@ MJPB (2 posts)

I'm not sure that people with a mathematical or scientific bent *are* actually more likely to be sceptics. From my experience it is mainly one's political orientation, not technical ability or lack of it.

Sadly there also seems to be a similar correlation with nuclear power. If you are right-wing you tend to be for nuclear power but against action on climate change; if you are left-wing you tend to be against nuclear power but for action on climate change.

However, both Professor's James Hansen ('grandfather of modern climate science') and Barry Brooks (an environmental scientist and head of the climate department at Adelaide University) have both said that believing in a 100% renewable energy grid is the same as believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy. It's not going to happen.

Now, you called the candle demonstration a 'party trick'? If you really are doubting the basic physics of Co2's absorption spectra, I suggest you phone your closest CSIRO or University science department and ask if they have a lab that can demonstrate this. I hardly meet any sceptics that actually attack the basic physics of what we *know* Co2 actually does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform_infrared_spectroscopy

As for attacking the surface temperature records, well, that's just another version of the Urban Heat Island effect which we have already discussed but let's have another look.

"Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends. To address this concern, they have compared the data from remote stations (sites that are nowhere near human activity) to more urban sites. Likewise, investigators have also looked at sites across rural and urban China, which has experienced rapid growth in urbanisation over the past 30 years and is therefore very likely to show UHI. The difference between ideal rural sites compared to urban sites in temperature trends has been very small:"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

@ MJPB
You quoted a paper by McIntyre and McKitrick that seemed to be hosted by the University of Guelph, and had no reference to the peer-reviewed Royal Chemistry Society of the UK?

Anyway, this is the old Hockey Stick Controversy kicked up by a mathematician (and well known sceptic) and an accountant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Willie Soon seems to have kicked off this debate, which fuelled some right-wing attacks in the States. But he's owned by Exxon (to about $1million?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon#Funding_by_fossil_fuel_business_interests

You quoted the Heartland institute, but they are also funded by Exxon.
http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon

Then your PDF by Stephen McIntyre — mathematician
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre

and.. Ross MKitrick — economist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick

"At the request of Congress, a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result."

"More than twelve subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-michael-mann-steve-mcintyre

So have a good read of the wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Hockey stick controversy special
"Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920. "
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Good luck on your quest for the truth.

I just wanted to update the list on the temperature record.

Of the top 3 climate monitoring units only Hadley says 1998 was the warmest, the other 2 say 2005 and 2010 were the warmest — by a whisker.

This is despite the fact that 1998 was a frighteningly powerful El Nino year and 2010 had a fair La Nina which *should* have induced cooling! When a *normally* cooler La Nina year beats a *normally* warmer El Nino year, you know something serious is going on.

NOAA says:
// For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record//
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13

NASA GISTEMP confirms the same thing and says:
// Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. //
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

But rather than argue over hundredths of a degree, which is all that seems to separate the temperatures, have a look at the trend *all* 3 agencies report. A brilliant graphic here illustrates how closely all 3 temperature databases track.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/monitoring

Eclipsed, you're back doing what you were doing before.

If you look at all of the terrestrial temperature datasets they show no difference between 1998 and now. The comparative figures that you quote are statistically meaningless - the "whisker" you refer to. This appears to be accepted by some of the stalwarts of the IPCC view, as you can see in this paper by Kaufmann et al http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf.

Added to that they diverge from the satellite record, which is the most credible record in this area.

The Hockey Stick was discredited by two US inquiries - Wegman and the one you cite. And also by the facts. If you want to see a comprehensive database of proxy studies on temperature then this page provides it http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php. There is no doubt that temperatures have been hotter in the Medieval period and also the Roman one.

It is also discredited by the use of inappropriate proxies, something only touched on in the Wegman inquiry, probably because Mann's "trick" of deliberately and improperly cherry-picking proxies only when they suited, hadn't been discovered at that stage.

glad you watched the sbs doc
as you havnt refuted the points i will let is stand in disgrace
its sad that they feel the need to play tricks..to trick/up the model/bling

but thats the game
for another egsample your repeated postings of the
'http://www.skepticalscience.com/"
your own side has decried the 'sceptics' as holow/caust deneyers
so the sceptical clearly is a cover chosen FOR believing the spin
ie not truelly...'skeptical'

quite clever really
but TOO CLEVER by half
its just an egsample of grabbing the 'highground'
by stealing the best name..*OPPOSING the 'debait'
but such distortions are all part of the spin

none of you 'lot'..seem to know why only carbon
[and not the FAR WORSE wethane/nitrous oxides..that ISNT 'in' the 'model']

or why overnight 1000 became 500
even if the science proces c02 a FACTOR
its only part of the story..if the 'warming' has truth
[and EVEN THAT is debatable]

let alone THEN..!

a tax on one [c02]
BUT NOT methane/nitrous
[that wernt 'modeled either'

and then that the EXPENSIVE current cure's?
solar/wind..DONT MAKE PEAK LOAD..!

or EVEN IF ALL PREVIOUS is proved true
that DEALING in c02 PERMITS...at inflated market rates
is the 'cheapest thing [the right lol]..thing to be doing

next we get to your bias
in uk its the liberals doing it
in australia its labour partly dioing it
aso your political bias is like all your other blather

GREEDY greenie industry
lobbying non-sense
for govt cash
sub-sidy

leaching out of the public purse
by fear lies and spin
fight or flight

well im fighting
the fright you 'right'..lot deem mankinds plight
try to explain the science/govt/carbon traders link
why is it the 'right thing..for lab left..to be doing?

the green spin is in
sceptical science my buttt

Hi Graham
I'm on pain-killers after some recent surgery, so don't have the energy to really investigate deeply, but that appears to be the peer-reviewed paper that discusses why AGW doesn't show up as even *hotter* than 2005 and 2010. That is, why it hasn't grown in step with the Co2 emissions.

The paper was written in 2008? What temperature database did they use? Because as far as I can tell NASA and NOAA *do* claim 2005 and 2010 to be hotter than 1998. That's 2 of the top 3 temperature databases on the planet.

(And I disagree that Satellites alone are the most accurate method for measuring the temps as there was a whole controversy about them drifting off course.)

Anyone cast any light on what temperature database Mann used in the PDF Graham linked to?

(Back to bed)