I have tried to make it quite clear a few times that regardless of no new record, there is no evidence that the underlying rising trend in global surface temperatures has reversed or stopped. But absent a short term rising trend the inattentive public is very vulnerable to disengenouous denialists claiming warming is over (did they ever admit it was happening??). So I am afraid that that talking point will not go away until 1998's record status does so as well.
So when will that happen? I'm not talking about statistically insignificant 0.05oC win by a nose in one record but not another, I mean when will we get an unequivocal, unanimously agreed replacement of 1998 as the new record high global average temperature?
Being just a blog scientist, and not a real one, I won't do the actual work needed to answer that question. But there is a real answer, there is a point at which it becomes very unlikely that we won't have a new record, a point at which the slow, inexolerable underlying climatic trend finally rises above the erratic and rapid weather noise that created 1998's extreme record.
Fortunately tamino at Open Mind has done the required work and presented it very clearly for all of us in this posting.
The bottom line is that it is not surprising that we have not broken that record. 1998 was a very strikingly high record, 2.6 standard deviations above the underlying trend, where the most likely reading would have landed. Given that crucial fact, it turns out that 2008 was actually the year with the highest probablity of breaking the record. In other words "global warming stopped for ten years" was exactly what was the most likely outcome if global warming never stopped!
It will take us until 2012 before we should be scratching our heads and wondering why no new record yet. That is where the 95% probability threshold is (actually this holds whether you take Hadley's 1998 record or GISS's les dramatic 2005 record). And that is of course only if there is no identifiable mitigating factor, like some large volcanic eruptions or an actual decrease in solar output.
Of course it may happen before that, in fact that is more likely. We do have an El Nino on the way, (though not one to rival 1998) so maybe it will be this year or the next. But if it isn't, that does not mean what the denialists will claim it means!
Go have a read at Tamino's, and let's all put this talking point to bed until 2012.
- Log in to post comments
[...redacted...]
[coby here: Snowman, please do not post comments that 100% ignore everything stated in the post and that can only be answered with derision. Especially as an iitial comment. Thanks]
Snowman: By your logic, the very fact that non-Birther sources are covering the Birthers demonstrates that non-Birthers are panicking and increasingly realize the game is up.
Which is more likely: A panic to maintain a conspiracy of millions of scientists, politicians, activists and objective observations of the natural world, or conspiracy theorists getting bigger and bigger megaphones as they move further and further away from rationality?
I'm still waiting on your conditions for falsifiability, by the way.
You misunderstand me, Brian D. I have never suggested a conspiracy. What is clear, however, is that many scientists have been as vulnerable to cognitive bias and the herd instinct as any other group.
I am glad to see, moreover, that the consensus implied in your comment is rapidly coming apart at the seams. You may be aware, for example, that the American Physical Society (Coby's posting notwithstanding) is currently reviewing its position under pressure from members and we may yet see a statement from that body that more accurately reflects the uncertainties that exist. You also be aware of the letter recently published in Nature by six prominent scientists arguing that the previous editorials of that journal are 'alarmist'.
Perhaps these matters are not, in themselves, earth shattering. But as more and more scientists are prepared to put their heads above the parapet and face the genuine risk of approbation, it may not be too long before the whole AGW edifice comes crashing down. Let's hope so, anyway.
Incidentally, I don't know why you are blathering on about birthers and non birthers. As my old granny used to say, what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Where's the "coming apart from the seams" evidence when those lobbying the APS and Nature are essentially the same tired voices who've been saying the same tired things for a decade plus?
Say what you will, it's still melting, rapdily
We will see, dhogaza, we will see.
Why you should love your carbon footprint
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13132
I try my best to help with global warming by totally ignoring the government mandates to put in different light bulbs, stop driving trucks, and all other silly things like this. Mars has global warming too. I suppose it's becuase of all those large coal burning plants and SUVs and incadescent light bulbs up there eh?
Hybrids are cars for wimps! Get a real car people - a rear wheel drive V8!
Get a real truck! A 4WD SUV with a V8 or larger. Power, go anywhere capability, roominess, and less maintenance than a hybrid.
Hybrids are the rave right now. Wait 6 years when the batteries die and it costs $3,000 for replacement batteries. I'm going to laugh my ass of then.
I believe they are "controling" the weather, accidently, they beam high frequency into the air, and not expect a warming, They beam a lazer to the moon for a bounce back measurement, and not expect warming. The weather is changing, but is it because of the ninio (sp) or the lack of sunspots, the there is no corralation yet that I have heard of. So lets blame man. Lets ship our industries to places where they can pollute all they want without sanction. We only breath the downstream air, cancer will only kill those who breath, Okay?
Coby, you know that as soon as a new temperature record is set, the fact that some number of years after that will be cooler than that record will be heralded as 'evidence' by denialists that global warming is over. Again.
The weight this argument is apparently given in the normal media and amongst non-scientists is based in an incomplete understanding of what to expect from the statistics of a measured natural system.
While global troller for life is obviously just that, it's interesting that when the Prius hit its tenth birthday, Toyota claimed it never had replaced a battery under warranty (they now warrant the battery for 10 years or (IIRC) 100,000 miles). There are plenty of Prius's out there with 200,000+ miles on them, still using the original battery. And the State of Oregon Motor Pool has stated that over ten years, their experience is that total cost of ownership (purchase price, maintenance, fuel) for the Prius is about 40% less than for an equivalent non-hybrid sedan, partly due to low maintenance costs (which might be partly due to the Prius being an ultra-reliable Toyota).
You got people waiting for the APS to radically change its stance of "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring" and people who without doubt accept the fact that Mars is experiencing climate change when the evidence of this is rather poor atm and even more they decide to deny what is the most likey explanation of it.
So I'm afraid nothing will change, if year X is the new record then the new argument will be that warming now stopped on year X. Implacable...
"And the State of Oregon Motor Pool has stated that over ten years, their experience is that total cost of ownership (purchase price, maintenance, fuel) for the Prius is about 40% less than for an equivalent non-hybrid sedan, partly due to low maintenance costs (which might be partly due to the Prius being an ultra-reliable Toyota)."
---------
Good for them. If someone wants to drive a super ugly tiny little car, then go for it. I have no problem with that. What i have a problem with is it affecting what I drive. I do drive a truck and almost never haul anything. It gets 26 MPG which is good for a small truck with an automatic transmission.
I hate hybrid cars though. They are UGLY! Why can't they look normal?
And don;t even get me started on electric cars.
When they invent an electric car for under $20,000 that is a midsize or full size rear wheel drive sedan that only has to be charged every 500 miles, then i may consider it. Oh, and it has to be pretty. I don;t care about GPS, satellit, internet, video games, PWR locks, windows, etc. Just a regualr affordable full size car that drives as good as old cars in the 70s and 80s did. It als has to last for a minimum life expectancy of 225,000 miles.
It can be done - without unions of course.
I can buy a brand new Ford Fusion car for about $19,000 where I live. it is not fancy with leather seats, GPS, etc. It is not even a big car and does not drive or ride as good as cars did thirty years ago. It also does not have much power. The typical four cylinder and even the six cylinder for that car is powerless thanks to the environuts and thier catalytic converters and such. Down here in the good ole south we take off all that useless crap. Beleive me, there are mechanics out there with race car building experience that can reprogram that computer to believe there is no catalytic converter after is it removed.
Anyway, aboput the Ford Fusion. It is a decent little car with good gas mileage (29 MPG) in the four cylinder and costs less than a Prius, is easier to maintain since I change my own oil and check my own tires, etc. It is also cheaper on insurance, looks 10 times better, is more comfortable, has more room, has a nicer interior, and is NOT a hybrid. it actually has gears in teh transmission that propels the car forward like normal cars should have.
I do not know how a hybrid drives. I assume the torque steer is terrible. It is not exceptionally well in most front wheel drive sedans, unless we are talking about a Cadillac, Buick, or Lincoln.
I drive a 2009 Ford Ranger XLT pickup and have averaged 26 MPG. It costed me $12,700 brand new after taxes and all rebates and discounts. The original price was more than $20,000 which was ridiculous (union healthcare was $1200 of that price). It is a nice truck. It has all the nice features, but I would not have bought it if it were a hybrid. Many other feel the same way.
No one wants ot be forced to drive a car they hate. Prius may get good gas mileage, but makes up for it in uglyness and smallness. I bet the torque steer is horrible too.
I do drive 43 miles to work one way every day. I spend alot on gas, but buying a stupid hybrid has never been an option for me. I'll stick to regilar vehicles thank you. The next one I buy may be a Toyota though. I'm tired of paying for union benefits when I buy a car. I wish I could afford a Dodge Ram 1500 4x4 with a Hemi, but that is out of the question - for now.
Global warming is happenning. The interesting question from a global policy perspective is 'what will the effects be'. This is often simplified to 'how much warming is likely to occur?'.
Warming may have been overestimated due to the 1998 'blip'. I'm no expert but it's likely that the models are sensitive to temperature fluctuations in the years leading up to that model being run.
Does anyone have a reliable source of comparison between say the 2007 IPCC models vs actual temperatures?
Graphs that show the IPCC modelling are usually presented with mean +/- 1 S.D (e.g. p803 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report)
With the apparent "flattening" of the temperature curve, is the actual temperature falling outside the lower confidence intervals of the models?
GWDFL,
You do realise that when you remove the cat converter you are spewing out all kinds of toxic chemicals, for example have you ever stood next to an ULP car when it is cold started and smelt that "rotten eggs" smell? That is the toxic chemicals you are smelling because the cats only work when they are warm.
Sorry thats right we are only concerned with CO2, by the way i was always told if you cant afford a dodge dodge afford is that right?
In regards to a new temp record, when you consider a large portion of the past 12,000 years has been hotter than now would it be a big suprise if we did get one one day?
Maybe Snowman can respond to this. What's it likely to be? A new record because "a large portion of the past 12,000 years has been hotter than now" or past due for another ice age?
BTW, why only look at 12,000 years? When you get into millions, the temps go up even more!
crakar,
Care to provide a temperature reconstruction that supports your assertion? I didn't think so.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/it-was-warmer-during-holo…
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/medieval-warm-period-was-…
BTW Coby you missed a great climate-related bit of news in the Globe & Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/so-wheres-that-global-cool…
Note the recommendation of Plimer's book.
Hmm... I should have posted that under the correct posting but the comment box seems to be showing up intermittently and I assumed the news post had comments turned off.
Fashion now proves that science is wrong ...
Oh, gosh, what is it about hybrid technology that forbids you from changing your own oil or CHECKING YOUR TIRES?
You've descended into idiocy, I'm afraid...
Excellent article in the Globe and Mail, Pough. Thank you so much for drawing it to our attention. It is, of course, just one of many such articles we have been reading, as it becomes increasingly obvious that the AGW emperor has no clothes. I am delighted to see that you have joined our side, by the way. Truly, there is joy in heaven when a sinner repenteth.
In this context, I am also delighted to note that resistance to the cap and trade bill is growing in the US senate, and it now looks as if this grotesque bit of legislation will not pass. If America refuses to be part of this insanity, perhaps our spineless leaders in Europe might take note. It could even be the beginning of the end of attempts to reduce CO2 emissions. Hallelujah.
Incidentally, a hilarious piece on BBC 'news' last night pluckily explaining that temperatures in Greenland will soon rival those on the riviera, just minutes before a separate interview with some Met Office honcho trying to account for the fact that this wet, cold summer (the third in a row) is not quite what they promised when they spoke some weeks ago of the 'barbecue summer' to come. However, as the Beeb is the broadcasting arm of fashionable environmentalism, people here have long since stopped taking it seriously.
Well, gee, my car doesn't give out that smell when it's cold.
The SO2 smell is a sympton of two possible things: a malfunctioning car, or high-sulfur fuel. Since gasoline in the US is low-sulfur, the diagnosis is simple ...
No, that's not how they work. What you're describing is a "statistical model", one fit to prior data.
Climate models are physics-based models, and while the various values for the physics are empirical (measured) it's at a much more basic level than temperature levels over a few years.
Dear god, let gas prices reach $10/gallon just so this dude can no longer afford internet access...
Pough please stop crediting other people for my posts, regardless here is my response. There may well be another ice age on the horizon who knows, yes you are right if you go back further in time temps go up even more but you need to understand the further back we go the less accurate we are and also the further back we go the more the Earth has changed. Continently drift, sea level heights have all changed so it is not relevant to today climatically speaking.
Here is a link to the Holocene temps,
Add http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
now dont just look at the graph, read the whole text as it is very informative. It describes the difficulties in producing a global temp record from such a long time ago. What you can take away from this is that todays temps are nothing out of the ordinary hence my original statement
"In regards to a new temp record, when you consider a large portion of the past 12,000 years has been hotter than now would it be a big suprise if we did get one one day?"
Here is another link
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall04/atmo336/lecture…
Coby, if you respond with the "hockey stick" i think i will be sick.
cheers
Crakar
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
now dont just look at the graph, read the whole text as it is very informative. It describes the difficulties in producing a global temp record from such a long time ago. What you can take away from this is that todays temps are nothing out of the ordinary hence my original statement
Wow. Logic sure isn't one of your strong suits, is it? In case it is not clear, I am saying that your conclusion does not in anyway relate to the difficulties you describe.
Dhogaza,
Just for the sake of completeness and to scratch that ever increasing itch of yours to have an argument, please read the following link paying close attention to the bit about "preheating a catalytic converter"
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter3.htm
Now we can debate the rotting egg smell bit if you like but it is rather pointless because apparently the only bad things that come out of the exhaust pipe is CO2.
@ Denier for life "I hate hybrid cars though. They are UGLY! Why can't they look normal?"
You mean like this:
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-hybrid/
Looks normal to me.
@ Shade "I'm no expert but it's likely that the models are sensitive to temperature fluctuations in the years leading up to that model being run."
Given that model runs usually start well into the past (100 years or so) that isn't really a concern.
Coby,
We have had this discussion and you failed to answer it before. There is no basis for your claims about now being warmer than past:
First problems with the methodologies
Christiansen et al (2009)
web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/staff/boc/reconstr_reprint.pdf
The underestimation of the amplitude of the low frequency variability demonstrated for all of the seven methods discourage the use of reconstructions to estimate the rareness of the recent warming. That this underestimation is found for all the reconstruction methods is rather depressing and strongly suggests that this point should be investigated further before any real improvements in the reconstruction methods can be made.
von Storch (2004)The centennial variability of the NH temperature is underestimated by the regression-based methods applied here [Mann et al], suggesting that past variations may have been at least a factor of two larger than indicated by empirical reconstructions. Frank et al (2005) The ring-width-based reconstruction substantially underestimates temperatures during the most of the overlap period with early instrumental data, with substantially lower values during the late 1700s and maximal divergence during the temperature minima around 1815.
D'Arrigo et al (2007)on divergence. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures.
Datsenko et al (2008) It is found that the Mann et al. reconstruction drastically underestimates low-frequency temperature variations, whereas the Moberg et al. reconstruction reproduces them much better, although with a certain underestimation rather than overestimation, as Mann et al. have recently argued.
Von Storch et al (2009)
The methods are Composite plus Scaling, the inverse regression method of Mann et al. (Nature 392:779â787, 1998) and a direct principal-components regression method. ⦠All three methods underestimate the simulated variations of the Northern Hemisphere temperature, but the Composite plus Scaling method clearly displays a better performance and is robust against the different noise models and network size.
Riedwyl et al (2008)
This paper presents a comparison of principal component (PC) regression and regularized expectation maximization (RegEM) to reconstruct European summer and winter surface air temperature over the past millennium. ⦠For the specific predictor network given in this paper, both techniques underestimate the target temperature variations to an increasing extent as more noise is added to the signal, albeit RegEM less than with PC regression.
Secondly, studies that do not use tree rings:
Millet et al (2009) The chironomid-based inference model reconstructed a July air temperature decrease of c. 0.7°C for the DACP and 1.3°C for the LIA compared with the temperature prevailing during the MWP.
Axford et al (2009) Much of the first millennium AD was relatively warm, with temperatures comparable to warm decades of the twentieth century. Temperatures during parts of the tenth and eleventh centuries AD may have been comparably warm.
Loehle (2007) The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.
Blass et al (2007) We found exceptionally low temperatures between AD 1580 and 1610 (0.75°C below twentieth-century mean) and during the late Maunder Minimum from AD 1680 to 1710 (0.5°C below twentieth-century mean).
Polissar et al (2007) Here we report a 1,500-year reconstruction of climate history and glaciation in the Venezuelan Andes using lake sediments. Four glacial advances occurred between anno Domini (A.D.) 1250 and 1810, coincident with solar-activity minima. Temperature declines of â3.2 ± 1.4°C and precipitation increases of â20% are required to produce the observed glacial responses.
Richey et al (2007) Two multi-decadal intervals of sustained high Mg/Ca indicate that Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were as warm or warmer than near-modern conditions between 1000 and 1400 yr B.P. Foraminiferal Mg/Ca during the coolest interval of the Little Ice Age (ca. 250 yr B.P.) indicate that SST was 2â2.5 °C below modern SST
Mangini et al (2005) The precisely dated isotopic composition of a stalagmite from Spannagel Cave in the Central Alps is translated into a highly resolved record of temperature at high elevation during the past 2000 yr. Temperature maxima during the Medieval Warm Period between 800 and 1300 AD are in average about 1.7 °C higher than the minima in the Little Ice Age and similar to present-day values.
Mossberg et al (2005) According to our reconstruction, high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990- occurred around AD 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7K below the average of 1961-90 occurred around AD 1600.
Tan et al (2003) The WTR agrees well with the HCC (Table 1), including the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) [Lamb, 1965] and the Little Ice Age (LIA) [Matthes, 1939]. (Vernon - Figure 3 shows MWP was +1C and LIA was greater that -1C from the mean.)
Yang et al (2002) General characteristics of temperature change in China during the last two millennia are most clearly expressed by the ââWeightedââ reconstruction (Figure 3). According to the ââWeightedââ reconstruction curve, temperatures in China were above average in AD 0â240 with two peaks around AD 50 and in AD 100â240. The peak at about AD 200 represents the warmest stage of the last two millennia, temperature was even higher than during the 20th century. (Vernon - Figure 3 shows that MWP was +1C and LIA was -1C but RWP was warmer than Modern warming)
deMenocal et al (2000) The most recent of these events was the Little Ice Age, which occurred between 1300 to 1850 A.D., when subtropical SSTs were reduced by 3° to 4°C.
And finally, we know that GISS has adjusted GISTEMP to create a more dramatic modern temperature increase. We know that S&T is 2009 study shows that we cannot expect any warming till 2020.
I am not going to repost all the problems with the models but AGW is a house of cards that is falling down.
Once again Vernon gives a list of references which are almost impossible to track down.
Vernon, first author and date shows you completely lack the knowledge of how to discuss science.
However, I suspect that you already know this and give incomplete references so we can't track them down quickly and show that once again you completely misinterpret what the authors actually have found and claim.
You think so? I was laughing at it. It's one of the stupider articles I've read on the subject, and the smug, sneering tone makes it seem even stupider. The final recommendation of Plimer's joke of a book was the icing on the cake. That's when you go "oooh..." and realize the person with the gaping head wound doesn't even know they're hurt.
Okay, but in order to stop, I'll have to start first. Do you have a preferred post that I should credit to someone else, or do you want me to just surprise you?
Vernon,
Let's just confine the tmperature record discussion to the modern intrumental record for this thread, okay?
And since you clearly have a list of these references at hand, why don't you add a link or journal name or something so that interested parties are not stuck googling for it. If you don't have that, then I would caution against citing papers without reading them or verifying they say what whoever you got them from says they say.
Raise your hand if you believe that GWDFL watches Fox News...
Hi Pough
Regarding Prof Plimer's 'joke of a book' as you call it - you have of course read it before reaching that conclusion?
Hi Coby
At your suggestion I actually read Tamino's paper (yes, I know, breaking the habit of a lifetime, very funny).
But here's something that puzzled me. He ASSUMES a 'steady warming rate at 0.017 deg.C/yr'.
I couldn't understand the basis of such an assumption. Yet without it, isn't the whole thing merely another statistical abstraction that is detached from reality?
Maybe you could help me.
Please no, gas up here is already $5.14C per Canadian gallon, we don't need it any higher. I have to travel an average of 400km per day, frequently through snow storms on dirt/gravel roads covered in 5" to 10" of the white stuff. I have to have a 4x4 with enough power to plow through this stuff.
I have no idea why historical variations have been brought up, they had many causes, some of which we know, others we don't but each variation has for the most part a cause independent of previous causes. Assuming a non-human cause of the current trend just because of the past is relying on the genetic fallacy. Each variation in climate has to be examined in light of all possible causes, including new ones like human induced warming. The question is, or should be, which of the past causes and potential new causes is responsible for current trends and what can be done about it.
Actually, I've read about 5 reviews of the book, all of which quote it extensively. If they're not just making up the quotes, it's a joke. If any of the reviews are accurate, it's painfully obvious that his competence in climate science is inversely proportional to his confidence.
What do you say? Have the quotes from the book been made up?
Also, you never did respond to what crakar feels is a misattribution of his comment. (I didn't claim you said that, just that I wanted you to respond to it.) Do you think that because it's been plenty warm in the last 12,000 years that a new record is likely to be set in the future? Am I remembering correctly that you feel global cooling is both imminent and more dangerous than warming?
Well, Pough, I accept that you made your comment in good faith. But I feel fairly confident in guessing that the reviews you read were uniformly hostile and written by people who are opposed, as a matter of principle, to the argument that Prof Plimer advances. Given that, it is hardly surprising that your opinion of the book is negative.
Of course, you are under no moral obligation to read a book that you think is wrong. But, by the same token, you surely have no entitlement to sneer at it. It will be a sad day for intellectual integrity if we all feel that it is perfectly reasonable to pronounce on something without bothering to read it.
As for Crakar's challenge, I am not ducking it but I
Sorry Pough, hit the post button by mistake. I was going to say I am not ducking it but I am not sure what comment I am meant to respond to. Perhaps he could refresh my memory.
Reading excerpts are sufficient. If you think the excerpts provided by various reviewers on the web are made-up stuff, go ahead and prove it.
Now, back at you ... if you don't think GCMs are any good ... have you read them?
You can start here.
Don't come back until you're done.
Well, if the principle in question is sound science, then yes. Otherwise, no. I know it makes you feel much more comfortable to think that his science is sound and his opponents are mere ideologues, but it's really not the case. I doubt you'll ever believe that, but I'm stating it regardless.
Perhaps the reviews were hostile because Plimer's arguments are nonsense. Why would you assume that they are willing to lie in order to debunk Plimer?
Snowman, have you actually read Plimer's book?
If so, which of his arguments do you believe to be the most powerful in debunking AGW?
Instead of forming an opinion based on motives, why not try addressing the science?
I can agree with you in one instance, and that is when quote mining has taken place. An excellent example of such is when Darwin is "quoted" as saying negative things about various races, when in fact he was paraphrasing someone else's ideas in order to shoot them down. If that's what was happening in the reviews I've read then by all means I need to find some better reviews. If not, I think I can continue to sneer.
Dumb things were put forth in the book as though they were superior to what's been established by the many people actually trained in climate science. If you're going to overturn an entire science, you should be much more careful about not being strikingly dumb in the process. And that's what makes it very sneer-worthy to me. It's one thing to disagree with your peers. It's another to disagree stupidly with your peers. It's much worse to disagree with people outside your field and when you mix it with stupid and smug, you're setting yourself up to be mocked harshly. And deservedly.
How much of it do you have to read? All of it? How many people have read Mein Kampf? How many have read the entirety of the many creationist books? Have you? Are you holding off judgement until you do? How stupid do excerpts need to be to be able to sneer at something? It's not as though I've read none of it. I've read enough via quotes to know that the rest of the book would have to be making fun of what's quoted to make it anything other than laughable.
Pough, I have never said that his opponents are ideologues, but I do believe this whole debate has been infected by a type of latter day McCarthyism, in which it is considered beyond the pale merely to hold certain views. Prof Plimer reports, for example, that demonstrations have been held outside his home and he has received threats of violence.
Who would have thought, in the 21st century, that such a thing could happen? It is rather like Galileo being shown the instruments of torture by the Catholic church. There are certain things, his enemies seem to be saying, that simply may not be believed.
His book, incidentally, runs to more than 500 closely argued pages. It would be surprising, given the nature of the subject and the intense emotion it arouses, if his opponents could not find a few things to find fault with.
There should be an equivalent of Godwin's law that should be applied when folks like Pilmer, intellectually something of a bozo the clown, is compared to Galileo.
Really, dhogaza, you can do better than that. You know perfectly well that I am not comparing Prof Plimer to Galileo. My point is that in its determination to suppress heresy the warming lobby seems to be no different from the church in renaissance Italy.
Perhaps in this context I can remind you of the words of H L Mencken, who said that 'The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.' That, in a nutshell, is what troubles me most about this whole issue.
The intolerance that seems to be an unavoidable part of it is highly disturbing. I believe, quite sincerely, that militant environmentalism is a grave threat to freedom, quite the gravest that the west has faced in a generation.
Isn't that a bit fanciful? I don't think so. Concern about AGW is the perfect storm: it preys upon first world guilt, calls upon us to cease sinning against Mother Earth, and offers a mystical path to salvation.
It is a heady brew, and it is little wonder that so many people have been seduced by it - just as previous generations were seduced by calls to save the world in other ways.
Do you have any evidence that Mencken's words are applicable in the case of climate research? Wishful thinking does count.
I see you are still going to motive. That's a shame, because relying on what you believe the motives are instead of comparing the science of climate scientists to that of deniers is likely to retard any learning you are hoping to do.
Coby:
While you claim to be a blog scientist (but you do better than that), that's aiming too high. For some of the posters here, I'm afraid TwitterScience is appropriate. :-)
Plimer's book sounds like a denialist's fantasy. Definitely doesn't belong in the non-fiction category according to this: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia…
Coby #25
You rather sarcastically asked for a reference to back up my statement, i supplied one which shows the temp variations have been at times higher than today and at times lower than today. Instead of being satisfied you respond in some alarmist coded sarcasm once again.
Was my reference to past temps (12,000 years as per my original statement) not good enough for you? Are you disputing the past temps as shown on the graph?
Or do you accept this data to be true but are disputing my reasoning behind my statement?
Please be more specific on this if you want to have an open, curteous and meaningful debate.
Hello Dappled Water. It is quite extraordinary that in a book of 500 pages Prof. Plimer's opponents find so few things to disagree with. The point about the graph has been made by, I think, every single antagonistic commentator, all of them, of course, having read each other's reviews. They seize upon it with glee, just as they do every other little quibble, all the while ignoring the overwhelming amount of evidence he marshals in support of his main thesis.
Look, I don't suggest this book is perfect and beyond criticism. Of course it isn't. What book is? But what is remarkable is the degree of hysteria it has caused among the true believers.
I sometimes think of a trial lawyer friend, a highly experienced cross examiner, who told me that he always knew when a witness's story was invented by the degree of indignation he or she displayed when challenged.
However, that's probably enough about one book, and Coby has been very tolerant and patient in permitting it. It is pretty obvious that Prof. Plimer has touched a nerve in exposing the flimsiness of the warming case, so let's say no more.
You seem to live in some kind of fantasy world where only those who are correct are corrected and mockery is hysteria. Also note that Plimer's book itself could be considered an hysterical reaction to the correctness of the actual climate science. I won't say that, though, because I think that the "must have touched a nerve" argument is a sign of weakness and also simply because it's much easier to just point out that he's wrong on some very key issues and he's hardly an expert in the field to be respected.
Just try to imagine a scenario where Plimer has written a 500 page book that's total crap, while at the same time accuses every expect in the field of being either stupid or fraudulent. What then? Roses and thank you cards? Gay dancing in fields? A kiss on the cheek and a sly offer of more?
Sorry pough, I am afraid you have lost me. Gay dancing? A kiss on the cheek? What's all that about?
As for this fantasy world that you believe I inhabit, well, that just shows, I'm afraid, the utter impossibility of making progress in this discussion.
We rationalists know that time will prove us right - indeed it already is so proving - but equally we know that there is not the slimmest chance of convincing those who think otherwise.
Incidentally, I don't know what part of the world you live in, but I assume it is the northern hemisphere somewhere. If so, better stock up on your winter woolies. It's going to be a hard winter.
It's about your inability to imagine reality and excellence at believing in fantasy. I was trying to ask you what kind of response you would expect to see if Plimer's book were rubbish while it tried to demean experts. Imagine it. What would the response be? If what you like to believe is true, that good science is met with hysteria by scientists, then what is the response from scientists to bad science?
Yes, snowman, we know that for denialists like you it's not really about the science.
It's rare to see one so openly admit it. Thanks.
Well pough, well dhogaza, this may surprise you, but I genuinely sympathize with your dilemma. You have both clearly read widely on this topic, and care deeply about it. And yet, as you look around you, you can see the whole AGW agenda collapsing like a house of cards. How appalling it must be, the dawning awareness that something in which you have invested so much emotional energy is simply wrong: wrong in theory, wrong in practice and wrong in reality - wrong, wrong, wrong.
What is my evidence? Well, you cannot be unaware of he growing uproar at both the American Physical Society and American Chemical Society as members rebel against the politically correct, unscientific policies that have been shoved down their throats. I expect you are aware, too, of the letter in the latest issue of Nature signed by six eminent scientists deploring the intolerance and irrationality of the AGW brigade. Even a few months ago, it is inconceivable that such a letter would have been published.
At the same time, we are seeing more and more newspapers and broadcasting organizations beginning to question the whole thing, even those like the BBC which for years has been the broadcasting arm of the AGW lobby.
And so, dhogaza and pough, the writing is clearly on the wall. Or, to quote the perhaps more appropriate words of Bob Dylan: 'You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.'
By all means, let us look at your evidence.
Questioning imagined bullying: political/rhetorical/ideological; not science.
Questioning imagined bullying: political/rhetorical/ideological; not science.
Questioning imagined bullying: political/rhetorical/ideological; not science.
How can we possibly consider the science by climate scientists to be science when cranks outside the climate science field wax conspiratorially? You got us over a barrel, Snowman, you really do.
This is one of the most hilarious things I've ever read on the intertubes, including things that were *meant* to be funny.
Bull. It's the same old suspects, with Fred Singer leading off.
The response to nature will be boatloads of mail from angry scientists annoyed that Nature would give these people a platform.
Notably absent in your list is any meaningful scientific research to counter the work of thousands of scientists worldwide.
Lindzen appears to be flogging his old dead horse, the iris effect, yet again in his recent paper, which if true would make it extremely difficult to understand how we could have such large swings in climate in the past.
McLean's latest doesn't even support the conclusions they make in public, and two of the authors are on *record* saying so.
But for someone whose interest is ideological, not scientific, I can see why you rejoice in the fact that the press and right-wing politicians continue to ignore sound science.
Frankly, I don't care all that much, being 55 and childless. Let these people sell their children down the river, why should I care?
Their ideology isn't going to change physics. No matter how much you believe it will.
Oh, snowman, you forgot to mention the most compelling evidence that the so-called house of cards is collapsing:
The US House of Representatives passed the first piece of federal legislation regulating CO2 emissions EVER.
That's a real victory for the anti-science side, oh yeah!
Pough, what are we going to do with you? Must you miss the point every time? By evidence I referred to evidence for the fact that the AGW consensus is evaporating. There is of course separate evidence that the science is wrong, but that was not what I was alluding to.
And as for you, dhogaza, I am glad to have brightened up a dull day.
Unfortunately, boys, I must ask you to brace yourselves because I have some bad news. I am about to go off for a month on my travels and for much of that time I will be in remote areas without internet access.
So, for at least four weeks you will have to manage somehow without my posts: yes, it's hard, I know, mais courage mes braves.
I didn't miss the point. The consensus within the relevant field is solid. Outside that field is both irrelevant and based entirely on an imagined bullying. So when you talk about "evaporating consensus" you're conflating relevant consensus and irrelevant (and unscientific) consensus. It's actually a double fail on your part. Triple fail if you count how closely it parallels the "dissent from Darwin" creationist ploy. Quadruple when you factor in how ridiculously pompous you sound while doing it.
Laughter is not hysteria, BTW. Just thought you should know that.
Quintuple fail when you understand that the recent increase in the decibel levels of denialist shrieking is a reaction to the strengthening consensus that something must be done, and their fears that something *will* be done at Copenhagen.
What is it about your posts, pough, that gives them their uniquely surreal quality? What's with this talk of double fails and triple fails, and how did we suddenly get on to Darwin?
Every time I read your comments I have the strangest sensation: the words seem to be part of the vocabulary of the English language. There is an observance of the basic rules of grammar and syntax. And yet, when I try to make sense of them it is as if I am encountering something that has been badly translated- from Lithuanian, say.
It rather reminds me of the English language slogans I saw printed on tee shirts worn by Japanese teenagers when I visited Tokyo a few years ago. It was obvious they didn't read English as they were just random collections of words. Nor did this matter to them. The words were merely a type of decoration. The fact that they were meaningless was entirely irrelevant.
To "Global warming denier for life":
So electric cars are ugly? HAHAHAHAHA!!! I think you are just jealous because you can't afford a Tesla.
Take a look at another "ugly" electric car, the eVaro, at www.futurevehicletechnologies.com..
Electric cars are coming, whether you like it or not. They will be beautiful, fast, and just as affordable as today's cars. Whether they will be durable depends on who captures the technology and the market. Cars today are less durable and more complex than those of the 70's and 80's because manufacturers figured out they could increase their profit margins over the life of the car that way. Electric cars are inherently simpler to maintain than ICE cars.
And by the way, your ICE stinks....haven't you noticed? Electric cars don't.
For everyone else who might be interested in the progress being made with electric cars, check out www.eaaev.org. It may be that in the future, if we have one, there will be high speed trains, greater use of waterways, and so forth. But we have roads now, so we may as well use them.
Really? That's kind of depressing, if it's true. Communication is something I'm very interested in. Does anyone else have difficulties understanding what I write?
The other day, I was thinking that if there is climate change, then new weather records should be happening at an increasing rate. By golly, someone ought to look into that! Turned on the weather channel and there was this graph of number of weather records/period of time, with this sharp upturn over the last few years. How about that?
Well, the way that GISS keeps jacking up GISTEMP, I would not be surprised that almost every month the rest of this year is not a record or near record.
Well, if I am reading the records right, for the US there were lots of records broken this year - for cold.
As Coby is not interested in an open curteous and meaningful debate (refer post #49) i only have this to say.
Vernon when will you ever learn cold records are caused by either noise or weather whilst warm records are caused by catastrophic climate change brought on by mans greedy insatiable appetite for fossil fuel based energy.
PS, snowman what is the challenge you refer to in post #37
crakar #13: "In regards to a new temp record, when you consider a large portion of the past 12,000 years has been hotter than now would it be a big suprise if we did get one one day?"
pough #14: "Maybe Snowman can respond to this. What's it likely to be? A new record because 'a large portion of the past 12,000 years has been hotter than now' or past due for another ice age?"
crakar #24: "Pough please stop crediting other people for my posts"
pough #36: "Also, you never did respond to what crakar feels is a misattribution of his comment."
Snowman #37/38: "I am not ducking it but I am not sure what comment I am meant to respond to. Perhaps he could refresh my memory."
Crakar, I never credited other people for your posts. I wanted Snowman to address your expectation of record temperatures because I recall him claiming that cooling is and will be the big issue. Snowman, crakar never challenged you directly; I tried to get you to respond to what he said.
Sorry Pough i misread your post, my appologies to you.
No problem. It's going around. Apparently I need to stop translating what I say to Lithuanian and then back again.
Pough, you know me: I live to please others. So, I want to address, fearlessly and frankly, your regrettable tendency to lapse into that unique brand of English that some of us now know as pough-speak.
You have said you are interested in communication. Very well: here are Snowman's four simple rules for clear writing:
1. Never try to be too cute. Things like 'double-fail and triple-fail' sound sophomoric at best, incomprehensible at worst.
2. Think about the rhythm of your sentences and vary it. Mix longer sentences with shorter ones.
3. Write the way that people speak. I don't mean that a certain formality can never have a place in written English. But make effective use of everyday words, occasionally dropping in a fancier one for impact.
4. The shorter word is generally to be preferred. So, for example, don't say 'utilize', say 'use'.
Of course I could say a lot more about this. But try to remember these few simple concepts, my dear pough. Swallow your pride and put them into effect. You will be amazed at how much better your posts will become.
You may remember that I am about to head off for a month (tomorrow, in fact), and during that time I will be out of contact. However, I shall return, and when I get back I am going to be looking for a big improvement and will give you marks out of ten.
If I had a nickel for the straw used to build each of crakar's strawmen, I'd be rich by now.
Yeah, but I think you're lying. Apart from using some common internet-isms like "fail" that you might not be familiar with due to age or inexperience, I think I manage to communicate just fine. I think you're doing what you always do when confronted with an argument you can't deal with: change the subject and act superior.
But I'll admit you're a good communicator. And by good communicator I mean in the mould of Reagan and Clinton, where compelling and convincing are completely disconnected from truth and relevance.
Pough - Can you just remind me of the argument I couldn't deal with?
Oh, and Pough, I know anonymity is standard practice here, but would you be prepared to tell me where you are based - even approximately?
No particular reason. I'm just curious.
If it helps, I'll start. I'm in the UK.
dhogaza,
I believe a quarter is 25 cents? A dime is 10 cents? How much is a nickel?
A nickel is a five cent piece, named for the metal it used to be made of, though now it is made of steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_(Canadian_coin)
After talking to a Canadian colleague of mine i also found out that you call your $1 coin a looney after the bird, no not the Queen the other one although i could understand any confusion.
That's right. And the two dollar coin is called a toonie(sp?). One thing I found hard to get used to in Oz was how the two and one dollar coins were so small...
I am not sure why you closed the GISTEMP thread but you let Ian's disinformation stand as the final entry. The fact is that least squares trend lines are used for temperature and it is a lie to say they cannot be.
Statistical Issues Regarding Trends
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-fin…
"Nevertheless, used appropriately, linear trends provide the simplest and most convenient way to describe the overall change over time in a data set, and are widely used."
So saying that least squares cannot be used is basically a lie. Further to say that only the last 30 years matter, without any scientific studies to support his contention is meaningless speculation on his part.
Finally, Coby, you have refused to answer this simple question. Do you consider the 9.2 percent change in GISTEMP from 2005 to 2009 to be insignificant? It is a very simple question.
So if your going to go by a temperature record that is constantly be rewritten (GISTEMP) with the past colder and the present warmer, then I would expect new records constantly.
Yes my work friend here went on to say that the $2 coin was called the Looney Toon (after the cartoon), it sounds quite good looking with silver with a gold trim, or was that the other way around? Your looney is similar shape to our 50 cent piece with the angled edges but ours is silver not gold.
Yes our coins are very small, we used to have a $1 and $2 note but they were replaced by the coins. When will you be back in Oz? If you come to Adelaide let me know.
I'm pretty sure anything else that "GW Denier Get a Life" posts will be deleted, so we should all ignore it and refrain from replying.
www.nature.com/news/2009/090812/full/460787a.html
"No, no, no, no no nonononono you dont want the raw data; the raw data is, well, raw! All you need is the conclusions we are showing you and trust us, the raw data really does support it. Honest! You don't need to see the raw data! You don't need to see the raw data! You don't need to see the raw data! These aren't the droids you're looking for. These aren't the droids you're looking for. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Honest!" -- Saint Al of the Gore