J
John21652
Guest
Where’s The Climate Change?
Climate Change Now Questioned At German Universities – Professors Speaking Up
Climate Change Now Questioned At German Universities – Professors Speaking Up
- Status
J
John21652
Guest
Europe on track for Kyoto targets while emissions from imported goods rise
Oh, the logic of Green politics.!!
Europe is on track to meet its pledge of a 20% reduction in GHG by 2020. There’s just one catch. Emissions generated by goods and services consumed by those EU countries and produced overseas has increased by more than 40%. China says it can’t be held responsible for emissions resulting from the consumption levels of foreign countries!!
It’s so funny its actually quite sad.
Oh, the logic of Green politics.!!
Europe is on track to meet its pledge of a 20% reduction in GHG by 2020. There’s just one catch. Emissions generated by goods and services consumed by those EU countries and produced overseas has increased by more than 40%. China says it can’t be held responsible for emissions resulting from the consumption levels of foreign countries!!
It’s so funny its actually quite sad.
J
JasonSB
Guest
Since I don’t speak German, I’ll have to rely on a translations of pages that refer to the talk – like the one linked to on your page (readers-edition.de/2010/10/14/wo-bleibt-der-klimawandel/). Since it starts by making the tired (and now, really silly-looking) observation that air temperatures are stagnating while CO2 is rising, I start with really serious doubts about the scientific credibility of the individuals involved. After all, as the NOAA report Ender linked to explained, ten years of zero trend are completely normal even when ENSO is corrected for due to the magnitude of natural variability.
This page shows a litany of errors that would be highly surprising in someone who was an expert in the field: scienceblogs.de/primaklima/2010/10/klimaschmock-september-2010-professor-kirstein-und-die-uni-leipzig.php
So just who are Klaus Landfried and Werner Kirstein?
It turns out Landfried is a professor of political science who studied economics, history, modern German literature, public law and political science. (de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Landfried) He has published no papers on climate change at all.
Kirstein is a professor of geography (another one?). If you can find any papers on climate that he’s published, please let me know.
Perhaps you should watch this, especially since it mentions Ball as well: youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0
Regarding your quote, I couldn’t help but be struck by the irony of this statement:
One method used here is to claim that everything that is good must go through peer review.
Earlier in this thread there were complaints that the IPCC relied too much on non-peer-reviewed literature!
In any case, your quote sounds like that of somebody who’s had too much trouble getting their work through the process of peer review. Given the poor work that has managed to get through peer review (like some of Bob Carter’s – you know, the guy you were so enamoured with earlier who couldn’t possibly have a motive for criticising climate science while selling his book on the subject) it must have been poor work indeed.
Peer review isn’t an obstacle to being published, it’s merely a first-order filtering system that tries to keep the literature from being swamped with rubbish like that “Greenhouse Effect on the Moon” paper. Poor science still makes it through, but at least if it’s been peer-reviewed you have some confidence that it has been at least checked by someone other than the author. The real test is how it stands up over time and whether others continue to cite it years (or even decades) into the future, or whether it just gets ignored and forgotten. If someone is complaining that peer-review is too much of an obstacle then you should be very suspicious indeed.
J
JasonSB
Guest
In post 620 you complained about the Europeans wanting to impose trade sanctions on “any nation that does not have a carbon reduction/trading mechanism in place”.Europe on track for Kyoto targets while emissions from imported goods rise
Oh, the logic of Green politics.!!
Europe is on track to meet its pledge of a 20% reduction in GHG by 2020. There’s just one catch. Emissions generated by goods and services consumed by those EU countries and produced overseas has increased by more than 40%. China says it can’t be held responsible for emissions resulting from the consumption levels of foreign countries!!
It’s so funny its actually quite sad.
I responded:
The actual story is about Europeans moving to impose trade sanctions on countries that do not put a price on carbon. I would have thought that was actually an essential part of putting a price on carbon (i.e. if you do but you don’t do anything about the fact that your trade partners have not, you don’t solve anything – you just ship jobs and industry overseas.)
Then, in post 648 I pointed out that a disadvantage of an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax was:
c) Either your trade partners need to participate in the scheme or you need to impose tariffs on imports from non-participating countries and give subsidies for exports to non-participating countries in order to ensure you don’t end up simply shipping jobs and industy overseas for no net benefit to the world.
Your link proves my point.
So were you persuaded by the logic of my argument or are you secretly working for Bob Brown now to push the Green agenda and convince people of the need for environmental trade sanctions?
J
John21652
Guest
Secretly working for Bob Brown?! Ha, as if I’d stoop that low!!
I am simply exposing the hypocrisy of the whole agenda. As you are also, albeit gradually.
J
JasonSB
Guest
J
JasonSB
Guest
You’re certainly exposing the hypocrisy of something – but not, I suspect, what you intended.Secretly working for Bob Brown?! Ha, as if I’d stoop that low!!
I am simply exposing the hypocrisy of the whole agenda. As you are also, albeit gradually.
4
4elise
Guest
:clapping:
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Great. End of debate – AGW is real, it’s harming people, and we people are culpable!
E
Ender
Guest
I understand that you may be tired of dealing with the problem - or even the appearance of a problem - caused by the unarguable fact that CO2 is rising and temperatures, for a decade, have not, but the NOAA report did not say that this was a completely normal occurrence. What it said was that such a period, while not predicted, was still within the predictive limits of the models. That is, a decade of stagnant temperature would not break the models. That would require fifteen years.
Ender
J
JasonSB
Guest
Comprehension problem? I said the argument was tired and really silly-looking, not me.
Of course, that doesn’t prevent you from not only making it but claiming that it is an “inarguable fact”!
Well, let’s see, shall we?
Let’s start with GISTEMP – after all, it has the advantage that the raw data and source code is freely available, it has been well and truly “audited”, and every adjustment it makes is backed by sound science (e.g. the fact that anomalies correlate over long distances, as shown by the 1988 paper I pulled the graph from before, and as anyone who wishes to can prove for themselves using the raw temperature data that is also freely available).
It says that from 2000 to now the temperature has been rising at a rate of 0.151 degrees C/decade: woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000
Furthermore, if we compare the rate from 1979 (when the satellite records began, so we can compare apples-with-apples) to 2000 with the rate from 1979 to now, we see that not only has the world continued to warm, but the rate of warming actually accelerated in the past decade, from 0.135 degrees C/decade to 0.166 degrees C/decade! woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979
Look at that red line carefully – that’s the trend that we would have expected for the decade based on the observations from 1979 to 2000; most of the past decade has been above that trend!
Don’t like NASA? OK, how about UAH instead? They use satellites, so there is no question about UHI problems, and the data is produced by two confirmed “skeptics” so even though they haven’t released their source code they tend to be quite popular in certain sectors.
This is what they get: woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:2000
Wow – even more warming over the past decade; a whopping 0.173 degrees C/decade! But what about the bigger picture?
woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/from:1979
Yep – just like GISS, the satellite record shows that the rate of warming accelerated from 0.103 degrees C/decade from 1979 to 2000 up to a rate of 0.140 degrees C/decade from 1979 to now. And also just like GISS, the planet spent most of the decade above the trend (the red line) indicated by the years 1979-2000.
OK, last one – Phil Jones. I know that a lot of “skeptics” hate him because they think he fudged his data, and he refused to release his source code and all of the data that he uses, but let’s see what he has to say anyway: woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000
Well, what do you know? Even CRU thinks it has been warming since 2000, albeit at a lower rate of 0.057 degrees C/decade. Hmm… In spite of all the vitriol sent his way, let me try to guess which temperature series “skeptics” will latch on to?
Before rushing in too quickly, however, it might be worth noting this: woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979
CRU agrees that the warming actually accelerated in the past decade from 0.152 degrees C/decade in 1979-2000 to 0.158 degrees C/decade in 1979-2010. That’s what happens when you spend almost an entire decade above trend.
Clearly it is not “inarguable” that temperatures have not risen for a decade. Every single one of the temperature records not only agree that temperatures have been rising, they all agree that the rise in temperatures has actually accelerated.
So how can people make silly claims that the temperatures have not been rising? Well, first they cherry-pick the one record that shows the least increase, despite it also being the one record they are least likely to use because it’s from Phil Jones. Then they cherry-pick a particular period within that record so that they start with a point that is well above trend and end with a point that is below trend, making sure to avoid taking any data from the period after that when it rises back above trend again. And then they make a big deal about it.
“Inarguable”?
More comprehension problems? They said, and I quote:
Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability.
I equated events that are common with “completely normal”. My dictionary tells me that “common” means “Having no special distinction or quality” and “To be expected; standard”. It describes “normal” as “Being usual, typical or standard”. They seem congruent to me.
No, they specifically said that near-zero and even negative trends of up to a decade were common occurrences in their model simulations. The models not only did predict such decades, they were actually common.
No, they said that there was only a 5% chance of 15 years or more of zero trend based on their model simulations, using just one GCM, but the point is moot since that didn’t happen.
E
Ender
Guest
Sorry, I thought you had accepted NOAA’s figures. I didn’t realize your position was they they didn’t know what they were doing.
*Every *temperature record? Including the one NOAA used that didn’t go up?
Well, I didn’t know NOAA was being silly, but I’ll surely know not to trust them in the future.
Ender
J
JasonSB
Guest
Sorry, I thought you had understood our previous conversation. I guess the comprehension problem runs deeper than I first thought.
The talk I was criticising, which was given just a few weeks ago, made the claim about stagnating air temperatures.
The NOAA figures are not relevant because:
- They were not air temperatures. They were ENSO-ADJUSTED temperatures. THE TALK WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT ENSO-ADJUSTED TEMPERATURES.
- The NOAA figures were from the period 1999-2008. IT IS NOW 2010. THE TALK WAS GIVEN IN 2010. That is why I said “and now, really silly-looking”. It is now (or at least should be) apparent to even the meanest intellect that the so-called “stagnation” was a temporary phenomenon, as widely predicted by everyone except the “skeptics”.
- NOAA wasn’t showing a temperature record. They were showing one particular temperature record (you know, the one with the least warming) that had ENSO adjustments applied to it that were calculated by Jones et al, but did not have the additional adjustments applied to it that the same authors produced that increased the warming trend over that particular period by a factor of ten.
- That temperature record was from 1999 to 2008. IT IS NOW 2010. What do you think you miss out on if you stop the record in 2008 instead of continuing to 2010? woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979
For you to cling to the NOAA report of 2009 is to not only cherry-pick the one temperature record with the least increase (HadCRUT), and not only cherry-pick the one period in that temperature record with the least increase (1999-2008), but also to cherry pick the one set of adjustments to that temperature record that will give a zero trend! Not only do you have to adjust those temperatures to get a zero trend, you have to stop the adjustment at ENSO because as soon as you go further and try to correct for more cyclical phenomena the trend becomes positive again!
NOAA isn’t the one being silly. People who cling to two-year-out-of-date adjusted temperatures (but not adjusted too much) based on the one record that shows the least increase (which, funnily enough, just happens to be the one record they complain about because the source code is not available – remember that?) are the ones who look incredibly silly.
E
Ender
Guest
So you’re saying that when raw air temperatures are adjusted they are no longer air temperatures? Does this mean, since virtually all of the raw data from at least the land temperature stations is adjusted, that we shouldn’t be talking about air temperatures at all?
I need clarification on this claim that NOAA wasn’t showing a temperature record - they were only showing a particular temperature record. Isn’t a particular temperature record still a temperature record?
So which is it: the stagnation was a temporary phenomenon (first claim) or that it never happened (second claim)? I will ignore the otherwise interesting point about what happens when a trend of zero is increased by a factor of ten.
This discussion would have ended long ago had you simply accepted NOAA’s claim that for the decade ending in 2008 there was zero warming. Either they were correct to assert this or they were incorrect and for the life of me I have no idea which position you take. You’re like the lawyer arguing simultaneously that: “My client never took the tools”, “My client took the tools but they were his”, and “The plaintiff loaned my client the tools.” Pick one and we can move on.
Ender
J
JasonSB
Guest
Are you seriously still confused by this?
GISSTemp is a global temperature anomaly record.
UAH is a global temperature anomaly record.
RSS is a global temperature anomaly record.
HadCRUT is a global temperature anomaly record.
The talk I was referring to, just like almost everyone else who talks about global temperatures, was referring to a global temperature anomaly record when they talked about “stagnating air temperatures”.
Now, Phil Jones co-wrote two papers on attempts to adjust his global temperature anomaly record to remove the effects of certain phenomena.
In the first paper they focussed solely on ENSO, and it just so happens that when you remove the effect of ENSO only then you can get a trend of (very close to) zero for that particular period of ten years. This is what NOAA were talking about. It also happens that when you do the same thing for climate model runs then trends of zero for ten years are actually common, and therefore this says nothing about the validity of climate models.
In the second paper that Phil Jones et al wrote, they expanded the set of phenomena they could “correct” the data for to include not only ENSO but also volcanic eruptions and dynamically induced variability. When you do that, the overall climate trend becomes even clearer and more obvious in even less time, and the trend for that particular ten year period also becomes greater than zero.
The second paper still didn’t remove the effect of the solar cycle, which peaked in 2002-2003 and reached a minimum in 2009; if the effect of that was adjusted for as well it would obviously increase the trend during that “magic” decade even more.
Now here’s the point again I was making about cherry picking:
- You need to use a data set from the one person in this entire thread who has attracted the most vitriol because he wouldn’t release his source code or all of his data. If you use GISSTemp or UAH or RSS the trend is distinctly positive. Why the difference? Because HadCRUT does not account for the Arctic, where temperature rise has been the strongest.
- You not only need to use his data set, but you also have to use his adjustments to his data set!
- You not only need to use his adjustments to his data set, but you have to use his earlier adjustments only and not his later and more-comprehensive adjustments.
- Even after all of that, you have to pick just the right ten year period, because if you stray either side the trend becomes positive again.
Don’t believe me? Here is the graph of ten-year trends for every single month from 1900 to March 2009, the last date that the ENSO-adjusted figures were calculated for:
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/961/ensoadjustedtrend.jpg
The grey line in the background is the ENSO-Adjusted HadCRUT data. It has only had the ENSO adjustment applied, so I am not using the additional adjustments from the later paper – I am using the exact same data that NOAA used. Note the strong overall positive trend apart from the lull from the 1940s to the 1970s that is explained by aerosols during that time (i.e. pollution reflecting sunlight in the upper atmosphere).
The green line is the 10-year trend for every single month in that record, with the point in the trend centred on the period it represents. So the point at 2000 represents the ten year trend from 1995 to 2005.
The red line is the 20-year trend.
Now, the green line clearly gets close to zero near the end (which is what NOAA was referring to), but it also gets even closer to zero in 1992 (i.e. the ten-year trend from 1987-1997). Does it really look to you like global warming stopped in 1997? It also got pretty low in the early 80s, actually went negative in the early 70s, went very negative in the early 60s, and very very negative in the late 40s.
In fact, if you look at ten year trends, it is clear that it goes up and down all the time even while the overall trend is inexorably upwards. Indeed, the peak in 1997 (representing the period 1992-2002) was exceptionally large.
If we look at the 20-year trend, we get a much better picture of the underlying behaviour. It has not only been positive since the late 60s, but it has been steadily getting more positive since then in bursts followed by slight dips. This decade with the so-called “stagnating air temperatures” was actually the biggest burst yet, and looking at the graph suggests we are due to start another burst of upward temperatures now.
J
JasonSB
Guest
I can sort of see why you might choose to misrepresent the contents of other papers, like the NOAA report; perhaps your normal audience never bothers checking with the source, like I quickly learned to. What I don’t understand is why you would choose to misrepresent what I said to me. You have to know that I’m not going to be fooled into thinking I said what you wished I had said instead of what I actually said, don’t you?
You quoted me as saying: “NOAA wasn’t showing a temperature record. They were showing one particular temperature record…”
What I actually said was: “NOAA wasn’t showing a temperature record. They were showing one particular temperature record … that had ENSO adjustments applied”
Your question is answered in the very sentence you cropped. If you start with a temperature record, and then you apply adjustments to that temperature record, what you now have is an adjusted temperature record. Since the talk that I made the comment in relation to was talking about temperatures and not “ENSO-adjusted temperatures”, NOAA’s results (actually Jones’ results) are irrelevant. Is this really so hard for you to understand?
What are you talking about?
I never said that there was no decade of zero trend in ENSO-adjusted data. What I said was it’s not relevant to the discussion at hand because they weren’t referring to it. Decades of zero trend in ENSO-adjusted data are actually quite common, as the graph in my last post showed, and as NOAA reported, they are common in the model simulations as well.
That’s a pity, because it proves you never actually read (or at least, understood) my earlier comments on this subject.
Here’s a hint: when NOAA said “0.00°±0.05°C”, the “0.00” was an approximation. If you look at the actual data the figure isn’t actually zero, but since the error margin is larger than the actual figure then it’s not statistically distinguishable from zero.
My comment relates to the actual figure, not the rounded-off figure.
But it turns out I was wrong, anyway. When I previously calculated the value I got “0.002C/decade”. The actual figure is 0.023C/decade. I must have forgotten to multiply by the factor of ten required to convert from “per year” to “per decade”. So I retract my comment that you refuse to use the second paper’s data because it will multiply the trend by a factor of ten since the trend using the first paper’s data is already ten times larger than I thought it was. Oh, and ten times further from zero.
So, the only way you’ll end this discussion is if I admit to something I know to be false?
I’m sorry, but I don’t do that.
NOAA never claimed that for the decade ending in 2008 there was zero warming.
What they actually said was that the HadCRUT temperature record adjusted for ENSO had a zero trend for that decade. Not only have I never disputed what NOAA actually said, I have repeatedly tried to explain what they actually said to you, many, many times now.
You miss out the obvious alternative – you were incorrect in your understanding of what they actually said. I sometimes wonder if you’ve ever actually read this report you’re so fond of or whether you rely on second-hand information.
You’re like the lawyer who keeps trying to paint his opponent into a corner with false dilemmas and straw men while making no attempt whatsoever to actually understand what’s being said.
To correct your analogy, you’re like the lawyer accusing my client of taking the tools while I keep pointing out to you that your own client is trying to explain that the tools were never taken and he doesn’t know why you’re bringing a court case in the first place.
J
John21652
Guest
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Nicely done! He’s obviously one of The Special People who are exempt from any hardship that “doing with less” might cause the rest of us. Is there one for Al Gore too?
P
portarica
Guest
And what does that have to do with the climate? Does having white supremacists in the Republican Party mean you can’t vote for any republicans?
Peace
J
John21652
Guest
- Status