Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
The latest story doing the rounds of the global warming deniers (Drudge, Instapundit, Andrew Bolt, etc), is this one from the Investors Business Daily:
Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.
Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.
This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.
Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.
Well, as you know, the Investor's Business Daily has as much as 100 lies on every page so when I read that, I naturally wondered what Tapping really said. Fortunately, tgirsch was on the case, and contacted Tapping to see if the IBD report was accurate. Tapping replied:
Thanks for the message. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.
It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.
It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.
tgirsch comments:
Wait, what? A business magazine and a mostly right-wing web site took a scientists statements and work out of context in the service of a political agenda? Stop the presses!
Given the history of the anti-AGW movement and their ever-moving target, $10 says they ignore how wrong they were on this one, and instead seize on the "might be too late to do anything about it" part as their next windmill to tilt at. ...
Mental note: Don't trust anything you read in the Investors Business Daily.
Update: Jan Dawson, who is skeptical of AGW also had the good sense to contact Tapper. He replied:
The article is rubbish.
I believe that global climate change is the biggest problem facing us today. As yet we have no idea of exactly how serious it can get or where the tipping point may be.
The lateness of the start of the solar activity cycle is not yet enough to be something to worry about. However, even if we were to go into another minimum, and the Sun dims for a few decades, as it did during the Maunder Minimum, it could reduce the problem for a while, but things will come back worse when the cycle starts again.
Dawson concludes:
Since I'm largely sympathetic towards the thrust of the article, I find this all the more frustrating. Either there really are scientists out there who hold the views cited in the article, in which case they should have been the ones quoted, or there aren't and therefore the article should not have been written. Either way, it's extremely dishonest journalism. And it simply provides more ammunition for the global warming enthusiasts since it fits nicely with their narrative about scientific consensus.
Politics
Environment
Comments
I'll bet you all that in five years we'll be hearing "but they were predicting a new ice age in 2008! Thus scientists are wrong about global warming!"
Posted by: ChrisC | February 9, 2008 9:08 AM
An alternative take on the same information would be something like this:
Wow, we're having near record temperatures at the time of a solar minimum, what's it going to be like when we next hit maximum?
Phil
Posted by: Phil | February 9, 2008 9:29 AM
"It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue"
I can hear it now: `Oh noes, the Scientific Inquisition got him!'
Posted by: bi | February 9, 2008 9:44 AM
Thanks for the link, Tim. You (along with the folks at RealClimate) do the lion's share of the work debunking this kind of stuff. I'm just glad I was able to contribute in some small way.
Posted by: tgirsch | February 9, 2008 11:03 AM
Also seen here http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html
Posted by: Mike | February 9, 2008 12:42 PM
This is the same thing that left leaning publications such as the Guardian do on an almost daily basis. Only they use excerpts from scientific sources to hype CO2 catastrophism.
Funny Tim never calls them on it.
I also like Tapping's couching the issue to use it to save face if temps start to go down over the next decade by saying,
Nice way to prepare for evidence that doesn't support the catastrophism theory. This is the second time in a few weeks I have seen this clever gambit employed. If temps climb it is proof of AGW, if temps dip it is proof that AGW is moderating an otherwise even cooler period and just waiting to clobber us later.
Hard to falsify this little scheme. Of course it is exactly what would happen if natural variabiltiy were at play, but so long as the politically motivated scaremongering is not affected who cares right boys?
I anticipate that a democrat will win the next US presidential election. They will pay mostly lip service to climate change when faced with the reality of the world economies dependence on fossil fuels. It will be interesting to see how certain people react when "feel good/do nothing" proposals are put forth by the new democratic president.
Posted by: Lance | February 9, 2008 1:04 PM
Lance's world: telling the truth about what science states is as evil as lying about what a scientist says.
The goodness and evilness is dependent only on whether or not the quote supports Lance's politically retarded positions.
And you're an ignoramus. Wait, no, you've got a BS in physics. You're just a common, everyday, pathological liar.
Posted by: dhogaza | February 9, 2008 1:08 PM
Here's a factoid that alot of people really don't get...
Climate may be influenced by more than one factor!!!
That's right kids. Radiative forcing could go... down... and forcing from increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases could go... up... at the SAME TIME! Who knows... perhaps global temperatures would respond to this variation in forcing?
Now I know this may be a strech for some people, but I hope their mental gymnastics are up to it. Of course some people have been pointing this little "Inconvient truth" (see here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/many-factors/ and here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/langswitch_lang/sk and of course Soro's buddies the IPCC in Chapter 3 of AR4 ) Of course, it never seems curious to certain people that TSI has remained roughly constant since ~1950 wile temperatures continued to ... rise?
Perhaps radiative atmospheric physics has advanced enough to say that if the Earth receives less energy from the sun temperatures will respond, while if the Earth's atmosphere is more opaque to outgoing longwave radiation temperatures may also respond. Oh no... that's far to difficult for me to understand. Must be a scam to get research funding.
Posted by: ChrisC | February 9, 2008 1:47 PM
Christ dhogaza, don't you ever sleep or go the bathroom? I don't think I have ever posted on this site that you didn't respond within minutes.
Go outside, read a book, get laid. Jeez no wonder you're such an ill-tempered windbag.
Now that you have spewed your usual insult laden phlegm, how about actually responding to my point. If downtrends in temperature are now to be considered evidence in favor of AGW how exactly is the theory to be falsified?
Oh, that's right; tautologies aren't designed to be falsified. My mistake, I keep forgetting that.
Posted by: Lance | February 9, 2008 1:48 PM
Lance...
time zone differences. I'm on the other side of the world.
Posted by: ChrisC | February 9, 2008 2:02 PM
It's possible to get a BS in physics and yet be an ignoramus. I went to school with plenty.
Posted by: smally | February 9, 2008 2:02 PM
Don't do all three at once.
Also, Lance, you're creating a straw man argument. AGW theory does not state that the Earth will keep warming no matter what happens. Please argue honestly.
Posted by: Boris | February 9, 2008 2:03 PM
ChrisC,
If temperatures begin to decrease then it will be clear that anthropogenic CO2 is not the DOMINANT climate forcing as has been claimed by proponents of AGW theory, but a secondary signal. Perhaps even on the level of noise.
If it is reduced to less than the main "driver" of climate it certainly reduces the weight of arguments that we must take drastic action to reduce its influence on future climate.
If the warmth from anthropogenic CO2 is only "coming along for the ride" as a much smaller signal superimposed on a much larger naturally oscillating signal, and is therefore not driving climate, then there is little reason to worry about it, let alone change the entire world's energy economy.
Well no legitimate scientific or economic reason anyway.
Posted by: Lance | February 9, 2008 2:04 PM
If downtrends in temperature are now to be considered evidence in favor of AGW how exactly is the theory to be falsified?
you could start by showing, that CO2 has NO effect on climate. or that we aren t producing any CO2.
but speaking about the (potentially) sinking temperatures:
we know, WHY the temperature is increasing. the reason is CO2 and it is a LONG TERM effect.
now if we know, WHY the temperature is "sinking" and we KNOW that it is a short term effect then we KNOW that this will only "interrupt" AGW for as short time.
Posted by: sod | February 9, 2008 2:05 PM
If temperatures begin to decrease then it will be clear that anthropogenic CO2 is not the DOMINANT climate forcing as has been claimed by proponents of AGW theory, but a secondary signal. Perhaps even on the level of noise.
you mean if we have a HUGE volcano explosion, lots of smoke and lower temperature for a couple of years, then that is PROOF that CO2 is unimportant?
doesn t that even sound silly to you?
Posted by: sod | February 9, 2008 2:08 PM
Wait a minute. I do not understand this post nor the comments. From what I understand is the we have entered a new solar cycle. But this post and comments imply that if this news comes out in a business article then it is untrue and we are not entering a new solar cycle???????
Posted by: Tim | February 9, 2008 2:29 PM
"Don't do all three at once."
Hmmm, there's an idea.
Boris,
I'm not creating a straw man. If temperatures begin to go down over the next decade then clearly man made CO2 is not the main driver of climate.
Measured CO2 levels are going up and if temperatures go down, over a sustained statistically verifiable period, this will be evidence against the AGW theory. Well, at least against the idea that we face catastrophic consequences from it.
Few people argue that CO2 has NO influence on climate, certainly not me. The question is whether it is such a powerful influence that we face large scale negative consequences worth taking prophylactic measures to prevent.
If anthropogenic CO2 is having a measurable but secondary effect on global temperature than this is quite a different issue than the one commonly used to justify world wide taxation and restrictions on fossil fuels.
Sod,
Try not to put words in my mouth. Of course if some huge climate event could be shown to be responsible for the decline, such as your volcano example, the jury would have to wait to see what happened when the dust cleared, but normal solar cycles being shown to dominate climate would certainly weaken any catastrophic AGW claims.
If the earth's climate is only being slightly shifted from its natural oscillation that is controlled by solar influences it doesn't make much sense to institute drastic measures to shift the wiggle slightly downward about its mean value.
Posted by: Lance | February 9, 2008 2:39 PM
This parody of lance left me ROTFLOLing.
You've just created another strawman while insisting you didn't create a strawman.
That's very clever.
Posted by: dhogaza | February 9, 2008 3:38 PM
Your so-called point is a LIE. Why would I respond to a LIE other than to point out it is a LIE, and that LIARS ARE POND SCUM?
Posted by: dhogaza | February 9, 2008 3:45 PM
Lance, your thinking on this is keeping you from understanding. There is no "main driver" of climate--that's a hopelessly vague term.
Posted by: Boris | February 9, 2008 3:45 PM
Lance, I'll give you an even-money bet that temperatures in the next decade will go up by twice the per-decade rate in the 20th Century. Let me know if you want to put your money where your mouth is.
Posted by: Brian Schmidt | February 9, 2008 4:03 PM
La Nina combined with reduced solar activity should not equal a reason for complacency or belief that AGW has stopped. Both are short term transitory. There is no sign that production of GHG's is heading for any kind of decline, and using La Nina and reduced solar activity as excuses for making minimal efforts towards restraint seems very shortsighted. It will probably take the next strong El Nino to have the urgency of the issue taken seriously. But I wouldn't hold my breath for any real efforts to phase out coal, especially by any Australian Gov't. Not any attempt to restrict coal exports at the source! It's going to be the consumers who are going to be held responsible for those emissions. But failing to do anything about emissions won't be reason to restrict access to Aussie coal! A bit cynical to think that, but when couched in terms of short term economic hardship versus future costs, I expect short term will win. And that is how it will be pitched to the public, by well resourced vested interests.
Posted by: Ken | February 9, 2008 6:58 PM
A millennial perspective on Arctic warming from 14C in quartz and plants emerging from beneath ice caps http://www.glyfac.buffalo.edu/Faculty/briner/buf/pubs/Andersonetal_2 008.pdf
What I find interesting is figure 3 which shows this area was ice free from 6,000 years ago until 2,800 years ago, then there was intermittent ice cover from 2,800 years ago until 1,100 years ago and ice covered for the last 1,100 years.
Isn't it odd that this area has only been covered by ice for the last 1,100 years and the rest of the last 6,000 years this area had less ice than today? That means that more than 80% of the last 6,000 years that area has had less ice cover than today and it was actually ice free for more than 50% of the last 6,000 years.
Perhaps a bigger question would be why has this area been covered in ice for the last 1,100 years?
Cheers
Jim
Posted by: Jim | February 9, 2008 9:20 PM
Your link doesn't quite work, try the first one on this list: http://www.glyfac.buffalo.edu/Faculty/briner/buf/pubs/
On a very quick look at the abstract, the paper does not seem to say what you think it says.
Posted by: Holly Stick | February 9, 2008 9:46 PM
Tim drools,
"I do not understand this post nor the comments. ... this post and comments imply that if this news comes out in a business article then it is untrue and we are not entering a new solar cycle???????"
Which part of the phrase "took a scientists statements and work out of context" do you not understand?
Lance screams,
"This is the same thing that left leaning publications such as the Guardian do on an almost daily basis. Only they use excerpts from scientific sources to hype CO2 catastrophism."
Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it!
I see the crapmill continues to churn...
Posted by: bi | February 9, 2008 11:29 PM
Well, once again we see the powerful arguments of the what-agw? folks, and their deep understanding of how truth is achieved by honest debate.
Seems to me, if there were any intelligent argument against agw, by now somebody would have posted it, by random chance even if they couldn't recognize it among the bullshit.
But let me show my scientific openmindedness; perhaps one of the skeptics could explain for me the mechanism between a solar minimum and lower temperatures, when the minimum being discussed is "extraordinarily low levels of magnetism", not heat.
Posted by: z | February 10, 2008 12:41 AM
Jim: Notice the reference in the article to insolation changes. These resulted from orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles) that increased high Arctic insolation during the mid-Holocene and subsequently reduced it. The trend toward reduced insolation continues today, which as the paper points out makes the current melting even more significant.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | February 10, 2008 1:33 AM
Lance, hand-waving at this makes it seem larger than it really is. As it happens Tapping is the author of a reconstruction finding that the maximum possible irradiance reduction in the event of a Maunder Minimum repeat is 1.5 w/m^2 (in absolute terms, so the effective forcing change would be a fraction of that, let's say .25 w/m^2.). That's equal to about 10 years of CO2 accumulation at present rates. So things could cool slightly for a brief period (on the order of .05C), but we'd be right back on track very shortly. Given natural variability (which has swings much larger than .05C), the effect on the climate would be on the edge of detectability. We would absolutely know it was happening, though, since solar irradiance is measured with excellent accuracy. But as Tapping points out, any benefit we would see from such a solar reduction would be relatively short-lived and would be paid back later. Summing up, there's no basis in any of this for arguing that CO2 is not the main driver of climate.
That said, if you're confident that we're entering a solar grand minimum and that Tapping's maximum irradiance reduction will be forthcoming, all else being equal you should take Brian's bet.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | February 10, 2008 2:27 AM
BTW, I think I was actually the first to post something on this (in what I used to think was a quite prominent place, but apparently not). I wants credit, I do.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | February 10, 2008 3:42 AM
One more reason Lance is usually ahead in The Troll Race:
The cute way he uses "catastrophism" as a pejorative.Spectators are requested not to tell him it doesn't mean what he thinks it does. The trolls are to be both unhelped and unhindered.
It was with great sadness we learned that one of the trolls was apparently banned from competition for abuse of something. But you have to say it was great news for Lance.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | February 10, 2008 5:03 AM
"If temperatures begin to decrease then it will be clear that anthropogenic CO2 is not the DOMINANT climate forcing as has been claimed by proponents of AGW theory, but a secondary signal."
By this reasoning, of course, a nearby supernova, a major asteroid impact or a truly massive volcanic eruption of the type that comes along every few million years would also "disprove" AGW.
By a similar logical process, lobotomising a newborn would be definitive proof that nurture not nature is the "primary" determinant of IQ.
Posted by: Ian Gould | February 10, 2008 5:47 AM
Steve Bloom #26- do you have any pointers to information on the Milankovitch cycles during the holocene? They would be very interesting.
Posted by: guthrie | February 10, 2008 5:49 AM
"...but normal solar cycles being shown to dominate climate would certainly weaken any catastrophic AGW claims."
Except that what is being talked about here is not a "normal solar cycle".
Posted by: Ian Gould | February 10, 2008 5:50 AM
"One more reason Lance is usually ahead in The Troll Race:
The cute way he uses "catastrophism" as a pejorative"
What's even cuter is how he combines it with "Al Gore is the Pol Pot" economic catastrophism of his own.
Posted by: Ian Gould | February 10, 2008 5:54 AM
It might impress anyone reading this site who wanted to learn about AGW if people could lay off the abuse and note that the paper quoted by Jim about ice in Baffin Island contains the following quote:
" Radiocarbondates on vegetation appearing beneath retreating ice caps indicate that some plateau ice caps have existed continuously since (around) 350 AD, demonstrating that the current warming is unique in at least the past 1600 years. Lake cores and in situ 14C inventories in quartz document a trend toward more frequent ice cover in recent millennia, coincident with reduced summer insolation (Figure 2a), making the current ice-cap retreat even more unusual. Collectively, these data extend the timeframe in which 20th century warming is unprecedented in this part of the Arctic well beyond the past 400 years established by Overpeck et al.(end quote) This is good evidence that the MWP was not as warm as the temperatures we have now. Surely concentrating on that point is more interesting to others than just swapping insults.
Posted by: Martin | February 10, 2008 9:28 AM
The part I loved in the article is: "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet." Boy howdy, them first-class scientists may have stumbled on the reason night-time temperatures are warmer. Need I remind everyone that the stars are only out at NIGHT!? Score another one for first-class science, it's the best kind of science. Thanks to friend E for pointing this out to me. rb
Posted by: arby | February 10, 2008 9:45 AM
re 12:
"'Go outside, read a book, get laid.' Don't do all three at once."
Any two out of three works, though. Grin.
Posted by: Lee | February 10, 2008 11:51 AM
Arby said:"Need I remind everyone that the stars are only out at NIGHT!? Score another one for first-class science, it's the best kind of science."
Uh, the stars are always there. You only see them at night, but believe me, they're still there. Score one for smart asses, eh?
Posted by: gator | February 10, 2008 1:04 PM
Lance said: "the jury would have to wait to see what happened when the dust cleared, but normal solar cycles being shown to dominate climate would certainly weaken any catastrophic AGW claims."
Lance - why? You left out the part of your argument where you connect your premise with your conclusion.
If CO2 forcing causes about 3C/2xCO2 temp increase and we know the rate of increase in CO2 and therefore the rate of increase of the CO forcing - all fo which is approximately true - and for some period of time - a couple sun spot cycles, say - a strong negative forcing from decease insolation causes a net negative forcing - how on earth is that evidence against a strong long-term positive forcing effect of CO2?
Be specific, please, Lance. You have a degree in physics - I'm sure your professors often made you show your work, so you know how.
Posted by: Lee | February 10, 2008 1:15 PM
gator: Heck, you caught me.
Posted by: arby | February 10, 2008 1:31 PM
What is not news is that a reporter took someone's statements out of context and reported them in a way to further their reporting/political agenda. Happens all the time, left, right, center, doesn't matter. The news media are nobody's friend.
Posted by: ben | February 10, 2008 2:28 PM
Shorter ben:
Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it!
Posted by: bi | February 10, 2008 2:33 PM
What is not news is that a reporter took someone's statements out of context and reported them in a way to further their reporting/political agenda. Happens all the time, left, right, center, doesn't matter. The news media are nobody's friend.
you got that wrong again, ben.
basically ALL "sceptic" reporting in the right wing media is made up of such "misunderstandings" and "misreprensentations".
if you remove them, you are stuck with articles about/by the Pielke clan...
Posted by: sod | February 10, 2008 4:57 PM
Thanks for this Tim. I posted this at Bolty's blog where he had slavishly repeated it.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rightthefirsttimetheworldwill_cool/P0/
Posted by: Ender | February 10, 2008 5:38 PM
?
Posted by: ben | February 11, 2008 12:33 AM
More hilarity from Ye Olde Chronicles of ye Great Denialist Crapmill:
"When the voiceover [in the CEI ad] says 'Greenland's glaciers are growing, not melting', we see the abstract of a paper entitled 'Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland', with a glowing halo around the word 'Growth'. Eagle-eyed viewers may spot the fact, however, that the article is only talking about the 'interior', and not the edges. In fact, the paper stresses that available data confirms that the edges are thinning."
I invite all "warmists" (heh heh) to spread this little tidbit far and wide. Show the denialists that we, too, can be good at mindless propagation of stuff!
Posted by: bi | February 11, 2008 2:58 AM
Guthrie, the Wikipedia article is quite good (although the second sentence has a mistake) and includes the basic plots for recent times. It should be possible to find whatever details you want through the links there. One of them is to the paper projecting another 30,000 years or so for this interglacial, and I suspect it would include specifics about the Holocene up through the present.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | February 11, 2008 3:20 AM
Lance writes:
[[normal solar cycles being shown to dominate climate would certainly weaken any catastrophic AGW claims.]]
Lance, there are four ways we know changes in sunlight aren't driving the present global warming.
1) We've been measuring the Solar constant (also called Total Solar Irradiance, TSI) from satellites like Nimbus 6 and -7 and the Solar Maximum Mission, going back several decades. We have excellent proxies for before that, going back to around 1600 AD. TSI has not increased or decreased appreciably in the past 50 years, so it can't have been driving the sharp upturn in global warming of the last 30.
http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/LeanTSI.html
2) Increased sunlight would heat the stratosphere first, since that's where the ozone layer absorbs solar ultraviolet light. Instead, the stratosphere is cooling, as predicted by the climate modeling. Partly this is due to ozone depletion, but it's also due to increased carbon dioxide, since the heat balance in the stratosphere is between ozone heating and carbon dioxide cooling.
3) Increased sunlight would heat the equator and low latitudes more than the poles and high latitudes, due to Lambert's cosine law -- great latitudes are slanted away from the sun, which is one of the reasons the poles are colder and the equator hotter in the first place. Instead, we're seeing "polar amplification" -- again, predicted by the climate modelers -- due to something called the ice-albedo feedback.
4) Increased sunlight would act more during the day than during the night (duh!). But nighttime temperatures have been rising slightly faster than daytime temperatures. That's consistent with increased atmospheric opacity due to more greenhouse gases, but it is not compatible with increased solar heating.
Some denialists try to say it's not TSI that matters, but the sun's magnetic cycle or the galactic cosmic rays it mediates. The problem is, most of these other cycles follow the TSI cycle (the 22-year sunspot cycle). Like TSI, galactic cosmic rays show no trend over the past 50 years.
It ain't the sun.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | February 11, 2008 9:58 AM
It's those pesky stars, I tells ya. rb
Posted by: arby | February 11, 2008 10:21 AM
Brian Schmidt,
"Lance, I'll give you an even-money bet that temperatures in the next decade will go up by twice the per-decade rate in the 20th Century. Let me know if you want to put your money where your mouth is."
Sure, sounds like fun. How much did you have in mind?
Marion Delgado,
I happen to disagree with your opinion on AGW that does not make me a "troll". I make civil posts and try to make lucid points backed by empirical evidence. I don't spew insults and emotionally overheated rhetoric like dhogaza, but since he and other abusive posters toe the party line they get a pat on the back instead of opprobrium.
Lee,
You say...
"If CO2 forcing causes about 3C/2xCO2 temp increase and we know the rate of increase in CO2 and therefore the rate of increase of the CO forcing - all of which is approximately true - "
Uh, pardon me? That is the whole question and I don't believe your proclaiming it "approximately true" counts as proof. Nice try at asserting your conclusion.
Global temperatures have remained almost flat for the last decade and the coming year is forecast to be cooler than 2007. Now before anyone starts screaming "cherry picking" I'll admit that doesn't mean that the long term warming trend won't continue. But if the current leveling off of temperatures continues, with no large negative forcing in evidence it will certainly put into doubt estimates of a 2.5+C climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2.
Protestations to the contrary only highlight the attempts of some to place AGW beyond the reach of falsification.
Posted by: Lance | February 11, 2008 11:50 AM
Lance:
"I make civil posts and try to make lucid points backed by empirical evidence. I don't spew insults and emotionally overheated rhetoric like dhogaza, but since he and other abusive posters toe the party line they get a pat on the back instead of opprobrium."
Oh, the irony.
"Global temperatures have remained almost flat for the last decade and the coming year is forecast to be cooler than 2007."
Is "almost flat" an alternative way of saying "not flat"?
Posted by: bi | February 11, 2008 12:03 PM
bi,
Almost flat means just what is says. The last ten years show no statistically significant increase in global average temperatures.
Posted by: Lance | February 11, 2008 12:47 PM
Lance screams,
"The last ten years show no statistically significant increase in global average temperatures."
What was the statistical test exactly? What was the baseline? What was the confidence level? Or are you just dropping some nice big words just to sound scientific?
Now, back to our regularly scheduled "Clinton did it! Clinton did it!"...
Posted by: bi | February 11, 2008 12:57 PM
bi screams,
"What was the statistical test exactly? What was the baseline? What was the confidence level? Or are you just dropping some nice big words just to sound scientific?"
Posted by: ben | February 11, 2008 1:08 PM
Shorter ben, again:
Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it!
I guess ben or Lance could've simply pointed us to the exact source which says that "global temperatures have remained almost flat for the last decade", so that we can find out for ourselves exactly what this "almost" means. But they didn't, instead preferring to play silly games. I wonder if they realize they're being full of garbage?
Well, no matter, because I happen to know where this silly claim came from: a particularly ridiculous Boston Globe column by one Jeff Jacoby:
No statistical test, no confidence level, no nothing. "Essentially the same" is merely a sneaky way of saying "not the same".
And don't even get me started on the "global warming doesn't exist and is caused by the sun" genius argument... oops, too late:
Posted by: bi | February 11, 2008 1:34 PM
And, not forgetting the quote-mining of Svensmask and Friis-Christensen...
Here's what they actually think:
Posted by: bi | February 11, 2008 2:10 PM
bi, I have nothing to add to either side of the debate on AGW, I was just pointing out that you are being a dip. What exactly is the "Clinton did it!" crap? If anyone is "screaming," it's you. Quick being a dick.
Posted by: ben | February 11, 2008 2:25 PM
bi,
I don't believe I "screamed" anything. There are several data sets (RSS, UAH, GISS etc.) and many ways to calculate statistical variance from the mean. If I choose one set of data and one statistical technique no doubt someone or other will say I chose the wrong data or technique to emphasize my point.
All reasonable techniques on any of the main data sets from the last ten years will show little or no warming.
Posted by: Lance | February 11, 2008 2:32 PM
There are several data sets (RSS, UAH, GISS etc.) and many ways to calculate statistical variance from the mean. If I choose one set of data and one statistical technique no doubt someone or other will say I chose the wrong data or technique to emphasize my point. All reasonable techniques on any of the main data sets from the last ten years will show little or no warming.
hm. least square on GISS shows NORMAL warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
you might want to read "wiggles" and "garbage" by Tamino as well...
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/
Posted by: sod | February 11, 2008 2:47 PM
Lance posts:
[[Global temperatures have remained almost flat for the last decade ]]
I've seen you many times on Tamino's "Open Mind" blog. You were then when he posted his mathematical analysis showing that the trend from 1998 was significantly up. You couldn't refute it. Now you come in here repeating the same old crap you know has already been refuted?
You're being dishonest. There's no excuse for this kind of behavior.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | February 11, 2008 2:56 PM
BPL, #48: That's one of the more cogent and informative comments I've seen on one of these threads, thanks. Not that it will do any good with the denialist knuckleheads, but I thank you for taking the time and effort. rb
Posted by: arby | February 11, 2008 3:48 PM
Credit due to Steve Bloom for catching this first as he notes in #29 -- and I'd read it there and forgotten it myself til reminded, as others came along in that same thread who'd failed to notice his early warning.
And as I did there I'm suggesting a new blogging award should be created for the first person to spot and publicly point to a lie that will be picked up and repeated assiduously around the world.
I'm suggesting a pair of unlaced bronze boots, along the lines of the Orwell Award: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40431000/jpg/40431049bba-award_full-pi203.jpg
With an inscription:
"A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on." -- Mark Twain.
Steve deserves at the very least a virtual trophy, unless someone trumps this find during the calendar year. Of course, there's a lot more year to come. Keep yer eyes open.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | February 11, 2008 4:26 PM
Dagnabbit, I forgot to use "markdown" to fix that link. I sorry. I try be better.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | February 11, 2008 4:28 PM
BPL,
I have posted on Tamino's blog exactly one time (July 31st 2007, 6:51 pm) on the topic of Surfacestations.org and it had NOTHING to do with Tamino's mathematical analysis of the temp trend since 1998.
Unlike some posters I'll skip calling you a liar and assume you are just confused.
Try to be a bit more circumspect next time. Remember WWJD.
Posted by: Lance | February 11, 2008 4:41 PM
re 50, Lance.
I note you completely disregarded the question I asked you. Yo has stated a premise, and claimed a conclusion - I had asked you to tell us how your premise supports your conclusion. You didn't even mention that issue - why not?.
Posted by: Lee | February 11, 2008 5:52 PM
Lee,
You state your conclusion "...a strong long-term positive forcing effect of CO2" as part of your premise"...CO2 forcing causes about 3C/2xCO2 temp increase... ".
This is called question begging and is an example of circular reasoning.
There is no "argument" for me to answer.