New research by German and Russian scientists indicates that summer temperatures in the Arctic actually fell for much of the later 20th century, plunging to the levels seen at the beginning of the industrial revolution. The new results are said by their authors to indicate that solar activity exerted a powerful influence over …
That sounds like better science...
The thing that came out of climategate was that they were using different means of measurement to create the hockeystick graph and estimate historical temperature values which was always going to be a fail. The only thing that could ever have much credibility is to use the same measurement for every part of the graph: that way at least the errors are consistent... Its scarcely a suprise that solar input is a predominant factor in global temperature unless you're the more manic type of greenie.
So now we need some more historical measures other than tree rings, based on a lot more data, using consistent means right down the date range and preferably presented by real scientists who don't want to massage the data to meet their theories, because I don't know that only one measure is really incontrovertible: we'll soon be getting back to East Anglia's two trees if we're not careful...
After all if the temperature really is rising enough to cause environmental catastrophe then it doesn't matter whether its artificial or natural does it? We need to reuce it by the most effective method either way.
As far as I understand it
The thing that came out of 'Climategate' was that a number of scientists who were working very hard were being continually harrassed by a small number of 'deniers', most probably lobbyists for those for whom decreased CO2 emissions would be a bad thing. As a result of the continuous pressure, they cracked and in a small number of cases acted inappropriately as a result. This doesn't undermine the good science that they were doing, and as a result, they are now releaing the raw data that has been used to produce their conclusions. In all likelihood, these data will now be selectively quoted and twisted through bad satatistical analysis to'prove' things that they do not show.
As to your point about different means of measurement - the 'hockey stick' is well supported by a broad range of measurements, from direct temperature measurements in more recent times, through various rpoxies such as ice core and tree ring measurements. The thing that you have to remember is that ALL of these measurements are proxies for local temperature, not global temperature, and selectively picking any data set is always going to be flawed because of that. If, however, you take the average of all of these data sets, weighted by the confidence (i.e. fossil data that has a low accuracy is weighted less than direct temperature measurement), you do get a rise.
A final point - if temperature is increasing as a result of rising CO2 levels (which it almost certainly is), that is not our only problem. The CO2 levels themselves cause rpoblems such as ocean acidification and warming. This is already leading to problems such as coral bleaching. Measures that simply reduce the global temperature such as releasing aerosols into the upper atmosphere may buy us a temporary reprieve from rising temperatures but will do nothing to mitigate the other problems associated with raising global CO2 levels.
@ Loyal Commenter
But it does
> if the temperature really is rising enough to cause environmental catastrophe then it doesn't matter whether its artificial or natural does it?
Indeed it does. If it's because something we do it might be a good idea to stop doing that pretty quick. If it's a combination of something we do and something the [sun|planet|ocean|stars] does we might not be able to influence the outcome very much but we'll sure as hell be able to sink a lot of money into trying instead of using it to mitigate the effects, like moving the few hundred thousand islanders somewhere else. So it's quite important why it's happening, and how much is actually going to happen when. Also, the longer the time we have before the situation will turn pearshaped the cheaper methods we can use for mitigation. If the flood is coming tomorrow it would be a really good idea to pay the shipbuilders overtime at whatever rate they demand to get ready. If it's in 10 years, they can work on our ark on their spare time when they've got nothing better to do.
And there's the rub. This might be an imminent problem, or it might be really long term (several generations) - the simulations are simply not good enough to tell yet. The hard greeners want us to drop everything and do it NOWNOWNOW which might not be a good idea as we still have a few other issues to handle (clean water, education and nourishing food for everyone frex.) and the fossil[e|ized] lobby wants us to do nothing as it is bound to cost them a bundle. I'm just happy I'm not the one in charge of deciding...
"A final point - if temperature is increasing as a result of rising CO2 levels (which it almost certainly is"
Really? certainly doesnt leave much room for doubt....thats very intresting tho considering that CO2 rises as a result of higher temperatures, or to put it another way, temp rises several hundred years before the CO2 does, which makes sence since the largest CO2 scrubber on the planet operates with less efficiency at high temperatures but hey, obviously anyone who says anything against man made climate change must be loonies because "everyone" knows the world only heats up because of us and everyone knows that no other external factor can have anythnig to do with it...
"global warming" is and was total BS
"The thing that came out of 'Climategate' was that a number of scientists who were working very hard were being continually harrassed by a small number of 'deniers', most probably lobbyists for those for whom decreased CO2 emissions would be a bad thing."
And those so called "scientists" were very well paid for their propaganda.
They still are and EU is giving five _billions_ to these snake oil peddlers.
Tell me, why?
Obviously they don't have anything which can stand a scientific analysis and it's about PR and politics, not science.
"Weather model" where every assumption in it is taken from the hat, is worth zero. Especially it now fails to predict even _current weather_ and dismisses totally the only real source of heat: The Sun. And the fact that _every planet on Solar system_ has become warmer. _All of them_.
Who is the idiot who believes that Earth is warmed by CO2 and _all the others_ by Sun? How much does he get paid to believe that? Priests come to my mind first.
You know, even a firm believer has to believe when predictions are more and more wrong every year. Doesn't apply to fanatics, though. They are people who believe in "global warming" when we are deep in ice age. And that's next.
Climatology priests preaching to skeptics
"A final point - if temperature is increasing as a result of rising CO2 levels (which it almost certainly is), that is not our only problem."
You mean we are in trouble because it's spring. That's what is the exxence of what you are saying, of course without understanding it.
It has nothing to with CO2 (but everything to do with the Sun) and there's no whatsoever proof for that. CO2 was at same level as now _on ice age_. But of course even that is incomprehensible to a priest, he gets paid to believe what he preaches.
"As to your point about different means of measurement - the 'hockey stick' is well supported by a broad range of measurements, "
Yes, measurements from 10 years and extrapolated to 100 years. Even less accurate than taking a measurement of a week in spring and forecasting the weather for whole year from that weeks sample. To me it 's obvious bullshit and it should be that to everyone: We _do know_ that climate has _70 years_ cycle: Tell me, mr. Climatologist: How your predictions include that?
And if you don't know, I do: They don't. At all. Perfect analogy of predicting forever rising temperatures based on one week sample in May. Lo and behold, during this week temperature _has risen_, wohoo, Armageddon in just an year ahead.
Extremely bad science, if science at all. More like a religion.
"if", yes. It makes the pigs fly, too.
"After all if the temperature really is rising enough to cause environmental catastrophe then it doesn't matter whether its artificial or natural does it? "
There's no reason to believe it would. Not more than it did in 1950s. Everything else is guessing and not only that, but politically influenced guessing to raise taxes, specifially.
"We need to reuce it by the most effective method either way."
Except that the whole assumption of continuous rise is wrong (like "the price of the houses only go up"), as wrong it would be to predict something like that in spring and summer: Eventually the heating turns to cooling and autumn begins. Exactly the same way _it did_ in 1950-1980.
Climatologists have no explanation to that so they convinienty ignore it. That's very bad science, right there: Ignoring measurements because they don't fit in your theory is sure sign as hell that's something smells, bad.
Assuming something unique is happening while ignoring totally all the data before 1980 is clearly stupid to me and has only political and economical motives: You get paid to agree with everybody else and government laughs all the way to bank.
Excuse my impertinence, but those 3 paragraphs are a complete load of twaddle.
The first paragraph is a load of twaddle because you're effectively saying that scientists, who's job it is to be sceptical and to criticise each other's work, had a "crisis!" and broke the law in response to a few FOI requests and some criticism (justified), which only arrived because they had previously withheld data and methods and made dubious claims based on even more dubious statistical sleights of hand, coupled with badly collected and managed data. Well, AMAZING!
Your second paragraph is a load of twaddle because the "hockey stick" is not well supported by any measurements whatsoever. Or rather I should say, the "hockey stick" is not notable or in any way particularly unusual, and is well within the range of natural variation (and of course is reproducible by simply putting rubbish into the algorithm - i.e. red noise).
Your third paragraph is twaddle because temperature is not increasing as a result of rising CO2 levels. If this theory was correct, we wouldn't have static or falling current temperatures, we would have a mid-tropospheric "hot spot" signal (missing) and previous temperatures would be lead by CO2, rather than it trailing them, as it demonstrably does from looking at ice core data.
In conclusion, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
Do you work for the Climatic Research Unit?
Re:As far as I understand it
but wasn't part of the issue that when data was "recalculated" or "normalised" or "frigged" that the original data was deleted and the revised data replaced it?
Temperatures aren't static or currently falling. The longterm trend, as expected, is rising.
There should be a mid-tropospheric hotspot, in the tropics but it's not clear whether measurements or models are wrong. Noone expects co2 to lead rather than follow temperature in ice cores. Both are compatible with warming from rising co2.
Succinctly put Sir, I owe you one.
Re. Temperatures aren't
Now that may have something to do with the warm period we are experiencing following the last ice age. I belive that the science shows that it has been warming for 2000 years +/- .
"working very hard were being continually harrassed by a small number of 'deniers', most probably lobbyists for those for whom decreased CO2 emissions would be a bad thing"
As soon as anyone asks for a bit of proof they get branded as oil lobbyists. Please. That's a pretty lame way of doing "science". Most of the very active "deniers" are just scientists that recalculate and audit the statistical models and point out glaring holes. They do this because they don't want science to be so badly abused.
It was my understanding that even the AGW brigade have dropped the Hockey stick because it is so broken.
"probed by specialist ring boffins"
Paris, she knows a thing or two about specialists.
And an opposing piece of research will be published in two weeks time followed closely by an opposing-opposing piece of research.
It sure beats doing anything, and it sure beats squashing research to fake a consensus.
Hurrah! So a single scientific report derails years of research which, for most scientists who appear to know anything on the subject, has amply demonstrated anthropogenic climate change.
(Shakes head in despair.)
"(Shakes head in despair.)"
Sakes head due to dogmatic acceptance of the status quo more like.
Just because it's a single piece of research doesn't give you or anyone else grounds to dismiss it out of hand.
But that's not how you climate fundies think is it,
You people prefer the fingers in ears, LA LA LA method of scientific analysis.
The fact that you've been downvoted 3 to 1
Gives me cause for despair.
Two things to point out:
1) Localised effects cannot be extrapolated to global conclusions. Because it is sandy in the sahara doesn't mean that we should be watching out for sandworms.
2) It is already known that variation in solar activity leads to a variation in wind patterns at high altitudes. This results in the jetstreams that normally travel at pretty much exactly the same latitudes as the Kola Peninsular to change their course. This is exactly what caused our recent cold winter in Northern Europe, and what caused our airspace to be closed when that Icelandic volcano the name of which nobody can pronounce started producing clouds of ash which would otherwise have travelled to the West, rather than South. Variation in this winds could quite conceivable explain away these results, or indeed not - the point being that it is a more plausible explanation than putting your fingers in your ears and going 'la-la-la global warming is a lie'.
Disclaimer - I am not some sort of global warming conspirator. I am, however lucky to have a pretty good scientific education, in both chemistry and physics and am more inclined to believe the conclusions put forward by sound, well understood science, rather than disinformation and FUD.
Re: Science? Us?
Perhaps it isn't a single report. If you weren't so quick to fire off your [dis]missive you perhaps might have gotten to the following.
"... reference other Arctic temperature studies, all of which show a 20th-century temperature peak followed by major falls of one to two degrees - in one case with the peak occurring as late as 1990."
The question remaining is to the locale of those studies and how that might shed light on the evolution of global climate patterns. Not that you'd be interested as it could prove a distraction from your anthroclimorphic ministry. Genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.
"......that it is a more plausible explanation than putting your fingers in your ears and going 'la-la-la global warming is a lie'."
For someone versed in science you seem at ease with taking my words out of context, if not deliberately misquoting me.
Where have you ever seen me say that climate change is a lie?
I believe that global warming is real and that humans are partially responsible.
However, I find there is no credible evidence that it will be in any way as severe as current released evidence states.
I have seen no evidence that it will continue as predicted, only computer models. hmmm.
I totally reject speculations that the climate will spiral out of control and result in some sort of Venusian "hell". This has no more scientific credibility that the Daily Mail columnists running around flapping their arms and screaming "won't somebody please think of the children"
I am skeptical because not only am I being lied to but I am also being treated like an idiot.
I guess i would have been burned at the stake as a geocentric skeptic a few hundred years ago.
i think you might want to check which people disagree with man made climate change or at least disagree with the extent of your claims, think you will find that there are several dozen studies by some of the most brillient Climatologists who do not support the idea that we are warming up the planet on our own and its all down to CO2
Re Science? Us?
All we know for sure is that the level of CO2 is rising, It's something that is easily measured, and is uncontroversial. Something you can't say about global temperatures.
Yes, it is a greenhouse gas, but it's still only 0.0387% of the atmosphere. And I'm not convinced that it is having a serious effect on the climate. There are other probably more significant factors that affect it.
Don't get me wrong. I do think we should switch from fossil fuels, but that means nuclear. Fission now and fusion later. Wind power won't be enough, and I don't want to see power shortages in the next 10 years. .
Erm, in science that's all it needs...
One thing that rips a prevailing view to shreds.
So called scientists who defy thermodynamics
"2) It is already known that variation in solar activity leads to a variation in wind patterns at high altitudes. "
But _every climatologist_ vehemently denies that solar output increase of 2% _could possibly heat Earth like every other object in Solar system_.
Essentially they are denying thermodynamic principles offhand because it doesn't fit into their beliefs, essentially paid preachers. That's about as low anyone who calls himself "scientist" can go.
Do you want bet? On the other side is closed system in vacuum and heating power is increased by 2% and on the other side are climatologists (which use excatly same rhertoric as creationists, not a coincidence). Which is right, thermodynamic rules or climatologists?
Both can't be right and I wouldn't bet a nickel for the climatologists, denial of truth is furiously happening everywhere, as we speak. Pay first, truth then: Climatologists are going _to collect that 5 billion EU promised them_, no matter what.
Snake oil peddling is very profiting job, no science involved.
Machiavellism in its best.
"I believe that global warming is real and that humans are partially responsible."
And you got 5 billion euros worth of reasons to believe it. Not bad, I'd believe anything if got paid 10 grand in a month to believe it. And obviously, do you too.
I don't "believe" anything for free and as climatologists have been extremely secretive about their raw data, which is the first step of making real science, I'd say they are bunch of thieves.
They _know_ that the raw data don't support the explanations they give, so the have to hide the raw data. Also they _have to_ give doomsday scenarios to get paid by the government, which then uses these scenarios to add a huge amount of taxes to the poor.
Theft in grand scale, _nothing else_. Machiavellism in its best.
And who is surprised? I'm not.
"But _every climatologist_ vehemently denies that solar output increase of 2% _could possibly heat Earth like every other object in Solar system_."
Climatologists think a 2% increase in solar output would have the same effect as doubling co2,, so you are completely wrong.
You need statistics and applied maths
While you might have an excellent education in chemistry and physics, these only take you so far in the AGW arena.
AGW research is pretty much all based on mathematical models. The most important background for creating and understanding these models is a very good understanding of statistics etc so that you can understand the integrity of the models.
But seeing you claim (through your unwavering faith) that the models are based on sound physics, I have a question for you. Where's the latent heat in these models? Warming is about adding heat, not about changing temperature. Temperature is only a secondary effect.
The UEA models go on and on about temperature. Since they are not modeling heat they need little "tweak factors" to keep their models from falling over. That results in a fragile model that is useless for making predictions.
> So a single scientific report derails years of research
What, you mean like Mann supposedly refuting the Medieval Warm Period because of a single paper?
but again, an example of elreg's confirmation bias, where only articles that throw doubt on global warming get any articles.
elreg's confirmation bias
One of the reasons I like El Reg is that they do get authors that are biased. But the authors here are rather obviously biased and for most subjects they have a set of authors with conflicting biases. The result is that we get to hear most of the sides to any story, instead of just the side that the company is pushing their journalists to write.
I'm sure you've noticed that there are a lot of stories exhalting Macs and a lot of them flaming Macs. The same goes for Microsoft, Linux and global warming stories here. The competition between the journalists here is a good thing.
Though the journalist that believes whole-heartedly in anthropogenic global warming does seem to be rather lax in his writings on the subject; either that or there's not much to write about. I don't follow the subject closely enough to tell either way.
To be fair...
You get two different types of article:
1. New report shows that there is no global warming.
2. New report shows that humans have nothing to do with the observed global warming.
So you get to a choice about which one to believe, although some people seem quite happy to contain both views at once...
I'm not sure why they bother, since the articles are always completely one-sided and the comments always descend into people ranting. Actually, the fact that I read and commented to this probably shows why they think it is a good idea to keep pumping them out.
Warming is normal at this phase of the cycle, like spring, you know?
"1. New report shows that there is no global warming."
Half-truth. You get new reports that this current warming is part of the longer cycle (about 70 years) which has been observed since 14th century, at least.
As such the warming is _totally normal_, at least as normal as spring. As normal as cold period in 1980's.
Except climatologists who _can't_ see because it ruins every argument they have in one stroke and thus their income. Show me anyone who is paid very well and speaks against his sole income? There aren't any and _that's_ the real reason why climatologists agree: They are paid to do so. No science involved, but money. EU gives 5 _billions_ to these bastards.
That's why climatologists have only 10 years worth of data, starting from the coldest year on 19th century:1980. Definitely not a coincidence and availability of "reliable data" is total bullshit, earlier data didn't fit in so it was conviently declared "unreliable". Very handy, wasn't it?
You choose the data the way you want and you can make any predictions you want out of it. And make a hefty sum of money as a byproduct.
What you described is what I wrote in (2).
This is another problem with the reg, people commenting without actually reading.
i think it's time to admit...
that nobody has an fucking clue about what really causes climate change.
don't get me wrong, i'm all for renewable energy and green technology, but I think it's time certain scientists stopped claiming to know the reasons for temperature fluctuations on this planet. it could be bloody anything. something nobody's even considered....er, the position of our star system in the galactic disc or something mental like that.
but we still need to stop burning fossil fuels coz they're dirty innit.
"but we is needing to stop burning fossil fuelz coz they is dirty innit"
Tell us something we dont know
CO2 driven "climate change" is nothing more than a tax scam, the only part missing is the pre amble by a Nigerian General with $30 million to share.
The planets climate has always varied and will continue to do so.
Because huge numbers of scientists across a very wide range of political, social and economic backgrounds all agree that arbitrarily higher taxes are a good thing.
Stop confusing the science with how politicians abuse it.
Interesting. A research paper is published showing data drawn from tree rings which is believed to indicate the summer temperatures over 400 years in one place: the Kola peninsula in NW Russia.
Lewis Page then assumes that the whole of the arctic region had the same summer temperatures as this one place in NW Russia.
He then starts assuming this casts doubt on other evidence about average global temperatures.
Temperature records relating to one place, are extrapolated to a much larger area, then to the whole globe. Marvellous.
........you only concentrate on the "one" area of the artic that is suffering from reduction and ignore the rest of the artic circle that is actually growing in size? tell me, whos the hypocrite?
What happened to global change, suddenly?
"Temperature records relating to one place, are extrapolated to a much larger area, then to the whole globe. Marvellous."
Temperature records from 10-20 years are extrapolated to 100 years, like climatologists do. Marvellous.
These people have 400 years of solid data and that's about 20 to 40 times more than so called climatologist have.
Tell me, wasn't this supposed to be a _global climate change_, meaning it changes _everywhere_?
Now you tell us it only changes somewhere but not in somewhere else? So it's not a global climate change but local climate change, then?
Already the cracks in explanations are showing and soon the whole belief system will crumble due the lack of evidence.
... if it wasn't for the fortunate solar influence, human industrial activity would have had a much greater effect on climate? And now the solar influence has worn off?
specialist ring boffins
That'd be Dale Winton and Graham Norton then...
Seriously though, it doesn't much matter whether global warming exists and is man-made. We should still be finding new technology to make our lives as power efficient and unpolluting as possible. I for one would much rather be able to go to visit family in Mexico City, for instance, and
* not have to take a shower just because I've been out in the street for 10 minutes
* not have to worry about smog that reduces visibility to less than 100m
* not have to worry about my kid having an asthmatic attack whenever the pollution gets too much
* be able to drive my car any day of the week
* etc., etc.
I'm a forum troll
One might think points 1 through 3 were caused by a bit too much of point 4.
You may be joking but you make a good point. With enviromentally friendly technology powering (and producing) our cars, point 4 won't affect points 1 to 3 so much.
Trust me, if I could cycle everywhere I would, but I don't think I've seen a cyclist in Mexico City for about 15 years for very good reason.
"as it appears to undermine the direct connection between human carbon emissions and global warming"
The equation "A+B=C" seems to have passed Lewis by. If B is larger than A, it will be harder to see the effects of A if you can only measure C. And if B goes negative, C could go down even if A goes up. If the Sun's intensity changes, of course the temperature is going to change. It doesn't invalidate every other effect in the system. Nor will it be unwelcome news to anyone with even the most marginal interest in learning the known facts.
I await Lewis's report in December: "Look everyone - climate change can't be happening, because it's cold outside today!"
All the doomsayer climatology starts with the article of faith that the output of the sun has no effect whatsoever on temperature. It continues that since CO2 is going up and temperatures are going up, the two must be connected. The reasoning is not unlike the Freepers claiming that high rates of abortions among Blacks drives down the crime rates. The difference is that while almost everybody is offended by the Freeper claim, only those who care about the integrity of science are offended by the climatologist claims.
"All the doomsayer climatology starts with the article of faith that the output of the sun has no effect whatsoever on temperature."
No it doesn't. The Earth absorbs about 240wm-2 sunlight. If solar output increases by 1% that number increases to 241.4wm-2. That's a big amount of additional energy. The problem however is the Sun's output doesn't change much from decade to decade.
"It continues that since CO2 is going up and temperatures are going up, the two must be connected."
It was predicted that co2 would cause warming before temperatures started going up.
Er yes but
First, is the Kola dataset published? If not, no one has learned anything from climategate.
Second, it's only a very small series from a part of the arctic. Solar activity might or might not be implicated, but if it were, I'd expect to see correlations over much more than a single cycle. Should be possible using tree rings to go back at least 500 years and see correlations with solar minima and maxima, if it is indeed the cause. If this variation is only seen for the 1935-1990 period, I'd look much more closely at industrial pollution - soot and sulphate aerosols - as a possible explanation: the period of the cooling seems to me to match fairly closely the maximum period of industrial activity in the region. I'm not saying it is, mind: I'm just saying that's what should be checked, and if the scientists are just using this short series to make the claim for solar activity I would also look very, very closely at who's paying them.