Free Markets, Free People


Global cooling?

But, but, polar bears, rising oceans, melting ice, oh my:

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

For those alarmists still stuck in the alarmist convenient “science” of the 20th century, this is the inconvenient scientific truth of this century … no warming despite the fact that man-made CO2 levels have gone up.  As David Rose remarks, “the ‘supposed’ consensus” is apparently wrong.article-2093264-1180A4F1000005DC-28_468x286

 

I’m sure you understand why this temperature data was released last week with little “fanfare”.  Had it been the opposite finding, we’d have been treated to a parade of alarmists again claiming that we need to tax ourselves back to the stone age in order to save the planet.

Oh, and remember that big, hot, yellow thing that hangs in the sky that I have mentioned repeatedly should be factored in to the “science” of global warming vs. being ignored? Henrik Svensmark, Denmark’s National Space Institute seems to feel the same way:

World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more. It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.

So alarmists can’t ignore this anymore.  They can’t fall back on consensus, because consensus isn’t science.  In fact, right now, given the new data, it is their reputations on the line, not that of the skeptics:

If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories. The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate.

And, of course, indications are (many indications are) that they’re not.  For instance:

The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

he argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

One of the other indicators was to be found in the Lysenkoish conformity that was imposed on this branch of science by alarmists.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Certainly dissenting scientists weren’t sent to actual gulags but attempts were to made banish them to academic gulags with their credentials in tatters.

16 scientists wrote the above two paragraphs and then reveal what drove this breech of the scientific method was, as we’ve mentioned before, pretty mundane and fairly obvious if you just took the time to look:

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

These 16 scientists also give a little political advice that should be heeded:

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

No compelling scientific argument? 

See above.

For 15 years the earth has not been warming even while man-made CO2 levels have risen. 

That’s scientific fact and it is time the alarmist crowd began dealing straight with the public using facts.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

63 Responses to Global cooling?

  • They can’t fall back on consensus, because consensus isn’t science.

    “They also said that artificial sweeteners were safe, WMDs were in Iraq and Anna Nicole married for love.”

  • The Anthropomorphic Global Fraud deniers will just extend their denial of the fraud even larger.

    When you’re about to lose everything anyway, why not double down? You get to stay at the table and enjoy free drinks until you’re dragged away.

    • @jpm100 There are a whole busload of folks whose entire careers are based on this bad idea. Does anybody really expect them to just jump into the ash heap of history ?

      I remember a story about a Nobel Prize winning medical researcher who won for his work on the relationship of cancer and viruses. One day, he decided that the entire theory just didn’t hold up, since if cancer was virus-based, it should be able to be transmitted. That tirade had everybody he knew turn on him … they had careers based on his original theory.

      • @Neo_ @jpm100 “Does anybody really expect them to just jump into the ash heap of history ?”

        Most of them are tenured so are in no danger. The only thing they face is possible humiliation if they have been too loud, but most of them will merely move on to some other but less “controversial” game of numerology (which is what most of this research ends up being).

        • @DocD @jpm100 “merely move on to some other but less “controversial” game of numerology”
          I once ask a PhD statistician, who I worked with, “what is the dream job for statisticians ?” His answer (circa 1986) was “The Tobacco Institute.”
          AGW has become the home of those displaced by the “1998 Tobacco Settlement.”

      • @Neo_ @jpm100 Not to piddle on your point, Neo, but several cancers are linked to viruses in animals. HPV seems to be one in humans, though I don’t know anything about the mechanism.

        • @Ragspierre @jpm100 My guess is that these viruses are a catalyst when linked with genetic susceptibilities, but that still doesn’t explain the non-transmittal properties of cancer.

  • I have prepared the podium for the DownEast Dogmatic, Speaker to Mooses to come and correct our misapprehensions about the facts and consensus on man-made global warming, or it seems, warming in general.

    I’m sure he’ll be here shortly, please do NOT park in the Clowncar zone, as this has been reserved.

    • @looker I love those “dedicated parking” slots for coal-powered car drivers. Largely empty at all hours, but a “zone of abhorrence” for other drivers in any event. Sympathetic combustion is not anything you want your car to experience.

      • @Ragspierre I was given to understand his car used a perpetual motion engine.

        • @looker Ew…WORSE…THOSE are subject to quantum collapse….!!!

        • @Ragspierre Maybe, just maybe, that’s what happened to him! Now he’s in a far off universe….perhaps establishing a system of government or worse yet a system of education.

        • @looker @Ragspierre Quantum systems collapse via decoherence of the density matrices. PolSci systems thrive on the incoherence of a matrix of densies.

    • @looker I’ll give you even odds that his wind-powered self-propelled clowncar has a mysterious breakdown before the show. He’s been very careful of late what he comments on, for some odd reason.

      • @DocD Perhaps the joy of internet victory and the degradation of his adversaries laying at his virtual feet has sullied his spiritual chi and he no longer seeks to goad others by making outrageous and unsubstantiated statements in support of progressive philosophies.

        • @looker Ermmmm…. are we still talking about the Duke of Dork?

        • @DocD I know, I know, but it’s a campaign year, and we’ve recommended he try and steer towards the middle until after the election and we need to try and glorify his, um, record.

  • “So alarmists can’t ignore this anymore.” Of course they can. It will go like this: If it were not for the efforts to reduce CO2 then things would be even hotter than they are now.
    It is the same sort of thing as Keynesian stimulus spending. If it were not for the government intervention then the unemployment rate would be worse.

    The argument is completely valid if you don’t bother with reality.

    • @tkc882 I believe the preferred dodge at the moment is that other factors, such as aerosols, dust etc have increased to cause unexpected cooling. They can’t argue the CO2 reduction efforts, since the CO2 output has outstripped even Hansen’s scenarios so the climate should already have cooked us all.

      The real reason is of course the models are pants.

      • @DocD @tkc882 You know, if they used Victoria’s Secrets models, I’d be more willing to listen to them.

      • @DocD @tkc882 Just how can the “smartest man in the [empty] room” by so gullible ?

  • Again, a tip of the hat to Bruce for stepping forward back when it was *very* unfashionable to do so and bringing the global warming skepticism to the fore here at Q&O. Everyone saw the usual suspects come around and deride the skeptics, and we all know that “denier” was used to compare skeptics to Holocaust deniers. Foul stuff, but I’ve yet to have anyone call me that to my *face,* where I could respond the way a gentlemen should to such vile slanders.

    The CO2 causes global warming theory was always a weak one, and we have MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen, not alone but with perhaps the most formidable standing of the great scientists who were and are skeptics, for saying that this was barely any kind of theory at all with very little to support it in any case. He was right all along.

    Recall that warming was sold as being dramatic and unprecedented, and it was neither. Ross McKittrick gets special mention for debunking Michael Mann’s “hockey stick,” which was the foundation of the “dramatic and unprecedented” fraud.

  • “Green Unemployment” ahead ?

    “If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015,” says Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, “it will start to become clear that the models are bunk.” Heavy-breathing humans and flatulent cows will be off the hook, and a lot of scam artists will be pushed away from the public trough and on the street looking for work.

  • None of this is news to anyone who bothers to seek information beyond the pop science headlines by authorized journalists in the mainstream press. Those reporters don’t even understand the math and they’re too stupid to see the flaws—or they simply don’t care, knowing that disaster sells.

    For a hilarious list of things which are allegedly caused by global warming, see http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    • @myweeklycrime 15 years into the great warming disaster!!!!!! Can humanity survive?
      News at 11:00

  • I have an opinon that any actions taken to address purported AGW should make sense even if AGW did not exist, so I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I tend to avoid arguing global warming because it usually devolves into people who don’t understand the science (including me) quoting science they don’t understand to debunk a point made by someone else quoting science they don’t understand. On this particular post, I can only point out that I find quite interesting that it appears that the Daily Mail is using the MET Office data press release from Jan 23 (“the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office) as their source, and that MET Office press release was titled, “Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming”. I would suggest that if one trusted the source of the data that the Daily Mail used, they would trust the original data, which is 100% contradictory to the actual Mail story. Read it here http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research?tw_p=twt

    The science is way over my head, but the politics is pretty damned easy to understand.

  • “Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute.”

    How the hell is the fact that Denmark has a national space institute not the main point of this article????

  • Can anyone find a link to the original Met Office data to which the Daily Mail article refers, in claiming that the data shows no warming since 1997? I cannot find it. But I did find this Met Office article about its 2012 data (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2012-global-temperature-forecast), and that article is seriously at odds with the Daily Mail article. It says that 2012 is one of the top 10 warmest years, and 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000.

    I really want to see the original data that Daily Mail is talking about before I accept their claim.

    • @jeffreyellis I mentioned this in a previous post. Based on what I found, the link you found is the named source data, but certainly not accurately represented. “Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.”

      The MET Office did actually respond to the Mail article and has published their statements to the author of the piece. Here is a quote:

      “It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.”

      As to the claim of a cooling trend, the MET Office had this to say: “Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997″

      http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=862392

      Seems kind of brazen to purport that a press release that says one thing says something exactly the opposite.

      • @CaptinSarcastic @jeffreyellis It isn’t the opposite. The Daily Mail noted that the temperature record for the last 15 years is flat, which it is. The Met Office complained that the article did not say that this decade is warmer than it was when instrumental records begain in 1850, which is also true. If you are a warmist then you interpret this as correlating to industrial age, if you are less inclined to that position you note that the world was also emerging from the Little Ice Age in the last couple of centuries. Skeptics will also note that the temperature projections of the 1990s and early 2000s have grossly overshot the actual instrumental temperature since the super El Nino peak of 1998.

        As to the predictions of the impact of a solar minimum, these predictions come from the same models used for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate. These models are tuned very heavily with many parameters poorly known and not derivable from first principles. So the argument in that case is rather circular, since the models have always been tuned to account more for CO2. It is also well known that the impact of solar change on the climate is very poorly understood, and merely correlating total solar irradiance with temperature is a very poor way of understanding the physics of interactions between planetary, solar and galactic magnetic fields, magnetic fields and cosmic rays, cloud formation, etc etc. Even the sunspot cycles are very poorly understood and the current cycle’s weakness and length was not predicted even only a few years ago. So that the models project these relative impacts on the scale of a century is, to put it politely, counting angels on a pinhead.

        So that the Met Office gets in a huff over the Daily Mail not using their desired emphasis is all pretty much irrelevant.

      • @CaptinSarcastic @jeffreyellis It isn’t the opposite. The Daily Mail noted that the temperature record for the last 15 years is flat, which it is. The Met Office complained that the article did not say that this decade is warmer than it was when instrumental records begain in 1850, which is also true. If you are a warmist then you interpret this as correlating to industrial age, if you are less inclined to that position you note that the world was also emerging from the Little Ice Age in the last couple of centuries. Skeptics will also note that the temperature projections of the 1990s and early 2000s have grossly overshot the actual instrumental temperature since the super El Nino peak of 1998.

        As to the predictions of the impact of a solar minimum, these predictions come from the same models used for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate. These models are tuned very heavily with many parameters poorly known and not derivable from first principles. So the argument in that case is rather circular, since the models have always been tuned to account more for CO2. It is also well known that the impact of solar change on the climate is very poorly understood, and merely correlating total solar irradiance with temperature is a very poor way of understanding the physics of interactions between planetary, solar and galactic magnetic fields, magnetic fields and cosmic rays, cloud formation, etc etc. Even the sunspot cycles are very poorly understood and the current cycle’s weakness and length was not predicted even only a few years ago. So that the models project these relative impacts on the scale of a century is, to put it politely, counting angels on a pinhead.

        So that the Met Office gets in a huff over the Daily Mail not using their desired emphasis is all pretty much irrelevant.

        • @DocD “The Daily Mail noted that the temperature record for the last 15 years is flat, which it is” — can you substantiate this claim? All the data I’ve seen has said otherwise. For example, the NASA GISS data (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/).

          For the record, I am not a fan of the climate scientists and think their dire warnings are way overblown — but I am a huge fan of the truth, and I would prefer to my side of the argument to adhere to it.

        • @jeffreyellis @DocD Err, what? The 15 years up to 2012 in the giss data are statistically flat. They are also flat if you go look at hadcrut or other sources, such as the chart shown above in Bruce’s post. What’s the drama? It is pretty uncontroversial that since the 1998 super El Nino that the temperatures have been flat, but since 1850 they have risen.

        • @jeffreyellis For example, here is the hadcrutv3 chart which is easier to eyeball than the giss data…
          http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

        • @DocD @jeffreyellis I am not even going to consider debating the science, that is just a waste of words. Instead, let’s talk about journalism. Even if the Daily Mail story were scientifically accurate, wouldn’t basic journalistic standards require that the author accurately respresented the source material and then perhaps attempted to debunk their conclusions? This article specifically and precisely leads readers to believe that the MET press release state uncategorically that rising global temperature trends ended in 1997. “Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.”

          If the author trusts the MET office data enough to use it as source material, then why would he not trust the MET Ofiice data that indicates the opposite of the conclusions that the authored asserted the data indicated.

          That this kind of journalism could be applauded is telling. If the POV were reversed, do you think anyone here would be saying, “So that the Met Office gets in a huff over the Daily Mail not using their desired emphasis is all pretty much irrelevant.”

        • @CaptinSarcastic @jeffreyellis I trust the Met Office emphasis as much as the journalists. I’ve got enough decades of scientific training to know the spin both are applying but fortunately I am able enough to determine my own conclusion. Again, the Daily Mail claim is true, there has been no warming in the last decade to 15 years. The Met Office prefers to say that warming has occured since 1850. It is really quite simple. The Daily Mail is saying that warming has stalled recently, which is true, while the Met Office says that since 1850 it is still warmer, which is also true. If the Met Office claimed that there was a warming trend in the last 15 years I’d call BS, likewise if the Daily Mail tried to claim that there had been a strong cooling. But in journalists vs press releases, meh, I don’t get worked up over those games.

        • @DocD @jeffreyellis So you acknowledge it is bad journalism, you just consider it an offset to bad science? Lovely.

        • @CaptinSarcastic @jeffreyellis So now it is about me? And you’re putting words in my mouth. What’s up with that? You’re worked up over a UK paper running one angle of a story against a different angle favored by a UK weather service, both angles are true but I am suddenly passing judgement on journalism and science? Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

        • @DocD @CaptinSarcastic @jeffreyellis Like Erp, he prefers tilting with straw men. And never minds lying.

        • @DocD @jeffreyellis Whatever, read the Daily Mail story and the press release they based it on, and draw your own conclusions. If your conclusion is nothing to see here, fine. The science is over my head, but the conclusions are pretty clear, and the story at very best, ignores the central statement of the press release and cherry picks a piece of data and represents that as the central statement of the press release. Not only that, MET Office sent the author clarification that his understanding of the data was wholly inaccurate and misrepresented the data BEFORE the article was published, and the author apparently ignored this as well.

        • @CaptinSarcastic @DocD @jeffreyellis As opposed to the MET misrepresenting data. And I think Doc’s point was, not the data was not misrepresented – it’s flat. It doesn’t show a marked increase since after the 1997 spike, AND it makes the claim that it’s the warmest period we’ve experienced after they’ve participated in the effort of burying the medieval warming period which was actually warmer than today.
          Oh, and over .06 degrees Celsius too…. and based on a ‘norm’ of what? derived from where and when?

          Shall we hop into the WayBack and check out the predictions from say, 1999, about how we were all inferno bound within the next decade?
          It’s still there, take a look – other than an increase in CO2, they’ve botched it, consistently. I know, we shouldn’t confuse them with facts, they’re saving the world!

          “According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

          “(2008) A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001 — the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.””

          I could fill a column with their failed predictions, well past the tipping point of my word limit to comment.

          Does the fact that it hasn’t happened that way sway you not at all? Are we using the science of the eternal cubs fan “wait till next year!”

          As I asked before on another topic – when were they lying to us, then, or now?

        • @looker @DocD @jeffreyellis Looker, as I said I won’t argue the science, I’m not qualified. I take no issue with you, or anyone, attempting to debunk climate data that purports to support (or deny) AGW. My point is that from a jounralistic standpoint, if you are going to contradict the assertions of the MET Office in a MET Office press release, then you should do it, but to specifically flat out assert that the MET Office press release “confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.” without acknowledging that was the not their position is journalism so shoddy as to be considered yellow journalism. Let me give you a hypothetical scenario, if a New York Times story came out that said “Heritage Foundation finds tax increases will stimulate economic growth” and fif not link to the Heritage Foundation, nor indicate the specific Heritage report they are using as a source, and the author has recieved communication from Heritage specifically stating this is not the conclusion they came to, BUT, there was data within the report that could be read within a narrow understanding that would support the statement. Would you think that there mere journalistic methods of the article would make the conclusion so suspect as to be useless, or would you just say that the single piece of data they grabbed onto was accurately represented, so nothing else matters?

        • @CaptinSarcastic @looker @DocD — There are two mutually contradictory statements being bandied about right now in the debate on global warming:

          (1) Nine of the hottest ten years on record have occurred since 2000; and

          (2) The planet has not warmed in the last 15 years.

          If the data can be legitimately interpreted so that both of these statements are true, then we should all agree that the whole debate on global warming is a big effing joke and we should just sit back for another 10 or 15 years to see what happens.

          If one of these statements are false, though, then can someone concisely debunk the false one for me?

          It seems like this is central both to the global warming debate as a whole and to this comment thread. Because Daily Mail is claiming it’s the Met Office’s data that shows no warming since 1995, and yet it’s the Met Office claiming that 9 of the last 10 years have been since 2000.

        • @jeffreyellis @CaptinSarcastic @looker They aren’t contradictory. To take an analogy, suppose you started working in 1960 at some peanut rate as a teenager. Each and every year up to and including 1998 you receive a pay increase. In 1998 you win a nice amount on a lottery. But from 1999 to 2010 you do not receive any pay increase at all, it is still at the 1997 level. In 2011 you retire and your income drops to your pension level. Thus the following are true:
          1. Your income from 1960 to 2012 is a definite positive trend.
          2. Your income from 2000 to 2010 is the highest it has ever been.
          3. Your income since 1998 has not increased.

          All these are true. Now (to continue the British newspaper theme) the Guardian comes along in 2010 and publishes a shock story… “Man receives no pay rise since 1998″. True.
          2. Your employer answered this with… “Out of context! You did not quote me saying that man is receiving more than in 1960 and the trend since 1960 is still up.” Also true.

          Obviously here the Guardian has replaced tha Daily Mail and the employer has replaced the Met Office.

          The analogy is not perfect, since the temperature record is composed of many individual temperature measurements with varying precisions and accuracies, so in the temperature record you have to ask if the trends are statistically non-zero (rather than just looking at the absolute data points of your income). But the idea is the same.

          To push the analogy past its limits… Now consider your wife in 1996 developed a model of your income and saw that it was on a good positive trend and decided that the trend was most influenced by the amount your hairline has receded since 1960. On the basis of this model she projected your income to 2020 and took out a fat loan to finance a summer house. Now in 2012 she is at the credit company claiming that there is nothing wrong with the model, it is revised every year according to the degree of hairline recession which is accelerating so anytime now the income is going to shoot up again and the loan will be covered. The credit company is sceptical and starts demanding money, with a few menaces.

          I am quite happy to wait and see what happens in the next 15 years. The temperature record has already decoupled itself from the models quite nicely so the gymnastics to come over the next decade to jury-rig everything back together will be interesting.

          And that is all without even considering the more fundamental questions, beginning with “does it make any physical sense whatsoever to form a single global temperature measurement for an intensive variable such as temperature for the entire Earth system?”

        • @CaptinSarcastic @looker @jeffreyellis Now you’re just being obtuse. Here is what the Daily Mail said:

          “Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.”

          They say the data was released, which it was, you can get it in the Met Office press release already linked to above. OK, now go get the data from the press release (as no doubt the Daily Mail did), plug it into Excel (as no doubt the Daily Mail did) and determine the trend for the years. If you do this for the HadCrut3 data, the Met Office’s own product, you will get a trend of -0.001 deg/year. That is to say, the temperature is dropping. However, this is not significantly different from zero, so the best you can say is that the temperature record since 1997 is flat (which you’ll see even just by eyeballing a chart of the same data).

          So what the Daily Mail has done is taken the data presented by the Met Office and by themselves determined the temperature trend since 1997, since that is the data given in the press release. Anyone can do this, the Daily Mail did, I just did and so could you. So you can bitch and moan about “yellow journalism” but there is nothing unethical about taking data published in a press release and figuring out something not specifically alluded to in the official press release.

          Apart from that the Daily Mail article is pretty reasonable, with a wide range of discussion of various factors and even having quotes from Judith Curry and Nicola Scafetti. Not at all what I’d have expected from a tabloid. Also, British newspapers take public and definite political and social positions as part of their tradition, they view it as their job to hold other institutions to account and make them uncomfortable. Which is why you had strongly leftist papers like the Guardian harassing the government over the Iraq war and somewhat rightist papers like the Daily Mail doing basic data analysis when given the numbers by the Met Office.

        • @CaptinSarcastic @looker @jeffreyellis Scafetta, not Scafetti.

        • @looker @CaptinSarcastic @jeffreyellis “As I asked before on another topic – when were they lying to us, then, or now?”

          And in 2010 the BBC (of all organizations) nearly dropped the Met Office as its provider of forecasts. The Met Office managed to hang on to the contract, but they gave up doing “seasonal forecasts” after predicting hot summers (that came cold and wet) and mild winters (that turned into severe winters covering the whole of Europe and the UK in deep snow). The same forecasting routines are included in climate modelling on their supercomputers, to evolve the climate system through time.

        • @CaptinSarcastic @DocD @jeffreyellis Point taken the Met release didn’t say themselves what the reporter said, and told him that in advance.

    • @jeffreyellis All well and good as long as we pretend there was no medieval warming period with temps at least as high as those in the recent ‘hottest decade on record”.

      But we leveled that period because it was inconsistent with the necessary data trending.

      Can’t make hockey sticks that way mann.

      • @looker @jeffreyellis Hottest decade on record, because records do not extend back to the MWP. For that proxies are used and the Mannian reconstructions are a scientific nightmare for anyone who has any experience in signal processing or time series analysis. It was in fact the Mann et al 98 paper that first got me interested in the methods of the reconstructions and after dissecting what could be found in that I was much less than impressed, horrified in fact. It was kind of around then that I realized that much of what I thought I knew was probably wrong.

        • @DocD @jeffreyellis Oh, there were records all right, the Vikings left the stack they had in one of the huts in Greenland, and it got squashed by a glacier, the Aboriginals of Australia lost theirs during a walkabout and some steppe goats broke into the yurt where they were being kept in Central Asia and made a meal out of them.

          Fortunately enough there was that one tree that we could get tree ring samples from to show the world’s climate during that time period. Mann, are we lucky.

        • @DocD @jeffreyellis I fear we are all doomed when the glacier’s come, I mean, when the oil runs out, I mean when the temperature rises another .06C degrees, I mean when the Mayan calendar runs out, I mean…..

        • Doh, forgot, Y2k, what an idiot, how could I have forgotten that one?

        • @looker @jeffreyellis Instrumental records I meant… ie thermometers.

      • @looker Mann’s hockey stick I think has been discredited with respect to the medieval warm period, but I’m not sure that’s relevant to the question of the Daily Mail’s article vs. the Met Office’s rebuttal of it.

        • @jeffreyellis @looker You are correct in that the hockey-stick does not bear directly on this question, but it does in a secondary way when people compare the current instrumental temperatures with longer history and try to deduce if the current warming since 1850 is even significantly different from noise. That was why the MWP, LIA, Roman warm period etc were all effectively erased from the hockey-stick shaft.

        • @DocD @jeffreyellis Note, in order to claim it’s hotter, or cooler, they have to establish the base line. So now I’m to presume that their baseline is the average temperature for the globe from Big Bang to date? Otherwise the .06 C rise in temperature that they’re knickers are all twisted up around doesn’t mean a hell of a lot, does it.

          Dammit, I must have lost the “nothing will ever change in your lifetime” guarantee that was issued to me at birth, or even more possibly it was in that yurt the goats broke into and was their antipasto.

  • Didn’t anybody get the memo? It’s not global warming anymore it’s Global Climate Disruption. It could snow in miami on the fourth of july and it’s covered under the new name, and of course is caused by evil mankind and their SUVs.

  • “That’s scientific fact and it is time the alarmist crowd began dealing straight with the public using facts” Is it, or have you punked by the Daily Mail? http://thethinkerblog.com/?p=12648

  • “That’s scientific fact and it is time the alarmist crowd began dealing straight with the public using facts” Is it, or have you been punked by the Daily Mail? http://thethinkerblog.com/?p=12648

  • “it is time the alarmist crowd began dealing straight with the public using facts”. That is akin to asking Jeffery Dahmer to quit munching on that thigh bone while you talk to him about the vegan lifestyle.