ClimateGate busts things wide open

by **ronan01** » March 19, 2010, 8:41 pm

Gosh - does the large bold large print mean your are shouting at me? How childish.

The facts remains that global average temperature has flat-lined or slightly decreased since 1998, despite increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, and there is no evidence that the size or rate of temperature change in the late 20th century fell outside geological norms.

Its that simple - so far you have not proved otherwise.

by **jackspratt** » March 19, 2010, 8:55 pm

ronan01 wrote:Gosh - does the large bold large print mean your are shouting at me? How childish.

Well let's hope he doesn't start patronizing you - that really would be childish.

by **ronan01** » March 19, 2010, 9:27 pm

Jackpratt - nice try - lets deal with facts.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

1. Global average temperature

Since 1998, global average temperature has flat-lined or slightly decreased, despite increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.

by **cookie** » March 20, 2010, 11:25 am

ronan01 wrote:Gosh - does the large bold large print mean your are shouting at me? How childish.

just trying to help you because it seems that you need reading glasses:

just take a look at the figures and statements from the NASA: GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT

The result indicates that a strong underlying warming trend is continuing. Global warming since the middle 1970s is now about 0.6 degrees Celsius (C) or about 1 degree Fahrenheit (F). Total warming in the past century is about 0.8° C or about 1.4° F.

"The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Everybody can take a look at this graph and make his own conclusion:
global warming is a fact....

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

by **ronan01** » March 20, 2010, 2:45 pm

Nothing you have copy/pasted changes the statement "that since 1998 global average temperature has flat-lined or slightly decreased, despite increasing levels of atmospheric CO2".

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

The warming effect of additional CO2 is at best minor - at most adding another few tenths of a degree. Evidence continues to mount for the importance of solar variation as a climate control.

There is no evidence that the size or rate of temperature change in the late 20th century falls outside geological norms or historic experience.

There have been hotter periods in human history - without "man made CO2'.

Neither Hansen or you can demonstrate that "man made CO2" causes global warming.

I think you have little cause to be alarmed.

by **ronan01** » March 21, 2010, 1:48 pm

cookie wrote:
ronan01 wrote:Gosh - does the large bold large print mean your are shouting at me? How childish.

just trying to help you because it seems that you need reading glasses:

just take a look at the figures and statements from the NASA: GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT

The result indicates that a strong underlying warming trend is continuing. Global warming since the middle 1970s is now about 0.6 degrees Celsius (C) or about 1 degree Fahrenheit (F). Total warming in the past century is about 0.8° C or about 1.4° F.

"The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Everybody can take a look at this graph and make his own conclusion:
global warming is a fact....

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Cookie - thank you for your helpful advice, based on your erroneous belief I need reading glasses. I would like to provide similar helpful advice to assist your comprehension difficulty.

The graph quiet clearly shows a flat-line or decrease in temperature for the period 1998 – 2010 (12 years).

It is very clear the temperature peaks about 1998 and flat-lines or declines till 2010 – anybody can make that conclusion – it is very clear and obvious.

In response to the question “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming” Professor Jones said “Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.”

It is quiet obvious from the graph that the trend from 1998 is negative or flat-line – I think everybody would make that conclusion by looking at the graph.

To repeatedly state that 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 are the “hottest years” is disingenuous and misleading. It is this type of statement (and associated behaviour) that lead to Climategate and demonstrates the obvious need for a complete review of UEA practices and processes.

The statement “Since 1998, global average temperature has flat-lined or slightly decreased, despite increasing levels of atmospheric CO2” remains true.

There is still no evidence that the size or rate of temperature change in the late 20th century falls outside geological norms or historic experience.

There have been hotter periods in human history - without "man made CO2'.

Neither Hansen or you can demonstrate that "man made CO2" causes global warming.

by **cookie** » March 21, 2010, 2:04 pm

It is quiet obvious from the graph that the trend from 1998 is negative or flat-line – I think everybody would make that conclusion by looking at the graph.

To repeatedly state that 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 are the “hottest years” is disingenuous and misleading. It is this type of statement (and associated behaviour) that lead to Climategate and demonstrates the obvious need for a complete review of UEA practices and processes.

[/quote]

it is indeed true that your statement is disingenuous and misleading.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

everybody (that doesn't need reading glasses

) can see that the graph starts in the year 1860 and ends in 2009.
It is indeed misleading to cherry pick the data out of this graph that only suits you....

the fact that you refuse to accept statements from NASA simply proves your state of mind:

"The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Again, this is a statement from NASA that doesn't suit you
and your following excuse is:

"This statement is disingenuous and misleading. It is this type of statement (and associated behaviour) that lead to Climategate and demonstrates the obvious need for a complete review of UEA practices and processes."

...... :roll:

by **ronan01** » March 21, 2010, 3:28 pm

You cant avoid the fact that since 1998, global average temperature has flat-lined or slightly decreased, despite increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.

The graph does not show the earth is recovering from the "little ice age" of the 1700's.

There have been hotter periods in human history - without "man made CO2'. Current temperatures are not unusual, and nothing to be alarmed about.

Why is Greenland called Greenland, how did vikings grow crops there? Because the planet was warmer in the middle ages, and with no man made CO2.

The UEA website is a classic example of cherry picking and misleading statements. The "AGW theory" says temperature should be increasing, but it isn't:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data ... shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong." (KEVIN TRENBERTH).

The UEA,Jones and colleagues are somewhat compromised. Their data and comments must be treated with caution until they been fully review and audited.

by **jackspratt** » March 21, 2010, 4:14 pm

ronan01 wrote:TRENBERTH: WHERE THE HECK IS GLOBAL WARMING?

TRENBERTH discusses the BBC's October 9 article, and not only confirms warming has stopped for 10-12 years, but that this was not predicted by any of the models. His explanation for the failure: The data are wrong:

"Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record.... The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F.... This is January [winter] weather [in early autumn]."

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data ... shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

(KEVIN TRENBERTH(NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH -- USA): head of climate analysis section; lead author of the 1995, 2001,and 2007 IPCC reports.

Some further context for Mr Trenberth's email, as selectively quoted above - this is the actual email:

Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here
in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal
is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about
18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather
(see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last
night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's
global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
<[1]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf>
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on
2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our
observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on
a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is
the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing
with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time
since Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitorin
g_current.ppt

Kevin
http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1255523796.txt

Note the reference I have underlined - this is the paper that ronan says the quote does NOT stem from, when clearly it does, when you look at the context.

ronan further said:

He (Trenberth) still cant demonstrate the link between warming and CO2 - and neither can you.

Please show how he demonstrates such a link in the referenced paper.

ronan01

The referenced paper is not about the link between CO2 and global warming (a red herring). In Mr Trenberth's own words:

This paper tracks the effects of the changing Sun, how much heat went into the land, ocean, melting Arctic sea ice, melting Greenland and Antarctica, and changes in clouds, along with changes in greenhouse gases. We can track this well for 1993 to 2003, but not for 2004 to 2008. It does NOT mean that global warming is not happening, on the contrary, it suggests that we simply can't fully explain why 2008 was as cool as it was, but with an implication that warming will come back, as it has. A major La Niña was underway in 2008, since June 2009 we have gone into an El Niño and the highest sea surface temperatures on record have been recorded in July 2009.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/statement.html

by **ronan01** » March 21, 2010, 5:24 pm

With temperatures level or declining since 1998 it seems unnecessary to rush into any policy fix or carbon tax / trading scheme to correct a trend that seems to be a cooling one. Why the rush?

The whole issue about "the hottest year" raises an interesting question - what is the correct temperature for the planet - just when will we have it right? How will we know?

What is the "proper" temperature - who will decide this and how will they do it? Will "we" be involved in this process? Or will UEA and Hansen et al decide for us? Can we trust them and their data? Unlikely given current knowledge about their methods and behaviour.

There seems to be no connection between "temperature" and CO2. The AGW "theory" appears to be deficient.

The fact is that since 1998, global average temperature has flat-lined or slightly decreased, despite increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. There is no disputing this simple fact.

There have been equally hot, and hotter, periods in the earths (and humankinds) history, and there is nothing unusual about the current temperatures.

Long term temperature analysis from 1000AD to 2010ad shows there is nothing extreme about the current temperature, and indeed projecting this trendline into the future also shows no cause for alarm.

Only the IPCC "hockey stick" graph shows alarming future trends and it is fair to say this is discredited because it cherry picked favourable data, and excluded data that did not support the AGW "theory".

There is no cause for alarm. One has to question the judgement and / or motives of those who hold these alarming views.

Perhaps they are just well meaning but misguided, perhaps they are sinister - but it makes little or no difference if you are shot by a well meaning idiot or a hardened criminal - either way you end up with a bullet hole.

by **ronan01** » March 22, 2010, 11:41 am

This is what Trenberth wrote:

On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin

Phil Jones tells Michael Mann and others how he made his data show warming:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Mick Kelly, Professor of Climate Change at Jones’ university, on hiding recent cooling:

Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Phil Jones:

I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

Phil Jones to CRU staff:

I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020[/u]. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like - half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!

FACT: Since 1998 global temperature has flat-lined or slightly declined despite increases in CO2.

by **WBU ALUM** » March 29, 2010, 2:45 am

Looks like the Germans now have a new outlook on climate change, too. :lol:

Germans lose fear of climate change after long, hard winter

Germans are losing their fear of climate change, according to a survey, with just 42 percent worried about global warming.

It seems the long and chilly winter has taken its toll on climate change sensibilities despite the fact that weather has nothing to do with climate.

The latest figure is a clear drop from the 62 percent of Germans who said they were scared of such changes just last autumn.

by **cookie** » March 29, 2010, 10:20 am

let's add just one more story to show.... :roll:

Island disputed by India, Bangladesh disappearing

New Delhi - Rising sea waters have submerged a tiny island in the Bay of Bengal that is at the centre of a territorial dispute between India and Bangladesh, an oceanographer said Thursday.

Island disputed by India, Bangladesh disappearing - Summary
Posted : Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:38:43 GMT
By : dpa
Category : India (World)
News Alerts by Email ( click here )
India World News | Home

Print this article email this article Comment on this article
New Delhi - Rising sea waters have submerged a tiny island in the Bay of Bengal that is at the centre of a territorial dispute between India and Bangladesh, an oceanographer said Thursday.

Recent satellite imagery has confirmed that the uninhabited island, known as South Talpatti in Bangladesh and New Moore Island or Purbasha in India, had not been seen in its entirety since 1990, Sugata Hazra of Jadavpur University in Kolkata, said.

Other islands in the Sundarban delta area, known for its rich ecology and as a habitat of the endangered Royal Bengal tiger, were also in danger of submergence due to rising sea levels and increasing rainfall brought on by climate change, Hazra, director of the School for Oceanographic Studies, said.

New Moore Island measured about 9 square kilometres and was barely 1.5 to 2 metres above sea level when mapped in 1985, Hazra said.

"Some parts of it emerge at the lowest of low tides but it is completely submerged at all other times. As far as I am concerned, the New Moore Island has vanished since 1990," Hazra added.

He said local fishermen had confirmed that the island had disappeared.

"Global warming is definitely impacting the region - there is a direct correlation between rising sea surface temperature and sea levels and the relative increase in rainfall in the region," Hazra said.

Hazra said the earliest map he had seen with New Moore Island dated back to 1954. Both Bangladesh and India laid claim to the island in the 1970s.

"Years of negotiations could not resolve this territorial dispute," Hazra said. "Climate change has wiped out the very source of it."

Hazra said he expected that as it was a border island, the Indian government would carry out a physical verification of New Moore Island soon.

still, the positive side of this story:

Rising sea waters solved a territorial dispute between two nations.....

by **marshallb66** » March 29, 2010, 12:41 pm

Along with many other coastal areas around the world, a large portion of the Vietnamese Mekong river delta and the entire greater Bangkok delta in Thailand is only 1.5 meters above sea level.
Therefore, if the land claimed by the Indians and others, that was only 1.5 meters above sea level has been flooded by rising sea levels since 1990, why are the Vietnamese Mekong river delta and the Thailand Bangkok delta still above sea level? Sea level rising is another statement by the so-called scientists of our world that can be taken with a grain of salt.
There are different figures put forward by different people. Some say the sea is rising by 2 cm per year. Therefore, the sea level should have risen by 40 cm since 1990. More than enough, to be evident in the delta’s I have mentioned. Especially as other scientists are stating that Bangkok is sinking by 5cm each year. If that were the case, Bangkok would be under water now.
The loss of this land cannot be associated to global warming. If so then the rest of the low coastal land around the world would be under water or at least close to under water.
There are natural earth crust shifts that can account for changes in the sea level. Under water crust displacement and in some cases whole islands are created by undersea volcanos and crust movement.
The only reason the climate changes is due to natural occurring events that no man can control;.

by **rick** » March 29, 2010, 5:54 pm

Marshall, contrary to what you say, sea level rise is something which can be measured quite accurately and has been for the last 100 years. see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Average rate for last century is about 1.8mm per year (i think you got mm and cm confused). therefore rise in last 20 years would be about 4cm. Obviously, that is not enough in itself to make am island dissappear in a few years, but as those bengal islands are just silt, it makes them more vulnerable to erosion. Storms, floods during the monsoon can wipe out islands in a few days there. New islands are also formed. But generally the area is loosing land. Nearly all delta areas of rivers are sinking; due to isostatic readjustment the weight of silt deposited by the rivers causes the land to sink (this is a very slow process, takes 1,000s of years). If no more silt is deposited on the land due to flood control measures, this results in land levels slowly falling; but silt is still deposited in the area (probably further out to sea) so no let up in the sinking. Finally pumping water out of the ground can cause more subsidence.

Places like Bangkok, New Orleans, London have serious issues which do need action; some more urgently. New Orleans is now partially below sea level for all the above reasons and we saw what happened there. You have to keep improving your flood defences, but it keeps getting more expensive. You can get away with it by luck for a long time, but eventually the odds mean you will get flooded if you do nothing. One big storm, heavy rain inland, high tides at the same time and you have a disaster.

Also, dam building can have a big effect on coastal erosion. The sediment brought down by the river is now trapped by the dam, and without this sediment to make beaches and mud flats, erosion can rapidly increase. I have seen this for myself.

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Who is online