scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

[nathanm]

I'd be happy if the ice melt trend in Antarctica keeps up. It'll be interesting to see how the Arctic fares in the coming summer.  I'll be happy if the NW Passage doesn't open up entirely again this year.

Give me a few years of cooler global average temperatures, and I'll reconsider my position. Happily, mind you. I'd rather be wrong about something with such painful effects. The available evidence just doesn't support that position at this time.

[Conan71]

The available evidence is a group grope at this time because there are too many competing agendas.  An equally good case can be made for or against GW based on available data.

[Gaspar]

Nathan,

I think we should all agree that we respect your beliefs. We mean no disrespect, we are simply not converts. 

A little over 1,000 years ago the Vikings were raising crops in Greenland, and temperatures in that region were on average 1 degree warmer than they are now.  About 400 years ago they abandon these lands as temperatures dropped by a degree on average.  We have had Ice Ages, Little Ice Ages, freezing and thawing of the NW passage and none track with CO2 measurements. 

In the last 20 years grant upon grant has funded study upon study to show that warming is occurring and is our fault.  Many of us accepted this on science.  Now we learn that data was manipulated or created to support the theory, rather than to test the theory.  Science was being manipulated to generate grant money. We recognize that GWCC is no longer within the realm of science.  It is now all politics and faith (Religion and Force).  To the politician it is a tool of pillage and control and its ministers were able to amass grand fortunes from the devout. 

Yes, the current temperature tracks with human CO2 emissions, but it is not possible for us to make a direct correlation without relying on faith.  There are basically two flaws in the theory that cannot be resolved.  First, we have had significant temperature fluctuations independent of CO2 trends.  Second, human CO2 emission is only a very small percentage of the overall increase, and we cannot determine if the increase in temperature causes the increase in CO2 (through increased biological activity), or vise versa.

Temperature fluctuations on Earth also track with is solar activity.  The solar correlation is independent of CO2 levels, and tracks with far more agility over short term trends.  NASA, very quietly (so as not to upset the GWCCers), launched the satellite "Glory" late last year to better forecast solar activity and research the correlation. 

Don't be discouraged Nathan. When the fossil record offered nearly inconvertible evidence to the theory of evolution over creation, the vast numbers of Christians, Muslims, and Hindus continued to practice their faith.  I am hopeful that people of the GWCC faith, like yourself, have the strength to continue in light of the recent blasphemy.  Clean energy, lower emissions, and more efficiency in our use of resources is still very important, and we are naturally moving in that direction, but most of us are just not willing to take the vow of poverty necessary to convert to your faith.  I guess we simply lack the piety.

[Conan71]

Nathan,


A little over 1,000 years ago the Vikings were raising crops in Greenland...

To the politician it is a tool of pillage and control and its ministers were able to amass grand fortunes from the devout.  

Okay, now that's just not true, the Vikings weren't formed until 1961.

And I've got your tool of pillage...

(Self disclosure- I did try to watch "An Inconvenient Truth the other night.  Sorry, that's the worst collection of claptrap I've seen).

[Red Arrow]

Something I would like to present from Professor Phil (Hockey Stick) Jones' interview with the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

"Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period       Length        Trend    Significance
                           (Degrees C
                           per decade)      
1860-1880    21           0.163         Yes
1910-1940    31           0.15          Yes
1975-1998    24           0.166         Yes
1975-2009    35           0.161         Yes

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant."

(I had to adjust the column headings a bit to fit this format.)


I would like to add to the answer to C:
The negative trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

I agree that we need more than 5 years to establish a trend.  What I do find significant is the change from +.12 to -.12 Deg C per Decade. If the trend was  +.24 deg C/decade, the trend would be well into the significant range given a few years.  I find the change in slope of the trend and the quantity of the change to be potentially significant if it continues.  Time will tell.

[stageidea]

NASA launched a site today discussing Global Warming.


Interesting read:
http://climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld/

[Conan71]

Definitely an interesting read.  Until there is an agreed-upon international standard for quantifying and analyzing data, there's no chance of a consensus on this.  I also look at it as NASA having a vested interest in this.  So long as they are involved in the gathering and analysis of the data and they can create the appearance of being needed due to a crisis they can remain a relevant bureaucracy.  Much like convoluted tax codes necessitate a large IRS.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=248

"2. Why does GISS get a different answer than the Met Office Hadley Centre [a U.K. climate research group that also performs analysis of global temperatures]?

It's mainly related to the way the weather station data is extrapolated. The Hadley Centre uses basically the same datasets as GISS, for example, but it doesn't fill in large parts of the Arctic and Antarctic regions where fixed monitoring stations don't exist. Instead of leaving those areas out from our analysis, you can use numbers from the nearest available stations, as long as they are within 740 miles (1,200 kilometers). Overall, this gives the GISS product more complete coverage of the Earth's polar regions.

The assumption involved in this is simply that the Arctic Ocean as a whole is warming at the average of the stations around it. What people forget is that if you don't put any values in for the areas where stations are sparse, then when you go to calculate the mean temperature for the globe, you're actually assuming that the Arctic is warming at the same rate as the global average. So, either way you are making an assumption.

Which one of those is the better assumption? Given all the changes we've observed in the Arctic sea ice with satellites, we believe it's better to assume the Arctic Ocean is changing at the same rate as the other stations around the Arctic. That's given GISS a slightly larger warming, particularly in the last couple of years, relative to the Hadley Centre."

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ooopsss!  Must have been the absinthe I was drinking...

I need an ice age so Florida will be bigger!

[Conan71]

I'm waiting for the report some day of:

"Scientists baffled by unexpected 10 year cooling cycle during period of global warming"