Warming trend reversing?

[laserguy]

Of course climate change 'is real and has to be tackled'. They'd be out of a job for a start! Surely we would ALL be victim to this great climatic calamity were it real,so why does a VERY large and growing body who have no vested interest in it dismiss it totally? I've got a young son and believe me I fear the world he's going to be an adult in,but climate change doesn't figure in it one iota,certainly not changes brought about by us,at least.

AGW groups can spout forth any number of 'facts' and statistics and dream up whatever scenario they like to keep their momentum,but the visible evidence that is plain for all to see and cannot be denied will win out at the end of the day. Boy do we need to cut rampant consumerism,FF usage,waste and our polluting ways,but please,not in the name of climate change.

[Devonian]

It's been building up to this point for a while. What I mean is,2008 being the year when it's no longer possible to maintain the pretense. FWIW, I've no problem with 'green',environmental policies as such,only the fact that they are being paraded under climate change instead of the real reasons,the fact that we're going to be taxed to death for no good reason,the fact that many thousands if not millions have come to depend on scaremongering and hype for their livelihoods and are actively conning people that they can actually control climate.

OK, but do you understand the difference between weather and climate? In that context one year proves nothing. Now, if in 2010 warming hasn't resumed I might well start to change my mind, but to change my view on the basis of 2008 alone would make no sense what so ever.

[VillagePlank]

VP all I suggested was an opposing view to that suggested by Laserguy, and I provided evidence of the organisations involved. Why I should have 'refrained' from posting it is beyond me.

All I've ever asked for is reliable evidence, why is that so bad?

Well, without reopening a Pandora's box - I remember that you asked for tangible evidence of the difficulties of mapping a mathematical system using software onto a computer system, to which I replied at some length, to which you promptly ignored - perhaps on the basis that to qualify my expertise I can only reference myself - but I note, you also do that with 'I've been at this for 18 years' diatribe on the Rule Britannia thread ...

FoE, by definition, by name, and, from what I understand of them, reputation, are hardly the most reliable organisation for presenting an unbiased point of view. Their overall point - well, I happen to agree with it - but their use of language, words such as 'secret' is designed for the press, and not the those seeking the truth. If someone who was a -AGW had posted this from a different organisation - you would have stepped all over it in capitals, a rather large fanfare, and a modicom of smugness.

I could be wrong about FoE - please correct me if I am - but, in my view, they are characteristic of the 'gaia against the evil human parasite' brigade if ever I saw such a set of people.

What's good for the goose ...

[Roo]

Well, without reopening a Pandora's box - I remember that you asked for tangible evidence of the difficulties of mapping a mathematical system using software onto a computer system, to which I replied at some length, to which you promptly ignored - perhaps on the basis that to qualify my expertise I can only reference myself - but I note, you also do that with 'I've been at this for 18 years' diatribe on the Rule Britannia thread ...

FoE, by definition, by name, and, from what I understand of them, reputation, are hardly the most reliable organisation for presenting an unbiased point of view. Their overall point - well, I happen to agree with it - but their use of language, words such as 'secret' is designed for the press, and not the those seeking the truth. If someone who was a -AGW had posted this from a different organisation - you would have stepped all over it in capitals, a rather large fanfare, and a modicom of smugness.

I could be wrong about FoE - please correct me if I am - but, in my view, they are characteristic of the 'gaia against the evil human parasite' brigade if ever I saw such a set of people.

What's good for the goose ...

No, I didn't ignore anything. You talked at length about how suspicious it was of Hadley not to release their source code and I suggested why they didn't and that it wasn't at all suspicious.

FoE....it doesn't matter whether they are biased or unbiased, that article referred to public domain info about who is involved in the FF lobby. This is whole -AGW versus +AGW thing is ridiculous. How about we just stick to relevant and informed information? The only thing I have stepped all over with a huge fanfare was the ridiculous SSRC stunt, which deserved it because it was fradulent. I won't apologise for that and would do it again.

[pyrotech]

I thought this would be an approriate place to put this but if the mods think it would be better suited elsewhere the please feel free to move it!

Our local met man, Dave Wheeler, at the Fair Isle Weather Station, has suggested something that I have suspected, but until now have not had any data to corroborate the theory, that in my part of the world at least, the warming we have seen over the past decades may be in retreat. In his opening paragraph to his summary of the data for 2007 recorded at Fair Isle he says:

"Overall it was another mild year with no great extremes of temperature. In a decade which has been

consistently mild and, despite the mean temperature for the year being almost one degree above the

longterm average, 2007 was the coolest year since 2001. As our maritime climate results in air

temperatures closely mirroring sea temperatures, it is no surprise to find that sea temperatures around

Fair Isle – though still above the longtern average by a similar amount – are also the lowest since 2001.

The graphs could be interpreted as indicating the warming of the past decade may be in reverse."

The full summary can be read here:

Fair Isle Wx

Dave Wheeler is a trusted local forecaster (ex Meto) with many years experience and is not given to hyperbole or exaggeration, as Im sure John Holmes will testify.

This may, of course, be a localised effect, or could it possibly be that warming may be in retreat and we are noticing it here first in the UK, due to our Northerly extremity?

i have started a forum on this subject. On studying weather patterns and gulf stream i have attempted to provide some evidence on this. With SST and gulf stream velocity and weather patterns over a 15 year period i have attempted to get evidence of the effects on north atlantic areas. pleas feel free to read the forum and comment. The link to forum is

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showforum=8

[Stratos Ferric]

Of course one can make summary statistics about anything one wants to! But is it useful?

It's a good challenge. An average global climate is meaningless, as you say like averaging phone numbers, or facial features. The one stat that is useful is global mean temperature, but on it's own it is as useful in describing actual climate (i.e. typical annual weather patterns) as one phrase in a musical score is in revealing the overall symphony.

...

AGW groups can spout forth any number of 'facts' and statistics and dream up whatever scenario they like to keep their momentum,but the visible evidence that is plain for all to see and cannot be denied will win out at the end of the day. Boy do we need to cut rampant consumerism,FF usage,waste and our polluting ways,but please,not in the name of climate change.

What visible evidence is that then?

I am reminded of one of our number - strangely silent of late - who spent much of the second half of last year formenting about the end of warming. As it stands January on its own will have wiped out pretty much all the cumulative ground lost since last summer.

Laser, you continue to be long on polemic but short on any evidence. For sure, people may be taking personal advantage of the climate change, but that would be true whichever direction things were moving. For air con salesmen read double glazing and pressure heaters. The tendency of humans to seek advantage is a constant irrespective of what the climate is doing. In looking for spooks in the shadows it's very easy to see things that just aren't there.

[Thundery wintry showers]

For once, a short, sharp response.

Warming trend reversing?

...or not. :lol:

[Guest diessoli]

Hi,

<snip>

,but the visible evidence that is plain for all to see and cannot be denied will win out at the end of the day.

Would you mind sharing this evidence with us?

Boy do we need to cut rampant consumerism,FF usage,waste and our polluting ways,but please,not in the name of climate change.

Well those are the other topics groups like FoE deal with. I don't think they would be "out of a job" without AGW.

Cheers

[laserguy]

Mainly for the benefit of Stratos Ferric and Diessoli regarding visible evidence that is there for all to see,as you requested. See the other thread recently started by Noggin, 'are the wheels coming off...?'

I have to hand it to you,you're brilliant wordsmiths and for many readers I suspect you can turn around a hopeless situation to your advantage,finished off with a dressing of technicality and a theoretical explanation of everything which leaves some wondering if it's worth the bother of arguing. Doesn't faze laserguy,I'm in it for the long haul until this madness is revealed! Makes you wonder though what the motives are for the disagreement. Probably just to save face,as like I said we would all be victims in one way or another of significant global climate change. All the predictions,which amount to little more than amped-up guesses bother me none. They won't happen,and even if they did the consequences would be as nothing compared to a global temp even slightly below the 'norm'. Easy to dismiss and explain away the points made in Noggin's post on the other thread (and they are just brushing the surface,I might add),but imagine if they had been evidence of warming,not cooling events! You'd have seized upon them like a yard-dog thrown a pork pie as further undisputable evidence of 'warming'.

So here we are in 2008,still in the first month(ok,a month is nothing in climate terms)but we are being inundated from the off with record low temps from all over the place. Not only are we seeing a continuation of 'normal' events (despite this 'warming' which has apparently been plaguing us for years and years now) but a list of extreme cold events as long as your arm thrown in for good measure. Like going to the doctor with a growth on your neck which you can see getting bigger by the day,only for him to tell you "no,no it's actually shrinking,it just looks that way because the rest of your body is getting smaller,faster"! Words are powerful tools,but have limitations. Here we are arguing about temperature rises amounting to fractions of a degree (such accuracy on bodies as vast and dynamic as the atmosphere and oceans has to be taken with a pinch of salt and a very suspicious gaze at the informants,particularly in the face of very real,tangible,undeniable evidence to the contrary). Concerning our own neck of the woods,yes we've had a run of spectacularly bad winters from a cold lovers perspective,but they'll be back. Swings and roundabouts a la previous runs of mild winters and indeed extremely cold ones. Of course,the present run is being seized upon as 'evidence' of climate change,just as last years washout cool summer was.Yawn.

[Guest diessoli]

Hi Laserguy,

Mainly for the benefit of Stratos Ferric and Diessoli regarding visible evidence that is there for all to see,as you requested. See the other thread recently started by Noggin, 'are the wheels coming off...?'

I have to hand it to you,you're brilliant wordsmiths and for many readers I suspect you can turn around a hopeless situation to your advantage,finished off with a dressing of technicality and a theoretical explanation of everything which leaves some wondering if it's worth the bother of arguing.

Wordsmith is certainly not a term I would claim for myself. Not being a native speaker, writing posts is actually quite hard - not to mention time consuming- for me.

You seem to think that the "technicalities" are just a tool that people are using to confuse and obfuscate. Is it so hard to accept that the questions of AGW or GW are scientific, technical problems and need to be addressed appropriately? It is rather frustating to try and argue with people that are not prepared to enter a discussion on these terms, but who still claim to know what's going on.

Doesn't faze laserguy,I'm in it for the long haul until this madness is revealed! Makes you wonder though what the motives are for the disagreement. Probably just to save face,as like I said we would all be victims in one way or another of significant global climate change. All the predictions,which amount to little more than amped-up guesses bother me none. They won't happen,and even if they did the consequences would be as nothing compared to a global temp even slightly below the 'norm'. Easy to dismiss and explain away the points made in Noggin's post on the other thread (and they are just brushing the surface,I might add),but imagine if they had been evidence of warming,not cooling events!

You'd have seized upon them like a yard-dog thrown a pork pie as further undisputable evidence of 'warming'.

No, I would not. Even if I had an agenda (which I do not) I wouldn't be stupid enough to use such events as evidence, since I am too well aware that they do not stand up to scrutiny.

I am not accusing nogging or you or anybody of coming here with a scheme to manipulate people. I am interested in the science, and if I see somebody making claims that I believe are at odds with what I believe to be correct, I take the liberty to reply and explain, hoping that in the process everybody will learn something.

And I was hoping that this forum would offer an area to do this.

So here we are in 2008,still in the first month(ok,a month is nothing in climate terms)but we are being inundated from the off with record low temps from all over the place.

Well, from my (Southern Hemisphere) perspective we had one of the warmest, dryest summer for a long time. But that's irrelevant.

Even a few years are not enough to determine, with any significance, whether the gobal climate is warming or not.

Of course,the present run is being seized upon as 'evidence' of climate change,just as last years washout cool summer was.Yawn.

No it's not. At least not by me.

Cheers

[VillagePlank]

It's a good challenge. An average global climate is meaningless, as you say like averaging phone numbers, or facial features. The one stat that is useful is global mean temperature, but on it's own it is as useful in describing actual climate (i.e. typical annual weather patterns) as one phrase in a musical score is in revealing the overall symphony.

I must add that this point is not my own. It was made in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics 32, p. 1-27 (2007).

Whilst the telephone number average is an extreme example (intended, of course, for provocation) simply musing on the issue yields it's own rewards. Consider the UK and France. If the UK dropped by 2C (wishful thinking, I'm sure, in the some corners) and France increased by 2C (wishful thinking, I'm sure, in other corners) then what would the mean show about the climate of the UK and France? It wouldn't change - so whilst France turns into a Saharan desert, and the UK undergoes a mini Ice Age, the statistical mean turns out not to actually describe the climate of either country, nor the environment between the two, not only not very well, but not at all.

It is indeed as useful as the mean of the phone book. It shows that using this figure we cannot determine whether areas of the world are in status-quo (not changing) or self-adjusting (some going up, some going down) Although as it moves away from statically bound values (within, say, one order of magnitude) it may actually have something to say. Are we there yet - are we simply bouncing around with an arithmetic mean inside the standard deviation? Can we say it is warming anymore than we can say it is cooling, globally?

The evidence is the conglomeration (not averaging) of local temperature studies like the CET. I my, feeble, mind I would count the amount of sites warming, and then the amount of sites, cooling, and the difference is the indicator of global status.

(And also if the Earth is covered with 70% water, why isn't 70% of the stations afloat? - but that's a question for another debate)

[VillagePlank]

I also note that this point has been raised before: here

[laserguy]

F.A.O. Diessoli. Profuse apologies if you derived any insult from my earlier post. None intended,sincerely. Just the way I come over sometimes due to my inferiority as a wordsmith which I DID intend and as a compliment (that includes you,Stratos,though you can be as abrasive as the best of 'em)! Like it or not though,there are very few people who sit squarely on the fence over this whether they realise it or not,and such biases do manifest themselves in posts however hard they try to disguise them,wouldn't you agree? I've no such desire to suppress things though and gladly nail my colours to the mast. I've not much to say about your response to my post;I've took it on board and accept it graciously,thanks.

One more thing to add though for everyone's dissection regarding 'trends'. Consider 1998,and whilst it achieved it's heat status with the help of well documented natural factors,just how much CO2 have we churned out since then,a full 10 years ago? It would appear that given the miniscule and even debatable rise in temps since then,together with the astonishing severity and duration of this young year's manifold 'cold outbreaks', this collossal and ever increasing output of CO2 is struggling to hold it's own against the implacable edifice of nature. To clarify,when I mentioned record breaking cold 'from all over the place' I was referring exclusively to the NH,after all it is only winter 'up' here!

As you're from 'down under' Diessoli,you might not be aware of the latest EU brainwave,that being the banning of patio heaters in an attempt to tackle climate change. I just love the use of the word 'tackle'. What springs to my addled mind is a bunch of ministers swapping their suits for overalls and boiler suits,rolling their sleeves up and wading in for a fight with nature.Sorry! Just when you think they cannot possibly get any more ridiculous they go and prove beyond doubt that they most certainly can. I can barely wait for the next one. OK everyone,relax. We've got climate change on the run now that we've got shot of those pesky patio heaters etc,etc. Oh look,China and India have punted out more CO2 in an hour than those patio heaters would have done in a hundred thousand years. Oh well,never mind. I'm not defending patio heaters btw,can't afford one or a patio.

Finally to Roo. You can stop going on about John Casey (aka SSRC) now! I did say at the time that I didn't necessarily agree with the guy but was merely bringing it to everyone's attention. Fraudsters,charlatans and everyone else who is out on the make from 'climate change' (from both sides ) deserves to be exposed. You did that,good on you. I am however keeping tabs on them and will bring any news on their latest doings to this forum for everyone to take a look at. At the time of writing there's been nothing new from them since 14th Jan. Probably packed up and gone away!

[jethro]

Here's some analysis for folks, quite interesting reading having it broken down in this way. It's in four parts, the links for all are listed:

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/01/2...ank-analysis-i/

[Stratos Ferric]

Mainly for the benefit of Stratos Ferric and Diessoli regarding visible evidence that is there for all to see,as you requested. See the other thread recently started by Noggin, 'are the wheels coming off...?'

...

I'm sorry LG, that's not visible evidence, it's a poor misread of a graph. Noggin would, I am sure, look at a map of a road through the mountains of Scotland, particularly on a large scale map, and seeing it deviate off E or W conclude that she was no longer on the correct road. Temperature oscillates, and no matter how many times the point is explained to Noggin, she seems to labour under a delusion that the sole indicator of global warming is year on year increase in temperature. It simply isn't like that. What we keep seeing is that each passing year is warmer than the one thirty years previously was. If we weren't warming that simply would not, and could not be true, unless we had undergone a huge step change and now plateaued. The fact that we have not yet passed 1998's mark is no more evidence of a plateau than is the fact that petrol hasn't increased in price for a week an indication of the fact that it will never again go up.

[laserguy]

Good morning. 'Tis indeed good too;I can hear the capricious wind rising in fits and starts as it moans around the eaves,and the soft occasional swishing sound of rain against the window. The wind is following it's own trend as is the rising world temp...up,down,up,down,up,down,but the underlying trend is ever upwards. Sometime in the next few hours the wind velocity will arrive at a smoothed peak,though even then there will be fleeting moments of relative calm. As with world temps,it will maintain the peak for a while and then start to decline.Certainly,during that decline there will be the odd gust that will far exceed the mean peak. And so it is with global temps. As TWS points out elsewhere world temps have by all accounts risen by 0.5C over 30 years. The last figure I saw suggested 1C! Does anyone really know,can anyone really know to any meaningful degree? How much does that come to over the last 10,when we've been churning out the CO2 at unmatched rates? What would the difference be if we had added no CO2? Would anyone have cared to look for a reason and for something to blame and thus 'deal with'? Of course not.

So here we are during these warmer times. Are the recent and ongoing 'cold intrusions' to be seen as manifestations of the coming cooldown,or are they the last vestiges of a bygone era making their final flourish before departing forever,like an elderly wolf in it's cave who everyone thought was now harmless but occasionally popping out to bite,just to remind everyone that it still has teeth? Sorry,got the romantic head on,must be the weather and the overhang of this damn 'flu that's frying my synapses. If I was a gambling type I know where my money would go. As for everyone else I neither know nor care. My electric blanket beckons so I will go to it,and there I will lie whilst the haunting song of wind and rain induces dreams and visions in my fevered mind. Sniff.

[laserguy]

Here's some analysis for folks, quite interesting reading having it broken down in this way. It's in four parts, the links for all are listed:

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/01/2...ank-analysis-i/

Sorry Jethro,not being ignorant but I got distracted sufficiently by my previous post to mention this. Looks very interesting and I'll peruse it fully when I've awoken later and hopefully shrugged off some more of this nagging 'flu's effects. Of course,certain 'types' will have a quick glance at it and decide they've seen enough...

[Guest diessoli]

F.A.O. Diessoli. Profuse apologies if you derived any insult from my earlier post. None intended,sincerely. Just the way I come over sometimes due to my inferiority as a wordsmith which I DID intend and as a compliment (that includes you,Stratos,though you can be as abrasive as the best of 'em)! Like it or not though,there are very few people who sit squarely on the fence over this whether they realise it or not,and such biases do manifest themselves in posts however hard they try to disguise them,wouldn't you agree? I've no such desire to suppress things though and gladly nail my colours to the mast. I've not much to say about your response to my post;I've took it on board and accept it graciously,thanks.

Thanks laserguy. I appreciate your apologies. I wasn't offended though, because I don't take these discussions personally, just a bit irritated.

One more thing to add though for everyone's dissection regarding 'trends'. Consider 1998,and whilst it achieved it's heat status with the help of well documented natural factors,just how much CO2 have we churned out since then,a full 10 years ago? It would appear that given the miniscule and even debatable rise in temps since then,together with the astonishing severity and duration of this young year's manifold 'cold outbreaks', this collossal and ever increasing output of CO2 is struggling to hold it's own against the implacable edifice of nature. To clarify,when I mentioned record breaking cold 'from all over the place' I was referring exclusively to the NH,after all it is only winter 'up' here!

The rise is neither of those. You need to look at long term climate trends.

Look at the graphs I've posted in a different thread:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...t&p=1176774

You can see why it does not make sense to look only at few years worth of data. You can also see how different the picture would have been with out the El Nino (I made one plot, where I smoothed it out).

As for the amount of CO2: can you specify how much we have churned out and what warming we should have seen? I trust you know that CO2's radiative forcing goes logarithmic.

Cheers

[Guest diessoli]

Here's some analysis for folks, quite interesting reading having it broken down in this way. It's in four parts, the links for all are listed:

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/01/2...ank-analysis-i/

Well, before anybody accuses me of dismissing it with a "quick glance", let me tell you that I actually spend some time to reproduce his ranking plots. Python's good for that B)

Still the same arguments, raised earlier apply. He is not looking at the statistics but again just the short term variations.

on the basis of figures 1 and 2 it is plausible that at least for now, and at least everywhere but on Land/Northern-Hemisphere, temperatures have reached a high and may not increase further.

Figure 2 are just the last 10 years and figure 1 a raw plot of the rankings. How you can conclude from this, that the temperatures don't go any higher is a mistery to me.

Just to make something clear: I am not saying that from looking at those graphs you can say that temperatures will rise. Rather that you just cannot yet claim that with statistical significance temperatures have "levelled".

The steepest gradient is by far between the cold years around 1910 and the warm years around 1938.

From my calculations the linear trend in the 15 year average is about 0.018/decade between 1911 and 1930 and 0.016/decade between 1990 and 2007.

Why the former is "by far" the steepest escapes me (not to mention the larger uncertainty in the older data).

We are looking for trends, so instead of simply taking the published average temperatures for the year, I have averaged the monthly ranking for each year taken into consideration. There is anyway no considerable difference between the results of the two approaches.

After reading the first words, my hopes where high that he would actually do that, but no, he looks at yearly averages again. sigh.

Cheers

[Stratos Ferric]

...The graphs could be interpreted as indicating the warming of the past decade may be in reverse."

The full summary can be read here:

Fair Isle Wx

Dave Wheeler is a trusted local forecaster (ex Meto) with many years experience and is not given to hyperbole or exaggeration, as Im sure John Holmes will testify.

This may, of course, be a localised effect, or could it possibly be that warming may be in retreat and we are noticing it here first in the UK, due to our Northerly extremity?

Could x may = low level of certainty.

As he says, and you concur, Fair Isle is, as the name suggests, a small and fair isle in, quite literally, a sea of water. If the SSTs locally cool (not typical of much of the rest of the NA by the way) then so will the local climate.