that science can be dumbed down for the a non-professional and still make sense.
I agree with the author on one thing though: We will have to deal with the changes as it is way too late to stop it. He is also correct that the media hypes complex topics and hence makes them seem dubious to rational, skeptical folks.
The doubters should be asking for more science, not more ignorant opinion and amateur analysis.

A little experiment for the home climate skeptic:
Fill a glass with crushed ice, top it off with water.
Stick a thermometer in it, it should read about 0c or just above.
At room temperature (22c) the ice will melt, but the temperature will remain close to 0c, the heat of the room will be going into the latent heat of water (more water, less ice), *not* increasing temperature.
Provide a gentle heat source and note: rate of ice decrease is faster, temperature remains much the same until all ice is melted, *then* the temperature rises. Google "latent heat" to find out more.
This is just a sample of the complexities that journalists like to ignore. Moral of story: talk to climate scientists about climate, not journalists or even clever people.
Another moral: Money talks loudly.

Ozandy

As I understand, the author (Mark Lawson) also goes by the tag curmudgeon and curmudgeonathome (sic). Having read a few of his responses, I am of the opinion he really does not understand the science, let alone time-series analysis.

It's true, if you try and simplify it, you run the risk of getting into a circular argument - creating 'noise' and playing for more delay.

Ozrandy - I regret that I didn't really understand your point about the ice in the glass, and I don't see its relevence, but thank you for making it. The problem remains that if we look at the real physical system in measurements of temperatures and sea heights, then AGW simply isn't happening. If the models of rates of glacier melting are proving conservative its a problem with those models which include temperature as one variable (there are several). As we can measure temperatures directly, we don't need to infer them from glacier melting rates.

Q&A - I'm glad to see that in some way you find me notorious, but it is best to remain courteous in these discussions.
The science quoted in the article, such as it is, is not in contention. No one is arguing the point that the direct warming effects of CO2 is limited due to a saturation effect. No one is arguing that the models assume some sort of feedback on that additional warming to get the big results. The discussion about climate "sensitivity" to CO2 is being batted around in the science journals as we speak.
But the bottom line is this. Temperatures seem to be coming off a peak. The trend is not confirmed yet, but if temperatures continue to fall for the next couple of years many scientists will be very embarrased indeed.

I agree that you seem to have not understood Ozandy's point Curmudgeon.

The ice in the glass experiment shows that neither the water level nor the temperature of the water in the glass changes very much, but there is a net input of energy being retained by the water within it. Temperature is usually a good guide to energy transferrence within phases, (solids, gases and liquids), but when they are changing phase (ie solid to liquid, liquid to gas), the temperature doesn't change even when there is a net energy input retained in the system.

I think it's a valid point, because that does superficially explain the melting rates of glaciers and ice sheets without the corresponding temperature rise. It's about energy, not temperature.

"We now take 7 day forecast for granted and they are remarkably accurate."

Not where I live they're not. They are very often wrong.

Besides, the whole global warming hysteria is based on the idea of forecasting hundreds of years into the future. You know, 'save the planet' and all that jazz?

The climatology is not the only science that's relevant. Even if all the climatology were not in issue, that does not justify the conclusion that *any* policy action is justified.

Why not? To understand that, we have to understand the ignorance of economic science that underlies the alarmists' reasoning.

It is simply not valid to assume, as they do, that because there is a problem *therefore* we have only to concentrate enough power and enough desire for central planning in government, to be assured of the solution. This is an utter fallacy - exactly the same fallacy underlying the 20th century's disastrous experiments with socialism.

The new version aspires not just to government control of everything in the economy that might affect the environment - in other words, every aspect of human life. It also aspires to manage the world's ecology as well: the distribution and abundance of species. But species are made up of their individual members.

The scale of the arrogance, the moral vanity and the technical stupidity of what is being suggested is truly staggering.

It doesn't seem to occur to them that the results could be worse from their own point of view.

The vested interests, like Exxon, government-funded climate boffins, and carbon futures speculators - these I can understand.

But the ones who really frighten me are those who are doing this not from some material interest, but the belief that by urging for the destruction of economic activity that is keeping millions of people alive, we would actually be making the world a better place. A fanatical deluded religion of state-worshipping human-haters.

Good article, no panic, no frightening of the simple minded, no end of the world rants no flaming of anyone with a different opinion - this hardly belongs in the "AGW debate" does it.

Nice piece of misidrection happening in other posts, something about a glass of water. now that person should write an article, but I note other panic struck AGW believers have latched onto this, any port in a storm I guess.

I think the big problem for the AGW believers is that the world is not warming as predicted, is not behaving and subsequently the audience is dropping off. What they need is some HUGE climate event that can be catagorically linked to AGW, a "sign" that AGW is on track, that we are doomed and its all someone else's fault and we should give money to people to take away our guilt, "hey Al how much are those indulgences?".

Bugsy - thankyou I now get the original point about latent heat and can see that it isn't relevent. The bit about the level of water in the glass not changing is only relevent to the artic which is an overgrown icecube. It doesn't apply to Greenland and the Anatartic which are (mostly) ice on land, so if there was any mass melting we would expect to see something happening right now in sea level changes. Nope, no changes of note since satellite measurements began - still the same, stodgy 3.1mm a year (0.3 metres over a century).
The temperature business is also beside the point. Granted heat going into a block of ice will not change its temperature, just melt it, but we are not talking about the ice in isolation are we? If there was heat going into the system (or being kept from radiating away) we should see the higher temperatures elsewhere and never mind what the ice is doing. Again, sorry, it now seems to be coming off a peak. Best to find some new crisis.

I don’t wish to be adversarial here Mark, but the fact that you had to have a simple high-school science experiment explained to you doesn’t fill me with a lot of confidence that you have the ability to assess what is and is not relevant in this particular field of study.

I also have my doubts about odo's ability to assess anonymous posters emotional states.

I can hardly stop giggling:-

"Warming" is not necessarily temperature related..."

Your little ice cube Curiosity Show experiment is all very nice, but latent heat etc is NOT what we have been reading about for years. You're just moving the goal posts again, changing the terms. Nothing scientific in that. Atmospheric temperature rises not happening as forecast - wasn't this what the article was about.

You guys really are starting to sound desperate.

Bugsy - If you have to resort to abuse that means your case is weak. The reason for the original confusion is that the water-ice thing bore no relevence to the earlier posts or the article, as I pointed out. On reflection Ozandy is implying that the ice sheets are somehow a complete heat sink for the earth - so you can explain away falling temperatures by the ice sheets soaking up all the excess heat, and in the process forgetting or ignoring the fact that the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets are on land, and not an oversized ice cube like the artic. Oh wow! That's a new one. Is anyone else arguing that one? Are there any references you can point to? For that matter, can you or Ozandy think of any reason why the carefully explained ice-water experiment is relevent? Interested.

To digress from climate change for a moment but to go back to Mark's article...

I may be wrong here but the fact that forecasts of rising crime rates in the US were wrong may and, I would think, probably had to do with successful post forecast action being taken to address the issue.

Perhaps we could prove the scientist's forecasts on climate change wrong by doing the same thing - address the issue.

If we could do that then everyone would be happy, even the deniers.

Q&A and Ozandy, I am pleased to see that you are always on hand armed with your own scientific expertise to contest these not so subtle efforts to to undermine the scientific consensus and promote the unworkable status quo. Don't let up please.

kulu, if you read the actual report referred to in "Freakonomics", you will find that the authors were very careful to factor in every possible cause of the drop in crime. They found that only very minor amounts of the total drop could be attributed to such responsive measures as increased police, etc.

In the end, what they were left with was one factor no-one had ever taken into account: Roe v Wade.

Leavitt and Dubner's work is particularly salient here, because first there was the situation where the experts were confidently and unanimously forecasting a disaster. When the disaster not only didn't happen, but actually reversed, the same experts then scrambled to find answers, and ended up claiming that the real world (as opposed to modelled) result actually vindicated them, because it was their wise and timely advice that had saved the day.

What Leavitt and Dubner showed was that neither was true.

What had really happened was that the real world had thrown a completely unanticipated spanner into the works of the experts' neat modelling. The real world has a bad habit of doing that.

Perhaps that's why some experts seem to prefer models to the real world.

Oh, and Leavitt and Dubner also make another point that is salient here: Information Asymmetry.

Information Asymmetry is the situation where "experts" become completely convinced of their own expertise, and use the information they hold to exert power over another party, or indeed simply rely on the others' *assumption* of the experts' superior knowledge to exert undue influence and maximise gain.

Their point is that Information Asymmetry is always used to increase the power of one party over the other.

kulu, if everyone knew of the successes I've had addressing the martians issue, they'd make me king.

Ozandy, kulu tells us you are an expert. What is your field and qualifications?

Curmudgeon: I raised the issue of latent heat because, as Bugsy said, it is just one example of the complexity of climate science. You keep banging on about time series temperature graphs of a single location, I just wanted to show why this was not necessarily indicative of the real issues. Floating ice vs land based is a different issue with its own complexities and I did not introduce it. Energy not= Temperature was my goal concept.
The fact is temperatures *are* rising in some locations, in others it is the minimum temperature that is rising, not the maximum. In other places the hydrodynamic cycles and phase changes mean that temperature is barely affected. Energy can also be in the form of kinetic/dynamic systems such as the Gulf Stream: If it shuts down it could result in an ice age for Europe...or maybe the effects of Methane will override it...or not. Common sense is a very poor guide! Only peer reviewed science that can be disproved (unlike the alternative methodologies) is the answer.
Offering a single time series for one location and claiming it disproves a *hugely* complex topic is either disingenuous or ignorant, or possibly naive.
odo: The complete picture is becoming *more* scary, not less when true science rather than simple misconceptions is taken into account. When animals (migrations, breeding times, populations), chemistry (water, soil, air), winds (large scale and cyclonic)... ie. When total energy is measured, not "GW=temperature" you start seeing why there is almost complete scientific consensus on the issue.
fungochumley: Removing the straw man and tackling the issue honestly is not moving the goal posts, it is called facing reality.
I know folks would rather it went away, and I too disagree with many of the proposed "solutions" to it but there is science and there is ignorant pontificating. Given the damage that dogma causes, I'll take science, no matter how scary or unprofitable.
Thank you kulu, I will continue to assist the genuine skeptics while trying to avoid looking like a zealot.

Mark, in your rush to decry my ‘case’ as weak, it appears that you have failed to notice that I did not actually make one.

The ice-water experiment appears to have some relevance to the topic of climate-change because it explains in a most basic way how energy transfer and storage can happen to a system without a corresponding change in temperature, at least for a temporary period. It seems to me to be more relevant to climatology than criminologists predicting American crime rates in the 1980s. In fact the only similarity there I see is the word “forecast”.

I’m not abusing you Mark, but I feel that science generally (medicine&environment especially) is ill-served by journalists that only understand science very broadly, but not in much depth, and I have as much distrust of economists as anyone and think that we all have been badly served by them. But the general public listen to journalists and politicians listen to economists because they don’t understand the science either. But they think they do when you put a dollar sign on it.

I’m honestly trying to understand the topic objectively and I stand by my statement that I don’t think you are well qualified to tell me what is and isn’t relevant. To demonstrate this, I plotted the Hadley site data you quoted in another thread for the last 11 years in Excel. It appears that the only data point that gives a trend line ever so slightly downwards (about 0.01 over the decade) is 1998 because it is at the start of the series. If you plot the trendline using the last 11 data points (1999-2009) then the trend is more inclined upward (about 0.05 over the decade& double that if you omit 2009 as incomplete). How is this to be interpreted? I suspect it’s merely a case of just cherry-picking the data, starting with the highest point in recorded history to show the slightest of downward trends, but even though I don’t know what time frame is optimal for making an accurate assessment, I’m fairly certain that neither do you.

Ozandy/Bugsy
Ozandy, you seem to think that I'm talking about temperatures in a single location. There are five sites that track global temperatures. Bugsy refers to one, Hadley,... the others are Goddard, NOAA/NCDC, UAH and RSS .. the first three rely on an extensive network of instrument sites the last two are satellite sites. I give a link to Hadley in the article. As I noted if one looks at the graphs of those global temperatues without benefit of extensive training in climatology it looks suspiciously as if temperatures are coming off a peak.
Bugsy you try to get around that by selecting the years.. Dunno what series you're using but the main one is HadCrutv3 and there's no need to graph it your self (although I have done that). Just look at the one in Hadley I link to - there is a pronounced peak over the past decade. A data file is also attached. It becomes clearer if you take a five year running mean (where each point is an average over five years). So its not confirmed yet but if temperatures continue to decline as they have been doing then a lot of scientists will be very embarrassed indeed. Perhaps two years? Really four before they are forced to admit the models aren't right. Look at the sequence in the Hadley data particularly for the last three or four years, bearing in mind that last year was unusually cold (this year represents a recovery, but its below the year before) - its already a good way towards the scientists being embarrassed.
Now I'm sorry if you don't like being dictated to by a mere journalist (albeit a former science writer with a dusty degree in science), but I did lay out my reasons why the ice business was not relevent - and you can see for yourself it isn't. No one is suggestions that the glaciers have suddenly become a heat sink for the world.
Hope that helps.

Oh, now I can see why American criminology in the 1980s is more relevant to climatology than basic science class physical chemistry, thanks Mark.

You certainly make it sound like having the benefit of extensive training in climatology is somewhat undesirable when interpreting climate data.

As for the ‘cooling trend’ data, you are still not getting it are you? I am not “getting around” anything by picking the years, I was demonstrating exactly how the data you are using is cherry-picked (by you picking the years). I used the data you gave here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9010#143451

I used this series because it’s one that you picked and you invited people to spot the trend.

When you start at the maximum (i.e. 1998, the hottest year on record), the trend is hardly likely to go up is it? What happens to the trend, if you start at 1999, 1997, 1996 or indeed any year before or after 1998? The ‘cooling trend’ disappears. In fact 1998 appears to be the only year that you can start with that shows a ‘cooling trend’. I invite anyone else to chart the same data and see what you get. It does not seem to matter to you that 11 of the warmest years on record have been within the last 13 years. But then, we can’t all have the benefit of a career in journalism to steer us right.

It seems to me you are guilty of exactly the same sin that you are warning others against: trying to predict the future. It seems just like the stockmarket where everybody is trying to bet on a sudden trend reversal on the smallest of data fluctuations.

I’ll make prediction, if in several years time the ‘suspicious cooling trend’ does not come to pass, I’m betting that you will resolutely refuse to be embarrassed. But I guess we’ll wait and see.

Clownfish,

I don't want to argue the point about crime in the US nor do I really want to read up on the various arguments. If you have done so then I am in no position to contest the matter. As a matter of interest how did Roe vs Wade affect subsequent crime rates? Were the law enforcement agencies reporting a huge number of illegal abortions prior to their legalization as a result of the judgment? On the face of it I fail to see a connection.

You say, "What had really happened was that the real world had thrown a completely unanticipated spanner into the works of the experts' neat modelling."

Well yes obviously if there happens to be a completely unforeseen event that overrides or counteracts the assumptions that have been used to guide the modelling then its accuracy will be compromised. It is much easier to predict the past than the future when we are faced with all those unknown unknowns. Should we therefore just give up or do the best we can and respond accordingly?

Mark

No ... temperatures are not “coming off a peak”. The rate of warming has slowed.

Yes, “scientists (climate modelers) will be very embarrassed” if this slowing does not rise again by 2015 (for statistical significance).

<< Now I'm sorry if you don't like being dictated to by a mere journalist (albeit a former science writer with a dusty degree in science) >>

<< but it is best to remain courteous in these discussions. >>

I will if you will.

_________

Kulu

No one is giving up, especially the ones that count.

Bugsy - sorry but you have missed the point of what I was saying and have misread the graph. the cooling trend started - or seems to have started from around 2000-2001 on a five year average, because that's when it started. You don't go to another year and say there's been no change from that year.. you say, that warming continued more or less up to 2000-2001 or whatever then seemed to have stopped and is now coming down.. in other words coming off a peak.. that we are near a peak is undoubted, hence the business about warmest years. The point is that around 2001 scientists tried forecasting that warming would continue, and accelerate - on the assumption that the additional CO2 was causing that warming up to that point. The physical system then started doing something else.
Q&A - regretably the warming has stopped. There has been some work by Keenleyside et al (Nature, Letters May 1) which modify the IPCC forecasts with climate cycles. If you go with that forecast, a weak cooling trend is expected up to 2014 about..

I don't think it's me who has misread the graph Mark. Yes, I'll admit that when you start with the 2000-2004 five year average, you can get a downward trend line, of about 0.015 degrees. You can even get it to go down by 0.04 degrees over the last 5 data points if you start at the 2001-2005 average! Isn't that something. But start any year earlier, including 1998 on a five year average and the trend disappears. That's some severe data manipulation.

By you own logic, if we are "coming off a peak", and when we look at the historical data provided in your article,

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

then we were coming off a peak in the early-mid 60s, early 70s, early 80s and early 90s! Now we seem to have been 'coming off a peak' since the early/mid 2000s.

Each of these decades peaks being higher than the previous decades. Yes, I think I'm beginning to see a trend here, but I think we might have to wait a little longer than two years to get a five year average of the early 2010s. In the meantime, please stop truncating the dataset.

Thanks Mark. I am very aware of Noel's work and what he has to say. Many so called 'denialists' still take his findings out of context, often intentionally.

Mark,

You have a budding ally in senator Steve Fielding who has returned from the US on his fact finding mission on the science of climate change.
After discussing the matter with scientists of the Heartland Institute he has come away repeating the same claim as you have been making about global cooling in the last ten years.

When it was pointed out to him that the Heartland Institute was funded by the fossil fuel industry he claimed he did not care who provided him with his information. If he approached any other scientists involved in the issue with a view to getting a balanced picture he certainly did not make that clear although he could easily have done so. Why not I wonder?

Should I take the man for being a fool or just naive? Or should I begin to doubt his repeatedly made claim that his trip to the US was self funded?

Any thoughts anyone?

A short video clip of his interview can be viewed on:-
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/

kulu, I think you're jumping at shadows, you see evil everywhere, well everywhere there is disagreement with you and your beliefs.

"After discussing the matter with scientists of the Heartland Institute he has come away etc" wake up, clearly he went there with an open mind, a suspicious mind or some doubts. Not everyone is a devout believer swallowing the drivel on the many pro and against climate websites.

"Should I take the man for being a fool or just naive?" Who cares?

This is why I responded at all "Or should I begin to doubt his repeatedly made claim that his trip to the US was self funded?" the veiled accusation that "someone" e.g. BIG OIL (dadadaduhhhhh!) is funding him, oh my god an elected parliamentarian from Australia is a patsy for the oil companies. He's not from the ALP, he's an intelligent man who knows fools are going to make accusations like that as they do against all on believers and heretics so why would he do it - you sully his name because he is not a fellow devout believer. Some countries even charge and jail people for such slander!

For gods sake grow a brain .. you sound like a first year uni student who has just discovered the world outside high school. So what's the climate club you belong to, or do you belong to as many as possible?

Bugsy - pardon my forgetfulness in taking so long to reply.. Now you're getting it when you point out that there were turns or changes in those times you mentioned.. That's more of a counter but, regretably, far from conclusive.
The current downturn is certainly not confirmed, as I've pointed out several times. As for only taking the readings from around the turn of the century that was data unknown at the time of the forecasts, and thus it is all important. Its the crucial test.. You point to the rest but there is no way of knowing what is natural and what is articial in all of that.. the only real test of the models is against data unknown at the time they made forecasts. If temperatues continue to go down (its looking that way, a closer look at the month on month readings indicates that the trend is continuously down - no break), then the modellers have a real problem. At the moment it can still be dismissed but prepare youself! Hope that helps.

The month on month data? Man, you must have been positively wetting yourself in 2000.

By your own dataset, since 2005 was the second hottest year on record, the 'cooling' must have started then, and not in 2000-2001, right? that's nearly 3.5 years of 'cooling'!

I have no idea why those pesky climatologists don't have the decency to be embarrassed yet.

Amicus,

Your tirade does not change anything...anything at all. You my be convinced of the mans integrity but I am not.

I am much more convinced of the integrity of James Hanson, the Hadley Institute, all the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report, Stern and Garnaut than I am of Fielding. Many of these people have spent decades studying our climate. Unless there is a remarkable conspiracy between them all to dupe the world then their collective expertise should be given a much greater weight by the thinking non-scientist than that of fossil fuel funded mouthpieces and a few other commentators many of whom have been discredited for misrepresenting and distorting the facts.

if there is global warming, we need to look for the real empirical evidence. The atmosphere is mad up of gases, when they increase in temperature the pressure the gases exert would increase.
Global warming on Pluto has been detected by measuring changes in atmospheric pressure. Can someone explain to me why the scientific world has been silent on changes to atmospheric pressure which would either confirm or deny the theories on global warming.

Additionally when gases absorb energy their absorption spectrum changes, has any studies been done to detect such changes?

Mark Lawson. The 1100 square kilometre break up of the Wilkins Ice Shelf occurred in March 1998. Why did you say it occurred in “the early 1990’s?” And why, when part of the Wilkins broke up again in 2008 and 2009, would you say that one “would expect some continued melting,” after the 20th century - some 10 and 11 years hence respectively - particularly when you persist (and persist and persist) with your claim that warming ceased in 1998?