Climate change sceptics lose vital argument

Clippo · 02-12-2006, 10:30 AM

From

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-argument.html

The “hockey stick” graph, which shows a rapid rise in world temperatures over recent decades, has been both poster child for the dangers of human- induced global warming and prime target for climate change sceptics. They cite an anomaly in the graph - it does not record a dip in temperature between 1200 and 1850 - as reason to ditch the whole thing. Now new data may help explain why the graph does not record the "little ice age".
Ocean currents in the North Atlantic, dominated by the Gulf Stream, usually keep winter temperatures in western Europe mild by carrying warm water north from the tropics towards Europe and heating the westerly winds travelling from North America. Climate scientists have suspected that a weak Gulf Stream may have caused the little ice age, but until now there has been no direct evidence for this theory.
Jean Lynch-Stieglitz at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and her colleagues calculated the strength of the Gulf Stream during the little ice age by looking at marine fossils in sediment cores taken from the Straits of Florida. Ocean circulation is driven by variations in water density caused by differences in temperature and salinity. These variations also affect the ratio of oxygen isotopes in marine fossil shells. By measuring these isotope ratios, the team calculated that the Gulf Stream was 10 per cent weaker during the little ice age (Nature, vol 444, p 601).
Moreover, the cooling that resulted was confined mainly to the northern hemisphere, says Lynch-Stieglitz - which indicates it was a regional effect. Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who constructed the hockey stick graph, has always argued that if this were so, the little ice age would not show up on a global temperature record (New Scientist, 18 March, p 40).
"We're seeing a rearrangement of heat around the globe - so globally overall it's not colder," says Lynch-Stieglitz.
“As the little ice age was a regional effect, it would not show up on a global temperature record like the 'hockey stick' graph”
Last month, climate scientists played down the possibility of a mini ice age in the near future (New Scientist, 7 November, p 13). "We usually look for a much more dramatic weakening - an almost total shutdown of the circulation - when considering the impact on future climate," says Meric Srokosz at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, UK. By contrast, the 10 per cent weakening found by the Georgia team is surprisingly small, says Lynch-Stieglitz. She says that climate scientists have to incorporate this finding into their models to better understand how such a small change brought about the little ice age.

From issue 2580 of New Scientist magazine, 29 November 2006, page 9

mkpdavies · 02-12-2006, 02:33 PM

Jesus, I have never seen so much spin in trying to disprove something since the last article printed in the new "scientist.

I prefered their previous name voodoo monthly.

Quote:

"We're seeing a rearrangement of heat around the globe - so globally overall it's not colder," says Lynch-Stieglitz.

How vague, how very convienient for the argument.

Quote:

She says that climate scientists have to incorporate this finding into their models to better understand how such a small change brought about the little ice age.

Which is enough to tell me that all these models are a load of ****, that don't come close to taking into account ALL the factors.

Thanks for proving this is all just a load of GUESSWORK and VOODOO in the main though. Glad to see you are coming around the fact all the scarmongering is just that.

jp · 02-12-2006, 03:16 PM

Re HockeysticK:

The real issue here is not whether the LIA exists or not, but the fact that the Hockeystick study was based on twisted, embarassingly bad science

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062706E

Now if you can accept this, how much more credence can we put in the output of the climate hysterics?

Clippo · 03-12-2006, 09:34 AM

Once again MPKDavies, when he can’t accept a piece of evidence challenging his obtuse views goes stamping around shouting voodoo (you’ve left out witchcraft this time by the way) and shooting the messenger (this time the internationally respected New Scientist).

Your responses to anything truly ‘scientific’ in the GW debate are absolutely laughable. All you can do is bluster & huff & puff. This latest evidence, painstakingly gathered by real scientists, in the real world & not in the pay of US big business, is very inconvenient for you . You would have done better not to comment on it rather than expose yourself to ridicule again & again

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet, yet again JP comes up with a comment on this work from a very dubious website. I see that is USA based and is heavily into ‘Free Markets’. Do I have to say more!!!

These interpretations of the Hockey-stick data in this website are NOT the ones made by the scientists who actually carried out the work. The site is littered with snide quotations biased to make serious scientists look unreliable including the 25years work of the University of East Anglia. But of course the Prof. Jones led mammoth scientific study( again of international scientific repute & admiration). doesn't suite this 'TCSdaily's preconceptions or real motives.

In the Hurricanes thread you say:-

Quote:

I was the commercial director for an FTSE 100 firm so I certainly understand the economic arguments

Would that be a company having extensive interests in ‘energy’ or transport ?

You’re either being led up the garden path by your penchant for visiting only these openly anti-GW sites or you are trying to lead others up the path for, presumably, your own self-interest.

Now – answer my question:-

Do you believe that, as you wrote in the Hurricanes thread:-

Quote:

The temperature hasn't increased since 1998.

cookie65 · 03-12-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Do you believe that, as you wrote in the Hurricanes thread:-

Quote:
The temperature hasn't increased since 1998.

I agree the temprature was very high in July , but it seems a bit cooler now.

John Carter · 03-12-2006, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

This latest evidence, painstakingly gathered by real scientists, in the real world & not in the pay of US big business

So exactly who is paying these scientists? Who's putting bread and jam on their tables?

jp · 03-12-2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

see that is USA based and is heavily into ‘Free Markets’. Do I have to say more!!!

God forbid we should heavily be in to Free Markets :roll:

Quote:

Do you believe that, as you wrote in the Hurricanes thread:-

Quote:
The temperature hasn't increased since 1998.

Absolutely - & so does the Telegraph, mind you they are probably in the pay of somebody you don't like, probably a free marketeer

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../09/do0907.xml

Quote:

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

But to get back to the original point, ignoring the ad- homs & general smearing of people who will not kow - tow to your hysterical world view:

1. Are the temperature graphs I have pointed out to you good data or not?

2. Is the economic riposte to the Stern paper I have pointed out to you correct or not?

Try & evaluate the information for yourself rather than taking the somewhat lazy atttitude that if a paper is published by a person with letters after their name it must be correct.

Clippo · 03-12-2006, 03:54 PM

John Carter wrote:-

Quote:

So exactly who is paying these scientists? Who's putting bread and jam on their tables?

You probably! – indirectly through your taxes. The UK government, like most governments in the world give grants to all sorts of academic institutions, Including the Hadley centre and UEA (the UK centres most actively involved in climate research see later). Also, The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, the IPCC, is funded through the UN I think – ergo, since our government makes a contribution to the UN out of UK taxes some of your cash is involved.
--------------------------------------------------------

JP’s response to my question , “ Do you believe the world hasn’t warmed up since 1998” is a classic:-

Quote:

I agree the temprature was very high in July , but it seems a bit cooler now.

I’m going to save that one for a rainy day !!!

Since you obviously like the DT read this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...8/ntemps28.xml

Your reference to the Daily Telegraph article was illuminating. Firstly, it was written in April this year before the subject research of this thread was published. It was also written by a paleographic climate researcher treading the boards of the usual “the-world-was-hotter-N-million-years-ago-and-what-about-the-ice-ages-&-the-sun”, ploy.

As I said in an earlier post w.r.t. Monckton’s, Is the Telegraph trying to position itself as the sceptic’s friend since the other broadsheets have left them in the dust on GW?

Anyway, again as I said in reply to Biscuitman in a different thread, I like to get to the original statement and not rely on a journalistic rework. So, eventually I got to the Prof. Jones and UEA relevant website and interesting it proved to be:-

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Although it’s not long, I have extracted the statement of most relevance to the question:-

Quote:

The year 2005 was equal second warmest on record, exceeded by 1998.

Yes, on these figures since 1998 was said to be the hottest you can claim pedantically that it has not got hotter until at least 2005.

But come off it !!! you’re being disingenuous. They also wrote:-

Quote:

The 1990s were the warmest decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.548°C above the 1961-90 mean. Ten of the eleven warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past eleven years (1995-2005). The only year in the last eleven not among the warmest eleven is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). (My bolding)

Also, the UEA/Hadley temperature measurement of the globe is not the only show in town. Data collected by the USA NOAA only contradicts UEA in one year, - 2005 -, where one NOAA study put it as the hottest year, beating 1998 !.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ann/ann05.html

Quote:

The 2005 global temperature was statistically indistinguishable from the standing record set in 1998. One data set, in use at NCDC since the late 1990s, produced a global annual temperature for 2005 that was slightly below 1998 (below left). An improved data set, which incorporates innovative algorithms that better account for factors such as changes in spatial coverage and evolving observing methods, results in 2005 being slightly warmer than 1998.

-------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I was searching for the UEA original data, I came across this:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Quite a balanced summary of the history of the controversy over GW.

Just a few picks relevant to some recent statements on these GW threads in this forum

1. David Bellamy - British environmental campaigner who has since decided to draw back from the debate on global warming. And published a letter in the journal New Scientist in which he claimed that, of the 625 glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service, 555 of them were growing, not shrinking—a statement which, if true, would cast a good deal of doubt on the existence of global warming. It turned out, however, that Bellamy's figures were incorrect: the vast majority of the world's glaciers have been retreating for the last several decades. George Monbiot of the Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was Fred Singer's website. Singer claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science, but to date this article has not been found.[51]
2. Steven Milloy - FOX News columnist and Publisher of JunkScience.com. Also, before starting JunkScience.com, Steven Milloy belonged to an organization called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which was paid by tobacco companies to cast doubt on studies about the dangers of secondhand smoke.[52][53] However, most of the authors of these editorials, their websites, or the publications themselves are almost universally extremely critical of the role of industry and government in environmental matters and focus almost entirely on negative aspects of the debate [54] [55] [56] [57].
3. Frederick Seitz – (anti-global warming treaties, accepts the temperature rise as real, but not yet properly explained)
4. Many of these opponents to anthropogenic global warming theory have links to the fossil fuels industry.

And so on. But read it, you may find a mere crumb of comfort to support your delusions.

Finally, for now and some time, you JP didn’t answer whether your ex employer is in an energy or related sector. Also, re : your jibe about ‘letters after one’s name’, are you a qualified economist, What are your academic qualifications?

jp · 03-12-2006, 04:33 PM

Go back to the base data as I have posted numerous times

The temp charts - evaluate them - do they show a warming in the period?

Read the Stern riposte. Does it make sense?

I'm not interested in synthesised articles written by people who support your world view (and that includes the wiki, even though you describe it as "reasonably balanced"),

I do not intend to discuss my qualifications or career details with you, but if you'd like to post your's feel free!

You won't engage in any substantial analysis of facts even at this fairly basic level. Two possible reasons I can think of:

You haven't got the training or the intellectual horsepower - that's why you regurgitate high - level articles from the hysterics' POV

You are frightened that you might find out your quasi - religious belief isn't sustained by the facts - no Father Xmas or the Tooth Fairy!
__________
I am breaking my major rule on not getting into "my internet quote is better than you internet quote" debate, but I just can't resist this on Phil Jones who you obviously put great store by:

Quote:

Phil Jones is the same guy who responded to Warwick Hughes’ request for the underlying station data used to support the CRU gridded temperature calculation as follows:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=141

I promise not to do it again!!

Clippo · 03-12-2006, 06:31 PM

The final truth is definitely rattling your cage JP & knocked you off your sanctimonious perch..

You wrote:-

Quote:

You haven't got the training or the intellectual horsepower - that's why you regurgitate high - level articles from the hysterics' POV

Okay, both barrels!! I have an Hons BSc. & PhD. in a science subject. This can be verified if you doubt it by contacting moderator B.A.Ware

So, I have been trained, in scientific techniques, and have proven intellectual horsepower by usual measures.

How about you. Still rather coy aren’t we?

Quote:

You are frightened that you might find out your quasi - religious belief isn't sustained by the facts - no Father Xmas or the Tooth Fairy!

I’m shaking in my boots – (with laughter) !!! Please, please come up with some original factual data not emanating from the sceptics stable then I might be able to stop shaking.
----------------------------------------------
As BlackAdder said, “I don’t know how you do it but you’ve done it again”

Ref to Climate audit :- hosted by Stephen McIntyre

Quote:

George Marshall Institute Expert
According to the GMI website "Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada."

Is this the same S McIntyre who tried unsuccessfully with to criticise the ‘Hockey-stick graph.

Google Stephen McIntyre for more.

And why should Phil Jones hand over his data to antipodean nutter Warwick Hughes?
From the first line of his own webpage :-

Warwick Hughes, free lance earth scientist from Australia. Exposing situations where unsound science is used to prop up fashionable and expensive policy notions, usually policy coloured a shade of Green.

You sure can pick them JP.

Your credibility has been completely exposed and destroyed here.

I’ve said all I have to!

02-12-2006, 10:30 AM	#1 (permalink)
Clippo Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 1,773	Climate change sceptics lose vital argument From http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-argument.html The “hockey stick” graph, which shows a rapid rise in world temperatures over recent decades, has been both poster child for the dangers of human- induced global warming and prime target for climate change sceptics. They cite an anomaly in the graph - it does not record a dip in temperature between 1200 and 1850 - as reason to ditch the whole thing. Now new data may help explain why the graph does not record the "little ice age". Ocean currents in the North Atlantic, dominated by the Gulf Stream, usually keep winter temperatures in western Europe mild by carrying warm water north from the tropics towards Europe and heating the westerly winds travelling from North America. Climate scientists have suspected that a weak Gulf Stream may have caused the little ice age, but until now there has been no direct evidence for this theory. Jean Lynch-Stieglitz at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and her colleagues calculated the strength of the Gulf Stream during the little ice age by looking at marine fossils in sediment cores taken from the Straits of Florida. Ocean circulation is driven by variations in water density caused by differences in temperature and salinity. These variations also affect the ratio of oxygen isotopes in marine fossil shells. By measuring these isotope ratios, the team calculated that the Gulf Stream was 10 per cent weaker during the little ice age (Nature, vol 444, p 601). Moreover, the cooling that resulted was confined mainly to the northern hemisphere, says Lynch-Stieglitz - which indicates it was a regional effect. Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who constructed the hockey stick graph, has always argued that if this were so, the little ice age would not show up on a global temperature record (New Scientist, 18 March, p 40). "We're seeing a rearrangement of heat around the globe - so globally overall it's not colder," says Lynch-Stieglitz. “As the little ice age was a regional effect, it would not show up on a global temperature record like the 'hockey stick' graph” Last month, climate scientists played down the possibility of a mini ice age in the near future (New Scientist, 7 November, p 13). "We usually look for a much more dramatic weakening - an almost total shutdown of the circulation - when considering the impact on future climate," says Meric Srokosz at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, UK. By contrast, the 10 per cent weakening found by the Georgia team is surprisingly small, says Lynch-Stieglitz. She says that climate scientists have to incorporate this finding into their models to better understand how such a small change brought about the little ice age. From issue 2580 of New Scientist magazine, 29 November 2006, page 9

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-12-2006, 03:16 PM	#3 (permalink)
jp Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 996	Re HockeysticK: The real issue here is not whether the LIA exists or not, but the fact that the Hockeystick study was based on twisted, embarassingly bad science http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062706E Now if you can accept this, how much more credence can we put in the output of the climate hysterics?