Unthreaded #5

Continuation of Unthreaded #4


  1. Bob Weber
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 3:46 AM | Permalink

    I assume that most of the historic temperature reading sets are mostly from analog thermometers. How is it possible to read them to an accuracy of 1/10 s of a degree? Second question, the anomaly temperatures in the graphs are yearly average temperatures subtracted from the average temperature for a stated range of time, right?


  2. Bob Weber
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 3:50 AM | Permalink

    How is it possible to read analog thermometers to an accuracy of 0.1 degrees for the temperature graphs?


  3. Hans Erren
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 4:25 AM | Permalink

    “How is it possible to read analog thermometers to an accuracy of 0.1 degrees for the temperature graphs?”

    It isn’t.
    Analog thermometer are read to the nearest degree (Fahrenheit in the old days)

    The daily average is (the sum of the daily readings/3)
    the annual average is the (sum of the daily averages)/(number of days in a year).

  4. Ian Blanchard
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 5:27 AM | Permalink

    First, I should introduce myself, as this is the first time I’ve posted, after reading the site
    for a while. I hold a PhD in analytical geochemistry, and prior to that undertook a Masters in
    Geochemistry (with a significant environmental component) and a degree in Geology. I’ve always
    been somewhat skeptical of the ‘Anthropogenic’ in AGW, as it seems to disregard the scale of the
    Earth and the complexity of atmosphere-ocean-biosphere interactions.

    Announced yesterday (and prominent in BBC news reports last night) that this winter has been the
    2nd warmest on record according to the Central England Temperature record (which has been running
    continously for nearly 400 years), and that the last 12 months (March 06-Feb 07) has been the
    warmest 12 month period ever (but then, 06 was the warmest year ever according to the UK Met
    office, and this winter has been notably warmer and wetter than last, so obviously this becomes
    the warmest 12 months).

    What I found most interesting though was the graph about half way down, showing the average
    temperature, which just bumbled along on a gently rising trend (with noise of about +/- 0.5 deg C)
    prior to the mid 80s, after which it has been climbing rapidly to nearly 1.5 deg C above the
    long term values. Evidence of global warming? Evidence of an urban heat influence extending to
    the site? Evidence of fiddling data or evidence of some changes to Atlantic Ocean conditions?
    (personally I suspect it is mainly a reflection of Atlantic circulation, as this winter we have
    had pretty much nothing but wet Atlantic south-westerlies)

  5. Hans Erren
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 6:03 AM | Permalink

    That’s weird:
    Compare CET

    with mainland Europe

  6. David Smith
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 6:31 AM | Permalink

    A longer-term plot of Central England temperatures is here .

  7. Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 7:09 AM | Permalink


    Smooth the past data, and add raw value from year 2006.. http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif

  8. welikerocks
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 7:13 AM | Permalink

    The ‘Hockeystick’ – Global Warming Scandal of the Decade
    By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., 2/27/2007 2:50:36 PM

    The basics of science involve a number of simple rules, a healthy skepticism, and a guiding principle of letting the data settle the disputes. Data need to be checked and validated, measurements need to be explained and justified, as well as the calculational techniques described. Replication of the results by others is essential, as are the analyses of measuring errors and uncertainties…

    …Incredibly, there were two individuals, Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre (M&M), two Canadians who had the wits, statistical and computer skills, and doggedness to unravel the complex data and the obscure statistical techniques used to construct the “Hockeystick’. (http://tinyurl.com/27vu3v). Their efforts were obstructed at many steps along the way by the studies’ authors. This opposition by the authors also is an intellectual red-flag indicating that something besides good science was involved, such as politics, funding, or fame, etc. Good scientists welcome replication and solid reviews.

    The Hawaiian Reporter-Freedom to Report Real News

    apologies if this has been linked already

  9. DocMartyn
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 7:18 AM | Permalink

    Thats very odd, I downloaded the Central England Temperature series last autumn. I just did a quick replot, with no moving average, and it doesn’t look like that. You don’t think they have changed the numbers do you?
    I can’t download the data series at the same address anymore.

  10. Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 7:19 AM | Permalink

    #4 If one want to look at the Atlantic Ocean conditions, look at the temperature plot of the best scientific observatory we have on its shores: Valentia.

    The increase in the last two decades and the lack of cold in the last few years are clear, but the single higher values are older and current average is not so far from that of the ’40s.
    The recent dramatic climbing in central England temperature is all but an effect of rising sst in the ocean!

  11. Hans Erren
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 7:46 AM | Permalink

    re 10: 1950 is a notorious inhomogeneity due to WMO change of standards.

  12. Sean Houlihane
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 8:26 AM | Permalink

    Doc: the data is here http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat I seem to have lost my old copies of this data so I can’t do a diff.

    I noticed whilst browsing the ‘ordered’ version that the 1700s have approx. 2.4 of the warmest 10 months for each month, and the 2nd warmest june on record was in 1676.

  13. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 8:44 AM | Permalink

    Wow, so according to the Met Office chart, CET has basically experienced record warming every year for the last two decades.

  14. Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 9:42 AM | Permalink

    re #11: Hans, let’s move to the other scientific observatory in that wonderdfull island. At Harmagh they calibrated the data for all known inhomogeneity and the increase is not as dramatic as in CET or in Uccle. The increase in minimum temperature is quite significant but, as dr. Pielke Sr. states, Tmin are not to be considered in trend estimate.
    Hans, would you help me, please, answering to an old question of mine: what is the Earth mean surface temperature? I mean a scientifically writed value.
    I did this question somewhere in the past but I didn’t get a satisfactory answer. Thank you.

  15. Hans Erren
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 10:04 AM | Permalink

    re 14:
    The local mean temperature doesn’t matter, we are interested in change. The coffeecup temperature
    is a bad analogy in “Taken by storm”

  16. Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 10:22 AM | Permalink

    re #15: doesn’t it matter if an anomaly value is greater or smaller than the uncertanty of a certain observable?

  17. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 11:31 AM | Permalink

    RE: #11 – Just like the Holy Grail of eliminating the MWP, the scoundrels are also fixated on eliminating early 20th century warmth.

  18. jae
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 2:01 PM | Permalink

    Does anyone know where an updated graph of average SSTs is located? That is probably a much better metric for heat content and temperature change, according to Pielke. I wonder if that data is being “adjusted,” also.

  19. Jeff Norman
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 2:03 PM | Permalink

    Mean surface temperature is 42°J.

  20. Ken Robinson
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 2:10 PM | Permalink


    Some months ago you mentioned that you were working on producing one or more succinct papers which would in essence demolish the corpus of work surrounding the Hockey Team’s climate reconstructions. (I’m paraphrasing; please excuse me if I’ve misstated something, but that’s the impression I got.) One could say that CA has done exactly that in the course of many hundreds of posts, but distilling it all into a few solid papers, published in the formal literature, remains a very worthy goal IMHO.

    For all I know, this work has been proceeding in the background but in the past few months, there’s been little content on this subject and a great deal now on the surface temperature record, discussions of hurricanes, the IPCC process, etc. While doubtless these areas also merit significant investigation, it seems a loss to me that CA appears to have moved on (if you’ll pardon the expression) from its original raison d’etre, especially without reaching what I would have thought was the logical climax of your efforts. Of course you’re going to do whatever interests you, but I for one hope that you still intend to publish your refutation of the Team’s work. In addition to marking, perhaps, the final phase of that particular debate, more formal publications on your part would serve to further enhance the credibility of your comments on other topics.

    Very respectfully,

    Ken Robinson

  21. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 2:21 PM | Permalink

    #20. I realize that I should formalize my conclusions on the HS proxies. I’ve submitted a paper with a well-known author on a non-HS topic, but likely to be controversial.

  22. MarkR
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 4:05 PM | Permalink

    Whatever happened to Juckes et al?

  23. Hans Erren
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

    re 16:
    no it doesn’t: it’s comparable to gravity prospecting where the absolute value of the gravity accelleration doesn’t matter to find dense orebodies.

  24. tom
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 5:09 PM | Permalink

    Why is it when creating these temperature reconstructions, such as the Central
    England data above, the use mean from 1961 to 1990? Why not use the mean of the
    entire series? This is done with many of the series. Why use just a sampling
    of time rather than the entire time period of the dataset itself?

  25. jae
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 5:18 PM | Permalink

    22: I don’t think anyone knows.

  26. welikerocks
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 5:58 PM | Permalink

    on fox news science page today:

    new study “Tree Growth Depends on Water, Not Heat, Research Shows” In a first study of its kind, scientists looked at the survival mechanisms of cone-bearing trees such as pines and firs in the harshly dry pre-monsoon seasons of the Santa Catalina Mountains near Tucson, Arizona. Previous models of typical western or temperate forests consider temperature to be the main driver of respiration and photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water into food.

    “My research indicated that for the semi-arid forest that is not the case. It is driven by when water is available, in that the roots do not freeze and thus as soon as the soil moisture is available, whether winter or summer, they will turn on their photosynthetic processes,” said lead study author Constance Brown, a researcher at Indiana University.

    The results of the study will be detailed in the April issue of the Journal of Arid Environments.

  27. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 6:04 PM | Permalink

    RE: #26 – Like I’ve been saying all along, when regarding growth controls of conifers located in most of the inland locations in the US West, think “cactus.” Cactus are only the most extreme examples of plants geared toward high seasonality of precip and high variability of it within any given rainy season as well as year to year, decade to decade and century to century. Dendrochonology developed initially in Western Europe and the Eastern US, where they don’t have a concept of these sorts of biomes.

  28. MarkR
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 6:21 PM | Permalink

    #22 Jae. Re your link. I don’t think Juckes et al or the others should just be allowed to leave a failed paper to be forgotten.

    Given the importance of the subject matter, there should be some record, some note, some memorial to its failure, otherwise the Hockey Team will just pretend it never happened, or they’ve “moved on”.

  29. Mark T.
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 6:21 PM | Permalink

    Heck, even down in the “valley” below the peaks here in the Springs we’re considered an “alpine desert.” Most things that grow where I live are watered. 🙂


  30. jae
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 6:46 PM | Permalink

    Mt. Shasta’s glaciers are growing, presumeably because of increased precipitation. What do you bet that this increase in precipitation (snowpack) has a lot to do with the bristlecone pine growth spurt.

  31. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 7:22 PM | Permalink

    re: 11, 12

    Interesting raw data to browse – and fits the most straightforward scenarios for natural climate change. Without proper statistical analysis, just eyeballing, average annual temp. drifts up increasingly fast (once over 10.00 to 1699, 8 times 1700-1799, 9 times 1800-1899, 19 times 1900-1999, 2000 onwards effectively every year). Over 350 years Earth’s orbit has perceptably become less elliptic, giving the planet fractionally more insolation. More importantly, the recently identified 1500 year solar cycle has started to kick in. The last time it is believed to have done so (resulting in the MWP) its major effect on climate is believed to have become apparent over a couple of decades. No need to invoke dubious GG effects when there is so much increase in solar energy.

    Excellent report of evidence for the 1500 year cycle in “Unstoppable Global Warming” by S. Fred Singer & Dennis T. Avery. I know Singer is a controversial character but the data is persuasive – and the book is a good read.

  32. David Smith
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 9:34 PM | Permalink

    Re #31 I see this book review/talk on the Singer/Avery book. I haven’t completely read it and have no opinion, but it looks like interesting reading.

  33. Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 12:49 AM | Permalink


    I think it would be enough if the editor would write ‘I cannot accept your manuscript for publication’, just like in the Burger case ( http://www.cosis.net/members/journals/df/abstract.php?a_id=3991 ).

    Climate Science is sure moving on fast, Mann’s Climate Over the Past Two Millennia planned volume publication date is May 2007. In that paper there is a reference Reply to comment by Zorita et al. on Mann, Rutherford, Wahl and Ammann (2005). J. Clim. In press. Isn’t that a reply to a comment that has not been published? Here it is said that 2007, in press . Look-Ahead Architecture.

    ..and in the same paper, there is this reference to Mann ME, Rutherford S, Wahl E, Ammann C. 2006a. Robustness of proxy-based climate field reconstruction methods. J. Geophys. Res. In press. Referred also in http://www.cosis.net/copernicus/EGU/cpd/2/S139/cpd-2-S139.pdf , but of course it is unethical to try to guess who is referring to that paper. But that’s the paper I really want to read, it shows that p=0.32 is the upper limit for MBH98 proxy noise autocorrelation.

  34. Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 4:10 AM | Permalink

    Re 14: ‘what is the Earth mean surface temperature? I mean a scientifically writed value.’

    What would you like it to be? (Sorry, sorry, I’ve been looking at too many recently-adjusted graphs).

    I like the Valencia graph — I can see a clear WWII Kriegesmarine signal. However, nothing on Uccle or Armargh. Are there any other graphs which give good clean coverage of the Atlantic from about 1935 to 1950? I think about the Canaries, Iceland, maybe the Azores.


  35. Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 5:28 AM | Permalink

    #23: Hans, thank you very much for your patience.
    I’m aware of the reasons why the statistics of anomalies is preferred but, as far as phisics is concerned, temperature is what does matter. Because it is temperature we measure, we need temperature to compute the radiation budget and temperature is one of the basic input in numerical models and also a fundamental output of them. If someone says that in 20XX global temperature will be x.x degrees higher, I have to know what we are dealing with.
    So my question still stands: what is the mean temperature?
    Regardless of whether it matters, I’m also just curiuos.

    #34: Julian, you can find all stations at GISS site.
    But I was looking for scientifically managed observatories.

  36. fFreddy
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 5:45 AM | Permalink

    Bit of good news from the UK …

    The Great Global Warming Swindle
    9:00pm – 10:35pm
    Channel 4

    Provocative documentary that sets out to challenge the widely accepted view that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for global warming. With arguments from leading scientists, the film points to recent research that solar radiation may be a more plausible factor in climate change, and suggests that reducing carbon emissions may not only have little impact on the environment, but may also have unintentional repercussions for third world development.

  37. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 8:08 AM | Permalink

    re: 36

    Now, there’s one TV programme I can hardly wait to see! And this from someone so ****ed off with TV that his set is gathering dust in the spare bedroom. Hope it still works.

  38. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 9:07 AM | Permalink

    only BBC 1 and 2 in Holland 😦

  39. Sidviscous
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    This should brighten up everyones day.

    Former Canadian defense minister is calling for all nations to release what Alien (meaning Marvin the Martian, not Juan the day laborer) technology they have for alternative fuels to solve the GW crisis.


  40. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 10:41 AM | Permalink

    RE: #39 – I surmise that “Coast to Coast AM” must be something listened to by at least one Canadian government official … LOL … calling Art Bell, calling George Noory ….

  41. Jonathan Schafer
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 10:54 AM | Permalink


    Well, Al Gore knows why…

    Back in Tennessee on Tuesday, Gore told a crowd of about 50 people at the U.S. Media Ethics Summit II that the presentation’s single most provocative slide was one that contrasts results of two long-term studies. A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.

    Gore says media miss climate message

    You know, I never use pay per view television, but I’d be willing to pony up $50 to see Al Gore debate Lindzen, Singer, or any number of other scientists who oppose CO2 from AGW as the leading cause of GW, since he’s such a know-it-all.

  42. Sidviscous
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 11:11 AM | Permalink

    ” but I’d be willing to pony up $50 to see Al Gore debate Lindzen, Singer, or”

    You’d have to do more than pay $50.

    Gore refuses to get in a debate with them. He cancelled an appearance in Europe because they were going to bring in Bjorn Lomborg too. Even after they pulled Lomborg Gore still refused to come on. I’m pretty sure Gore knows he won’t be able to debate on any points, he’s about soundbytes not debate.

  43. Bill F
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 11:30 AM | Permalink

    In reading all of the efforts to change the numbers to match the message, I am reminded of an old joke that I have heard that I have heard applied at various times to geophysicists, risk assessors, accountants, and statisticians. It seems to apply particularly well in this case to paleoclimate reconstruction experts…

    A government official was trying to hire a new researcher for their climate change division. He brought in a geologist, an engineer, and a paleoclimate reconstruction expert. After extensive reviews of their backgrounds and education, and numerous face to face interviews, he couldn’t decide which of the three to hire. So he brought each one in to answer a final question. He brought the geologist in and asked him “what is 2+2?” The Geologist thought very carefully, counted on his fingers a bit, scratched his beard and looked at the ceiling for a while lost in thought and finally cleared his throat and said “it is somewhere around 4.” The govt. official thanked him and told him he would call soon and then brought in the engineer and asked the same question. The engineer immediately responded that the answer was “4.000000 to infinity, assuming the 2 values of 2 were absolute and not rounded off or estimated.” Again, the govt. official thanked him and told him he would call him soon. He then brought in the paleoclimate reconstruction specialist and asked the same question. The paleoclimate reconstruction expert looked over both shoulders, reached over to close the blinds, locked the door, and then leaned across the desk and said “what do you want it to be?” The paleoclimate expert was hired on the spot.

  44. jae
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 1:21 PM | Permalink

    Be worried, be very worried. All the water in the mid latitudes may boil away this June. Using IPCC’s temperature sensitivity factors, I have calculated that the June average temperature in the mid-latitudes (I used figures for Denver) will be between 90.5 F- 212 F this summer (the average for past summers is 66.9 F).

    Using solar energy design information for Denver, I found that the energy received during December is 3-4 KWH/M^2/day and it is 5-6 KWH/M^2/day for June. (This is insolation on an almost zero albedo (black) panel, I presume, but it also does not count the amount absorbed by the atmosphere. So I conservatively assumed that the decrease in reflection is balanced by the amount absorbed in the atmosphere). Using the midpoints of these two ranges, gives a difference of 2,000 KWH/M^2/day between December and June. This is equivalent to an average of 2,000/24 hr = 83.3 Watts/M-2 difference between December and June.

    IPCC’s range of 1.5 ‘€” 4.5 deg C for the 3.8 Watts produced by doubling CO2 gives between 0.39 ‘€” 1.2 deg. C/Watt. Applying these factors to the 83.3 Watt difference between summer and winter in Denver gives a 32.5 ‘€” 100 degree C range of possible temperature changes. Average Dec. temperature in Denver = 0 deg. C. Therefore, if we have “average temperatures,” the June temperatures will be between 32.5 and 100 degrees C. That’s 90.5 ‘€” 212 deg F AVERAGE TEMPERATURE! If IPCC’s upper range of sensitivity is accurate, all the water in the mid lattitudes will boil away in June!

    Now, before you dismiss me as a crackpot, please read on.

    The actual temperature increase associated with the average 83.3 Watt increase in energy from December to June in Denver should be related to the average June temperature in Denver’€”66.9 F or 19 deg. C. This gives a sensitivity of 19deg C / 83.3 Watts = 0.22 deg/Watt. It is quite intriguing that this sensitivity factor agrees remarkably well with Nir Shaviv’s calculations! Just coincidence? Maybe.

    Someone will immediately think that I’m making a big mistake by assuming that there is a linear relationship between temperature rise and heat increase, pointing out that there are some important reasons for non-linearity, such as the relationship between water vapor pressure and temperature (which could increase positive water vapor feedback with increasing temperatures). However, I will counter that Shaviv has shown that sensitivity does NOT vary with temperature over the seven degree range of -2 C to + 5 C. But then someone will argue that it might not be linear over a wider range of, say, 0 C to 20 C.

    But consider the following scenarios:

    Case 1: Assume a cold Dec. and a very hot June in Denver: a diff. between Dec. and June of the maximum 3,000-6,000 KWH/day = 3,000KWH/day, or 124 w. At 0.22 deg/Watt, that = 27 deg. C = 80.6 deg F CHANGE between Dec. and June. (that might correspond to, say, an avg. Dec. temp of -5 and avg. June temp. of 22 deg. C, or 71.6 F)

    Case 2: Assume a “normal” December and a very hot June–a diff. between Dec. and June of 3500-6000 KWH/day = 3,000KWH/day, or 104 w. At 0.22 deg/Watt, that = 22.88 deg. C = 73 deg F change between Dec. and June. (that might correspond to, say, a normal avg. Dec. temp of 0 C and avg. June temp. of 22.8 deg. C, or 73 F)

    Case 3: Assume a warm December and an exceptionally cold June’€” a diff. between Dec. and June of 4000-5000 KWH/day = 1,000KWH/day, or 42 w. At 0.22 deg/Watt, that = 9 deg. C = 48 deg F change between Dec. and June. (that might correspond to, say, an avg. Dec. temp of 3 C and avg. June temp. of 12 deg. C, or 54 deg. F)

    All the above cases seem to be reasonable possibilities.

    Now, if the relationship between temperature rise and heat were not somewhat linear, then sensitivities would increase with increasing temperature, and Case 1 would give an unrealistically high average June temperature. And Case 3 would be snowball Denver. In other words, if sensitivities increased with increasing temperature, then one should have a run-away temperature rise in Denver during an exceptionally hot summer. There are obviously some important negative feedbacks, such as clouds and t-storms that tend to make the relationship fairly linear.

    I think IPCC’s sensitivity factors are clearly bogus.

  45. DocMartyn
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 5:15 PM | Permalink

    I have been thinking about the temperature record, heat Islands and CO2/H2O positive feedback cycles.
    There must be areas of outstanding beauty, where governments have long banned building. Moreover, some of these areas will be aquatic, with lakes and others without. Could we not copare the warming in these places over the last 100 years to workout the impact of post-1945 building/urban effect and as to weather CO2 driven IR reradiation increases heating increases water vapors, which increases heat trappings.
    I had a quick look at yellowstone national Park. The records are somewhat broken, but the Yellowstone Park WY has some temperature increase over the last 50 years, the Yellowstone Lake is pretty flat, but the urban centers nearby like Rock Springs has gone through the roof.
    Can we not look at the night light satalitte imigary to get a “feel” for the amount of human activity we observe from place to place and plot this aganist the rate of temperature change from 1956 to 2006?

    The data from satallites gives us a good rule of thumb for human activity, and the temperature is taken where people are (towns, cities) and where they are not (parks, sites of scientific interest).

    just a thought.

  46. John Lang
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

    There is a really good IR image of England from this summer July 15, 2006 in the middle of England’s heat wave (European Space Agency’s Envisat and Nasa’s Aura satellite).

    The picture shows the urban heat island effect very clearly. Every major city shows up hotter than the rest of England. There was a better blow-up of this image available at one time but I can’t find it now.


  47. David Smith
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 6:56 PM | Permalink

    The February Arctic ice extent time series is here .

    The wind patterns (Arctic Oscillation) this winter may have favored thick ice retention (as opposed to blowing the thick ice into the Atlantic, where it melts). Here is the Arctic Oscillation values for winters since 1950. Negative values favor retaining thick ice in the Arctic, positive values favor the loss of the thick ice.

    It doesn’t show the 2006-07 winter, but I expect it to be negative, continuing the trend towards retention.

  48. David Smith
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

    Speaking of Arcctic ice, I recommend taking two minutes to view Dr. Rigor’s movie on Arctic ice movement, located mid-page here . It covers the last 25 years of Arctic ice movement, showing how ice circulates and some is expelled into the Atlantic, to melt.

    White is think ice, light blue is thin ice. The animation doesn’t show it well, but there was a big loss of thick ice in the 1990s, lost into the Atlantic, due to wind patterns.

  49. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

    RE: #46 – although the population growth in the UK is mostly from immigration these days, giving the impression that “the human impact” could not be increasing thermal dissipation, such an impression would be incorrect. For since the 1970s, lifestyles have changed radically. Single family homes and suburban living are much, much more common. Many rural areas have become exurban or suburban, one needs to go to areas like Norwich, East Coast, North York, the Borders and Scotland to find truly rural areas these days. Look also at the explosion of motorways and attendant roadside developments, new housing clusters and the like, especially since the late 1980s.

  50. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 7:31 PM | Permalink

    RE: #47 – Do you trust the anomaly slope, as depicted by the NSIDC (a favorite org of S. Bloom)?

  51. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 7:46 PM | Permalink

    re: 41

    There it goes again, that old switch-selling routine. There is a consensus that global warming exists, therefore everyone must accept AGW. And if we dispute AGW, we are attacked with “How can you possiby deny global warming?” Are these people really that confused themselves, or is it deliberate obfuscation to deceive the public?

    Every non-scientist wiith whom I discuss “climate change” is unaware of the separation between the acceptance of global warming and the doubts about whether anthropogenic CO2 is responsible.

    You have to hand it to them – it’s been a brilliant propaganda campaign. Makes me feel like an atheist in the Vatican. The “deniers” have some of the best climatologists, meteorologists and statisticians (take a bow, Steve!) but what we really need now are some great PR people.

  52. David Smith
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 8:17 PM | Permalink

    Re #50 There are differences between the NSIDC estimates and those from other places, like Cryosphere Today. None are audited (to my knowledge) so I would not take either as gospel. There are subjective elements in ice estimations and anything with subjective elements is vulnerable to bias.

    On a different subject, something you and welikerocks discussed once (I think) was heat from the floor of the Arctic Ocean. I noticed Figure 4 in the “Arctic Sea Ice Forecasts” writeup at Rigor’s home page . I wonder where that relative warmth at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, detected by buoys, comes from.

  53. george h.
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 10:27 PM | Permalink

    A lot of discussion lately has focused on the accuracy of historical temperature data (UHI, Jones, HADCRU, Russian gridcells, etc). A basic question, that I am curious about, is just how much manipulation of data is actually done to produce the final historic temperature curve used by the IPCC. I don’t know the answer to this. My understanding is that as presented, the IPCC composite curve is a combination of land surface-air and sea surface values that get alot of tweaking. Is it true, for example, that in addition to a probably inadequate adjustment for UHI effects, that sea surface temperatures are modified / manipulated for ocean heat content observations? One has to wonder how these manipulations in aggregate compare in magnitude to the amount of “observed” warming.

  54. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 4:34 AM | Permalink

    re 14:
    What we can learn from Armagh versus Central Europe is that climate sensitivity in a humid environment is significantly lower than in a dry environment. Furthermore a cold region has a higher sensitivity than an an warm region (classic stefan boltzmann). Therefore the regions with the highest climate sensitivity are cold dry areas with a low albedo (central siberia and central arctic canada), which were the regions that warmed up most during the last 40 years. What we also observe is that the tropics warm faster when the tropical rainforests (humid) are cut.

  55. DocMartyn
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 7:39 AM | Permalink

    Hans Erren, you said “Therefore the regions with the highest climate sensitivity are cold dry areas with a low albedo (central siberia and central arctic canada), which were the regions that warmed up most during the last 40 years.”

    But if you look at the Antarctic, especially the South pole, this is notthe case. On the onset of winter these has been no change in the RATE of cooling, nor has these been any increase in the RATE of warming come spring. Why? The Antarctic is an ideal environment to test the relationship between CO2 and IR reradiation.

  56. Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 7:42 AM | Permalink

    re #54: I agree: water is what prevent Earth to get too warm!

  57. EW
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 7:56 AM | Permalink

    Yesterday I watched some news on different channels about starting the year of Antarctic (or how they call it) and there was much talk about studying the warming down there – but there isn’t any, is it?

  58. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 8:06 AM | Permalink

    re 55:
    The south pole ss is an altiplano covered in ice, not the ideal place to study boreal climate sensitivity, in confuguration it is similar to the summit of greenland.
    Also the antarctic peninsula is a geometric oddball in the antarctic. Even a slight change in the circumpolar current has a dramatic impact on the peninsula which protrudes perpendicular in the current.
    The best place to study climate sensitivity is central siberia and central canada, remote from the temperating ocean.

  59. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

    RE: #52 – From Iceland, the mid-Atlantic ridge continues northward up to around the North Pole. The magnitude of plate motion decreases from about 2 – 3 cm / year at Iceland to zero at the pole. Clearly, there is extrusion of basalt as well as black smoker activity, along the ridge, steadily decreasing to nothing, as well, at the pole.

  60. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 11:03 AM | Permalink

    RE: #58 – And interstingly, although the media have made much hay of “the threat to ice roads” (of course, with weasle verbiage such as “ice roads MAY cease to be used by mid century” etc), in truth, in the high latitude continential locations, thus far, climate change magnitude has been pretty boring.

  61. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 12:45 PM | Permalink

    As a died-in-the-wool Silicon Valley chip-head, I found the following article to be quite intriguing:


  62. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 1:12 PM | Permalink

    Here’s one for Steve Bloom:


    If anyone had the slightest doubt about the degree to which Ecological Correctness has infiltrated corporate halls of power in the US ….

    It’s to be expected. The Radical Generation are now firmly in control, now that the Silent Generation and the Greatest Generation have mostly retired / passed away.

  63. jae
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 3:47 PM | Permalink

    LOL. According to NASA, mars is warming. Could it be the Sun? It sure isn’t AGW.

  64. jae
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 3:47 PM | Permalink

    Forgot link.

  65. klaus Brakebusch
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 4:01 PM | Permalink

    at #5, Hans Erren

    Is there a way to get the raw data for central England?
    I downloaded the data from hadobs.metoffice.com, have problems
    to match the latest increase to raw datas I already collected.

    Too, which criteria matches the term central England?



  66. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 4:31 PM | Permalink

    re 59:
    it isn’t zero at the noth pole

    re 65:
    I never looked at original CET Data, I only have a photocopy of Manley 1953 in which a list of the original data is given.
    Manley G. 1953. The mean temperature of Central England, 1698’€”1952. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 79:242’€”257

  67. klaus Brakebusch
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 5:06 PM | Permalink

    #66, thanks Hans,

    got food for working



  68. jae
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 5:45 PM | Permalink

    67: A great article. Wish everyone would read it.

  69. MarkR
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 6:14 PM | Permalink

    Paolo M

    The mean temperature of central England, 1698-1952
    Gordon Manley
    Bedford College, University of London

    A table of monthly mean temperatures representative of the English Midlands has been constructed for the period 1698-1952. From 1815 it is derived from the average of the Radcliffe (Oxford) and Lancashire monthly means. From 1771-1815 it has been built up by averaging the departures, or anomalies, for each month at a number of inland stations whose records are long enough to be bridged into the years 1815-1840; from 1771-1798 the values thus obtained are reinforced by direct values based on the long Midland record at Lyndon. Before 1771 the existing Edinburgh, Greenwich and Lancashire means are supplemented by further direct values based on Lyndon and Exeter. For all years previous to 1752 the Old Style calendar months have been rectified to the New Style, and the direct values derived from early MS. journals in London, Plymouth, and the Midlands have been carefully collated back to 1728, and extended by means of other short records from Halifax, London and elsewhere back to November 1722. Finally, a direct reduction of Derham’s Upminster record, 1699-1706, has been used as a basis for the earliest years. For the intervening years estimates are provided from a consideration of the Utrecht reductions, supplemented for 1713-1722 by non-instrumental observations of wind and weather in England. Some corroboration of the values so obtained during the eighteenth century is provided; it is hoped that the table can serve as a general standard for studies of English temperature variations until such time as something better can be provided.

    Received: 24 November 1952; Revised: 23 February 1953
    Digital Object Identifier (DOI)


    Also your #10

    The recent dramatic climbing in central England temperature is all but an effect of rising sst in the ocean!

    I live in England, and remember as a boy and young man, that we had some (not a lot) of hot weather, but now we have so much humidity.

    I wondered if I had remembered wrongly but perhaps the humidity I notice is the result of SST increase.

  70. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 6:21 PM | Permalink

    So between 1706 and 1722 Central England was located in The Netherlands…

  71. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 8:27 PM | Permalink

    RE: #66 – I was slightly off, the problem with going from memory. The point I was trying to make was, the ridge dies out up near the NP and actually sort of grades into the sutre zone which eventually expresses itself as the Urals. Spherical geometry and tectonics. Dr. Atwater is a pro at this (my mentor) 😉

  72. jae
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 10:28 PM | Permalink

    Now that the HS Team has been thoroughly discredited by MM and others, and the tree ring stuff has been “resolved,” my interest has moved to the so-called sensitivity factor. Isaac Held was here for a while, but he seems to have disappeared from this blog (Collins thread). Funny how the pro-AGW folks disappear from a thread when threatened with the facts. I am hoping that someone will come here and tell us just how the hell the IPCC and the models get such high sensitivity factors. I’m waiting for someone to beat me up re: #44. This is, after all, the crux of the issue of AGW. Maybe they think they have won the battle through media events and arm waving. I don’t think so…

  73. Paul Linsay
    Posted Mar 2, 2007 at 10:59 PM | Permalink

    #73 There’s also the question of the pre-industrial CO2, and maybe even the present day CO2. Are the numbers correct or is there cherry picking going on there too? If the modern surface temperature “record” is too high and the CO2 was higher in the past (500 ppm?!) there’s nothing to AGW.

  74. Tom Brogle
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 3:47 AM | Permalink

    Cosmic Rays.These two factors are treated separately by climate scientists and show no correlation to Global Temperature. However since they both affect temperature they should be treated together
    When cosmic rays reduce, more energy from the sun can impinge
    on the earth but at the same time the energy from the Sun is reduced
    because part of its surface is covered by cooler areas (sunspots).
    I have demonstrated that this has controlled global temperature over the last 52 years.This theory explains the global temperature better
    than that currently accepted one.
    At the moment I am like the small boy in the Hans Anderson Story
    who shouted “but the Emperor has no Clothes”
    I will have to shout louder

  75. fFreddy
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 4:51 AM | Permalink

    Re #75, Tom Brogle


    So write up your work, and post it on one of John’s AuditBlogs.

  76. Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 5:59 AM | Permalink

    Re #70: MarkR, I’m not saying that surface temperature or Atlantic sst have not been increasing. They do!
    Now, just compare the Central England plot in #5 with the Harmagh series (link in #14). CET is climbing up to 1.4 °C anomaly, Harmagh, where measurements are scientifically taken, is not.
    If you want to infer the sst increase in the Atlantic, you have to look at Harmagh and the dramatic increase in Englad has another reason. I mean you can explain just a small part of the increase by the sst.

  77. george h.
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 7:20 AM | Permalink

    LET THEM EAT TOFU! — Think what you will of Ann Coulter, but this is pretty funny and on-point.

    “There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending “global warming,” but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.”


  78. MarkR
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 7:42 AM | Permalink

    #77 PaoloM I was only commenting that I personally notice an increase in humidity in the UK, especially noticeable in hot weather. I agree with your other points.

  79. cytochrome_sea
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 8:04 AM | Permalink

    I was skimming through a couple of online NAS files, and in, “High Confidence in Surface Temp Reconstructions since A.D. 1600(2006)” Chap. 2, pg 29 noticed that in bullet point #1:(snip)”The overall increase during the 20th century was about 0.6°C, with the highest warming rates occurring in land areas poleward of 30°N.

    In bullet point #3: “Combining instrumental records to calculate large-scale surface temperatures requires including a sufficient number of instrumental sites with wide geographic distribution to get a representative estimate. Tropical measurements are particularly useful for estimating large-scale temperatures because they tend to more closely track global mean variations.”

    If these are both correct, doesn’t this reduce the confidence in even the 0.6°K a bit?

    I also noticed something I found odd in; “Solar Influences on Global Change (1994)” Chap. 2, pg 23: “During the next 50 to 100 years, the Earth’s climate is expected to warm by anywhere from 1.5° to 4.5°C in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N2O); chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1992).”

    (emphasis on the 50-100 years rather than the current ~100 years in case my bolds don’t go through)

  80. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 8:27 AM | Permalink

    #78. Ann Coulter’s claim:

    “There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending “global warming,”

    is both false and ludicrous. The Goracle is bad, but she is worse.

  81. John Lang
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

    Thought we could use a bit of laugh regarding the UK Met Office’s prediction that 2007 would be the warmest ever due to El Nino conditions.

    “Chris Folland, head of the Hadley Centre’s said the forecast was primarily based on two factors. The first was greenhouse gas emissions from human activity, he said. This is a statistical method; it is a number that represents the heating of the atmosphere.

    The other factor which allows us to make a forecast that whether one year is significantly different from the next is the effect of the El Nino.

    We have two methods of forecasting the effect of the El Nino. One is a statistical method based on two patterns of sea surface temperatures in the El Nino region, and the other is a complex mathematical model.”


    Excellent forecasting ability. The “complex mathematical model” was accurate for a grand total of one week as El Nino was already rapidly fading out.

  82. Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 9:39 AM | Permalink

    Ross McKitrick is featured here:


  83. David Smith
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 10:10 AM | Permalink

    Re #82 The current La Nina graphic is here . Double-click on the image to enlarge it. This event has come on fast and strong, and now the surface winds are beginning to reinforce it.

    An even more interesting graphic is found at this site by double-clicking on “Assorted Plots”, and then enlarging the graphic. This shows a vertical cross-section of the water beneath the Pacific equator. Not only is there a lot of anomalously cool water moving/mixing upwards in the La Nina region, but also the Warm Pool (left side of the graphic) is barely anomalously warm and there is some “cool” water lurking in its vicinity.

    La Nina would have a global cooling effect and cooling the Warm Pool, even slightly, would also impact the global temperature.

    Combine those with a cool-phase PDO (in progress, it seems) and 2007 looks unimpressive temperature-wise.

  84. johnmccall
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 10:33 AM | Permalink

    re: link in 82 – I also recall Dr Jones making that “2007 warmest” forecast in JAN’07.

    I believe there is an analogy somewhere in the expression, “who votes is less important than who counts the votes”

  85. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 12:23 PM | Permalink

    re: #81 Steve,

    I think you misunderstand. Ann Coulter’s stik is hyperbole and satire. Taking her literally is a mistake. Admittedly though, she’s an aquired taste and since you’d disagree with her politics, I can’t see you liking her style.

  86. Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

    Just to mention, correct me if I am wrong: the global temperature lags behind El Nino and La Nina dynamics by 4 months or so, so up to June, it could still be warm globally, and the year doesn’t have to be spectacularly cold.

    The last La Nina was after El Nino in 1998, namely from 1998-2001. See what it did with the global temperatures.

    Steve #81: I am not insulted by Ann Coulter’s comments either. Of course that if taken seriously, it’s not quite realistic. But even in that case, it depends how you exactly measure and define reputation.

  87. Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 1:42 PM | Permalink

    Dear David #84, why haven’t I ever been told about PDO?


    It is much more correlated to the measured global temperatures than anything else I’ve heard of. 1905 starts a warm phase, 1946 cool phase begins, 1977 warm phase starts – almost just like what was observed about the “global temperatures”. Is there any good reasons why these ocean influences are not considered the main explanation of the sub-century trends?

  88. David Smith
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 2:04 PM | Permalink

    Re #87 Lubos, you are right: there’s a lag. The length of the lag varies, as do the parts of the planet which get “hit” hardest by the anomalous warmth.

    The El Nino SST peaked out about October/November, 2006 and the maximum global impact looks to have been in January, 2007. The initial temperature anomaly report for February is considerably less than January’s anomaly. The impact was dinky.

    The satellite-derived global temperature (RSS, lower troposphere) is here . I’m increasingly inclined to think that global temperature peaked about 2003 (ignoring the 1998 El Nino) and began a slow decline. That decline was slightly interrupted by the 2006 El Nino but that warming impact is gone. If La Nina comes, combined with slight cooling of the Warm Pool, then the decline should resume and be quite noticeable on the charts. That’s my guess.

  89. TAC
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 2:15 PM | Permalink

    Lubos (#88), interesting observation: The PDO pattern, at least as described by wikipedia, does seem remarkably in sync with global temperature data. Does anyone know what drives the PDO?

  90. Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 2:20 PM | Permalink

    Thanks, David #89, it was very helpful. I can only claim some complementarity to your text and some overlaps. 😉


    I am often observing Milloy’s graphs – but where do you get your preliminary February data now?

  91. Ken Fritsch
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

    Re: #81

    I have to agree with Steve M here. Neither Gore nor Coulter have any more business seriously commenting on climate science than does a one-legged man being in an a** kicking contest. The hyperbole that they and other political figures like them tend to use in otherwise serious discussions is what makes their arguments most embarrassing and detrimental to those who might otherwise be in agreement with their general thesis.

  92. Ken Fritsch
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

    Dear David #84, why haven’t I ever been told about PDO?

    Isn’t that part of Bill Gray’s explanation of global climate/temperature changes? David Smith has told us all about the PDO, but I am sure he will entertain offering a refresher course and/or private tutoring.

  93. Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 2:55 PM | Permalink

    Dear TAC #90, I think that no one knows exactly but it seems clear that this dynamics is chaotic in nature and doesn’t drastically depend on anything outside the ocean directly – not even the Sun.

    A layer of warm water probably screens colder water beneath it while emits a lot of thermal radiation, reinforcing cooling. This prevents most water from swallowing too much heat, but eventually the regime is broken and a circulation mixes the water from different depths and increases the ability of oceans to absorb heat while reduces the thermal radiation. This occurs somewhere in the ocean and the precise geometry of it is important.

    Some messy hydrodynamics combined with thermodynamics – turbulence. The deepest ocean fluctuations take about 2000 years by the way.

  94. Ken Fritsch
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

    It is I who needs the refresher course here, as I was thinking NAO when I answered on PDO. I know Steve Sadlov has posted much information on the PDO and I am sure David Smith has also, but I recall more of his NAO.

  95. Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 3:28 PM | Permalink

    Dear Sidviscous #42,

    I want to confirm your observation that Al Gore is hysterically scared by any hypothetical debate. We were preparing a possible duel with Czech President Vaclav Klaus who is just giving a series of talks about the threat of environmentalism in the U.S. Gore’s assistant Kalee Kreider has made it very clear to me that Gore was scared like hell.

    All the best

  96. Gary
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

    And now for something a little different. I think Unthreaded is the appropriate place for it and Steve won’t mind a little satire.

    In the 1960s when the environmentalist crowd grew to political awareness, the musical (and later film of the same name), Camelot, was so hugely popular that it became a synonym for the Kennedy presidency (“… ask what you can do for your country.”). It is a story of King Arthur and his utipian kingdom. Recently I rediscovered the lyrics of the song that Arthur sings to Guenevere on first meeting her. Read them first and then see what you think of an AWG version (offered with deepest apologies to Lerner and Loewe). It helps if you have the melody in your head.

    It’s true! It’s true! Al Gore has made it clear.
    The world is warming more and more each year.

    We started burning too much fossil fuel here.
    July and August now are much too hot.
    For soon there will be no more snow here
    In Warmalot.

    The winters now arrive way past December;
    It says so on the data plot.
    Torrid summers linger through September
    In Warmalot.

    Warmalot! Warmalot!
    Although it sounds a bit bizarre,
    But in Warmalot, Warmalot
    That’s how conditions are.

    Predictions say we’re in for lots of trouble.
    However, federal grants will soon appear.
    The CO2 has got
    To a convenient spot
    For happ’ly modeling climate here
    In Warmalot.

    Warmalot! Warmalot!
    We humans sadly are the cause,
    But in Warmalot, Warmalot
    We’ll make up lots of laws.
    At last consensus says the issue’s settled
    So science facts will never interfere.

    Deniers then cannot
    Find inconvenient spot
    For happ’ly trading carbon credits here
    In Warmalot.

  97. charlesH
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 4:21 PM | Permalink

    Steve #81,

    Coulter speaks like a political cartoonist. Both exaggerate for effect. You are not supposed to take them literally.

  98. Paul Linsay
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

    Re: The PDO. The step function changes that are apparent in the PDO and in the satellite global temperature struck me as very important and led me to a very simple model of the climate. Sunlight penetrates the oceans to some depth heating the water. Eventually the increased buoyancy of the deeper warmer water causes it to become unstable and it rises to the surface rather suddenly, like a bubble but on longer time scales, where it heats the atmosphere and produces the step function in the atmosphere’s temperature. It seems like a logical explanation since there is no way of storing significant amounts of energy in the atmosphere, it just has no heat capacity. CO2 can’t contribute to this at all since it only heats the atmosphere a bit and consequently is not able to heat the oceans to any depth. My two cents.

  99. Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 4:28 PM | Permalink

    hi guys,

    Global warming histeria here in NZ. Talk is all about carbon footprints and sustainability and NIWA (our weather org.) has just announced that 2006 was 0.9 degree cooler than the year before and the coolest for 14 years.

    There has never been any signs of global warming in NZ temperatures but now they show cooling and the greenies want us all to live in the trees again.

    Trouble is there are’nt many trees now because the government nationalised all the carbon credits and then wondered why nobody was planting trees any more! About a month ago they announced that they were going to pass a law in about six months penalising those who cut down forests and then wondered why everyone started rapidly cutting down their forests before the law was passed.

  100. David Smith
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 5:13 PM | Permalink

    Good starting places for PDO info are here and here .

    This graph shows the 20’th Century variation in the PDO, which relates rather well to the graphs of global temperature patterns. The PDO also has dramatic local effects, such as the Alaska temperature shift in 1976 .

    The problem with the PDO is, frankly, that we just don’t know what it is, or how to properly characterize it. Even more humbling is that there are reasons to think that the PDO is just one aspect of something bigger and more important, which we do not grasp. (Note that the concept of PDO is new, having been originated in 1996.)

    The situation is like that of trying to understand an elephant when all we currently see and grasp is just the elephant’s tail.

    There are interesting, obscure papers like this one which try to understand part of its causes and connections.

    One day people like Wu and Liu, working quietly and without press releases, will succeed, and we’ll likely learn that much of the current warming has actually been part of a natural oscillation. But we’re not there yet, and it will probably be a low-profile subject until the Wus and Lius of the world piece together this elephant.

  101. trevor
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 5:24 PM | Permalink

    Re #89:

    If La Nina comes, combined with slight cooling of the Warm Pool, then the decline should resume and be quite noticeable on the charts.

    …until Dr Phil Jones gets to ‘adjust’ the record!

  102. Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 5:57 PM | Permalink

    Dear David #101,

    is it just like observing pieces of elephant and there is something bigger behind it? Then I know what it is. It is M-theory :-), see the last page (top) of my popular article

    Click to access lm2.pdf

    I can’t quite follow the Wu Liu paper but they don’t seem to be too unknown,



  103. Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 6:03 PM | Permalink

    Someone who knows these things – how good are existing OGCMs, meaning ocean climate models? How much validated they are, and what deficiencies are known? Can they really get the possible “bubbles” of heat in the oceans right?

  104. David Smith
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 7:33 PM | Permalink

    RE #101 The first link was bad, sorry. It should have been this .

    For some reason, IE7 won’t let me check links before posting. I find that if I check the link in the preview, it erases the entire post. IE6, on the other hand, was never a problem. Any ideas on what I may be doing wrong, please post.

  105. Nicholas
    Posted Mar 3, 2007 at 8:50 PM | Permalink

    David : try right clicking on the link and choosing open in new window perhaps? That shouldn’t affect the page you’re launching it from…

  106. Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 12:39 AM | Permalink

    #64 jae,

    There is a much more current article on warming on mars here — http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

  107. dover_beach
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 4:29 AM | Permalink

    It seems members of the IPCC are already informally briefing the press regarding their forthcoming report:

    How very kind of them.

  108. Fred Harwood
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 6:48 AM | Permalink

    “In the Earth’s atmosphere, 39Ar is made by cosmic ray activity, primarily with 40Ar. In the subsurface environment, it is also produced through neutron capture by 39K or alpha emission by calcium. 37Ar is created from the decay of 40Ca as a result of subsurface nuclear explosions. It has a half-life of 35 days.”

    Argon apparently has a much greater presence in air than CO2. It also has a larger GW effect, which is why it is used in Low-E windows. As the above quote suggests, it also varies with cosmic ray activity. Anyone know of argon’s effect on the earth’s surface temperature?

  109. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 9:09 AM | Permalink

    re: #109

    I can’t see why Argon would have any effect on GW. Being an inert gas it doesn’t form molecules and therefore has no direct way of absorbing or emitting IR. Since heat in the atmosphere is modulated by IR, it shouldn’t enter into the picture at all.

  110. Mark T.
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 11:03 AM | Permalink

    Not being able to form molecules doesn’t preclude absorbing IR. That’s just an energy issue.


  111. Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

    Dear Dave #110, I of course agree with what you say. Just for fun, Argon contributes to global warming: it allows people to produce incandescent light bulbs – because it is so inert, it’s great as a content of the bulb. This bulb consumes a lot of energy that is produced by burning fuels that produce CO2 and that have freed us from the world of back-breaking labor. 🙂

    Below -233 Celsius, you can form argon hydrofluoride, HArF. 😉 Moreover, its nuclear reactions with the cosmic rays could be relevant for cloud formation if some of these fancy new theories about cosmic-ray – cloud links turn out to be correct…

  112. Jos Verhulst
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 12:20 PM | Permalink

    Interesting post on the Inuit who, because of global warming, are confronted with the phenomenon of sunburn.


  113. Ian S
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 1:24 PM | Permalink


    Ummm, ok I didn’t read the article, but I don’t see the connection between global warming and sunburn. Is there a sudden increase in UV rays? More clear skies? Otherwise the two are unrelated.

  114. John Lang
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

    The point of the article is that so much of this global warming hysteria is based on myth and mythmaking and people who are so willing to accept any kind of garbage that comes along with respect to global warming.

    Sunburns have always been a distinct feature of the arctic especially around June 21 when the snow hasn’t fully melted yet and there is 24 hours of sunshine with the sun at its highest level.

    Like the story about people in the arctic having no name for “robins”. Here is a link to a study that directly names them in Inuit and notes the people looked forward to seeing them in the Mackenzie Delta each May.


  115. ET SidViscous
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 2:49 PM | Permalink

    Skeptic documentary to be aired on BBC 4 March 8th


    I hesitate to hope that we are starting to see a turning point. My evidence is anecdotal. But seeing a lot of people who educated themselves on the matter, and fall into the skeptic camp. On the other side those on the other side who start using words like “denier” I think do so out of fear as much of anything else. No one should ever supress information, and if they do, to me, it means they have something to hide.

  116. Ian S
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM | Permalink

    #115 Ah ok, so the article was pointing out the ridiculousness of this connection.

  117. Follow the Money
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

    Alien Sex Pistols Bassist writes at #116:

    “I hesitate to hope that we are starting to see a turning point. My evidence is anecdotal. But seeing a lot of people who educated themselves on the matter, and fall into the skeptic camp.”

    In the USA “carbon credits” are becoming a matter of humor in some circles. That must be painful for the true believers.

    Whether incipient carbon credit exchanges will meet the same humor is yet to be seen. Because some large domestic USA businesses have “seen the light” and are embracing cc exchanges as scams they can profit from I doubt they’ll allow international carbon credit trading. They’ll lobby for benefits at the disadvatage of smaller and more honest firms.

    The MSM doesn’t have the same pull as it used to, the pr campaign via MSM is failing to gain traction outside of the chattering classes. The united Green/Big Business narrative is a dud — no traction at all on TV – CNN, Fox, all the networks.

    General Electric owns NBC and for awhile they were pushing Global Warming Solutions, but the slanted coverage seems to have died down.

  118. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 5:00 PM | Permalink

    re 116:

    It’s Channel four, not BBC4, (I would be very surprised if the BBC would broacast this 😀 )

  119. Ian S
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 5:11 PM | Permalink


    Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I also think I detect the start of change in public opinion. Many news GW articles that allow comments are filled with skeptics and doubters.

  120. ET SidViscous
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 5:17 PM | Permalink

    “It’s Channel four, not BBC4, ”

    Appologies. I thought there was BBC and Skye and that’s it. I assumed when they said Channel 4 they meant BBC 4, as BBC 3 would be Channel 3.

  121. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 6:09 PM | Permalink


    Surely the atomic form is too small to resonate with IR wavelengths; you have to have something of molecular size to resonate & absorb IR energy – and therefore to be able to emit it.

    Or was I asleep at the back during Physics class?

  122. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 6:22 PM | Permalink


    Surely atoms are far too small to resonate at thermal IR wavelengths? Something the size of a molecule is needed to resonate and absorb IR energy, and subsequently to be able to emit it. The ideal size, as I remember, is exactly half the wavelength for the most efficient energy transfer with the IR band of 1 to 15 nm.

    Or was I asleep at the back during Physics class?

  123. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 6:25 PM | Permalink

    Sorry. Duplication. Getting keyboarditis. Please delete 122.

  124. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 6:33 PM | Permalink

    re 116

    The trailers being shown for the Channel 4 Global Warming programme are very aggressive – ‘sham’ , ‘a pack of lies’.

    Looks like it’s going to be fun!

  125. Roger Bell
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 8:12 PM | Permalink

    Re 122. Numerous atomic lines are seen in infra-red stellar spectra.
    Roger Bell

  126. george h.
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 9:07 PM | Permalink


    Anyone know if Durkin’s documentary will be available for viewing in the U.S. or on the net?

  127. Ian S
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 11:24 PM | Permalink


    Perhaps, except he was talking about Ar isotope (39Ar), which potentially is not inert and so may form molecules? I don’t know, just throwing it out there (definitely not my area). Not just regular Ar though, which you may have overlooked.

  128. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 12:00 AM | Permalink

    re: #126 & others

    In order for something to absorb or emit in the IR, there must be quantum states in the emitting or absorbing entity the difference in energy of which lies in the IR range. Now you can always excite an atom such that an electron is in a high enough quantum state that such IR transisitions exist. But this requires low pressures and high temperatures (or else there won’t be sufficient number of atoms in such a state to matter). This is why you could seem them in stellar atmospheric spectra, but they could only exist on earth in the ionosphere. Maybe they do, but if so I’d highly expect that the population is way too small to have much effect on global warming.

    re: #138,

    Different isotopes of an element won’t have differences in which molecules they might or might not form. There will be very small differences in the spectra of the different isotopes whether as atoms or molecules, but not whether or not the isotope can form molecules.

  129. Ian S
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 12:12 AM | Permalink

    #129 Makes sense.

  130. Michael Kozuch
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 5:47 AM | Permalink

    Could this be the reason that parts of the Antarctic Peninsula have warmed up, and ice sheets have colapsed?

    Scientists Discover Undersea Volcano Off Antarctica

  131. Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 7:44 AM | Permalink

    Dear Mark T #111, let me say the same thing as Peter Lloyd in different words. Electromagnetic radiation is absorbed in quanta known as photons. The energy of the photon is proportional to its frequency. This energy must be equal to the difference between energy eigenvalues, otherwise the transition is forbidden. Besides the ground state of argon, the next closest state you may find has an electron excited into a completely different shell – because all existing shells are already occupied by electrons for inert gases like argon. The energy difference from exciting an electron to such a state is high and corresponds to visible or ultraviolet radiation. There is no absorption of IR rays by argon at all.

    Molecules are normally able to absorb IR and lower-frequency rays. It is because they have a finer structure of energy levels – rotational and vibrational spectrum. These subtleties of the spectrum have something to do with the motion of the nuclei and the “quantum” of energy for these types of motion of heavy nuclei is much smaller than the electronic energies of atoms.

  132. Martin à…
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

    Hi all, I would really enjoy a discussion on the topic below. But I don’t know where to post it.

    In climate models, water vapor feedback plays a big role as a positive feedback. I have understood the reasoning as this:

    A: Higher temperature causes higher water vapor content in atmosphere.

    B: Higher water vapor content in atmosphere causes higher temperature.

    A causes B which causes A, in an endless loop. If the behavior of this loop is convergent, i.e. none of the involved quantities tends towards infinity but to a limited value, at the point of convergence either A or B (or both) has to be untrue. Because, if both are true, the temperature will rise and water vapor content increase and we haven’t reached the point of convergence.

    So, the only conclusion I can reach is that, in a stable climate:

    C: Higher temperature does not cause higher water vapor content in atmosphere


    D: Higher water vapor content in atmosphere does not cause higher temperature.

    I don’t see how this fits into the climate models predicting water vapor feedback amplification unless their climate is unstable.

  133. Fred Harwood
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 8:36 AM | Permalink

    Thanks, Lubos, for taking the time to try to explain for an interested layman. In effect, argon cannot absorb IR, so it cannot transmit it though the space between sheets of glass, and thusly acts as an insulator?

  134. W Robichaud
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 8:39 AM | Permalink

    Sorry to go off thread:Were could I find the Cost estimate for the Kyoto Protocol?
    Thank you!

  135. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    RE: #84 – Do note, also, that the jet stream is oscillating between split mode and dumping on Pac NW and Northern Cal mode just now. Classic La Nina ….

  136. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 10:02 AM | Permalink

    RE: #99 – I liken it to a one-shot electrical circuit, in other words, a very crude clock, which issues a messy and jittery square-ranging-to-sawtooth wave.

  137. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 10:06 AM | Permalink

    RE: #109 – Fascinating. Consider the “perfect storm” of nuclear testing 1945 – early 1990s, and cosmic ray levels during 1980 – 2000-ish. I would imagine the concentration of Argon would have lagged the nuke testing significantly (especially the underground testing).

  138. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 10:10 AM | Permalink

    RE: #131 – More likely due to oscillations in ocean currents.

  139. jaye
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 10:13 AM | Permalink

    The latest from Pielke’s blog…

    IPCC Error

  140. Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 10:25 AM | Permalink

    Dear Fred #134, it was a pleasure. Being an insulator is something slightly different from being able to optically absorb infrared radiation. But you are right that argon is also a very good heat insulator – partly because it doesn’t absorb radiation, partly because it is so dense. 4 of 5 divers would confirm I am right. 😉 Argon is kind of invisible to everyone: radiation, other gases. In the atmosphere, you can add it, it increases the pressure a bit, but if you just removed all argon atoms, it wouldn’t make much difference.

  141. Stan Palmer
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 11:23 AM | Permalink

    re 140

    This is much more than an “error”. It is a contradiction of the basic point of the IPCC document.

  142. Mark T.
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 1:05 PM | Permalink

    Dear Mark T #111, let me say the same thing as Peter Lloyd in different words. Electromagnetic radiation is absorbed in quanta known as photons.

    I realize this. Tis what I do.

    The energy of the photon is proportional to its frequency. This energy must be equal to the difference between energy eigenvalues, otherwise the transition is forbidden. Besides the ground state of argon, the next closest state you may find has an electron excited into a completely different shell – because all existing shells are already occupied by electrons for inert gases like argon. The energy difference from exciting an electron to such a state is high and corresponds to visible or ultraviolet radiation. There is no absorption of IR rays by argon at all.

    I did not realize this. Tis not what I do. 😉

    Actually, I also realized the first part of this, though I had not dug down into the specifics enough to put two and two together to come to the conclusion that Argon cannot absorb IR. I’ve taken my semiconductor devices class (which relies heavily on the physics involved here) and since flushed it from my working knowledge. Apologies.


  143. Bill F
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 2:08 PM | Permalink


    Take a look at this paper:


    The authors identify an asymmetric trend in the orientation of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) that results in long periods of time where the north-south (Bz) component of the field favors one orientation over the other. I have often wondered if the variation in the interaction between the IMF and the earth’s magnetic field (which can have a big impact on the strength of geomagnetic storm activity) has an effect on preferential distribution of incoming solar energy (or GCRs) at either pole? Such an effect might go a long ways towards explaining things like the NAO, the PDO, and the oscillation of glacial growth and recession between Greenland and Antarctica. One of these days when I get time, I am going to try to get the raw data that Keating and Jager used to create their graphs and play with it against the PDO and SOI trends.

  144. Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 6:13 PM | Permalink

    Hi Mark T #143, my word “visible” was a huge exaggeration. It is only hard UV rays, see the absorption spectrum of Argon


    Hundreds of eV is very far from visible light, on the UV side. I didn’t properly take the large Z into account. 😉

  145. Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

    Dear jaye #140 and stan #142,

    I hope I won’t sound too much as a traitor but I agree with Gavin Schmidt that Prof Pielke Sr has made an error.

    Radiative forcing is the energy imbalance in W/m^2 that you create by instantly adding greenhouse gases (or something else). However, this imbalance won’t last forever. Eventually, you approach closer to a new equilibrium at which the temperature is higher, the IR radiation of Earth elevated, and the imbalance is thus heavily reduced.

    There’s nothing surprising about the fact that the forcing – the hypothetical imbalance created by instantaneous addition of the gases – is much greater than recently observed residual imbalance (which can, in fact, be negative) because we are always pretty close to the equilibrium.

  146. welikerocks
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 8:46 PM | Permalink

    Two Thumbs Up to Dr. Tim Ball for being on Hannity and Colmes tonight.
    His response to Colmes after being called a denier made my year.

    Thank you Dr. Ball!

  147. george h.
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 8:47 PM | Permalink

    In case you missed it. Tim Ball did a great job of challenging Gore’s silly science and debunking the myth of consensus on FOXs Hannity and Colmes this pm

  148. David Smith
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 9:49 PM | Permalink

    RE #146 Lubos, help me understand this one (I admit to having only scanned Pielke’s article): today, in 2007, are we indeed close to an equilibrium temperature?

    I thought the IPCC estimate is that the climate sensitivity is about 3C for a doubling of CO2, meaning that the to-date effect of CO2 should be about 1.5C to 2.0C. The estimate is that the globe has warmed 0.5C to 1.0C, meaning that we have another 1C or so to rise. So, it would seem that we’re not at equilibrium and should be accumulating heat somewhere.


  149. Jaye
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 9:54 PM | Permalink


    I posted it as an FYI. I’m not qualified to debate the science at that level.

  150. Howard Wiseman
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 10:29 PM | Permalink

    FROM ZDNET Today: “An unknown cracker broke into a server hosting downloads of the popular WordPress blogging software and rigged the file with a remotely exploitable code execution vulnerability.

    News of the hack comes directly from WordPress creator Matt Mullenweg:

    “If you downloaded WordPress 2.1.1 within the past 3-4 days, your files may include a security exploit that was added by a cracker, and you should upgrade all of your files to 2.1.2 immediately.”

    Mullenweg described the code planted into the download as “unusual and highly exploitable” and stressed that the 2.1.1 download was the only thing touched during the attack.”

  151. bernie
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 10:36 PM | Permalink

    Dr. Ball has made a number of strong compelling statements. However, I am not sure I feel comfortable with someone who somewhat inflates
    his standing or at least leaves it open to significant misinterpretation. However, if he won his lawsuit with the Calgary Herald I will l
    certainly retract the above. I have not found anything since the filings at the end of last year. Please note I am very skeptical, even more so
    more so after spending the evening trying to decipher Mann’s responses to Wegman’s crtique and noting the failure to address any of the criticism
    of the statistics.

  152. bernie
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 10:39 PM | Permalink

    Dr. Ball has made a number of strong compelling statements. However, I am not sure I feel comfortable with
    someone who somewhat inflates his standing or at least leaves it open to significant misinterpretation.
    However, if he won his lawsuit with the Calgary Herald I will certainly retract the above. I have not found
    anything since the filings at the end of last year.
    Please note I am very skeptical of AGW, even more so more so after spending the evening trying to decipher
    Mann’s non responses to Wegman’s crtique and noting the failure to address any of the criticism of
    the statistics.

  153. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 1:55 AM | Permalink

    Who do I e-mail to get a post out of spam limbo? Thanks.

  154. John A
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 2:23 AM | Permalink

    Re #151: Fortunately we are on 2.1 and did not have time to upgrade to 2.11. Version 2.12 is being considered for upgrade. I’m glad that the developers of WordPress have put in steps to secure WordPress from future hacking.

    Re #154: DeWitt – you can contact me (climateaudit AT gmail DOT com) or Steve (smcintyre25 AT yahoo DOT ca), or just leave a comment and one of us will retrieve it (which I’ve done already).

  155. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 4:55 AM | Permalink

    re 146:
    The TOA radiative imbalance cannot be measured as the error is in the order of 30 W/m2.

    I quote Langmuir:

    The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
    The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
    Claims of great accuracy.
    Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
    Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.

  156. Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 5:53 AM | Permalink

    #156: Hans, I am a little boring, I know, but I do not understand why, if we are able to measure a temperature anomaly, we are not able to do the same regarding a radiation anomaly at the TOA.
    The measurement error with temperature has been circa 0.5 °C and the anomaly is provided with a precision of a hundredth of a degree. What prevent us to provide a radiation anomaly with a order of magnitude of one watt or even less?
    Thank you.

  157. Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 6:14 AM | Permalink

    Dear David #149, when we say “closer”, we must be careful to say “closer than what”. We are closer to the equilibrium than in the hypothetical case that someone suddenly hugely changed some forcing – e.g. added all current greenhouse gases back in 1850. This hypothetical case is necessary to measure or define the forcing.

    On the other hand, we are not too much closer to equilibrium than we actually were in 1850. The actual imbalance today is comparable to the imbalance in the past. It is constantly changing, including the sign, but it doesn’t accumulate.

    Prof Pielke has made an error because when we consider imbalance, it is a difference from the balance, and he just confused two different “balances” that may enter this argument. One “balance” is the balance we had before the industrial era in 1850, another balance is the balance we would have today if we just removed the forcings to eliminate the present imbalance. 😉

    My point is only that one can’t derive any immediate logical contradiction as Prof Pielke did. These numbers simply don’t have to equal, and they don’t equal in any model that respects the basic logic of physics.

    What is the actual size of climate sensitivity is a different issue. I think it is obvious by the Arrhenius law etc. that the dependence is sublinear: the speed of temperature growth slows down as more GHG is added (because one can’t absorb more than 100% of radiation at a spectral line, to be simple). If you imagine that we have warmed the planet by 0.6 degrees Celsius, then we are already behind 1/2 of the effect – even though we haven’t yet increased the CO2 concentration by 50%. These different conclusions occur because every new CO2 molecule is less potent in raising the temperature than the previous one.


    With this calculation, the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is clearly predicted to be between 1 and 1.5 Celsius, normal distribution. I don’t know what more solid arguments than those above and the laws of physics such as the Arrhenius law could ever support the number 3 degrees Celsius or more. I think it is silly. But they may be using some different laws of physics or anti-physics such as the anti-Arrhenius law (that makes the effect accelerate) – laws for which I would immediately fail them if they were my students but climate science simply doesn’t have these standards, so they can argue that the sensitivity is 3 Celsius, 5 Celsius or 6800 Celsius.

    It’s silly and almost certainly wrong but one can’t point out any contradiction in their statement without studying the underlying physical mechanisms. Prof Pielke’s attempt to find an error by pure comparative literature is impossible.

    I think that you have made a physics error, too, by assuming that the temperature anomaly is a linear function of the CO2 concentration. It is not: the dependence is sublinear and it’s slowing down. While you have made an error in this oversimplified assumption, it is apparently a smaller error than the IPCC have made because they must clearly assume that the dependence of temperature on CO2 is accelerating. 😉

    It is very easy to fool oneself into thinking this way. All their attempts to paint the far past as cooler than it was etc. are meant to psychologically elevate the sensitivity, in order to get more sensational predictions for the future. That’s why it’s junk science. But unfortunately you can’t rigorously prove that it is junk science by comparing two numbers that don’t have to be equal.

  158. Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 6:19 AM | Permalink

    Dear Hans Erren #156, your very exact sentence that the 30 W/m^2 error makes it impossible to measure the current imbalances is actually exactly my sentence from 2005


    But we must distinguish the question whether the error is small enough that the concept can teach us anyting new & accurate enough & reliable enough – from the question whether we can define the quantity. I think that if we are careful, we can clearly define the quantity and try to manipulate with it.

  159. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 6:35 AM | Permalink

    re 157:
    That would need an integrated spectrometer circling the earth, which we don’t have at the moment.
    The absurdity is that we don’t even have a satellite in orbit that is monitoring current CO2 abundances in the mid and far infrared, sciamachy is trying using the near infrared with very limited results so far.

  160. Paul Linsay
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 7:23 AM | Permalink

    #160, Hans,

    It’s even more outrageous that we only have two measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels, one in mid-ocean the other in Antarctica. I’ve read comments that CO2 oscillates up to 500 ppmv daily in forests. There are also the questions raised by Jaworowski about the validity of the CO2 measurements in the ice cores. This is the other area besides the surface temperatures that needs a very thorough airing.

  161. jae
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 8:21 AM | Permalink

    158: Lubos, I agree that the sensitivity is about 1 C. As you know, Shaviv has demonstrated from empirical evidence that it is somewhat lower, probably due to negative feedbacks. Even my silly calculations in #44 show this :).

  162. Bob K
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 8:38 AM | Permalink

    Here’s a quote from a NOAA new item. Found here. It’s still a rather infant operation though, with only one site each in Australia and S. America.

    NOAA scientists have been tracking CO2 levels around the world for more than 25 years. The oldest record comes from the Mauna Loa Observatory, which is located atop a Hawaiian volcano. There, Charles Keeling began CO2 measurements in 1958. Following NOAA’s formation in 1970, measurements continued at Mauna Loa and began at other places around the world. There are now more than 60 monitoring sites worldwide.

  163. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

    Re 161:
    here are more sample sites

    I don’t think Jaworowski has demonstrated that the sample contaminations which he expects in ice cores actually occur.

  164. Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

    If you want to see the video of skeptic, Dr Timothy Ball on Hannity & Colmes, click the last word “video” in this text:


    Best, Lubos

  165. Bill F
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 10:51 AM | Permalink


    Regarding the concept of equilibrium. I understand that the “instantaneous” imbalance at any given time can be positive or negative and vary on a short time scale. Where I think Dr. Pielke is going is looking at the long-term imbalance that would be the driver in any backloaded forcing that would cause a continued trend of long-term warming after stabilization of CO2 concentrations. I have often heard people say things to the effect of “even if we stabilized atmospheric CO2 at today’s concentration, we would continue to see warming for many years afterwards”. That statement implies as Hansen has alluded to in his speeches that there is warming still “in the pipeline” that will occur regardless of what we do with our CO2 emissions. I think what Dr. Pielke is getting at is that that “pipeline” has to be somewhere in the earth/atmospheric system. If you stabilize CO2 at a given concentration, then if that concentration results in a net positive “instantaneous” radiative anomaly, then heat should continue to accumulate in the system until the system reaches the new equilibrium. In other words, as long as the “instantaneous” radiative anomaly is net positive due to elevated CO2, the heat content should be growing. The rate of growth should decline as we approach the new equilibrium, but there is no way to explain large scale heat loss such as we saw from 2003-2005 while still claiming there is a net positive radiative anomaly attributable to CO2 unless your system of forcings has a missing component. In other words, with the forcings identified by IPCC as significant, and their current belief in a continued positive radiative anamoly attributed to CO2 as the major cause of global warming, they cannont explain the large scale loss of heat content from the oceans. Without a large negative forcing somewhere in their system, such a heat loss simply cannot be present in the system and still maintain the dominance of CO2 in controlling global temperature.

    You are correct that the numbers don’t have to add up to zero as Dr. Pielke is claiming, but the presence of the large oceanic heat loss without a corresponding heat gain or negative forcing somewhere else seems to invalidate IPCC’s estimation of the net balance of the forcings.

  166. Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 12:01 PM | Permalink

    Dear Bill F #166, even according to the Hansen numbers, the current imbalance is supposed to be 0.8 W/m^2, about 5 times smaller than the announced forcing from the artificially added greenhouse gases according to IPCC.

    So I find it reasonable to say that the path to stabilization from the current imbalance 0.8 W/m^2 would only take us 1/5 of the warming we have seen which would be about 0.2 Celsius – a trend for 10-20 years. At any rate, it seems obvious that this change will be unobservable and unattributable in the noise and it is not worth any discussion (or even political consequences) except for a very narrow group of specialists – theorists.

    We can differ about numbers but I think it is obvious that we are much closer to equilibrium than what we would be if some parts of the system changed abruptly. We are never quite at the equilibrium but we are almost never very far from it.

  167. jae
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 12:09 PM | Permalink

    166: Bill F:

    I agree with your comments (for what that’s worth).

    That statement implies as Hansen has alluded to in his speeches that there is warming still “in the pipeline” that will occur regardless of what we do with our CO2 emissions.

    One of the many unprovable (either way) statements that the AGW extremists use to “substantiate” their hysteria. Akin to “the models all show…” If there was more warming in the pipeline, I doubt that temperatures would have leveled off during the last 8 years.

  168. Bill F
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM | Permalink


    I agree with you regarding where we are in regards to “equilibrium” with regards to CO2 forcing, although I hate the use of the word equilibrium with regard to climate, because it implies stability. As my question to Dr. Pielke and Gavin over at Climate Science implies, I am skeptical about the magnitude of the accumulated CO2 forcing imbalance since 1750 reported by the IPCC, and accordingly, I believe that the remaining “distance to equilibrium” temperature-wise is smaller than what is currently estimated using IPCC figures.

    I think what Dr. Pielke is really angling for with his critique of the IPCC figure/caption is the same thing he has been angling for for quite some time (and rightfully so), which is to change the IPCC focus from temperature anomaly to heat content anomaly. In that respect, I think he is fighting the same battle the economists and investors fight with the Fed in trying to get them to start looking at more forward looking indicators and fewer trailing indicators when tracking the economy. Temperature changes will always follow heat content changes, so looking at the heat content anomaly will provide a more “current” estimate of what future temperatures should be expected to do. What I see the IPCC and other AGW’ers doing is responding to questions about non-anthopogenic forcings by saying that the non-anthropogenic forcings can’t explain the warming of the last few decades. Then they turn around and estimate the change and forcing since 1750 assuming that most of it is anthropogenic in nature, when doing so clearly contradicts their admission that 1750-1950 warming can be accounted for almost entirely with non-anthropogenic forcings.

  169. Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 1:02 PM | Permalink

    Dear Bill F #169, the word “equilibrium” is clearly just some kind of approximation only. I also hate if people assume that there is stability which is not the case.

    But the approximation is OK if the changes that are occurring are slower (or much slower) than the changes that would occur if you removed all of the forcings that you consider. It’s an adiabatic approximation of some kind. It’s not safely true for the climate but it is barely fine approximation, by a factor of 5.

    I don’t know whether 4 W/m^2 per 250 years is too much or too little. I don’t see any simple way to determine the answer. To me, 4 looks like a pretty small number compared to 342 or 1340 W/m^2 from the Sun, a number that can moreover go both ways. It’s small simply because we see that nothing has visibly changed about the life because of the climate in the last 250 years, and it is in fact difficult to measure the change and agree about it and its origin.

    OK, I don’t think that the heat imbalance is a good way to determine what will happen in the future, especially because we can’t measure it too well today. There can be a heat imbalance but the temperature can still evolve away from the equilibrium. In fact, the distance from the equilibrium won’t change much in the future. Most of the imbalance is noise that can simply survive because we never have to be at equilibrium, as you agree. If you agree that we’re not at equilibrium, why do you think we should get to the same equilibrium in the future?

    Gene Day from my blog argued that it is better to treat e.g. the sea levels as a better index of the “global temperature” – the oceans do the averaging process for us pretty carefully.

  170. Bill F
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 1:54 PM | Permalink


    I don’t think we “should” reach equilibrium. I think the only equilibrium the earth would ever reach would be as a dark cold icy ball billions of years from now. Until that time, I think the earth’s climate will continue to fluctuate back and forth around a sort of moving average. An interesting question that somebody posed a few months back on Roger Pielke Jr’s blog was “what is the ideal temperature?” To me, that question is the crux of the AGW policy argument. The assumption made by the AGW alarmists is that we have altered the climate from what is “natural” (which makes the assumption that humans are unnatural) and that that is a bad thing. The evidence used is that we have raised temperature by some measure since some arbitraty point in history through our actions. I would argue that for people in places where their activities and economy are severely limited by cold temperature, such warming is good. While for others whose economies are threatened by heat or sea level rise, such warming would be considered bad. The question I have is this:

    If we truly do have our hands on the thermostat for the planet, and we believe it is our social and moral responsibility to deliberately undertake actions whose sole purpose is to reset that thermostat back to some level other than where it currently is, who decides what is the “right temperature” for the planet and who pays the costs of actions undertaken to “save the planet”? Anybody who has worked in an office where more than one person is dependent on the same thermostat for their comfort has encountered this dilemna. The elderly lady in the corner wearing the shawl wants the thermostat set to 80F. The fat guy in the office with the sun shining in the window wants it set to 65F. Everybody else in the office falls somewhere in between. So who decides what temperature is best? The Scandinavian nation that is benefitting from having ports clear of ice for a longer period of time each year? The British vineyard that foresees growing its own grapes for the first time in decades? The Australian farmer who believes AGW is causing the drought? Or the small island nation that is afraid it may one day be under water (which is terribly unlikely, but still used as a scare tactic)? And which among them gets to decide who pays the cost? Is it fair to ask the scandinavian country to pay to make their climate colder when they would prefer to be warmer? Is it fair to ask a nation who will see little notiveable effect in either direction to pay a large share of changing the climate for somebody else? I don’t know the answers, but I expect that the debate over how to answer the questions will be brutal indeed (even if future natural cooling renders the answer moot).

  171. Jim Edwards
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 2:02 PM | Permalink

    #165 – Lubos,

    Thanks for the link to the BBC4 special. The genius of Al Gore was that his movie is full of pictures and graphs. That works for the voters who ultimately approve public policy shifts. Let’s hope the BBC movie doesn’t have a lot of talking no-name scientists just saying, “They’re wrong, see, it fails the Chi-squared test.”

  172. Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 2:46 PM | Permalink

    Dear Bill F #171, in theoretical physics, we usually think about the final equilibrium to be the empty de Sitter space at its own temperature whose thermal wavelength is the size of the Universe. That will be reached after all black holes (that eat everything around) evaporate. 🙂

    So who decides what temperature is best?

    That’s a good question but fortunately there is also an answer: Al Gore himself. According to his heated swimming pool, the best temperature is 82 Fahrenheit. 🙂 I completely agree with you, of course: whether or not climate and its effects, regardless of their origin, influence some global averages is unimportant for everyone. Everyone has his own situation and counting and rationally, people can’t even agree about the sign of a desirable temperature change. The only way how they could agree that cooling is correct is a catastrophe. That’s why the catastrophic AGW is unfortunately necessary for the AGW theory to have any social impact, which is why we hear it so much.

    Jim #172: Well, I would also like to see a movie with the same formal qualities as Guggenheim, and I am also afraid this won’t be that if there will be too many people in it… Are you a good moviemaker? Maybe we should create our documentary. 😉

  173. fFreddy
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 5:12 PM | Permalink

    Re #172, Jim Edwards

    Thanks for the link to the BBC4 special.

    Please note : it is Channel 4, not BBC4.

  174. David Smith
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 7:30 PM | Permalink

    The satellite-derived global temperature for February, 2007 is here . This is the lower troposphere, from UAH.

    What it shows is that the El Nino’s impact likely peaked in January and has begun to fade. I think we’ll see anomalies below +0.2C in the second quarter (April-June), as the equatorial Pacific cooling kicks in.

  175. Paul Linsay
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 7:42 PM | Permalink

    #164, Hans, thanks for the station data. The ones I looked at look consistent and reasonable.

    What about Jaworowski’s claims of cherry picking the ice core CO2 data?

  176. Jim Edwards
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 10:55 PM | Permalink

    #174 fFreddy,

    Thanks for steering me straight.

    #173 Lubos,

    Sadly, I’m no director. My background is biology / vacuum deposition / law.

    I’d like to see a populist dialogue, like Gallileo did w/ Simplicio to show the superiority of heliocentric theory – but coupled with animation. The narrator should be somebody who either has Green / Left Bona Fides [only Nixon can go to China…], somebody recognized as the voice of science [Steven Hawking or the late Carl Sagan], or somebody who people consider to be both credible and disinterested – like Oprah or, possibly, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.

  177. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 2:17 AM | Permalink

    re 176:
    On Jaworowski, you could start here


    Hans Oeschger wrote:

    The study of the history of Earth system parameters is an on-going process; an increasing number of laboratories have become involved and interact with each other. As it is the case in any field of science, the state of art is continuously critically assessed and attempts are made to improve the quality of the research. Ice-core information is fundamental for the assessment of one of the most urgent problems of our time. Based on my experience during decades of involvement in this field, I consider the chances as very small that the major findings from greenhouse gas studies on ice cores are fundamentally wrong; and I find the publications of JAWOROWSKI not only to be incorrect, but irresponsible.

  178. Andrey Levin
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 4:03 AM | Permalink


    Combining ice core data of past CO2 atmospheric concentration with current (from 1958) instrumental records from Mauna Loa is the same bull as combining bristlecone temperature proxies with current instrumental records.

    Ice core CO2 proxies are extremely valuable research tool on geological scale, but their resolution is couple of centuries at best. Moreover, as it was disclosed by Jaworowsky in his more elaborate article:

    Click to access zj21c97.pdf

    the main problem is not relative reading from thousands years ago, but conversion of them to absolute readings in troublesome region of last century and a half, where trapped in ice CO2 undergoes phase change from calthrates (hydrates) when ice core samples are decompressed.

    Stomata CO2 proxies, having way higher resolution of decades, not centuries, more and more pointing out that CO2 proxies from ice cores have sensitivity and resolution too low to be viable for CO2 concentration assessment for last couple of centuries, and carry too high systematic mistakes.

    I believe so called “pre-industrial” CO2 atmospheric concentrations widely accepted in climate science are still waiting for their M&M to be corrected.

  179. bruce
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 4:28 AM | Permalink

    Re #171:

    Excellent point well made Bill F. I hadn’t seen that question put that way before, but of course you are right. Lets see what the AGW crowd have to say to that question. Perhaps you should post it over at RC.

  180. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 4:49 AM | Permalink

    re 179:

    A Significant Thirteenth-century CO2 Increase in Stomatal Frequency and ice core Records
    van Hoof, T.; Kaspers, K.; Wagner, F.; van de Wal, R.; Kuerschner, W.; Visscher, H.

    The climate of the first half of the last millennium is characterized by a transition from a relative warm period during medieval times (the Medieval Climatic Optimum) towards a more cooler period during the Little Ice Age (~AD 1300-1850). In several global and Northern-Hemispheric air-temperature reconstructions for the last millennium, this natural climate variability is represented by an air-temperature anomaly in the range of 0.2 to 1 OC. In contrast to the strongly increased atmospheric CO2 levels of the last century, ice-core CO2 measurements constrain the pre-industrial CO2 variability to a maximum of 12 ppmv, precluding a significant role for CO2 as the primary forcing factor of air-temperature changes during the last millennium. As an alternative to ice-core measurements, atmospheric CO2 reconstructions are currently available for the last millennium from stomatal frequency analysis performed on fossil leaves.A period where both methods consistently provide evidence for natural CO2 changes is the 13th century.The results of the two independent methods differ significantly in the amplitude of the estimated CO2 changes (10 ppmv ice, versus 34 ppmv stomatal frequency). Here, we compare stomatal frequency and ice core results by using a firn-diffusion model in order to assess the potential influence of smoothing during enclosure on the temporal resolution as well as the CO2 mixing ratios. The seemingly large discrepancies between the CO2 levels estimated by the contrasting methods, diminish when effects of natural smoothing of the ice-core record is simulated for the raw data of the stomatal frequency record. Results indicate that the differences derived by the two methods may be less significant than previously thought. Climate model calculations show that the 34 ppmv shift as detected in the stomata record could generate Northern-Hemisphere and global air-temperature responses that stay well within the constrained range of reconstructed air-temperature variability of the last millennium. To assess the exact influence of a dynamic CO2 regime on the air-temperature history of the last millennium, model studies simulating the air-temperature response to fluctuating CO2 levels in interaction with the other forcing factors are needed. However, this study already indicates that CO2 should be reconsidered as a significant pre-industrial climate forcing factor during the last millennium.

    see also

  181. paminator
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 7:46 AM | Permalink

    There was a very funny editorial in the March 3rd chicago sun-times on Reverend Gore.

  182. richardT
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 7:54 AM | Permalink

    Jaworowsky’s article may be “elaborate”, but much of it is egregiously wrong. Take, for example, his acceptance of measured 19th century CO2 concentrations. The high concentrations and scatter reflect the crude analytical methods available in the early 19th Century, not atmospheric reality.
    It’s deeply ironic that the skeptical community accepts these values without question, yet doubts the accuracy of the much higher quality measured 19th Century temperature record.
    Also, be wary of stomatal based estimates of CO2 concentrations, some of the underlying data is questionable. I don’t know the article cited by #181, but other work by this group has been heavily criticized.

  183. Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

    The main aim of the authors in #181 is, in my point of view, not to reconcile ice core with stomatal proxy but, instead, to demonstate the leading role of CO2 in past climate variability, which can account, in their words, to a mere 0.2 °C. Go figure!

  184. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 8:40 AM | Permalink

    Please note the bold part in the quote. The stomata group acknowledges that the difference between icecores and stomata is not as dramatic as suggested in their earlier publications. Two factors contribute to lower antarctic ice core CO2 values: decadal smoothing and remotenes from the northern hemispheric stomata sites.

    The CO2 statement in the last part of the abstract is a non sequitur: Higher MWP atmosperic CO2 values would only point to a lower climate sensitivity

  185. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

    #183. I entirely agree with your points about drawing any conclusions from isolated 19th century CO2 measurements. This line of argument seems to be just foolishness to me and, for what it’s worth, I’ve never endorsed or encouraged this line of discussion. I also agree with your jibe that people who place credence in these isolated 19th century CO2 measurements should not cavil at accepting 19th century temperature measurements.

  186. Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 10:07 AM | Permalink

    #185: Van Hoof et al., before dealing with stomatal data, explicity say what their goal is:” In contrast to the strongly increased atmospheric CO2 levels of the last century, ice-core CO2 measurements constrain the pre-industrial CO2 variability to a maximum of 12 ppmv, precluding a significant role for CO2 as the primary forcing factor of air-temperature changes during the last millennium.”
    Look at that “precluding“!
    I agree with you that a 34 ppm change points to a lower sensitivity, but the authors point to a quite flat temperature variability and all explained by CO2 variability.

  187. L Nettles
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 10:39 AM | Permalink

    No need to research CO2 trapped in ice we have better evidence.

    Inuit now need air conditioners Earthjustice

    Many Inuit live in more conventional buildings, which are constructed mainly to keep the cold out. Unfortunately, with longer and warmer summers with 24-hour-a-day sunlight, this has turned many into ovens, Watt-Cloutier said. For the first time, air conditioners are in use in the Arctic.

  188. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

    Re #188 – **Many Inuit live in more conventional buildings, which are constructed mainly to keep the cold out. Unfortunately, with longer and warmer summers with 24-hour-a-day sunlight, this has turned many into ovens, Watt-Cloutier said. For the first time, air conditioners are in use in the Arctic.

    Seasoned Inuit hunters used to be able to tell where the ice was safe, but because warmer seas have started to melt sea ice from its underside, even the most experienced hunters find it hard to gauge, and some fall through, she said.

    “The glaciers are melting so quickly that where our hunters used to be able to cross safely, now it’s so unsafe that it’s become torrent rivers … and we’ve had a drowning as a result of that as well,” she said.**
    Welcome to our world. We have been drowning for years in the south. “experienced hunters find it hard to gauge” Really?
    Are they using energy conserving air conditioners. Get serious, when it was warm 70 years ago, there was no mass media to complain to. Many in the south do not have air conditioners.

  189. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 11:52 AM | Permalink

    RE: #188 – Time immemorial, during the short Arctic late spring and summer “white nights” season – surges of warmth breaking the 80 deg F mark have been a fact of life due to both the hemispheric spring jet stream shifts as well as the 24 hour sun light. That’s when the skeeters are nasty in the far north, with all the ponding water (from both the short term seasonal melting and the expected local convective events). Of course, even during high summer, there can be the odd reversal – bringing snowfall and temperatures in the 30s.

    As more and more media make it up into the far north, and the Innuit milk them for all they are worth (what little they are worth?) some of the various odd facts of far northern life get turned into shibboleths of the form “this never happened prior to year X and is as a result of AGW” when in fact they have been facts of life for hundreds if not thousands of years (at least since the Big Melt of yore).

  190. Greg F
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

    From Wiki

    After roughly 1350, the climate grew colder during the Little Ice Age and the Inuit were forced to abandon hunting and whaling sites in the high Arctic. Bowhead whaling disappeared in Canada and Greenland (but continued in Alaska) and the Inuit had to subsist on a much poorer diet. Without whales, they lost access to essential raw materials for tools and architecture that were derived from whaling. Although the Inuit had always been nomadic, they were forced to move more and more often to maximize their return from hunting.

    Those conventional buildings are at odds with a nomadic lifestyle. And further down.

    The changing climate forced the Inuit to also look south, pressuring them into the marginal niches along the edges of the tree line that Indians had not occupied, or where they were weak enough to coexist with. It is hard to say with any precision when the Inuit stopped their territorial expansion. There is evidence that they were still moving into new territory in southern Labrador in the 17th century, when they first began to interact with colonial North American civilization.

  191. MarkW
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 12:07 PM | Permalink

    They now have highly insulated home designed to keep the cold out. Then they find that when it’s not cold out, the houses
    heat up.
    Welcome to thermodynamics 101. Try telling them to open a couple of windows.

  192. James Erlandson
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 12:39 PM | Permalink

    Changing times for Inuit (Wikipedia)

    Today, Inuit work in all sectors of the economy, including mining, oil and gas, construction, government and administrative services. Many Inuit still supplement their income through hunting. Tourism is a growing industry in the Inuit economy. Inuit guides take tourists on dogsled and hunting expeditions, and work with outfitting organizations. About 30 percent of Inuit derive part-time income from their sculpture, carving and print making.

    The settlement of land claims in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Northern Quebec has given the Inuit money and a framework to develop and expand economic development activities. New emerging businesses include real estate, tourism, airlines and offshore fisheries.

    It seems that “real estate, tourism, airlines and offshore fisheries” will be helped by a … more gentle … climate.

  193. bernie
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

    WRT 181
    How do we know which way the causality flows: More CO2 ==> more Stomadal take up and ==> Higher temperature or
    Higher Temperature ==> More CO2 take up — no necessary increased availability of CO2??

  194. richardT
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 12:51 PM | Permalink

    Van Hoof et al. show that their stomata-based results are compatible with the ice-core CO2 records after smoothing. But they don’t show that the rapid variability in CO2 concentrations they reconstruct are physically plausible.
    In the eleventh century, they reconstruct a 24ppmv drop in CO2 in just over 20 years. That’s almost the same rate of change as seen in at Mauna Loa between 1960 and 1980. It’s difficult to explain such variability pre-industrialisation: it would take a large and rapid change in ocean or land carbon cycles.
    There are several possibly confounding factors in van Hoof’s work, for example the potential for different stomatal densities on sun and shade leaves, or for trees with different amount of water stress.

  195. jae
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 1:08 PM | Permalink

    Prometheus has an interesting article about climate scientists assessing their own work.

  196. bernie
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 1:13 PM | Permalink

    #179 and #181
    How do we know the flow of causality for the Stomata proxies and can temperature changes confound the results?

    If my earlier question got blocked could someone explain why? Is it that dumb a question?

  197. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

    re: #195 Richard,

    In the eleventh century, they reconstruct a 24ppmv drop in CO2 in just over 20 years. That’s almost the same rate of change as seen in at Mauna Loa between 1960 and 1980. It’s difficult to explain such variability pre-industrialisation

    Don’t forget that at present about half of all CO2 of anthropic origen is presently not appearing in the atmosphere. This means that about a Mauna Loa of CO2 is being “dropped” each year. So where’s the difficulty in this much CO2 being sequestered absent humans releasing more each year?

  198. richardT
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 3:39 PM | Permalink

    Modern atmospheric gas concentrations have been hugely perturbed by anthropic emissions. The oceans are absorbing some of the excess CO2 as they move towards a new equilibrium.

    In the eleventh century, there would still have been a huge turnover of CO2 through the land and ocean carbon cycles, but you would expect the system to be near equilibrium. And in a system near equilibrium, its going to be difficult to get rapid changes of this magnitude.

    The very strong El Nino year in 1998 caused atmospheric CO2 to increased by just over 2ppmv (after removing the anthropic trend). The rates of change of up to 1ppmv/yr reconstructed by van Hoof and coworkers require repeated events of this magnitude. Their reconstructions may be right, but they need to more to show they are plausible.

  199. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

    re 195:
    Be aware that internal variability in a forest is much higher than on top of mauna loa. The local forest condition doesn’t necessarily reflect a global background.
    Data from rural Poona 1941.

    R.K. Misra , 1950, Studies on the Carbon dioxide Factor in the Air and Soil Layers near the ground. Ind. J. of Met. and Geoph. Vol 1 no 4 oct 1950 p275-286

  200. Chas
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    Looking at an old (popular) chemistry text book (1877) it does seem that the analytical methods for determining co2 in air were a bit agricultural :

    ” The first exact determinations of its amount were made by Thenard in 1812. His process consisted in exhausting a large glass balloon of almost 10 lites capacity, in which baryta water was previously placed. By turning the stopcock a fresh quantity of air was allowed to enter the globe: This was permitted to remain in contact with the baryta water for some time, the absorbtion of carbon dioxide being promoted by shaking the ballon. The process of exhaustion and replenishment was repeated until a sufficient quantity of barium carbonate was formed. From its weight, together with the number of times of exhaustion, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air could be calculated. Thenard found that the proportion of this gas was about 4 volumes in 10,000 volumes of air.
    The subsequent researches of Saussure,Boussingault,Angus Smith and Roscoe have confirmed this result.They have futher shown that the amount of carbon dioxide in air is not abolutely constant. It would appear that during the night the amount of carbon dioxide increases: it is sensibly greater during the prelevance of dry winds and during fogs,as much as 8 or 9 volumes of carbon dioxide in 10,000 of air being frquently noticed on a foggy day. County air also contains less carbon dioxide than the air of large towns. sea air contains less carbon dioxide than land air. As the mean of a number of observations made on the air of the Irish Sea and of the Atlantic Ocean, it appears that 10,000 vols. of sea air contains 3 vols.of carbon dioxide. This proportion is constant in various latitudes and is not affected by the differences in the season of the year or hour of the day.”

    But can anyone tell me why their estimates were sytematically high?

  201. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 4:17 PM | Permalink

    re: #199 Richard,

    If we assume 270ppm is equilibrium given our present biota, just what difference in sequestering ability should we expect? The simpliest assumption is that the ability to sequester should be constant, i.e. the same absolute amount of CO2 could be sequestered each year. In that case there’s no problem at all. The second simpliest assumption is that we’re dealing with a harmonic oscilliator sort of situation so that the farther from equilibrium we are the more CO2 can be sequestered. According to that you could argue that there should have only been (34)/(370-270=100) or about a third as much sequestering per year. In actuality, of course, we have several considerations. Things like the movement of upper ocean waters to deep ocean will be fairly constant, which means that the amount of CO2 which can move is proportional to the absolute concentration in the upper waters. Other things like saturating the buffering capacity of the upper ocean can reduce this ability) Then there are things like CO2 fertilization which will increase sequsteration proportionally to total atmospheric CO2 concentration, and surface warming which can a) increase biotic activity b) reduce gas concentration which can dissolve in water and c)lead to outgassing via tundra melting, etc.

    Now personally, I don’t see that it’s very difficult to find plausable explanations for a short-term decrease in CO2 concentrations such as we’re talking about, but your milage may vary.

  202. John A
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 4:19 PM | Permalink

    3-4 parts in 10,000 = 300-400 parts in 1,000,000 = 300-400 ppm.

    Unless I missed something?

  203. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

    As the mean of a number of observations made on the air of the Irish Sea and of the Atlantic Ocean, it appears that 10,000 vols. of sea air contains 3 vols.of carbon dioxide

    i.e background value is 300+/-50 ppm 😀

  204. richardT
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 5:11 PM | Permalink

    Yes, CO2 changes on a daily and seasonaly timescales, but van Hoof et al are reconstructing annual variability, so these short term changes won’t affect their model as this type of variability is present in both their calibration and reconstruction periods.

    Thanks for this quote. It’s not surprising that they had large errors with this method, but its not obvious to me why their estimates were biased high.

    The different between glacial and interglacial CO2 concentrations is about 80ppm (190 vs 270 ppm). Exactly which factors were responsible for this draw down are unclear (most models I’m aware of have problems getting a reduction of this size), but its clear that the huge changes in ocean circulation between these two states played a large role, perhaps aided by fertilisation with iron-rich dust. At the termination of the glacials CO2 concentrations rise, but relatively slowly, taking several thousand years to change completely.

    The 34ppm variability reconstructed for the last millennium is almost half as large as the full glacial-interglacial change (and the changes occur with amazing rapidity), yet the variability in ocean circulation are much smaller in this time window.

    What’s important here isn’t the rate at which the oceans can absorb (or loose) CO2, but the rate at which these processes can change.

    Your calculations are correct, but one would expect a mean of 270ppm for pre-industrial CO2 concentrations.

  205. jae
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 5:18 PM | Permalink


    But can anyone tell me why their estimates were sytematically high?

    Interesting. Some of the Ba(OH)2 had already reacted with CO2 before placing it in the glass baloon? Maybe the estimates were not high? This method is still used for measuring CO2, so the method appears to be valid.

  206. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 5:34 PM | Permalink

    “But can anyone tell me why their estimates were sytematically high?”

    Because they weren’t sampling on Mauna Loa or at the south pole…

  207. richardT
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 6:06 PM | Permalink

    Great answer, but have a look at the CO2 data at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
    Try downloading the Mauna Loa data and say the data from Westerland, Germany (chosen at random), and plot them together. The seasonal variability at the German site is 2-3x higher, but the annual means are almost identical. Even if the Victorians only measured in summer, the bias should only be ~10ppm.

  208. jae
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

    Can someone tell me why a global CO2 monitor was put on top of a volcano, when the second most abundant gas emitted by a volcano is CO2 (after water)?

  209. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 7, 2007 at 6:12 PM | Permalink

    RE: #192 – Plus, they simply sat sweating in the old days, during the short warm season. Also, given the very high cost of energy where they live, only with recent relative wealth have they been able to afford to install and run air conditioning.

  210. Dan
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 12:06 AM | Permalink

    There was a comment on Hegerl et al. (2006) in Nature (requires subscription). Has anyone read it?

  211. Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 12:19 AM | Permalink


    Tapio Schneider:

    Here I show that the inference procedure used by Hegerl et al. neglects uncertainties in temperature reconstructions and in the estimated climate sensitivity and can even be used to infer that the climate sensitivity is zero with vanishing uncertainty.

    Interesting.. Takes some time to go through those computations.

  212. Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 12:52 AM | Permalink

    Here’s a brief summary,


    Climate proxies are often selected on the basis of their correlations with instrumental temperature data, as in the reconstruction underlying the analysis of Hegerl et al. Using such proxies in regression models to reconstruct past temperatures leads to selection bias, resulting in an overestimation of the correlation between proxies and temperatures and an underestimation of uncertainties.

    Hegerl reply:

    We account for uncertainty in temperature reconstructions as fully as possible.

  213. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 2:11 AM | Permalink

    re 209:
    Because the volcanic emissions don’t matter, compared eg with south pole. Mauna Loa was chosen for it’s remoteness to human sources, so that fluctuations are smoothed out.

    Here is a complete list of Mauna Loa eruptions
    please show that it matters by comparing it to other stations.

    You have a claim, you prove it.

  214. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 2:17 AM | Permalink

    re 208:

    Westerland is located in the german mudflats with predominant westerlies, it’s location was choosen because it was remote.


    hardly the place where stomata forests grow. If you look at the Poona data you get a better idea of the enourmous fluctuations in a forest environment.

  215. Andrey Levin
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 2:28 AM | Permalink

    Re 185:

    The best data on stomata proxies I am aware of could be found on web site of Dr. Lenny Kouwenberg:


    List of publications contains numerous articles on the subject, and some of them are accessible in PDF.

    Let me summarize and quote two of the articles:

    1.Kouwenberg, 2004, From Chapter 3

    Click to access full.pdf

    Stomata reconstruction of CO2 atmospheric concentrations from 800 to 2000 AD is highly correlated with global and regional temperature changes. Concentration of CO2 over millennium fluctuated from 240 to 340 ppmv in Middle Ages.

    “…CO2 fluctuations over the last millennium at least partially originated from temperature-driven changes of CO2 flux between ocean surface and atmosphere”

    2. Wagner at al, Science, 1999:


    “In contrast to conventional ice core estimates of 270 to 280 ppmv, the stomatal frequency signal suggests that early Holocene CO2 concentrations were well above 300 ppmv”

    I have very strong impression that reconstructed from stomata proxies Holocene CO2 historical concentrations varied widely, and was anything but “stable” in “pre-industrial” period of “optimum” and “equilibrium”.

  216. richardT
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 4:13 AM | Permalink

    Wagner et al use stomatal counts on Betula pubescens to reconstruct CO2. Unfortunately, the stomatal density on B. pubescens does not correlate with atmospheric CO2 concentration. See
    Eide, W. & Birks, H.H. Stomatal frequency of Betula pubescens and Pinus sylvestris shows no proportional relationship with atmospheric CO2 concentration. Nordic Journal of Botany 24: 327-339.

    #215 Thanks, I should have checked where it was. So much for randomness.

  217. beng
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 6:25 AM | Permalink

    Fairly unusual, “wet” clipper (Canadian origin) storm in central Appalachian mnts yesterday. Temp 18F beginning as fine, dry snow, becoming larger-flaked @ 25F. 6-7″ total — 10″+ in nearby higher elevations.

    W/snow cover & calm winds, the temp this morning was -4F (-20C) — coldest of the winter. I’d say this is very close to a record low for the date here.

  218. mikep
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 6:29 AM | Permalink

    I have just been reading a very good new little book by Leonard Smith on Chaos. He distinguishes very clearly between uncertainty in exactly what the initial condition is (the classic chaos problem), uncertainty about the structure of the model (i.e. what to include etc) and uncertainty about the correct parameter values. This led to me to his papers including this one

    Click to access 56_PredictPastPredictPresent_2002.pdf

    A couple of quotes

    The continuous feedback from making forecasts on new unseen (out-of-sample) data is largely denied the climate modeller, who is constrained by the nature of the problem to forever violate one of the first maxims of undergraduate statistics: never restrict your analysis to in-sample statistics. By construction, climate modelling is an in-sample science. And the fundamentally transient nature of problem makes it harder still.

    Inasmuch as climate forecasting is a transient experiment, we launch only once. It is not clear how one might combine a collection of single runs of different climate models into a sensible probability forecast. But by studying the in-sample behaviour of ensembles under a variety of models, we can tune each model until an ensemble of initial conditions under each and every individual model can at least bound the in-sample observations, say from 1950 to 2000. If ensembles are then run into the future, we can look for the variables (space and time scales) on which the individual model ensembles bound the past and agree (in distribution) regarding the future.
    Of course agreement does not ensure relevance to the future; our collection of models can share a common flaw. But if differences in the subtle details of different models that have similar (plausible) in-sample performance are shown to yield significantly different forecast distributions, then no coherent picture emerges from the overall ensemble. Upon adding a new model to this mix, we should not be surprised by a major change to the overall forecast distribution. This may still occur even if “each and every one” of the current models has similar forecast distributions, but in this case removing (and hopefully, adding) one model is less likely to do so. In any event, we can still use these differences in the forecast distributions to gain physical insight, and improve each model (individually) using the in-sample data yet again. But as long as the details can be shown to matter significantly, we are sunk.

  219. Jeff Norman
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 10:38 AM | Permalink


    For the first time, air conditioners are in use in the Arctic.

    That’s an interesting quote. Here are some all time maximum temperature records from Canadian Arctic weather stations, according to Environment Canada.

    Alert: +20.0° C on July 8, 1956
    Cambridge Bay: +28.9°C on July 1, 1930
    Cape Hooper: +19.5°C on July 11, 1990
    Cape Perry: +23.9°C on July 27, 1973
    Clinton Point: +29.5°C on July 15, 1989
    Clyde: +22.2°C on July 29, 1969
    Dewar Lakes: +23.2°C on July 25, 1988
    Eureka: +20.0°C on July 11, 2003
    Fox Five: +18.9°C on August 21, 1973
    Hall Beach: +24.8°C on August 5, 1991
    Igloolik:+ 24.0°C on July 28, 2001
    Inuvik: records page claims +32.8° on June 17, 1999 but hourly data shows -32°C on that day
    Komakuk Beach: records page claims +30.2° on June 27, 1982 but again this was negative
    Kugluktuk: +34.9°C on July 15, 1989
    Lady Franklin Point: +22.8°C on July 26, 1989
    Mould Bay: +17.5°C on July 7, 1994
    Nanisvik: +18.5°C on July 27, 2000
    Old Crow: +32.8°C on August 30, 1976
    Resolute: +18.3°C on July 18, 1962
    Sachs Harbour: +24.2°C on August 28, 1982
    Shingle Point: +30.1°C on August 16, 1979
    Tuktoyaktuk: +30.0°C on August 28, 1957
    Tuktoyaktuk A: +29.4°C on July 26, 1973
    Ulukhaktok A: +29.0°C on July 15, 1989

    Therefore it looks like it can get hot in the Arctic but that this is not unusual in that it is limited to the last decade say. But not for extended periods of time where one could justify the cost of an air conditioner.

    Maybe they mean at Iqualuit (not technically in the Arctic) the capital of Nunavut, one of the few places were you can find a concentration of people, lawyers and power (both kinds).

    Between 1990 and 2006, there have been four days when the temperature rose above 23°C:

    August 8, 1991 for 4 hours
    July 14, 2001 for 1 hour
    July 15, 2001 for 6 hours
    July 29, 2003 for 3 hours

    So where are these air conditioners again?

    I wonder if the problem is that the winds of the houses don’t open or if they do, they don’t have any screens to keep the mosquitos out, but then they don’t allegedly have mosquitos in the Arctic or rather they didn’t until global warming and all those mammals showed up.

  220. JerryB
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 11:29 AM | Permalink


    Perhaps the mosquitoes got into the hourly data recorder. -30 C in
    June reminds me of the + 128 F day in Ohio in December: not plausible.

    The daily min/max data at the following links show positives.
    69.5800 -140.1800 7.0 CA KOMAKUK BEACH
    68.3000 -133.4800 68.0 CA INUVIK

  221. jae
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

    Hmmm, a new blog that so far appears to be VERY similar to RealClimate.

  222. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

    RE: #222 – Also covertly supported by the NRDC, like RC is?

  223. Jeff Norman
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 12:11 PM | Permalink



    It must have been a sticky button. I was looking at March not June, so you are correct Inuvik was 32.8°C on June 17, 1999 and stayed above 23°C for all of 13 hours.

  224. John Lang
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    February Temperatures for the US from NOAA are in: 34th coolest (or 79th warmest if you want to remove the spin.) Some posts above had speculated this would be the case.

    “The average temperature in February 2007 was 32.9 F. This was -1.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 34th coolest February in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

    1.56 inches of precipitation fell in February. This was -0.46 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 16th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.00 inches per decade.”


    Is there any point to be made that the precipitation trend is 0? I note there is less chance of the climate scientists playing around with these numbers. I thought global warming was supposed to increase water vapour which in turn might result in more precipitation.

  225. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 1:04 PM | Permalink

    Very aggressive article by Lindzen in today’s (Mar.8) Daily Mail preparatory to tonight’s Channel 4 “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Strong stuff. Practically nukes Stern!

    Sorry, can’t figure out links but if I can will do so later.

    Unusual for Daily Mail – not the sort of daily that normally supports controversial scientific views!

  226. Jim Edwards
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 1:19 PM | Permalink


    Re: Ambient temp in arctic and AC use [#188]

    I was a commercial HVAC tech in San Jose in the mid 90’s. There were many days when I worked on the rooftop on a comfortable 65-75 F / 17-24 C day while AC units were running like crazy all around me.

    The driving force behind much AC use today is the internal heat load, both sensible [lighting, computers, photocopiers] and latent [humans, coffee pots]. This will especially be the case in a highly insulated and weather stripped bldg – like the bldgs these Inuit live in.

    I’d want to know if the evil culture of American capitalism had forced these Inuit to become more affluent and install culturally genocidal technology like electric lighting and home electronics.

  227. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 1:24 PM | Permalink

    re: 127/georgeH

    Channel 4 Durkin documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” tonight should be available afterwards at http://www.channel4.com. Their 4oD service offers video on demand of significant programmes.

  228. jae
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

    Nobody had air conditioning when I was a kid, and now just about everyone has one in warmer climates. I suspect the Inuits are just like the rest of us; they have a better standard of living and want more comfortable surroundings. They are getting “spoiled,” like me. Naturally, the envirofreaks will blame it all on AGW.

  229. cbone
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 1:31 PM | Permalink

    Wednesday, March 14, 2007
    Too bad tickets are sold out to this one.. but there will be NPR rebroadcasts of it.

    “Global warming is not a crisis”

    Speaking for the motion: Michael Crichton, Richard S. Lindzen, Philip Stott
    Speaking against the motion: Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt, Richard C.J. Somerville
    Moderator: Brian Lehrer


    Debates are fed to National Public Radio(R) member stations across the
    country. “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis” airs on WNYC(R) AM 820 in New
    York City on Friday, March 23rd at 2:00 PM, KQED FM 88.5 in San Francisco
    on Wednesday, March 28th at 8:00 PM and Saturday, March 31st at 1:00 PM,
    KJZZ FM 91.5 in Phoenix on Sunday, March 25th at 3:00 PM, WDUQ FM 90.5 in
    Pittsburgh on Sunday, April 8th at 6:00 PM, and KERA FM 90.1 in Dallas on
    Friday, May 11th at 1:00 PM and 8:00 PM. Please check your local listings for other dates and times.

  230. cbone
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

    Looks like the podcast should be here after the debate.


  231. jae
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

    Unusual for Daily Mail – not the sort of daily that normally supports controversial scientific views!

    I’m seeing more and more articles that cover the “deniers.” Controverial articles sell, and so far we still have freedom of speech. This is a good sign. Maybe the newspapers can reform the IPCC??

  232. jae
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 1:37 PM | Permalink

    226. Here’s the link.

  233. David Smith
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 1:39 PM | Permalink

    RE #225 the RSS satellite-derived global temperature is also in ( here ). It confirms that the recent El Nino’s affect on global temperature was rather weak and short-lived.

    Also, per the graph, we’re entering year seven (7) of no global temperature rise. As we move to ENSO-neutral and possibly a cool La Nina, this no-warming global trend should continue, or even nose downwards a bit. We shall see.

  234. fFreddy
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 1:40 PM | Permalink

    Re #228, Peter Lloyd

    Lindzen’s Daily Mail article can be found here. Peter’s right, it is rather fun …

  235. george h.
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 1:40 PM | Permalink

    re. 228
    Thanks, and

    Some inconvenient February data: “The average temperature in February 2007 was 32.9 F… -1.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 34th coolest February in 113 years.”


  236. bernie
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 1:44 PM | Permalink

    Assuming that this an open thread, does anyone have a link to James Hansen’s original June 1988 Congressional
    testimony? I tried searching for it with no luck. There are plenty of references but no actual testimony.
    Any help will be much appreciated.

  237. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 1:52 PM | Permalink

    re: 233/jae

    Thanks, jae. Should have been able to figure that out for myself! Getting old.

  238. Chas
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 2:39 PM | Permalink

    RichardT #205: some of Angus Smith’s CO2 measurements are given in his book “Air and Rain” (1872) and they seem surprisingly repeatable:

    Having written so far, it was desired to throw more
    light on the subject by obtaining specimens from purely
    rural and hilly districts ; and for this purpose Scotland
    was preferred. The uniformity in the numbers is something
    remarkable. There is no difference in the second
    decimal place, even in one instance, until we enter a town.
    I must therefore consider ‘0336 per cent, as the amount of carbonic acid in the pure winds of the north of this island.”

    This book also has tables of Sausure’s earlier (1820’s) measurements about which Angus Smith comments:
    “He used a vessel of 34 litres in volume, and washed the air with baryta-water, collecting the carbonate of baryta precipitated. This is a laboriousprocess; but, considering the great accuracy of the operator, and the long experience which he gained, we may place great reliance on his work. I am disposed to think that there may be a little excess in his results………

    The book itself can be read or downloaded from:

  239. Jeff Norman
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 2:47 PM | Permalink



    Counting the number of days where the temperature rose above 25°C and thereby possibly warranted the use of an air conditioner here are the top ten for Inuvik.

    1994 – 27 days over 25°C – also top for the number of days over 30°C, 5 days
    1989 – 24 days & 3 days over 30°C
    1979 – 16 days & 1 day
    1998 – 16 days & 2 days
    1958 – 15 days & 1 day
    1982 – 15 days & 0 days
    2004 – 15 days & 2 days
    1983 – 14 days & 0 days
    1957 – 13 days & 0 days
    1966 – 12 days & 0 days

    Here are how the last ten available years stacked up:
    2005 – 47th with 2 days
    2004 – 7th with 7 days
    2003 – 29th with 8 days
    2002 – 41st with 6 days
    2001 – 16th with 11 days
    2000 – 22nd with 9 days
    1999 – 19th with 10 days
    1998 – 4th with 16 days
    1997 – 40th with 6 days
    1996 – no data

    If there is any trend, it looks like it peaked in the 90’s.

    This is interesting too. Even though the sun was above the horizon for all 24 hours, the temperature started at 20.2°C at 06:00, rose to 30.4°C by 16:00 and dropped back down to 19.4°C by 23:00. This brings me back to the original story:

    Many Inuit live in more conventional buildings, which are constructed mainly to keep the cold out. Unfortunately, with longer and warmer summers with 24-hour-a-day sunlight, this has turned many into ovens, Watt-Cloutier said. For the first time, air conditioners are in use in the Arctic.

    I the A/c is a function of affluence, not weather.

  240. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 3:19 PM | Permalink

    re 222:

    This comment from me on http://www.climatepolicy.org/?p=10#comments is still pending 😀

    Hans Erren Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    March 5th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
    [Response: Without the CO2 feedback we can’t explain the changes in climate evident in the paleo record. This is widely underderstood and non-controversial. -phiggins]

    Can you please give some peer reviewed references for this claim? Shaviv finds empirical evidence for a low CO2 climate sensitivity.

  241. Loki on the run
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 5:47 PM | Permalink

    I stumbled across this comment from 2006 by Greg Cochran:

    McIntyre and McKitrick are shills of Exxon, and dumb shills at that.

    When they dealt with a temperature series with some missing data, they assumed that the temperature was zero Celsius, instead of interpolating. When they tried to calculate the cosine of the sun angle on the surface of the Earth, they didn’t realize that the Fortran cosine fucntion uss radians, not degrees. I could go on.
    Surely, there is whiteout all over their screen.

    I kid you not. The English language is not powerful enough to express how dumb these guys are.

    He seems to hold strong opinions.

  242. Dave B
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 6:13 PM | Permalink

    #226 here is the link to lindzen’s article in the daily mail. well done!


  243. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

    The Durkin documentary on Channel 4 was, IMHO, excellent. Hard-hitting, no weasel words, good graphics, convincing concentration on the impeccable, relevant qualifications and experience of the scientists presenting the highly persuasive data.

    Interesting to see the frankly acknowledged “turnarounds” of Nigel Calder (ex-New Scientist editor) and Patrick Moore (ex-founder of Greenpeace), also to hear the origins of the extremist AGW movement blamed on Margaret Thatcher’s pro-nuclear power policy. Not too sure about the advisability of labelling the environmentalist movement as neo-Marxist Luddites – may well be true, but also unnecessarily exposes the documentary wide open to charges of being just a right-wing capitalist rant. The more I think about it, I believe the introduction of political charges was a tactical mistake.

    But the science was great, especially the effective comparison of solid “natural cycle” hard data with the junk science of AGW. The solid correlation of the solar cycle data surprised even me. No mention made of the more recent 1500-yr solar cycle hypothesis.

    Get your local TV stations to show it! Get it shown alongsiide Gore’s movie.

    This is going to cause a ruckus. About time.

  244. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 6:39 PM | Permalink

    RE: #244 – The intro of political judgement was indeed a tactical mistake. Of course, at least some of the leading firebrands in “the movement” are indeed neo-marxist luddites in fact. But that need not be included in a public critique.

  245. jae
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 6:40 PM | Permalink

    Gore is gored again, this time by Junk Science.

  246. MarkR
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

    #244 Peter. Agree with you about the science of the program. The Politics part may not have been politic, but it was true.

    Interesting how Margaret Thatcher started it all by giving scientists money to prove that CO2 was damaging, so she could go for nuclear power, and be free of the unreliable oil supply from the Middle East, and the political coal Miners Union. Also how the Thatcher inspired scientific effort morphed into the IPCC.

    Seeing Lindzen again reminded me I saw him on BBC News 24 Hard Talk several years ago, when he was critical of the Warmers.

    The interviewer asked Lindzen how come climatologists could be so wrong.

    Lindzen replied, “Remember when you were at school and all the clever ones opted for climatology?”

    Interviewer: “No!”

    Lindzen: “Exactly.”

    Also, Tony Blair knows this AGW is a scam. All his statements begin, “If what we are being told is true…”

    He is not hitching himself to that bandwagon. The fact is it suits British interests to scare the public just now, for the same reason Thatcher had. Blair wants to get the Nuclear power option past the environmentalists.

  247. jae
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 9:54 PM | Permalink

    You could easily make the argument that Gore is partially responsible malaria-caused deaths of 30 million + children and many more millions of suffering adults in the underdeveloped nations, because of his support for the banning of DDT in those nations, after Rachel Carlson published her famous book “Silent Spring” (which ban has now been lifted by the WHO. The AGW movement follows EXACTLY the same type of reasoning and politics–hate for the affluent, Mother Nature is God, people are a plague on the planet, Gaia. BTW, even EPA, under a Democratic administration, admited that DDT is not very harmful to people or the ecosystem).

  248. Ian S
    Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 10:07 PM | Permalink

    Someone seems to be uploading parts of the “Swindle” documentary to youtube, so far there only seem to be the first to pieces but hopefully more will come later. I’m sure it will end up there eventually 😉 The pieces are unfortunately very short — http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=onebush333

  249. Posted Mar 8, 2007 at 10:42 PM | Permalink

    re 222 and 241

    My comment is still in “moderation” and comments dated after mine have been posted.

    “Robert Burns Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    March 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
    Good luck on the new venture. I hope you are really going to be open to many viewpoints.

    But I couldn’t help noticing the following:

    Mark Meisner said he disagreed with giving “deniers” equal access. He also said “…fossil-fuel-industry-supported misinformation and misdiredction…” You made no comment.

    Varsco said “…the usual suspects digging their heels in the sand…” You made no comment.

    Tim Clear said “…even the most simple among us…”. You wrote “…try to maintain civility…” Are you sure your site will be a level playing field?

    And it would be nice to add other view points to your list of web resources, as suggested By Hans Erren.”

  250. bruce
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 12:09 AM | Permalink

    Re #246: Steven Milloy makes a more than valid point about Gore’s blatant hypocrisy. In closing he says:

    But it’s the carbon offset purchases through which Gore really validates application of the $300-man epithet to him. His company buys the offsets for their employees. There’s no cost to him. He benefits politically ‘€” and perhaps financially, as well ‘€” from them. He then advocates that the rest of us who cannot so easily offset are carbon production suffer myriad personal sacrifices.

    While Gore relaxes in his posh pool house and heated pool, you should be taking shorter and colder showers, and hanging your laundry outside to dry. As Gore jets around the world in first-class comfort to hob-nob with society’s elites about his self-declared “moral imperative”, you should travel less and bike to work. You should use less electricity while Al and his wife, Tipper, use 20 times the national average. Now that’s a real carbon offset.

    “Are you ready to change the way you live?” Gore literally meant you ‘€” and only you.

    Jetting around the world in first class comfort! I have had a look at the seat maps for British Airways and United Airlines. In a BA 777 first class contains 14 seats, and the same length of fuselage in economy contains 81 seats. In a United Airlines first class contains 14 seats and the same length of fuselage in economy contains 90 seats. The first class section in a 747 is in the nose cabin which narrows to the front, so the 777 ratio is probably the better number. If we take that ratio, then when he flies, our Al is using 5.8 times (81 divided by 14) times as much fuel, and emitting 5.8 times as much CO2 as us plebs who are sitting down the back.

    “Do as I say, not as I do”. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

  251. Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 12:51 AM | Permalink

    Hmmm, maybe there should be warning stickers on private jets, so the buyers would be informed of the dangers of GW. Kind of Al Sticker.

  252. absolutely
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 3:46 AM | Permalink

    SWindle available via BitTorrent:

  253. T J Olson
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 4:10 AM | Permalink

    Perhaps Peter Lloyd (#244), MarkR, or other viewers can best evaluate this blog post on the (UK) Channel 4 documentary, “The great Global Warming Swindle,” by euroreferendum, who contrasts it with contemporary post-Kyoto puritan planning by European Council:

    “‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’… [is] the most effective popular debunking of the Global Warming Scam I have ever seen.

    “What came over with crystal clarity from the programme was the fragility of the science supporting the global warming thesis, and the strength of the science supporting the arguments that the primary driver of climate change was the sun.”

    I look forward to the NPR debate next week. Sounds like fun!

  254. Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 5:25 AM | Permalink

    Re 244: ‘the solid data of the solar cycle’

    I think I saw the solar activity graph cut off at 1980. Let’s hope that science will prevail in this argument, not the habit of using dodgy or incomplete data.


  255. Stan Palmer
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 6:25 AM | Permalink

    In the several issues of TLS (Times Literary Supplement of January, February and March), there has been a running debate in the letters page over the philosophy and sociology of science between Steven Weinberg on one side and a group of academic philosophers, historians and sociologists. This debate is pertinent to this blog because it illustrate the dangers of even a truly great mind making broad statements in an area outside of its filed of expertise. Weinberg is one of the greatest living physicists and perhaps one of teh greatest of all times. He wrote a review on Richard Dawkins latest book The God Delusion in which he made statements about the philosophy and sociology of science among other things

    In essence, Weinberg attempted to define just what science is and why people practice it. This was in response of a review of Dawkins book in which a professor observed that ‘for Dawkins to write on theology is akin to someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is “The Book of British Birds”‘ Weinberg in response to this made several statements that indicated that to him science is strictly realistic, reductionist and is controlled by procedures within itself. This is a brave statement since it flies in he face of over a 100 years of research on the philosophy and sociology of science by thinkers such as Kuhn, Feyerabend and even Wittgenstein. This led to one commented to observe that there the Book of British Birds contains more authentic knowledge than Weinberg’s sociology.

    In watching this debate which revealed the shallow knowledge in this field of one of the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century, I was reminded of the observations on mathematics and statistics on this board. A distinguished scientific career (and in Weinberg’s case, an historically great one) does not provide universal knowledge. Strict auditing of the results of even the greatest scientists in the world is required especially if they are making statements outside of their direct area of expertise.

  256. Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 6:36 AM | Permalink

    Apologies if this has already been mentioned-as with Welikerocks (5)- but the UK’s TV station Cannel 4, has just screened (4 March)a remarkable debunking of the whole carbon forced Global Warming agenda. It included contributions from many notable scientists and former Green campaigners. I believe Ross McKitrick also assisted in its making. Although followers of CA would have heard little new, I would say it is the best TV critique of the general consensus I have seen. Further information is available at Channel4.com/science.

    It was revealed that UK’s former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, embraced the idea of carbon forced Global Warming as a means of justifying a move away from coal power electricity generation and into nuclear. The British State had a history of confrontation with the coal mining unions and after major disputes in the 1970’s and 1980’s the Government decided to wipe out the miners once and for all; fear of man-made Global Warming suited her purpose exactly. Mrs. Thatcher gave the UK Met Office its first major grant to investigate “… carbon forced Global Warming” and so justify the new more diverse Energy policy and the reduced role for the Coal Industry. The Met Office has not looked back since.

    The rest, as they say, is history.

  257. bernie
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 7:10 AM | Permalink

    We’ve moved on I know, but I am still interested in the CO2, temperature and Stomata causal linkage. I see
    the asssertion of the correlation, but what is the causal flow. Surely the botanists have a model linking
    CO2 uptake, CO2 concentration, precipitation and temperature?

  258. Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 7:35 AM | Permalink

    ..or maybe warning stickers on some publications

    As in here or here . Dont take too seriously, and have a nice weekend!

  259. fFreddy
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 7:38 AM | Permalink

    Re #254, T J Olson

    I look forward to the NPR debate next week. Sounds like fun!

    Agreed. Don’t forget also that President Và¡clav Klaus is giving a talk this afternoon on :
    Facing a Challenge of the Current Era: Environmentalism (with a live web feed)
    Given his recent comments rubbishing the alarmists, one suspects that this talk might be rather fun as well.

  260. fFreddy
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 7:57 AM | Permalink

    Re #257, Martin J

    The British State had a history of confrontation with the coal mining unions and after major disputes in the 1970’s and 1980’s the Government decided to wipe out the miners once and for all

    Well, I remember the 1970s, with power cuts, three-day weeks, “who runs the country” and all that. So I would rather phrase this as :
    The British coal miners’ union had a history of exploiting their monopoly position to the enormous detriment of the rest of the country. In the 1970’s, successive governments failed to rein them in. In the 1980’s, the government succeeded, to the enormous benefit of the rest of the country.

  261. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 9:36 AM | Permalink

    an update from climatepolicy.org, still awaiting moderation, though.

    Hans Erren Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    March 5th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
    [Response: Without the CO2 feedback we can’t explain the changes in climate evident in the paleo record. This is widely underderstood and non-controversial. -phiggins]

    Can you please give some peer reviewed references for this claim?

    [Response: A good one is IPCC’s Third Assessment Report from Working group one: See Chapter 1, section 2 and the energy balance figure it contains. The whole chapter provides a great overview. -phiggins]

    Shaviv finds empirical evidence for a low CO2 climate sensitivity.

    [Response: We are drifting away from the topic of the post. I will likely respond to futher comments such as these off-line. -phiggins]

    This is hilarious, I give a counter example that with just a small CO2 feedback Shaviv can “explain the changes in climate evident in the paleo record.” Which makes the claim that “This is widely underderstood and non-controversial.” simply handwaving.
    Then I am “Drifting away from the topic of the post”? Sure.

    My conclusion: climatepolicy is a reaction to sciencepolicy.colorado.edu like realclimate was a reaction to climateaudit.

  262. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

    262. except that climateaudit was a reaction to realclimate, which started first and spent much of its initial energy slagging M&M.

  263. Ron Cram
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

    I posted a question on the forum over at EdGCM: Climate Modeling for Research and Education run by Columbia. If anyone can enlighten me on this issue, I would greatly appreciate it. The question is here.

  264. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 10:01 AM | Permalink

    re 263:
    I meant opponent

  265. Jeff Norman
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 10:38 AM | Permalink


    “Hmmm, a new blog that so far appears to be VERY similar to RealClimate.”


    I think in retrospect we will find RealClimate to be open minded in comparison to ClimatePolicy. Here is my only contribution:

    Jeff Norman Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    March 9th, 2007 at 11:14 am

    “any reasoned benefit-cost analysis of climate change would call for action now to limit greenhouse gas emissions”

    Is this an example of the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy?

    Does this “benefit-cost” analysis include adaptation?

    I find it interesting that the author elected to emphasize the benefit side of what is normally termed a “cost-benefit” analysis.

    Have fun with your project.

  266. Ian S
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 11:17 AM | Permalink

    #253 absolutely

    Thanks for the torrent link. There was only one seed when I started so I theorize that might have been you? For those of you not yet into torrents, I recommend utorrent — http://www.utorrent.com/download.php as a really excellent torrent client.

  267. jae
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 11:17 AM | Permalink

    255: The science is prevailing. See here and here. And even the correlations between temperature and sun spot cycle length may hold, when McIntyre and Hughes get the temperature record straightened out. I am certain that there is a large “UHI” bias in the so-called global average temperature record.

  268. John A
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 11:17 AM | Permalink

    Re: #263 Actually RealClimate shows the feedback principle rather well of showing up before the ClimateAudit cause.

  269. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

    #269. Well put.

  270. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 12:29 PM | Permalink

    re: 261/fFreddy

    Right. I remember that period as well. The real problem was that the miners’ union was exploiting the miners – it had never done its real job of looking to the future over miners’ interests at a time when imported coal was becoming cheaper and cheaper and it was inevitable that only the most efficient pits were going to be able to survive with huge investment in new automation technology. Instead of fighting for new industries in the mining areas and for retraining schemes for miners, the unions were interfering in foreign policy and playing power politics over “beer and sandwiches” at No.10.

    The miners suffered at the end of the day by being royally reamed by both Government and unions. Maggie Thatcher was good at breaking up an impossible situation, but gave no thought of what to put in its place, so she finished by dividing the country as never since the religious wars.

    Sorry to get so far off track, but that whole period makes me boil – but never expected it to be the source of the equally divisive Climate War!

  271. Mark T.
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

    Re: #263 Actually RealClimate shows the feedback principle rather well of showing up before the ClimateAudit cause.

    We’ll rely on Gavin to explain that one. 🙂


  272. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 1:15 PM | Permalink

    RE: #227 – Jim you nailed it. It’s the incremental energy dissipation that made them need AC.

  273. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 2:20 PM | Permalink

    RE: #258

    Higher CO2 = fewer stomata, at least for some types of plants. Fewer stomata can also mean more efficient use of water by the plant as water is lost through the stomata. I’m not familiar with any linkage between stomata frequency and temperature.

  274. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

    Looks like the current July 1 – June 30 precipitation season, given the fact we get most of our precip between Oct and May, is going to go down as an official drought year for most of California. Very, very La Nina-esque (the dry version). Also, in the past, time of PDO transition have tended to have more droughts of the short, sharp, very severe type here. I am a bit worried.

  275. T J Olson
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 3:07 PM | Permalink

    I’ve followed Hans Erren’s reports here of his posting adventures at climatepolicy with great interest. Today he concludes (#262) “climatepolicy is a[n opponent] to sciencepolicy.colorado.edu like realclimate” is an opponent of climateaudit.

    Thank you for explaining why I rarely go there: there is no engaged debate ‘€” only posturing, window-dressing, and the usual HT and ACW recitation of pieties. It’s more PR than intellectual stimulation. In short, little to no critical value there.

    My next question is: “American Meteorolgical Society” sponsorship? Is this just a passive platforming? Or a more substantive endorsement of the site?

    Furthermore, why should Pielke, Jr, (sciencepolicy.colorado.edu) need opposition? Is this telling us something about the decline of critical thinking in Big Science? And the perceived (political?) need for scientific conformity?

  276. T J Olson
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 3:20 PM | Permalink

    Anti-“denialist” reaction to the broadcast of the British documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is glossed here.

    Weak, if this report is accurate.

  277. Ian S
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 4:21 PM | Permalink

    The documentary was very good and I highly recommend it (download the torrent in #253). I think it would be difficult for any open minded person that believed in global warming to watch the documentary and not come away with some new found doubt about AGW.

  278. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

    Review of Durkin from The Independent:


  279. Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 4:33 PM | Permalink

    Oops! I did not mean to upset anyone and now have to agree that introducing politics into the Channel 4 programme, and my own mentioning of Mrs.T and the miners, was possibly “a tactical mistake”. (Ref: Peter #247, Mark R #244). Sticking to the science and and not entering the emotional world of Politics only distracts the debate.

    However… having worked for the old National Coal Board for a couple of weeks before realising that hacking away at a coalface, a few thousand feet under the ground, wasn’t the life for me, I do have a little sympathy for the miners. Miners will tell you that they were in confrontation not just with Mrs.T’s Government, but with UK Governments during the First World War-the 1920’s, 1930’s 1940’s, 1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s. Mrs.T was just one of many PM’s who they had disagreements with. Historically, as with mineworkers in many countries, miners’ working conditions had a lot to be desired. If they were in disputes with Governments, the reasons were usually justifiable. I did understand Mrs.T’s position vis-a-vis the miners in the 1980’s; the miners’ leadership (Arthur Scargill) was particurlarly naive at the time and her stance had to be taken. But it could have been done much better; there would have been less of the bitterness that remains to this day. After the Strike ended, I know of managers of profitable pits, who were given political instructions “…to close the pit as quick as possible…”. Not a policy to endear one to the miners. Some very unpleasant incidents occured during the Strike, often not reported. They did not reflect well on either party. Mrs.T, for all her good qualities, could have behaved better.

    I apologise to all non-UK CA readers who probably haven’t understood a word of what I have been ranting on about. It’s an aspect of UK political history which still manages to get us boring Brits animated.

    Politics shouldn’t be a part of the debate but unfortunately it is, hence Al Gore’s intrusion. However, I would suggest the real unpalatable politics of the GW debate is what is happening to the Science curriculum in our schools, certainly UK schools. They are being brainwshed into accepting the present orthodoxy. Is this happening in other countries?

  280. bernie
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 4:59 PM | Permalink

    So bottom line should fossilized stomata be used as proxies for CO2 or temperature?

  281. Klaus Brakebusch
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 5:51 PM | Permalink

    r: 65 Hans

    thanks again, I looked on GHCN re Central England, no chance, most ‘rural’
    stations ended somewhere between ’60 and ’70.
    As next I gone back to Hadley’s Data’s. Found 8 stations, but none I would
    consider ‘rural’. At the moment I’m stucked.
    And I simply only would like to compare rural to urban stations in central
    England. No way.

    Do you have suggestions?



  282. John Lang
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 7:09 PM | Permalink

    The documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is very powerful. Steve and Ross are in the credits. When this gets into greater circulation, the scam/swindle will be over.

  283. David Smith
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 9:41 PM | Permalink

    Here’s a positive article from NASA on Polar albedo which you’ll never see on BBC, CBC, NBC or in the New York Times.

    The scientists found that the loss of reflective Arctic ice in summer was offset by the gain of reflective Arctic cloudiness. They essentially canceled each other, albedo-wise, in the test period.

    There were similar results in the Antarctic.

    The test period was short (2000-2004), so it’s not possible to make definmitive conclusions, but it’s encouraging.

    Those darn clouds, mucking up the models.

  284. Ian S
    Posted Mar 9, 2007 at 10:53 PM | Permalink

    I was looking around for reaction to “Swindle” and stopped over at realclimate.org and indeed they do have a reaction (my goodness is a place ever repugnant, their arrogance is almost overpowering — I had not been there in a while). They were “disappointed” sarcastically claiming they were expecting more than the rehashing of old arguments ( however I suppose “An inconvenient truth was completely original”). Then I glanced down at the next article dismissing a paper by Henrik Svensmark. Lo and behold they express their faux disappointed again (ooo ahhh a cloud chamber what else do you have …)! My goodness. I started to get visions of the Miranda Priestly in “The devil wears Prada”. I have to say they have become truly excellent at conveying a snobby tone of superiority — wow. Throughout the site they seem to emphasize strongly how nothing is of value unless it’s peer-reviewed ( unless of course it’s pro-global warming article) and then when it is peer-reviewed, well … peer-review is not perfect (ah ya guys, believe us, we know 😉 ). Sorry, their arrogance got to me. Felt the need to rant.

  285. bruce
    Posted Mar 10, 2007 at 1:30 AM | Permalink

    Re #285:

    Throughout the site they seem to emphasize strongly how nothing is of value unless it’s peer-reviewed

    But of course failing to disclose that the supposed ‘peer reviewers’ are co-authors and mates who have got the same religion.

    These guys seem to think that it is OK to ‘peer review’ each other’s papers even though there is a complete lack of independence or even adherence to sound scientific practice of disclosure of data and methods, insistence on high quality in vital peripheral areas such as software programming, statistics and the like. That this is so has now been convincingly demonstrated by the work done at this site, Climate Science, the NAS Panel, and the Wegman contributions.

  286. John A
    Posted Mar 10, 2007 at 3:56 AM | Permalink

    I have to save this from the RealClimate filter just in case:

    Temperature leads CO2 by 800 years in the ice cores. Not quite as true as they said, but basically correct; however they misinterpret it. The way they said this you would have thought that T and CO2 are anti-correlated; but if you overlay the full 400/800 kyr of ice core record, you can’t even see the lag because its so small. The correct interpretation of this is well known: that there is a T-CO2 feedback: see RC again for more.

    Where is the misinterpretation? If T rise precedes CO2 rise by eight centuries then CO2 cannot be forcing T rise. There is no “anti-correlation”, its a delayed response.

    Unless of course you’re claiming that positive feedback implies going backwards in time, in which case all bets are off.

    Carbon dioxide rise appears to be a delayed response to temperature rise. The fact that the current T rise is happening during a CO2 rise implies nothing at all, because its almost certainly a spurious correlation that does not imply causation.

    Also in the ice core record, carbon dioxide continues to rise AFTER temperatures begins to fall, so no feedback is event there either.

  287. Consense
    Posted Mar 10, 2007 at 4:24 AM | Permalink

    Here are the charts from the documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle”:

    Temp – 10,000 years
    Temp & CO2
    World Temp – 120 years
    Temp & Solar Activity 100 years
    Temp & Solar Activity 400 years
    Temp & Cosmic Rays 500 Million years
    Sun & Temp – 20th Century

  288. Andrey Levin
    Posted Mar 10, 2007 at 4:25 AM | Permalink

    Re: 258

    Simply put, stomata is tiny hole in leaf/needle to adsorb CO2 from atmosphere for photosynthesis. See “stomata” at Wikipedia.

    When CO2 concentration in the air is higher, plants need less and/or smaller stomatal openings. Some plants demonstrate remarkably stable correlation, allowing to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the past.

    Inevitably, smaller and/or less stomatal density leads to less water loss through evaporation, significantly increasing water use efficiency of plants.

    For more details take a look at:


    and look for “Stomatal conductance”

  289. fFreddy
    Posted Mar 10, 2007 at 4:43 AM | Permalink

    Dumb question : if you put a plant in a high-CO2 envoironment (like an artificially forced greenhouse), do its stomata close up and get reabsorbed into the leaf surace ? Or is this an evolutionary effect that only takes place over several generations ?

  290. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 10, 2007 at 5:18 AM | Permalink

    re 287:

    John, although CO2 is lagging in the icecores to temperature (due to the sodaboiling effect), this doesn’t imply that Co2 doesn’t warm, as Shaviv has shown the warming of CO2 is 1.3 K/2xCO2. In the following graph this is calcultated (Shaviv value is magenta line.

    What follows is that the outgassing effect is stronger than the forcing, which is logic because that prevented a runaway outgassing.

  291. Ian S
    Posted Mar 10, 2007 at 5:58 AM | Permalink


    However because of the 800 year lag, there are times when CO2 is rising and temperature is falling and vice versa (for 800 years!) How powerful could the effect of CO2 possible be given this? Temperature driving CO2 must be a more powerful cause and effect then the other way around or else we should almost never have CO2 rising and temperature falling – no?

  292. John A
    Posted Mar 10, 2007 at 6:26 AM | Permalink

    Re #290

    although CO2 is lagging in the icecores to temperature (due to the sodaboiling effect), this doesn’t imply that Co2 doesn’t warm, as Shaviv has shown the warming of CO2 is 1.3 K/2xCO2

    I’m sorry Hans but that makes no sense at all.

    If the ice cores show CO2 rise as a delayed reaction to T rise (and they do every time) and never show T rise as a result of CO2 rise, it means that the real sensitivity of T to CO2 is minute.

    Furthermore, since the theoretic T response to CO2 concentration is logarithmic, then there is no single value for what CO2 doubling is supposed to produce. If CO2 was a lot lower in the past, then the response of T to CO2 rise should be apparent in the ice cores – but that isn’t what happens.

    So the Greenhouse Hypothesis has two problems: a lack of any feedback (since CO2 can continue to rise well after T has already begun to fall and a false physical response that is supposedly imputed to CO2 doubling.

One Trackback

  1. By Things I don't understand on Mar 2, 2007 at 4:54 PM

    Al Gore is a Greenhouse Gasbag…

    I don’t really want to focus too much on global warming, greenhouse gases and eco-Apocalypse on this blog, because there’s more out there to talk about. For those fascinated by the debate, there’s Climate Audit which does a much bette…

%d bloggers like this: