[QUOTE]Originally posted by M Batchelor:
However, a few years ago a smaller period was fine to look at. QUOTE]

Prove it.

quote:

Originally posted by M Batchelor:

quote:

So it's done to make values one can reasonably compare, not to make things look worse. You cannot reasonably compare a 4 and 8 year average.

So why not just compare 2002-2006 and 1930-34, 0.66C and 0.63C respectively? I'll tell you why because a 0.03C difference doesn't seem much to shout about due to the increased CO2 of the last 30 years.

Why do they look at the greater trend (over 100 years) because that is what fits their conclusions. Looking at smaller time-periods doesn't suit them currently. However, a few years ago a smaller period was fine to look at. Why? Because it could prove the alarmist point. Now that it can't AGW alarmists are now looking at longer time span!!! If the Global temperature data doesn't fit your conclusions - just take the time period to make it fit!!!

What a fraud!!!

1) You were the one advocating comparing a 4 year period to an 8 year period.

2) You cannot draw global conclusions from 2% of the planet's surface area because you're neglecting the other 98%.

3) If we're talking about the impact of the greenhouse effect: Global average temperature is a useful metric because it is indicative of trends in the global energy balance. And it's the global energy balance that's the key factor in the increase in CO2 and the resultant global warming. America is 2% of the globe's surface, that's 98% short of it representing the behaviour of the whole planet.

4) Global average temperature in the 1990s and after is higher than at any preceding time in the instrumental record.


There's one argument in this thread thats crumbled, and it's continuing to do so on yet more fronts.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:

quote:

Originally posted by M Batchelor:

quote:

So it's done to make values one can reasonably compare, not to make things look worse. You cannot reasonably compare a 4 and 8 year average.

So why not just compare 2002-2006 and 1930-34, 0.66C and 0.63C respectively? I'll tell you why because a 0.03C difference doesn't seem much to shout about due to the increased CO2 of the last 30 years.

Why do they look at the greater trend (over 100 years) because that is what fits their conclusions. Looking at smaller time-periods doesn't suit them currently. However, a few years ago a smaller period was fine to look at. Why? Because it could prove the alarmist point. Now that it can't AGW alarmists are now looking at longer time span!!! If the Global temperature data doesn't fit your conclusions - just take the time period to make it fit!!!

What a fraud!!!

1) You were the one advocating comparing a 4 year period to an 8 year period.

2) You cannot draw global conclusions from 2% of the planet's surface area because you're neglecting the other 98%.

3) If we're talking about the impact of the greenhouse effect: Global average temperature is a useful metric because it is indicative of trends in the global energy balance. And it's the global energy balance that's the key factor in the increase in CO2 and the resultant global warming. America is 2% of the globe's surface, that's 98% short of it representing the behaviour of the whole planet.

4) Global average temperature in the 1990s and after is higher than at any preceding time in the instrumental record.


There's one argument in this thread thats crumbled, and it's continuing to do so on yet more fronts.

Ive read thru the entire thread and have one thought. Wouldn't it be nice, just for once, for an "AGW buster" to acknowledge the error of their inital post.

CW, I recognise the difference between a decrease in the RATE of temperature increate and a decrease in temperature. I also recognise that temperature figures from a very small area of the globe (ie the US) do not reflect the situation globally.

If I can understand this then you can be sure that most other OPEN MINDED observers will understand also.

M Batchelor's arguement here is not just crumbling - its crude and desperate! I continue to look forward to a challenge to the science that actually has some merit.

If there is something hiding in the IPCC's implied few per-cent of doubt that shows CO2 is not a problem, then this is not it.

That's the bad news - the good news, the data is a bit closer to reality.


I got sidetracked over at the BBC a few months ago, misread a graph and ended up claiming 2 + 2 = 5. It didn't blow my whole argument out of the water, but it still doesn't feel good to mess up. There's only one thing to do when that happens - concede and reassess the impact on the argument.

Impacts scepticism is where the clever sceptics reside now.

Quite amazing that the AGW proponents here so badly misunderstand my arguments.

So far I have merely commented on the analysis of others.

1) The Hadley centre's prediction that the Global temperature will decrease, despite increases in CO2.

2) The graph from the science article that shows a decrease in temperature in the last few years (even if that is only a rate decrease).

3) The Daily Telegraph and Science articles both claim 1998 (almost ten years ago) to be the hottest year on record.

4) Dr Gavin Schmidt cites the period between 2002 and 2006, where the average was 0.66ºC above the norm, as still being warmer than 1930-1934, where there was an increase of 0.63ºC. That was his defence not mine. He cited the US stats, not me.

This is also data reported by AGW proponents, not sceptics. I have drawn your attention to the inconsistencies between this data and the current popular theory that we now have an out of control unprecedented Global temperature rise due to recent rises in man-made CO2.

quote:

Originally posted by M Batchelor:
Quite amazing that the AGW proponents here so badly misunderstand my arguments.

So far I have merely commented on the analysis of others.

1) The Hadley centre's prediction that the Global temperature will decrease, despite increases in CO2.

2) The graph from the science article that shows a decrease in temperature in the last few years (even if that is only a rate decrease).

3) The Daily Telegraph and Science articles both claim 1998 (almost ten years ago) to be the hottest year on record.

4) Dr Gavin Schmidt cites the period between 2002 and 2006, where the average was 0.66ºC above the norm, as still being warmer than 1930-1934, where there was an increase of 0.63ºC. That was his defence not mine. He cited the US stats, not me.

This is also data reported by AGW proponents, not sceptics. I have drawn your attention to the inconsistencies between this data and the current popular theory that we now have an out of control unprecedented Global temperature rise due to recent rises in man-made CO2.

1) Your telegraph article states:

"The overall trend in warming is driven by greenhouse gas emissions but this warming effect will be broadly cancelled out over the next few years by the changing patterns of the ocean temperatures." So there's your answer that's just one reason why another effect can mitigate or even over-ride CO2.


2) What this graph? It shows a reduction in warming after 2010 due to the reason above.

If you're looking at the black (observations) line then why not play the "Ohh look the warming's stopping" game between 1985 and 1992 - there are several such times since the 1970s, depanding on the dataset. But it then just goes on to warming again.


3) So what if 1998 was warmer? That doesn't justify claiming it got cooler afterward. 1998 was clearly an anomalously warm year - a one off in the wider trend due that was made warmer by an intense El-Nino. All data-sets show that.

Take this sequence 11 12 13 14 19 15 16 17 18. Let's say it's temperatures for each hour at some location.

Can that reasonably be described as the temperatures go down after four hours?


4) Dr Schmidt uses the 4 most recent temperatures, as opposed to the 8 most recent. I know which I consider to be the most relevant for comparing with a 4 year period in the 30s. And in any case:

The greenhouse effect works on a global basis, it does not suggest that every part of the globe will warm.

So the US was warmer in the 1930s? So what! Global warming is global, in the winter we can get cold snaps due to air from the Arctic - so you see weather on a local basis can be much more affected by localised air pattern shifts (that's not the greenhouse effect). And as you can see from the global vs US data, the globe can warm, even as some places cool, stay the same or warm at a lower rate, as indeed most of the planet is.

quote:

"The overall trend in warming is driven by greenhouse gas emissions but this warming effect will be broadly cancelled out over the next few years by the changing patterns of the ocean temperatures." So there's your answer that's just one reason why another effect can mitigate or even over-ride CO2.

Yes exactly, that was the explanation they gave for the predicted decrease. Does anyone else agree with this or not? Perhaps in the 1930's the temperature rise was way above what we see today and was covered up by unusual ocean temperatures or valcanic eruptions or some other natural phenomena? Why do the exceptions always only apply to the current data when they don't show the rate of temperature rise that AGW proponents want them to show - such as aerosols supposedly causing Global Cooling in the 70's? Does anyone here agree with this explanation for temperature cooling in the face of rising CO2?

So many unknowns. If AGW theorists were so secure in their understanding of the mechanism at work, they would not be so insecure in the face of challenges to their interpretations and conclusions. I think their so-called certainty in their doomsday predictions are driven to a by faith and ideology rather than through reason and objectivity.

I'll leave you to clutch at straws.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by M Batchelor:
The "hockey stick" was adopted as the supreme icon of the global warming lobby, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which reproduced it no fewer than five times in its 2001 report. Since McIntyre exposed the mass of basic computer errors on which it was based, the IPCC in its most recent report quietly dropped it.

The new GISS graph, conceding that the last decade may not have seen the hottest years of the past century, follows the latest satellite figures from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) showing that in recent years global temperatures have not continued to rise (as orthodox CO2 warming theory would suggest) but have flattened out at a level significantly lower than in 1998."

QUOTE]

A change of 0.15 deg C in the US means a change globally of 0.003 deg C (one three hundredths of a degree). ie. 1/300 Degs Centigrade. U now geddit?

As for your tripe on the hockey stick.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/w...-buried-in-the-sand/

QUOTE
Even more wrong is the claim that "the upcoming report is also missing any reference to the infamous 'hockey stick' ". Not only are the three original "hockey stick" reconstructions from the IPCC (2001) report shown in the (draft) paleoclimate chapter of the new report, but they are now joined by 9 others. Which is why the SPM comes to the even stronger conclusion that recent large-scale warmth is likely to be anomalous in the context of at least the past 1300 years, and not just the past 1000 years.
UNQUOTE

Well M batchelor I've been patient with you. I've recently asked you to prove one of your claims which you haven't. Now you're peddling urban myths from the WSJ and the DT.

This is a science forum ie facts based on science. There are plenty of other sites for you and the wackos.

Denialists often witter on about MBH98 - the Hockey Stick.

Yet they ignore the many other studies that suggest the current warming is unusual in the last 1000 years.


Christopher Booker?

A reliable source on which to base a scientific argument?

Shurely shome mishtake.

quote:

Originally posted by M Batchelor:
The expert responsible for spotting GISS's error was Stephen McIntyre, a Canadian computer analyst who four years ago scored the greatest coup in the history of this debate by demolishing the notorious "hockey stick" - the graph which purported to show temperatures flat-lining for centuries until they suddenly began an exponential rise in the late 20th century. The "hockey stick" was adopted as the supreme icon of the global warming lobby, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Is that the same "hockey stick" that reconstructed the entire world climate in the early 15th Century from just one tree?

quote:

realprimate "This is a science forum ie facts based on science. There are plenty of other sites for you and the wackos."

A wacko - presumably meaning anyone who reconstructs the entire world climate in the early 15th Century from just one tree?

Funny how these warmers are getting so overheated now their 'theory' is piece-by-piece beginning to be recognised as fraudulent.

Good posts M Batchelor

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

quote:

Originally posted by M Batchelor:
The expert responsible for spotting GISS's error was Stephen McIntyre, a Canadian computer analyst who four years ago scored the greatest coup in the history of this debate by demolishing the notorious "hockey stick" - the graph which purported to show temperatures flat-lining for centuries until they suddenly began an exponential rise in the late 20th century. The "hockey stick" was adopted as the supreme icon of the global warming lobby, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Is that the same "hockey stick" that reconstructed the entire world climate in the early 15th Century from just one tree?

quote:

realprimate "This is a science forum ie facts based on science. There are plenty of other sites for you and the wackos."

A wacko - presumably meaning anyone who reconstructs the entire world climate in the early 15th Century from just one tree?

Funny how these warmers are getting so overheated now their 'theory' is piece-by-piece beginning to be recognised as fraudulent.

Good posts M Batchelor

You? That's all I need.

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
You? That's all I need.

Bring it on!

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
You? That's all I need.

Bring it on!

Plasma !!

quote:

Good posts M Batchelor

Thanks Roger.

Ever notice how I have reported what other's have written and cast doubt on AGW theory without any name-calling. (Unless those pro-AGW theory posters here actually consider themselves "alarmists").

Yet when they get angry with what I post, instead of just challenging the science, they start to get abusive.

If the pro-AGW theorists here are so objective, why don't they just defend their favourite theory?

M Batchelor said:

quote:

Yet when they get angry with what I post, instead of just challenging the science, they start to get abusive.

and:

quote:

What a fraud!!!

More level-headed arguments, and admitting your mistakes might get you more constructive replies than allegations of fraud will do.

1. Globally speaking the two warmest years in the historical temperature record are 1998 and 2005, not 1934. Please accept that you understand that.
2. Global surface temperatures are tending to increase due to CO2 increases but natural variations can and do mitigate or reverse the increase over shorter timescales, in agreement with past reality and the models. Nobody has ever said that CO2 is the only driver of climate.
3. If you check the global temperature anomalies for 1934 you will see that the US was remarkably warm compared with most of the rest of the world. If you check the anomalies for 1998 you will see that the warmth of the US was not out of the ordinary compared with the rest of the world. See the following document:

www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf

Debating the science, the uncertainties and the facts is more interesting than debating with people determined to pick at imagined holes as though this were a legal argument that can be won by impressing the jury.

Steve_M

quote:

3. If you check the global temperature anomalies for 1934 you will see that the US was remarkably warm compared with most of the rest of the world. If you check the anomalies for 1998 you will see that the warmth of the US was not out of the ordinary compared with the rest of the world. See the following document

1998 was an exceptional El Nino year I keep hearing which forced temperatures high. 1934 wasn't an El Nino year so what forced US temperatures even higher?

Where are the data from for 1934? Might it just be an error?

quote:

1998 was an exceptional El Nino year I keep hearing which forced temperatures high. 1934 wasn't an El Nino year so what forced US temperatures even higher?

I don't know. It's just weather, so a forecaster might be able to tell you.

I spent a while looking at data from the US on the following website:

www.cdc.noaa.gov/USclimate/USclimdivs.html

1934 was hot in the West in the first few months of the year with many states being 4-5C warmer than average in January-February. But it was cold in the east. In the second half of the year, the US was pretty average in the far west but warm in the middle.

In 1933, the east was warm and the west normal. 1935 was average all over.

In terms of normal temperature variations for the US (+/- 0.5C or so from year to year), 1934 wasn't particularly extraordinary, being perhaps 1C above the norm for the time. The 5-year US means are 0.1-0.2C higher now than they were in the 1930's so there is a reasonable statistical chance of beating 1934 within the next few years, but it's by no means inevitable.

Thanks Steve M.

quote:

Globally speaking the two warmest years in the historical temperature record are 1998 and 2005, not 1934. Please accept that you understand that.

Yes, but why has there been a decrease in temperature rise since 2005? Also, do you agree with the Hadley model that Global temperatures will continue to decrease until 2010? If so, do you agree with them that this fall is influenced by ocean temperatures? If so, do you agree that the simple correlation between man-made CO2 and global temperature rise is not a simple correlation at all? If so, do you also agree that is what is being currently being portrayed as being the case by the likes of Al Gore and "friends of the earth" - then this message is indeed a fraud?

Sorry to butt in, but I think I'll have a go:

It's all about trends, not what happens from year to year. And even if the temperature RISE decreases until 2010, it is still RISING! I'd only be convinced that it wasn't due to AGW if it decreased to below pre-industrial levels (if it really were that simple...)

I've just been to the Shell and BP websites, and they make quite interesting reading. Shell thinks that the "debate is over", BP think that more evidence is probably required, but that action is required now.

Both are keen to claim they were the first to have recognised it and to be doing something - but why if doesn't exist? Maybe they are party to some greater conspiracy...

quote:

Yes, but why has there been a decrease in temperature rise since 2005? Also, do you agree with the Hadley model that Global temperatures will continue to decrease until 2010? If so, do you agree with them that this fall is influenced by ocean temperatures? If so, do you agree that the simple correlation between man-made CO2 and global temperature rise is not a simple correlation at all?

The correlation between CO2 and temperatures has never been stated as being simple. In one year the change caused by that year's increase in CO2 is small compared with other changes. It is the continued upward trend of CO2 that will tend to increase temperatures, as Luci