ronan01 wrote: The fact remain that the BEST papers tell us nothing new about the science.

Besides confirming it (even for the sceptics)...................ho, ho, ho!

Ronan,

When quoting facts (or opinions?) Should use more uptodate info.

The case for AGW theory has been getting weaker by the minute, as Marc Morano notes in this characteristically feisty summary of the current state of play:

The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers, the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007,

This not quite in tune with current FACT:

Arctic ice hits second-lowest level, US scientists say (September 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14945773

I am willing to debate how much Global warming is caused by different factors, but climate change is happening now. What you do about it, is, of course, another thing.

The scientific finding that does not settle the climate-change debate

S. Fred Singer

Before you write off Bachmann, Cain, and Perry as cynical diehards, deniers, idiots, or whatever, [WashPost Oct 24] consider this:

Why are you surprised by the results of the Berkeley Climate Project? They used data from the same weather stations as the Climategate people, but reported that one-third showed cooling — not warming.

They covered the same land area – less than 30% of the Earth’s surface – with recording stations that are poorly distributed, mainly in US and Western Europe. They state that 70% of US stations are badly sited and don’t meet the standards set by government; the rest of the world is likely worse.

Unlike the land surface, the atmosphere showed no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data. And did you know that the climate models, run on super-computers, all show that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface. What does this tell you?

And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called “proxies”: tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. They don’t show any global warming since 1940!

The Berkeley results in no way confirm the scientifically discredited Hockeystick graph, which had been so eagerly adopted by climate alarmists. In fact, the Hockeystick authors have never published their temperature results after 1978. The reason for hiding them? It’s likely that their proxy data show no warming either.

One last word: In their scientific paper, submitted for peer review, the Berkeley scientists disclaim knowing the cause of the temperature increase reported by their project. However, their research paper comments: “The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.” I commend them for their honesty and skepticism.

S. Fred Singer (professor emeritus at the University of Virginia) letter to WashPost Oct 25, 2011 Responding to:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ltoafriend

No comment required.

Singer Profiled in Rolling Stone Magazine

In the January 2010 edition of Rolling Stone Magazine, journalist Tim Dickinson profiled the top 17 United States "polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming". Below is an excerpt from the article titled "Climate Killers" about Fred Singer.[26]

A former mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, the 85-year-old Singer is the granddaddy of fake "science" designed to debunk global warming. The retired physicist — who also tried to downplay the danger of the hole in the ozone layer — is still wheeled out as an authority by big polluters determined to kill climate legislation. For years, Singer steadfastly denied that the world is heating up: Citing satellite data that has since been discredited, he even made the unhinged claim that "the climate has been cooling just slightly." Last year, Singer served as a lead author of "Climate Change Reconsidered" — an 880-page report by the right-wing Heartland Institute that was laughably presented as a counterweight to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's scientific authority on global warming. Singer concludes that the unchecked growth of climate-cooking pollution is "unequivocally good news." Why? Because "rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests." Small wonder that Heartland's climate work has long been funded by the likes of Exxon and reactionary energy barons like Charles Koch and Richard Mellon Scaife.[26]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... red_Singer

Typical Jackpratt smear - play the man and not the ball. Anyone who does not agree with Jack is in the pay of big oil, etc, etc. Boring Jack.

Which of his comments do you disagree with Jack, and for what reason?

ronan01 wrote:Typical Jackpratt smear - play the man and not the ball. Anyone who does not agree with Jack is in the pay of big oil, etc, etc. Boring Jack.

Which of his comments do you disagree with Jack, and for what reason?

Not my smear, Onan - just quoting others (as you extensively do).

Be prudent with climate claims

by: George Pell From: The Australian October 27, 2011 12:00AM

Extract ...

It is not generally realised that in 2001 at least, one of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report's workinggroups agreed: "In climate research and modelling, we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

Claims of atmospheric warming often appear to conflict and depend upon the period of time under consideration.

► The earth has cooled during the past 10,000 years since the Holocene climate optimum.

► The earth has cooled since 1000 years ago, not yet achieving the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period.

► The earth has warmed since 400 years ago after the Little Ice Age three centuries ago.

► The earth warmed between 1979 and 1998 and has cooled slightly since 2001.

The following facts are additional reasons for scepticism.

► In many places, most of the 11,700 years since the end of the last ice age were warmer than the present by up to 2C.

► Between 1695 and 1730, the temperature in England rose by 2.2C. That rapid warming, unparalleled since, occurred long before the Industrial Revolution.

► From 1976 to 2001, "the global warming rate was 0.16C per decade", as it was from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940.

My suspicions have been deepened through the years by the climate movement's totalitarian approach to opposing views. Those secure in their explanations do not need to be abusive.

The term "climate change denier", however expedient as an insult or propaganda weapon, with its deliberate overtones of comparison with Holocaust denial, is not a useful description of any significant participant in the discussion. I was not surprised to learn that the IPCC used some of the world's best advertising agencies to generate maximum effect among the public .

The rewards for proper environmental behaviour are uncertain, unlike the grim scenarios for the future as a result of human irresponsibility which have a dash of the apocalyptic about them.

The immense financial costs true believers would impose on economies can be compared with the sacrifices offered traditionally in religion, and the sale of carbon credits with the pre-Reformation practice of selling indulgences.

Some of those campaigning to save the planet are not merely zealous but zealots.

Cardinal George Pell is the Archbishop of Sydney. This is an edited extract of a speech given yesterday at the Global Warming Policy Forum in London.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6177730473

George Pell seems to make some sensible observations ( the accuracy of which I do not currently have the time to check). But yet again Sceptics seem to be predominantly non-scientists. George Pell went into the church at the age of 19, studying at a seminary and later receiving a PhD in Church history. No doubt an intelligent man, but an informed Climate spokesman? I think not.

George Pell's Claims:-

1. The earth has cooled during the past 10,000 years since the Holocene climate optimum - This is generally true, in that the trend has been downwards over the period, by about 0.7 degrees C. from the maximum to the minimum (I am using smoothed average results). The minimum is the little ice age. However, current annual temperatures are now ABOVE the Maximum in the optimum.

2. The earth has cooled since 1000 years ago, not yet achieving the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period. - Not quite right. Although since the Medieval warm period temperatures were mainly cooler,temperatures for the last 30 years have been higher on average.

3. The earth has warmed since 400 years ago after the Little Ice Age three centuries ago. - I do not quite understand why 3 centuries equals 400 years, and yes he is correct - and remember the little ice age was possibly the coldest period in the last 10,000 years! So not surprising.

4. The earth warmed between 1979 and 1998 and has cooled slightly since 2001. - Wrong - 2 of the 3 warmest years have been in the last 10 years - What he is stating is it has cooled since a record year in 1998 - but every year since then has still been on AVERAGE above the 30 year average. This means that the trend is still upwards.

5. In many places, most of the 11,700 years since the end of the last ice age were warmer than the present by up to 2C. - He doesn't say where, and it does not fit the fact that if you look at average temperatures for this period it is actually below or no higher than current temperatures. The sea was a bit warmer, but that is because it takes 500 years or more for the oceans to catch up.

6. Between 1695 and 1730, the temperature in England rose by 2.2C. That rapid warming, unparalleled since, occurred long before the Industrial Revolution. - Haven't found data on this yet, so cannot really comment. If this is just a difference between 2 years, that is weather.

7. From 1976 to 2001, "the global warming rate was 0.16C per decade", as it was from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940. - No specific data, looks slightly less to me for the earlier periods, but about right. But both these episodes also after short periods of cooling. The issue is that now it is getting to temperatures higher than any experienced in history. h


So George, be Prudent. Global warming is happening, we do not know 100% why but we do know we are entering new ground with the Earth's climate that hasn't happened for a long time. Your statements are mainly ambiguous at best.

8.

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

By David Rose

Last updated at 5:41 AM on 30th October 2011

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.

The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.

But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.

READ THE REST HERE:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... eague.html

It seems that Prof Muller from BEST makes money from global warming alarmism in a number of ways. No conflict of interest here.

http://www.mullerandassociates.com/index.php

Once again Onan, you are being disingenuous.

Muller was only one of several scientists on the BEST team:

Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director
Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist

David Brillinger, Statistical Scientist
Judith Curry, Climatologist
Don Groom, Physicist
Robert Jacobsen, Professor of Physics
Saul Perlmutter, Professor of Physics
Arthur Rosenfeld, Professor of Physics, Former California Energy Commissioner
Charlotte Wickham, Statistical Scientist
Jonathan Wurtele, Professor of Physics

Elizabeth Muller, Founder and Executive Director

http://berkeleyearth.org/aboutus.php

Muller is (or perhaps was) also a self-professed sceptic

In a 2004 article, Muller supported the findings of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in which they criticized the research, led by Michael E. Mann, which produced the so-called "hockey stick graph" of global temperatures over the past millennium [4] In response, Mann criticized Muller on his blog RealClimate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller

and



As for Muller & Associates, what part of their website demonstrates that:

Prof Muller from BEST makes money from global warming alarmism in a number of ways

Perhaps he is part of a false flag/double agent conspiracy by the overwhelming scientific community who believe that global warming is a reality, and it is highly likely that human activity is greatly contributing to the increase.

Finally, who said this?

Typical (Jackpratt) Onan smear - play the man and not the ball. Anyone who does not agree with (Jack) Onan is in the pay of big oil, etc, etc. Boring (Jack) Onan

You have lost the plot Mr Pratt

Lying, cheating climate scientists caught lying, cheating again
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: October 30th, 2011

"So I'm not going to die after all? Quelle bloody surprise!"

Oh dear. I really didn't want my first blog post in a week to be yet another one about global bloody warming. Problem is, if those lying, cheating climate scientists will insist on going on lying and cheating what else can I do other than expose their lying and cheating?

The story so far: ten days ago a self-proclaimed "sceptical" climate scientist named Professor Richard Muller of Berkeley University, California, managed to grab himself some space in the Wall Street Journal (of all places) claiming that the case for global warming scepticism was over. Thanks to research from his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures (BEST) project, Professor Muller stated confidently, we now know that the planet has warmed by almost one degree centigrade since 1950. What's more, he told the BBC's Today programme, there is no sign that this global warming has slowed down.

Cue mass jubilation from a number of media outlets which, perhaps, ought to have known better – among them, the Independent, the Guardian, The Economist and Forbes magazine. To give you an idea of their self-righteous indignation at the supposed ignorance of climate change deniers, here is the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson in full spate:

We know that the rise in temperatures over the past five decades is abrupt and very large. We know it is consistent with models developed by other climate researchers that posit greenhouse gas emissions — the burning of fossil fuels by humans — as the cause. And now we know, thanks to Muller, that those other scientists have been both careful and honorable in their work.

Nobody’s fudging the numbers. Nobody’s manipulating data to win research grants, as Perry claims, or making an undue fuss over a “naturally occurring” warm-up, as Bachmann alleges. Contrary to what Cain says, the science is real.

Problem is, Eugene, almost every word of those two paragraphs is plain wrong, and your smugness embarrassingly misplaced.

As you know, I had my doubts about Muller's findings from the start. I thought it was at best disingenuous of him to pose as a "sceptic" when there is little evidence of him ever having been one. As for his argument that the BEST project confounds sceptics by proving global warming exists – this was never more than a straw man.

Now, though, it seems that BEST is even worse than I thought. Here is what Muller claimed on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme:

In our data, which is only on the land we see no evidence of [global warming] having slowed down.

But this simply isn't true. Heaven forfend that a distinguished professor from Berkeley University should actually have been caught out telling a lie direct. No, clearly what has happened here is that Professor Muller has made the kind of mistake any self-respecting climate scientist could make: gone to press with some extravagant claims without having a smidgen of evidence to support them.

Here, to help the good professor out, is a chart produced by the Global Warming Policy Foundation's David Whitehouse. It was plotted from BEST's own figures.

Note how the 10 year trend from 2001 to 2010 – in flat contradiction of Muller's claims – shows no warming whatsoever.

What's odd that BEST appears to have gone to great trouble – shades of "hide the decline", anyone? – to disguise this inconvenient truth. Here is a graph released by BEST:


The GWPF's David Whitehouse is not impressed:

Indeed Best seems to have worked hard to obscure it. They present data covering more almost 200 years is presented with a short x-axis and a stretched y-axis to accentuate the increase. The data is then smoothed using a ten year average which is ideally suited to removing the past five years of the past decade and mix the earlier standstill years with years when there was an increase. This is an ideal formula for suppressing the past decade’s data.

Muller's colleague Professor Judith Curry – who besides being a BEST co-author chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology – is even less impressed.

There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... ing-again/

So, Global warming hasn't stopped? Ok, in the last 10 years it has not got progressively hotter, but it is not really possible to be certain of a trend over a short period; also the nature of these records are that you do not get a smooth result - many factors can also obscure any underlying trend. BUT it is not getting any cooler - see the record of warmest years below:

Year Global[44] Land[45] Ocean[46]
20 warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean)
2005 0.6183 0.9593 0.4896
2010 0.6171 0.9642 0.4885
1998 0.5984 0.8320 0.5090
2003 0.5832 0.7735 0.5108
2002 0.5762 0.8318 0.4798
2006 0.5623 0.8158 0.4669
2009 0.5591 0.7595 0.4848
2007 0.5509 0.9852 0.3900
2004 0.5441 0.7115 0.4819
2001 0.5188 0.7207 0.4419
2008 0.4842 0.7801 0.3745
1997 0.4799 0.5583 0.4502
1999 0.4210 0.6759 0.3240
1995 0.4097 0.6533 0.3196
2000 0.3899 0.5174 0.3409
1990 0.3879 0.5479 0.3283
1991 0.3380 0.4087 0.3110
1988 0.3028 0.4192 0.2595
1987 0.2991 0.2959 0.3005
1994 0.2954 0.3604 0.2704
1983 0.2839 0.3715 0.2513


10 of the 11 hottest years are in the 21st century. The pattern of where is warming may be changing, but we are still seeing average temperatures far above anything expected in the last century.

The BEST data shows no warming for about 13 years.

Phil Jones of Climategate fame acknowledged dimilar about 1 year ago.

Despite an increase of CO2.

Whats the theory again? Increasing CO2 causes global warming?

Where can I buy a thermometer that reads to 4 decimal places?

13 years? That's so you include 1998. which at the time was WAY above the curve of warming. You expect colder years also. if we take two 5 year periods, in 1999-2003 global land warming averages 0.4978 above the 20th century mean, while in 2004-2008 it was 0.5519. That's still warming AND is increasing at a rate above the 20th Century average. I know if you pick different 5 year sets you can get a different answer, but that is why picking a small range of years to suit your presumptions is statistically very poor - my data is just as valid. it also explains why climate is usually calculated as the mean of a 30 year or greater period. If you use the last 30 years, then the mean nearly always goes up every year - because even a cold year now is hotter than a hot year 30 years ago.

rick wrote:13 years? That's so you include 1998. which at the time was WAY above the curve of warming. You expect colder years also. if we take two 5 year periods, in 1999-2003 global land warming averages 0.4978 above the 20th century mean, while in 2004-2008 it was 0.5519. That's still warming AND is increasing at a rate above the 20th Century average. I know if you pick different 5 year sets you can get a different answer, but that is why picking a small range of years to suit your presumptions is statistically very poor - my data is just as valid. it also explains why climate is usually calculated as the mean of a 30 year or greater period. If you use the last 30 years, then the mean nearly always goes up every year - because even a cold year now is hotter than a hot year 30 years ago.

The temperature has not increased for about the last 13 years despite increased co2 levels. The measurements (to 4 decimal places) do not agree with the theory - perhaps the theory is wrong.

According to the theory the planet should be much hotter - but its not. Nothing to do with cherry picking. It was the alarmists best kept secret until Phil Jones spilled the beans - even he acknowledged there was no warming.

I did not pick a 5 year period to make a point - you did. I simply looked at the last 13 years data and stated the obvious - there has been no warming, it is basically a flatline.

The alarmist theory and models did not predict this and cannot explain it. The theory and models say increased co2 = increased heat.

Looks like the theory and models are wrong. A growing problem for the alarmists. Reality is intruding on your fantasy.

I think you will aatempt to change reality - nothing unusual about that!!!

I have made no presumptions and then looked for small subsets of data to support them - but you did.

It is very simple - THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING FOR ABOUT 13 YEARS.

No amount of statistical obfuscation can change that simple fact.

THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING FOR ABOUT 13 YEARS. FACT.

John Daniel:

“We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply this is due to global warming,” he said. “If you make a big deal about every time it goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.”

JC comment: Well somebody had to finally say this, thank you John Daniel.

Ben Santer:

For a decade, that’s exactly what happened. Skeptics made exaggerated claims about “global cooling,” pointing to 1998. (For one representative example, two years ago columnist George Will referred to 1998 as warming’s “apogee.”) Scientists had to play defense, said Ben Santer, a climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“This no-warming-since-1998 discussion has prompted people to think about the why and try to understand the why,” Santer said. “But it’s also prompted people to correct these incorrect claims.”

JC comment: Too bad this didn’t prompt Santer and others to wonder how much further along we would all be in understanding this if they had paid some attention to the skeptics

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/27/candi ... #more-5489