Cubasch in Das Erste

There is an article in Das Erste in which the view that the "two Canadians were right" is attributed to Cubasch.

On Feb. 16, 2005, Das Erste included the following comment (translation courtesy of Joseph Potts):

He [Cubasch] discussed with his coworkers – and many of his professional colleagues – the objections, and sought to work them through. In this, they ran afoul of the very same difficulties on which Steve McIntyre had gotten stuck. It wasn’t easy at all to come by the data that Michael Mann had used. "That was indeed unusual." Normally, one collaborates and discusses the questions in conference. Bit by bit, it became clear also to his colleagues: the two Canadians were right. Their curve, which was was based on the data provided by Mann, looked quite different, especially in a particular respect. Between 1400 and 1600, the temperature shift was considerably higher than, for example, in the previous century. With that, the core conclusion, and that also of the IPCC 2001 Report, was completely undermined.


  1. John A.
    Posted Mar 13, 2005 at 2:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Different researchers. Completely independent of each other. Attempting the same replication which is a normal part of science.

    Same problems with transparency. Same roadblocks. Same problems with replication. Same errors detected. Same conclusion.

    How many more times does this exercise have to be done before the IPCC and its hangers-on recognise that what Mann did was scientifically invalid and its conclusions therefore also invalid?

    Steve, have you heard from more researchers who have attempted even partial replications?

  2. Posted Mar 14, 2005 at 2:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Dear Steve

    Das Erste is the state-owned television station number One in Germany with most spectators.
    The whole article is in favour of what you have done. There is no criticism on any fact.
    It looks like that Cubasch is taking now the offensive against the Hockey-Stick.

    Really interesting the second part of the report : Whom to believe :

    The Max-Planck-Institut in Hamburg proves now if the temperature rise during the last 150 years is only because of statistical fluctuation or influenced by man.
    And what they use : The super computer of the “Deutsches Klima Rechenzentrum”, which uses 4 Million Gigabyte, but stills need a day to reconstruct 4 year’s climate record.

    It is very funny. Nobody at the Max-Planck-Institut took notice that the reconstruction of climate temperature between 1000 and 2000 was wrong, but they are still confident that they can predict temperature up to the year 2100.

    The Max-Planck-Institut is preparing the next IPCC-report 2007.

  3. John A.
    Posted Mar 14, 2005 at 3:32 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Yet another unfalsifiable and unreproducible climate model run next time. Oh well, at least for climate science, it will be an improvement over the promotion of the demonstrably false. (Is that an improvement?)

  4. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Mar 14, 2005 at 3:50 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Bernd Stroher said

    "The Max-Planck-Institut in Hamburg proves now if the temperature rise during the last 150 years is only because of statistical fluctuation or influenced by man."

    Got a link or ref for that Bernd? In particular the ‘proves’ bit. No one can predict, precisely, temperatures up to 2100 – no does anyone. But, I think I could say that if CO2 was at 280 and all other things equal the surface temp in 2100 would be between 13C and 15C – just using one human brain. Add ghg’s and there is an effect – that’s not in question, but the amount is. The predicted *range* seems reasonable to me. We’ve seen about .7C I’ll be amased if it’s not 1C by 2100 and not surprised if its 3C.

    John A.

    "Yet another unfalsifiable and unreproducible climate model run next time…" How would you describe economic models of the future economic effect of Kyoto? Presunably the TCS ‘counter’ is beyond criticism? 100% right, no question? Ho ho ho ha ha ha.

    her said

    "The Max-Planck-Institut in Hamburg proves now if the temperature rise during the last 150 years is only because of statistical fluctuation or influenced by man."

    Got a link or journal ref for that, in particulat the ‘proves’ bit.

    John replies:

    “Yet another unfalsifiable and unreproducible climate model run next time…” How would you describe economic models of the future economic effect of Kyoto? Presunably the TCS “counter’ is beyond criticism? 100% right, no question? Ho ho ho ha ha ha.

    How would I describe the ecomomic models of Kyoto? From what I’ve heard: Ludicrous. In the opinion of a leading economic modeller "an insult to science" and "an insult to serious analysis."

    I’d get the evil laugh checked out with a doctor, if I was you. It could be serious.

  5. Louis Hissink
    Posted Mar 14, 2005 at 4:23 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The State no 1 TV station is helping Cubasch take the baseball bat to the Hockey Stick? Is this a subtle German Government signal that they too suddenly realise the error made by the IPCC?

    Or is this a squabble much like previous ones in the socialist camp – when Leninists, Trotskyists all took to each othe violently with fatal consequences. Perhaps Cubasch wishes to replace the Mann et al interpretation with his own team’s “correct” interpretation.

    The battle might be won but the war remains.

    PS. Steve, I suspect you are attending that Prospectors etc thing in Toronto at the moment?

  6. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Mar 14, 2005 at 5:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Humm, this is interesting! The quote “The Max-Planck-Institut in Hamburg proves now if the temperature rise during the last 150 years is only because of statistical fluctuation or influenced by man.” from Bernd, translates via google to “The Max-Planck-Institut in Hamburg proves now if the temperature rise during the last 150 years is only because of statistical fluctuation or influenced by man?”. A vast difference, a question not a statement.

    The article concludes thus “In no model one can explain the heating up of the earth in the last 150 years without the influence of humans.” Cue more model rubbishing from rubbisher in chief and CA’s very own spin doctor John A. I suppose….

  7. John A.
    Posted Mar 14, 2005 at 6:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Rather than respond in kind to our very own farmer climatologist, let me quote the IPCC on the subject of climate models ( ):

    We recognise that, unlike the classic concept of Popper (1982), our evaluation process is not as clear-cut as a simple search for “falsification”. While we do not consider that the complexity of a climate model makes it impossible to ever prove such a model “false” in any absolute sense, it does make the task of evaluation extremely difficult and leaves room for a subjective component in any assessment. The very complexity of climate models means that there are severe limits placed on our ability to analyse and understand the model processes, interactions and uncertainties (Rind, 1999). It is always possible to find errors in simulations of particular variables or processes in a climate model. What is important to establish is whether such errors make a given model “unusable” in answering specific questions.

    In other words, climate models are unfalsifiable and assessment of them, subjective.

    and further ( ):

    The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system. As the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) has previously noted, “future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict. This implies that future climate changes may also involve “surprises’. In particular, these arise from the non-linear, chaotic nature of the climate system … Progress can be made by investigating non-linear processes and sub-components of the climatic system.” These thoughts are expanded upon in this report: “Reducing uncertainty in climate projections also requires a better understanding of these non-linear processes which give rise to thresholds that are present in the climate system. Observations, palaeoclimatic data, and models suggest that such thresholds exist and that transitions have occurred in the past … Comprehensive climate models in conjunction with sustained observational systems, both in situ and remote, are the only tool to decide whether the evolving climate system is approaching such thresholds. Our knowledge about the processes, and feedback mechanisms determining them, must be significantly improved in order to extract early signs of such changes from model simulations and observations.

    In other words, the climate system is not linear and forcings (such as carbon dioxide rise) may cause cooling as well as warming (that’s what “switch sign” means). The chapter continues:

    Integrations of models over long time-spans are prone to error as small discrepancies from reality compound. Models, by definition, are reduced descriptions of reality and hence incomplete and with error. Missing pieces and small errors can pose difficulties when models of sub-systems such as the ocean and the atmosphere are coupled. As noted in Chapter 8, Section 8.4.2, at the time of the SAR most coupled models had difficulty in reproducing a stable climate with current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and therefore non-physical “flux adjustment terms” were added. In the past few years significant progress has been achieved, but difficulties posed by the problem of flux adjustment, while reduced, remain problematic and continued investigations are needed to reach the objective of avoiding dependence on flux adjustment

    In other words, climate models are simplified and introduce error, and small errors matter when dealing with chaotic systems. The phrase “flux adjustment” is the climate modellers version of the “fudge factor”, a non-physical element introduced to get the right answer chosen by the modeller.

  8. Michael Ballantine
    Posted Mar 14, 2005 at 6:56 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: 7
    So, according to the models, regardless of how much accurate data and correct formulas are entered, the overwhelming dominant factor is the “FUDGE FACTOR”, not GHGs. I suppose that means the models could be “flux adjusted” to show any temperature change in the range of 0.0 +/- 50.0 degrees and still be considered correct. So now we need to find a way to pick a modeller who knows the right answer so he/she can adjust the model correctly…

  9. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Mar 14, 2005 at 7:31 AM | Permalink | Reply

    LOL, John A, “introduced to get the right answer chosen by the modeller” ISN’T responding in kind – it’s far worse. Indeed, it’s a disgracefully serious allegation. I suspect then you don’t just make it up but that you have a lot of evidence of such behaviour by those evil climate modelling scientists you so hate?? OK lets see it!

  10. John A.
    Posted Mar 14, 2005 at 9:07 AM | Permalink | Reply


    I quoted the IPCC report on the assessment of climate models and their inherent unreliability. I did not call them “evil”. I did not say I hate the modellers. Try to calm your rhetoric down, just a little.

    As for whether they are accurate, nobody knows since they cannot be falsified by any normal procedure (other than waiting 100 years to find out). Do they alarm? Demonstrably so. Are some of those climate models realistic? Demonstrably not.

  11. Posted Mar 14, 2005 at 9:17 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Most discussions on modelling are solely on GHG and temperature, but nearly nobody is discussion the economic fundamentals.

    If someone believes in climate modelling and read the economic fundamentals of the IPCC scenarios, you surely will find your grand-children in a somewhat worldwide classless society, the old dream of Marxism.

    Read what Prof. Reilly, himself an economic modeller, said :

    From The Kyoto Accord Justifications – An ‘insult to science’
    Terence Corcoran Editor-in-Chief, The Financial Post

    “…⽏ne leading economic modeller, John Reilly of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said “the SRES scenarios were just, in my view, a kind of insult to science.” Were they also an insult to economics? “Well, to anything; an insult to serious analysis.” “…⼍


    “…⽁t one point, he says, the IPCC group attempted to find economists to “tweak” long-range models to get the desired emissions results. “They wanted our group [at MIT] to do this, but we just refused.”

    “…⽎ot only did the modelling warp economics. The overall ideology of the operation appears to have been to create scenarios that would fulfill a larger objective. “The bigger issue,” says Prof. Reilly, is the SRES vision of an economic future of “equal incomes” among all regions of the globe. He calls it the “social justice” issue. “They are of the view that the future world is a matter of human choice. If we want a world where the United States stops growing, and developing countries grow and catch up, we can choose that world. It’s not something you can project. You just choose that scenario and if it’s a scenario we as a world like, we will make it happen.”


    “…⽔he idea that most regions of the world economy – the developing nations, Asia, Africa and Latin America – can be purged of differences in income levels with the developed world of Europe, Japan and North America dominates the SRES outlook. It also produces long-range growth projections that, by any historical standard, are out of this world.

    A sampling of these unbelievable projections can be found in the table. In 1990, the combined GDP of OECD nations (Japan, North America, Europe) was $16.5-trillion while the combined GDP of the major developing regions (Africa, Latin America, Asia) totalled $3.5-trillion. The SRES projections propel the developing nations onto a growth trajectory that overtakes OECD nations in about 30 years, and then soars to almost three times OECD levels by the end of the century.”

  12. Paul Gosling
    Posted Mar 14, 2005 at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The arguments with the economic projections seems to be that they underestimate OECD growth and overestimate growth in the developing world. Well doesn’t that potentially cancel out? The other argument seems to be that because things are cheaper in the developing world then there needs to be less growth in GDP for the developing world to reach OECD living standards. As far as I can see, a fridge uses as much electricity whether it costs £50 in a developing country or £250 in and OEDC country, perhaps there are some economists out there who can explain.

  13. Posted Mar 14, 2005 at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “…⽗ell doesn’t that potentially cancel out? “…⼠No: it doesn”t.

    It is very interesting that the way economists are thinking is really unknown or unusual and often impossible to understand by natural scientist.

    So natural scientist believe that the economical problems of the IPPC scenarios are sufficiently solved , and the social scientist are believing vice versa. But we know that the uncertainties on both sides are very important.

    CO2 is emitted by people, how much is a fundamental problem of how many people are living, their living standard, available and used skills etc. The scenarios the IPCC is using, are really unrealistic and wrong.

    Read what Henderson and Ian Castles, both economics, wrote to the IPCC

    “…⽔he market value method used by the SRES severely distorts reality. It converts the local currency income of somebody living in a developing nation, say Bangladesh, into U.S. dollars at market rates, and then assumes that the Bangladeshi spends his income purchasing goods and services at going world market prices. No Bangladeshi does this.”


    “…⽂ased on market exchange rates, for example, the current $500 per capita income in Asia implies that the $20,000 per capita in OECD nations is 40 times greater. Mr. Castles says that, properly measured on a PPP basis, the income gap between the two groups is more like 10 to 1 rather than 40 to 1. But if the gap is only 10 to 1, then the amount of growth needed to close the gap would be far smaller than projected by the SRES. It follows, says Mr. Castles, that the growth in carbon emissions would also be far smaller. And so, presumably, would the risks of temperature increases.”


    “…⽉t is from these “fantastic assumptions,” says Mr. Castles in his letter to the IPCC, that the official modellers accommodated soaring emissions growth estimates. In the emissions scenario that accompanies the growth rates in the chart nearby, for example, the SRES estimated that in this decade alone carbon emissions would increase by 800 million tonnes in the developing world. “In other words,” writes Mr. Castles, “the modellers assumed that increases in emissions in each of the SRES developing regions would be greater in the current decade than the increase for the world as a whole between 1990 and 2000.”


    “…⽏n the basis of these assumptions, which are “completely unrealistic,” he says the SRES proposes that carbon emissions of fossil carbon dioxide will increase between 24% and 46% in developing countries during this decade. “On this basis, output [under this model] suggests that GDP per head could rise by around 50% in both regions.” That’s impossible, he suggests. It is already certain that growth of that magnitude will not occur. The IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook forecasts don’t even come close to forecasting such growth.”

    “…⽔he same story carries on, decade after decade. Third World nations balloon in growth, the United States and the OECD nations stagnate, and climate changing carbon emissions soar – all on the basis of modelling that worked backward and employed flawed and untenable methods. The SRES modellers began with extremely high emissions projections, allocated the emissions to developing countries, and then created faulty and impossible economic scenarios to accommodate the emissions.”

  14. Greg F
    Posted Mar 14, 2005 at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The arguments with the economic projections seems to be that they underestimate OECD growth and overestimate growth in the developing world. Well doesn’t that potentially cancel out?

    In a word, no. This article by
    David Henderson gives a brief synapses of what is wrong with the IPCC’s economics.

    “As a result, total projected world GDP is pushed up; and this in turn is reflected in higher projected emissions. Hence even the scenarios which show the lowest cumulative emissions over the present century do not in fact represent lower limits. The SRES projections do not, as is claimed for them, adequately encompass the full range of uncertainties about the future.”

  15. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Mar 14, 2005 at 4:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    On the other day, I read someone (Mann himself, I believe) saying that incorrect assumptions/projections/model inputs of GHG emissions are irrelevant. I can’t locate the threat at the moment due to time constraints, but maybe someone else knows where it’s at! It doesn’t matter to that poster when GHG levels will hit a certain point, it just matters what will happen when they do. Personally, I see a huge difference in CO2 doubling times of 50 vs 100 vs 200 vs 300 years, and I think it’s absurd to justify incorrect GHG emission model inputs on that basis.

  16. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Mar 15, 2005 at 4:14 AM | Permalink | Reply

    John A

    "As for whether they are accurate, nobody knows since they cannot be falsified by any normal procedure (other than waiting 100 years to find out). Do they alarm? Demonstrably so. Are some of those climate models realistic? Demonstrably not."

    Clearly then John, you base your views on uncorroborated work. M&M, Warwick Hughes (is he still around?) – anyone else?

    Do you also thing MMR not safe since one, infamous, doctor said it wasn’t?

    John replies: Peter, clearly you base your views upon people you admire and won’t look at the evidence presented that contradicts the people you admire. You may not have noticed, but M&M has been corroborated and tested and replicated.

    Warwick Hughes is still not dead. The direct evidence that the BBC used the most extreme values of a climate modelling experiment that uses a completely non-physical scenario is there for all to see. Even realclimate thought the story alarmist and the underlying modelling unrealistic.

    What I think about MMR is completely irrelevant to the questions of climate science that you don’t dare answer for yourself. I think that you’re trolling because you can’t answer simple questions, even in your area of supposed expertise. Because I think that you’re desperate for some insult to put upon me because I dare to question your alarmist fantasies.

    Now try answering the questions put to you and stop the irrelevancies. Until you do so, don’t expect me to reply to your trolling.

  17. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Mar 15, 2005 at 6:53 AM | Permalink | Reply

    John A,

    You’re pretty intemperate for a ‘moderator’ – you should set an example not resort to insult when you perceive you’re insulted. In this place I tend to reply in the tone I’m addressed….I don’t seek to insult, but what I read can effect my mood (Yes, an apology of sorts – will you do the same?).

    Put some simple questions to me (becuase I’m simple I suppose – sigh), indeed point out which ones I haven’t answered and please show where I’ve stated ‘alarmist fantasies’ here. I’m a 2-3C warming chap not 11C btw.

    You ought to try and raise the level here not persistently lower it.

    I do suspect it possible to find stories to back up your case.

  18. Louis Hissink
    Posted Mar 15, 2005 at 6:56 AM | Permalink | Reply


    Both economics and climate science assume identical fallacies – that inherently chaotic systems are reducible to simplistic algorithms.

    Chaotic systems cannot.


  19. Louis Hissink
    Posted Mar 15, 2005 at 7:57 AM | Permalink | Reply


    Who was responding to whom?

    Even I am now confused.

  20. John A
    Posted Mar 15, 2005 at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: #18

    Louis, if that period was really the end of the discussion, it would have made for a very short IPCC report.

    Just imagine if someone had said that in 1988 when James Hansen produced his computer model and announced that global warming was nigh. It would have saved billions

  21. Jeff Norman
    Posted Mar 15, 2005 at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

    John A.,

    Can we start a new thread for questions "Peter Heardon" hasn’t attempted to answer? Or would that require something larger than a thread?


    John replies: Do you really think Peter Hearnden is here because he feels obligated to justify his beliefs with reference to facts?

  22. Michael Ballantine
    Posted Mar 15, 2005 at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Reply

    For John’s benefit I will remind you the you still have not provided a factual answer to the simple question of whether trees respond more strongly to CO2 fertilization, available sunlight, water or temperature. This is something that a farmer should know empiricaly if not mathematically.

    For the mathematically inclined and without resorting to the spagheti of statistics: We have 5 variables relative to time that relate to tree ring growth; water, sunlight, CO2, temperature and synchronization of records. We have 2 “equations” that define the relationships of tree ring growth and CO2 concentrations to some sort of time scale. Basic mathematics dictates that we need 5 “equations” and I don’t see them anywhere. Even if we assume good synchronization of the time scales we still have 4 variables and 2 equations. Where are the “equations” to relate water and sunlight to time for each of the sample areas? Basic Math ladies and gentlemen. If someone could please show me where to find the missing equations I would be happy to look at the facts.

    The fundamentals are IMPORTANT. It’s hard enough avoiding “Garbage In Garbage Out” results.

  23. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Mar 15, 2005 at 5:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Michael B., I’ll be honest, I doubt very much trees respond most to CO2 – after all they don’t grow well below 6C or so, the sun is, I thought, pretty important to them and water likewise. But, since you undobtedly think CO2 fertilisation the most important (?) you’ll tell me otherwise I expect – while you at the same time you belittle me…..

    Generally, I’m quite sure nothing I can say will change anyone’s mind here (never thought it would), nor mine for that matter. I’m just exercising my right, that this site give me, to comment. That I’m repeatedly pilloried for that say’s a lot….Give it a couple of decades though.

    Here I am, a farmer from the UK and, it seems I’m the only non 100% signed sealed and delivered, unquestioning sceptic (I don’t like the word – please tell me a better one) here. Such is the power and influence of that vast ‘agw industry’ that I suppose they send me speak for them – LOL. That say’s something about something.

  24. Louis Hissink
    Posted Mar 16, 2005 at 6:31 AM | Permalink | Reply

    A quick scan of the latest posts on tree ring thickness is that drought is the dominant factor.

    Mann et al are graphing droughts?

    If these clowns were in the mining industry they would ……..

  25. Michael Ballantine
    Posted Mar 16, 2005 at 7:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Peter, Tree growth generally responds to all the the things I listed. Do the charted variations in CO2 concentration have more or less effect than the charted average temperatures? I don’t know and I haven’t seen much evidence that anyone else does either. Certainly not the “trained climatologists”. There certainly is a non-zero effect for both factors and it would be very useful to know what the ratio is for each of the species used. The same thing applies for available sunlight and available water.
    As for trees not growing well below 6C I think you made a useful comment without meaning to. Assuming large anual temperature swings between summer and winter the trees would experience maybe half the year above 6C and would be expected to have a lot of growth. If the year is mild and winds up staying within a few degrees of 6C then we would expect very little growth. Which one represents higher global temperatures and how do we tell which one is present?
    So, are you pilloried or belittled for you contributions? Maybe. In general, I hold you up to be a good representative of the masses. Your knowledge of the sciences appears to comes more from the sensationalized media than our inadequate school systems and the media has been pounding this stuff into you for a long time. Most people accept the word of “experts” on blind faith as they have no way of questioning it without being ridiculed.
    As you are interested in beliefs, here are some of mine.
    Is the world warming up? Yes. 10,000 years ago your farm and my home were under a mile of ice so this is a reasonable belief.
    Is the earth warming up faster in the last 100 years than the last 2000? Maybe.
    Is CO2 and other GHGs causing this unusual warming? Insufficient data.
    Is increased CO2 a cause or effect of global warming? Insufficient data.
    Are there natural, non human, factors that greatly affect the average temperature? Yes.
    Do I think we should be adapting to changing climate? YES!
    Billions are about to be spent on cutting GHGs in the belief that we can stop global warming. We are urged to spend it without verifiable proof to avoid horrible consequenses. But what if it has no effect and we wasted all that time and money without doing anything to adapt. We will still have those consequenses. Why not cover our bets by spending half on CO2 reductions and half on adaptation. Meanwhile, spend some real money on good, open science so we understand what is really happening.

  26. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Mar 16, 2005 at 7:20 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Michael B.

    Well, yes of course I just lap up what the media spout at me. Yes, I really am that thick! Well, no actually. I’ve been interested in climate change for at least two decades. Yes, I am just am an amateur, like you I guess, but, like you, I am capable of both thought and learning things – thankyou very much!

    Re tree rings. Why do so many people blather on about tree rings so much here? They’re just one of many temperature proxies. NOT THE ONLY ONE.

    Re you’re other comments. Well, I do doubt, sometimes, that AGW will be addressed by humanity for some time. So, adaption may well be what we have to do. Sad, imo, but true. If there was a will then the world could both move on from fossil fuels (as it will have to) and make it a better place. The world may not do that – which is good??

    Re “Is increased CO2 a cause or effect of global warming? Insufficient data.”. So you’re saying ther is insufficent data to show CO2 is a ghg? I don’t agree – it IS a ghg. Or that changing it’s conc has no effect? Well, the errors in the ice cores caused by dating uncertianties and the fact the sometimes CO2 is a feedback (clearly not though atm) means you can argue that. As I’ve said in another post, give it a couple of decades, free of major volcanic eruptions, and we’ll know one way or the other.

    There, was that trolling??

  27. Spence_UK
    Posted Mar 16, 2005 at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re “Is increased CO2 a cause or effect of global warming? Insufficient data.”. So you’re saying ther is insufficent data to show CO2 is a ghg?
    Wow there is a bad leap of logic.
    Enhanced global warming (the behaviour of the entire climate including interactions) and greenhouse effect (the behaviour of one isolated part of the climate that may be insignificant or may not) are two entirely separate questions that you have lumped into one.
    Our survey said: “troll”

    Well, the errors in the ice cores caused by dating uncertianties and the fact the sometimes CO2 is a feedback (clearly not though atm)

    Why rely purely on the ice cores? Wagner et al using a different proxy show a much tighter correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature, presumably their proxy has fewer dating uncertainties than the ice core measurements – although Wagner et al do not show which came first, so both still leave the question of causality unanswered (a common theme in climate science – unexplained causality means global warming!) Wagner et al also show much greater variability of CO2 than the ice cores, suggesting todays levels are high but not exceptional in the last 10,000 years.

  28. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Mar 16, 2005 at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    You think the gh effect is “the behaviour of one isolated part of the climate that may be insignificant or may not” – what DO you mean? It’s a global effect, 33C or so. You also, conveniently, omited to note I gave an alternatives for what Michael meant. There were, genuine questions as well :(

    OK, lets hav a link for Wagner et al then :)

    Pretty easy with accusations of trolling aren’t we, Spence_UK. I’d be careful, over use dimishes it’s effect, even for the faithful of this place I’d guess.

  29. Spence_UK
    Posted Mar 16, 2005 at 3:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

    You think the gh effect is “the behaviour of one isolated part of the climate that may be insignificant or may not” – what DO you mean? It’s a global effect, 33C or so.

    Umm, I was talking about anthropogenic CO2 emissions, although I accept I didn’t make that clear. Naturally existing water vapour accounts for most of the 33C, followed by a bit for CO2, followed by a tiny (perhaps insignificant?) bit for anthropogenic CO2. I didn’t word my response well, but then…

    also, conveniently, omited to note I gave an alternatives for what Michael meant.

    I’ve just realised what you were trying to say. Hmm seems I’m not the only one badly wording my comments! If you want to present options you really shouldn’t follow some bizarre tortured logic as if another person had thought that, finishing with “I don’t agree”. As ever, you present a binary choice of possible options when there are many more unknowns and uncertainties.

    As for the trolling response, you prompted and I couldn’t resist. There should have been a smiley. :)

    Wagner et al is interesting from both side of the argument. The 1999 edition includes the following:

    Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. SI-based CO2 reconcstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were greater than 300 ppmv could have been the rules rather than the exception

    Interestingly Wagner observes closer correlations between CO2 concentrations to temperature, suggesting that the two are linked. But… which variable is the driver and which responds? Or is it a complex non-linear relationship? Is it possible that the CO2 levels we are seeing today are (at least partly) due to natural variability? Interestingly Wagner claims that CO2 drives temperature, but the two are closely linked so I see no reason for rejecting the hypothesis that temperature drives CO2 concentration.

    NB: Wagner et al is, of course, a proxy measurement and the usual caveats and health warnings apply.

  30. billy
    Posted Jul 1, 2005 at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Cubasch may not be a supporter of Mann et al, but he certainly recognises the existence of anthropogenic climate change caused by increased emission of greenhouse gases.

    For example, Lal M, Cubasch U, Voss R, Waszkewitz J (1995) presents a climate change scenario for the Indian subcontinent, taking projected emissions of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols into account. It predicts an increase in annual mean maximum and minimum surface air temperatures of 0.7° C and 1.0° C over land in the 2040s with respect to the 1980s.

    Effect of transient increase in greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols on monsoon climate
    Current Science 69(9): 752-763

  31. TCO
    Posted Sep 15, 2005 at 11:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I think it’s likely that CO2 is warming the Earth. Still think Mann is a poofdaddy-O. Steve rawks…

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,880 other followers

%d bloggers like this: