The World Meteorological Organisation has announced that 2009 is likely to be the fifth warmest year in the global temperature record, and the first decade of the 21st century will be the hottest since instrumental records began in the 1850s. The UK Met Office graphic above shows how the decadal average for the “naughties” easily tops the 1990s, confirming that strong warming continues despite sceptic claims of cooling. Commenting on the release for the Science Media Centre, NIWA principal climate scientist Jim Renwick said:
It is a very good overview of the state of the global climate in 2009, something that has only become possible to do in close to real-time since the advent of comprehensive satellite (and other) observing systems. The climate in 2009 show a mix of events, underlining the effects of climate extremes upon humanity, from the Victorian bush fires, to drought in China, and heat waves in Europe and India. The climate change signal is clear, with the current decade coming in warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s.
See also: BBC, Independent (UK), NZ Herald, NOAA, UK Met Office.
Is it just me or has copenhagen/CRU brought out huge swarms of denier nutters. There are suddenly vast numbers of posts on climate blogs which I’ve been reading for years which are quite stunning in their tenuous grip on reality. What rock did these people crawl out from under? Are they being paid or are they genuine freelance nutters? They make some of the more sober skeptics look quite reasonable by comparison (maybe thats the idea!). Do Steve McIntyre and their ilk really think they are going to look good by pandering to these NWO conspiracy-theorist types?
What was really scary was to hear Nick Minchin (Australian Lib politician) parroting some of the more conspiracy theorist stuff during their recent leadership stoush – perhaps this was dog-whistling in action but their party is surely going to crash and burn at the next election if they carry on like this.
SCM – not your imagination, there’s swarms of the denier idiots clogging up climate blogs. Pretty much as expected. Just think how many more there might be if Copenhagen was actually likely to successfully curb greenhouse gas emissions.
It’s true alright. Some of the tripe is beyond belief. At the more modest levels of incompetence, Vincent Gray has an idiotic letter in the DomPost today. I won’t repeat his claims about temperatures to give them additional airing they don’t deserve – but his comments on 1857, for instance, show that he is juyst repeating the CSC lies. To be charitable, I think it’s just senility.
NZC”S”C are often just a conduit for disinformation and lies passed on to them; they are “useful idiots” for the fossil fuel industry.
I once googled a phrase in an Owen McShane article and found scores of hits from newspapers and blogs throughout the US and Canada; I then though it best to apologise to Owen for calling him a plagiarist, as he is apparently something far worse…
Could someone remind this old codger of the purpose (if any) of using ’61-’90 as a baseline for comparison? I know the decades are warmer regardless of the comparison period, but why *that* one?
IIRC, 61-90 is the WMO standard. Some Met Services have updated to using 71-00, and in a year or two will move to 81-10. But as you say, it doesn’t change the shape of the graph, only where the blue/red divide falls.
I occasionally wonder about the value of using a recent 30 year average to judge current weather/climate events. The rate of change is so fast that we can’t know if the statistics of climate 30 years ago are still relevant today. The UK Met Office has been experimenting (again IIRC) with using the last 15 years and 15 years of model projections to provide a better description of current climate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry
“the focus seems to be on less educated older white males”
Thanks Gareth. Now it’s my turn to ‘IIRC’: You’ve been pretty steadfast in the defense of the ’30 year’ comparison in the past as the ‘definitive’ period for climate, when did you start thinking that 30 might be too much (as I interpreted your comments).
How would a projection (made 15 years ago) provide a description of current climate?
Ok… but I’m not saying that a shorter period is better. First, the 30 year period is at least partly arbitrary – three decades is a nice round number. However, when you look at the statistics of weather (ie climate), you see lots of natural variation (warm months/cool months, droughts/floods, high winds/calm etc etc). If you look at short periods, the record is dominated by the short term changes. Over longer periods, the ups and downs average out, so you get climate statistics that reflect the weather that’s most likely to happen — but only if the climate isn’t changing rapidly. That’s the key point.
Look at the Met Office graphic. The average for the 00s is nearly 0.2ºC warmer than the 90s, and 0.4ºC warmer than the 80s. Consider what this might mean for the frequency of hot days (for example). Two things might be happening because the climate’s changing: there might be more hot days now than in the 80s, and the hot days might be hotter than they were. But if we’re judging our current expectations of weather events on the statistics describing those events compiled when the climate was cooler (in the 70s, 80s and 90s), we might be missing the big picture. Look at Adelaide’s recent heat — IIRC 😉 they’ve had three 1,000 year events in the last 18 months. So the statistical expectation of warm events in Australia is very likely to have changed.
What the Met Office were/are doing was combining the statistics for the last 15 years with the stats for the next 15 years from climate model runs — creating a 30 year climate description centred on now — and using that to help work out the expectation of things like heatwaves…
Hope that helps.
“the focus seems to be on less educated older white malesâ€
It doesn’t say ‘white’. Thankfully.
So the world continues to recover from the little ice age? So what? The rate of change is less than a degree/century: moderate, not unprecedented, and with CO2 fertilisation, largely beneficial. Meanwhile back in the real science (as opposed to the alarmist “travesty”) “…33.6 million years ago, when the Earth cooled from a greenhouse without ice caps,…the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million … the atmospheric CO2 first dropped in association with the cooling, then rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle. We can compare these huge swings (both up and down) in atmospheric CO2 with current computer-modelled estimates of climate sensitivity by the IPCC which suggest that a doubling of CO2 relative to pre-industrial times will produce a temperature increase of 2.5C to 4C.”
And they fail
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-science-test/story-e6frg6zo-1225808398627
Claiming to have the monopoly on “real science”, eh Steve?
The CO2 fertilisation line has been run by here many times before. But it doesn’t work: sea-based photosynthesis, as well as tropical plants representing something like a quarter of the world’s carbon fixation, all do not respond to increased CO2 levels. Not to mention the increased pest levels seen in field tests. Your suggestion that they do is a denialist article of faith not backed up by science.
Perhaps others will point out the gaping holes in the rest of your nonsense.
Steve, has it occurred to you that the human race and our support infrastructure weren’t here back then and would not have survived if we were?
Why do you think that the military of the world’s most powerful and well-resourced country sees AGW as a major threat to national security?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html
Samv: The fact that CO2 fertilization varies greatly due to more factors than you mention, does not alter the fact that it is globally immensely positive. If we could magically sequester CO2 back down to 280 ppm, millions would starve.
RT: We “survive” and build successful societies in climates from Singapore to Finland. We’re clever organisms and would have adapted to whatever prehistory threw at us. In fact, we obviously did.
As for the Pentagon, rule #1 of any bureaucracy is to use any pretext to justify your existence and expansion.
[citation needed]
Wrathall: CO2 fertilisation is “globally immensely positive”.
Reality: CO2 fertilisation is a real effect, but in most ecosystems CO2 availability is not the limiting factor (see Leibig’s Law of the Minimum).
Wrathall: The rate of change is less than a degree/century: moderate, not unprecedented.
Reality: The current rate of temperature change (1ºC per century) is 20 times faster than the most recent rapid change in global temperature – warming from glacial to interglacial (1ºC per 1,000 years).
Steve: you repeatedly trumpet this nonsense. Could you please try and find something original to say? You’re becoming tedious.
Steve, did you watch too many episodes of “The Flintstones” as a child?
Hint: its not actually paleontology…
“2000s warmest decade ever, 2009 to be 5th warmest year”
Wow Gareth, you can’t even get through a title without making an undefendable error. Are you really so ignorant to think the 2000’s are the warmest decade ever or do you just think it is OK to lie in order to promote the theory of AGW? (like Stephen Schneider)
The post is quite clear: the first decade of the 21st century will be the hottest since instrumental records began in the 1850s. Or can you not be bothered to read beyond the headline? I suppose that might explain a lot.
Oh, sorry, did the editor write the headline??? What would be wrong with, “2000’s warmest on instrumental record, shows nothing as we all know the world has warmed since 1850” as a title then?
Not as snappy, R2. You’ve clearly never written a headline in your life… 😉
” CO2 availability is not the limiting factor …”
Herbaria speciment from UK collections from the 18th and 19th centuries show greater density of stomata, neccessary at the lower CO2 ppm, hence greater water loss. So even if water availability were the LF, higher CO2 makes its use more efficient.
“current rate of temperature change (1ºC per century) is 20 times faster than the most recent rapid change in global temperature – warming from glacial to interglacial (1ºC per 1,000 years).”
Yes we have had this discussion before. And your implication that prehistoric temperature changes were gradual over millenia is simply an artifact of the proxies smearing out noise. (Similar to today’s tree rings not showing the late 20th C warming-the famous “decline” which had to be hidden). You simply don’t have prehistoric global temperatures with the chronological resolution neccessary to make the assertions you do about today’s “unprecedented ” warming. No-one does.
Meanwhile for your relaxation:
Nonsense. Ice cores give information on decadal and centennial scales, and there are new techniques that allow resolution on the scale of months over tens of thousands of years with some lake cores, for example:
You assert that the change we’re seeing is “moderate”: it isn’t.
As for your video: don’t give up the day job…
Gareth: ‘You assert that the change we’re seeing is “moderateâ€: it isn’t.’
While I agree with you that the change we are seeing is now more than moderate, I think there’s an important distinction that has been thoroughly lost in the public “discussion” on global warming.
The current levels of CO2 and methane (and I think several other greenhouse gases) are unprecedented for at least the last few million years. The current rise in CO2 is nothing like anything that can be seen in the Antarctic ice cores. (Perhaps someone can tell me if a hypothetical event of the current magnitude and duration could go undetected in the ice cores. I think not.)
The current level of global temperature is not unprecedented. (The current rate of increase might be, but I’ll defer to the paleaoclimatologists on whether we really know that.) From my recollection of something written by Jim Hansen, we’re still 0.5 C short of the peak of the present interglacial and 1 C short of the peak of the Eemian interglacial.
The core of the concern about climate change is that we are imposing a large and rapidly increasing forcing on a system that we believe is reasonably sensitive and we are starting to see significant effects. But it’s the anticipated future effects that are really worrying.
One reason this is an important point to get across is that it puts the whole Hockey Stick dispute in perspective. To many sceptics and many members of the public the debate about whether the current temperature is greater than occurred at the peak of the MWP is crucially important. To people who understand the problem in the terms I’ve proposed it’s a bit of a yawn, mainly a dispute about credibility (and we know from politics how dirty they can be).
Good points. Your Hansen recollections are similar to mine – except that I suspect we’re as warm as the warmest period of the Holocene, but a degree or two off the Eemian maximum.
The Eemian is interesting because it shows that the equilibrium response of the system at about 310ppm CO2 is a planet a couple of degrees warmer than now, with sea levels 5m higher than now. We’re at 387 and rising fast, aiming to stabilise at 450 (if we’re lucky), and the transient response is only just beginning to be seen. This is not good news.
The MWP thing is also interesting. The sceptics are keen to lead us to believe that it was warmer than now. If that was the case, then the climate must be very sensitive to small changes of forcings – and that means that we’re heading for a real pounding. Not sure why they’re so keen to make that point…
hey guys, this is my first contribution to a climate log. please bear while i confess.
i have been a “believer” for 20 odd years, and i am now a “sceptic”. i am not ashamed of having been / or being either.
i think the fundamental quality of the CC/GW “believer” in me is that i am deeply concerned about the welfare of our environment, and the need to safeguard it from too much human interference and obliteration. i have spent my entire professional life in the environmental protection business. i also had no reason to doubt the “good science” of the IPCC, and early reports of “deniers” were quickly linked to big bucks and the petrochemical industry, so that it seemed obvious what their concerns were, and who was funding their “cooked-up” science, and so… no need for checking. climate change is man made, and driven by CO2 emissions. it’s obvious and logical. full stop. let’s get out and stop it!
if anyone thinks that “believer” is not a nice epithet, neither are “denier” or “sceptic” – though the latter is a bit more ok than the former. almost a compliment, when you look at it from a scientist’s point of view. with respect to “believer”, yes, it does imply that we donate our brain and capacity to think for ourselves to the preacher we chose to follow… while the “denier” is one who pretends he cannot see the truth although he knows it… the “denier” is an evil man!
i think the “sceptic” has a quality which complements the one of the “believer”, in that it listens very carefully to what the preacher has got to say, without however handing in its brain, and then goes home and checks up on the facts. the sceptic would often – if not generally – share much the same concerns about the integrity of our environment. without meaning to add to the bonfire of personal attacks in this blog, i think the “believers” in here who know of science and its quest to illuminate the “truth”, know the value of deniers and sceptics in the scientific mill. in actual fact, science and genuine scientific inquiry based on hypotheses only progresses if posited hypotheses resist the tests of doubt, denial and rebuttal time and again. with every test completed successfully, the conclusions of our research get closer to what we would like to call the “truth”. to those who try to upkeep the idea of an existing “consenus” on man-made climate change, and that the “science is settled” and that “the debate is over”, the idea of peer review and critical scrutiny and serious and founded dissent in science sometimes appears as an inconvenient burden. not least because “believers” firmly believe that the need for action is here and now, and that any resistance in the debate must be quelled for the greater good, and the ultimate salvation of mankind. this is noble. however, it does not help in our common quest for the truth.
unbiased science benefits mankind tremendously. biased science never has. mainstream climate science has become biased and politicised so much that its value today has got to be seriously questioned.
Science has the benefit of being science. it is not religion, it is not philosophy, it is certainly not politics, it is not about good and bad, and it is not about charlie and the chocolate factory either. science is about hard facts, data and hard nosed analysis and conclusions. what we want to do with those – possibly in politics – is a different matter altogether.
Climate is changing – as it always has. we all know that (i believe). but anyone who is keen to wield the “book of truths” on man-made climate change, must have confronted himself and his believing or unbelieving wits with the “facts” and “findings” such as presented by the great climate scientists of our time. scientists who are now concentrated and reduced into the two camps of being all for, or all against the idea of man-made climate change. the actual “camps” range from solid black to pure white, with all shadings of grey in between.
in doing so, you will find that there are no clear-cut lines, that much of the science is still in its infancy, that much of the mainstream findings have been hyped up and politicized (ad absurdum), that data are presented in ways to support the dooms-day party line, genuine research pointing in the other direction is not taken up in the media, IPCC models are failing, CO2 is presented as the “one-pill-cure-all” substances for planet earth with no greenhouse gas effects whatsoever, etc. etc. etc.
and so much of this can be – and must be – discussed around a table amongst science-minded equals. not amongst “custodians of the truth”, and the hydrocarbon jet-set and its bought army of mercenary “deniers”. science is not good because 2,500 scientists are claimed to be part of one group, and 31,000 to be part of the other. science is good because it manages to take us from A to B, keep us there, and eventually lead us on to C. for as much as i can see, and with respect to climate change, we have been from A to Z, and are slowly migrating all the way back to A. the “believers” are in “denial” about that, and the “deniers” “believe” that any reasonable way forward is through this “closing of the circle” and starting all over.
face it! remain curious! maintain an unbiased scientific mind! use your legs to stand on! read up! delve in deeper! shape your own opinion on the basis of your own understanding – based on the assimilation of scientific publications – and their harshest critiques!
Jimbobwana1 You’ve been conned. The “great climate scientists†of our time are not “now concentrated and reduced into the two camps of being all for, or all against the idea of man-made climate change.†I haven’t come across a single notable climate scientist who is all against the idea of man-made climate change. Nor have I come across one who lacks the normal and proper sceptical approach to their scientific work. In my recent review of James Hansen’s book on this website I commented that he is always aware of uncertainties in his science and careful to accord them proper status. Such scientific consensus as there is on anthropogenic global warming has been painstakingly arrived at and based on evidence from a tremendous variety of scientific work. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t plenty of discussion and disagreement as scientists continue their work. It simply means that there is widespread agreement on the general thrust of the evidence. Your accusations of bias and politicisation have presumably been picked up from the denialist industry which doesn’t allow itself to be hampered by needing to produce any working scientific evidence to speak of. The accusations are false and, in view of the seriousness of the issue, dangerous. Instead of urging the often very well read people on this website to “read upâ€, try some serious reading yourself about the work climate scientists are engaged in. If you click the book reviews tab at the top of this page you’ll find any number to choose from.
bryan, i don’t think i have been conned. how could any of us very clever people be – right! i read your review of james hansen’s book; the book which bears the title “Storms of my Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity.” after reading the title, i fully grasp the sense of your statement that the author is “always aware of uncertainties in his science and accords them proper status”. the same author (who again tells us the “truth” – as others have done before on the same subject…) also states that “coal emissions must be phased out as rapidly as possible or global climate disasters will be a dead certainty.” it does not really seem as nuanced to me as it does to you. but i suppose that by taking such a sentence out of context, it makes things sound more affirmative then they really are if read within a paragraph or a page. if it were true that climate science – and especially the “science” of modelling climate – was still in its infancy (probably another baseless denial industry assertion which i happen to “believe”), then there is a lot of very firm ground james hansen is standing on, that is not yet given to others; unless of course one does “believe” in the “consensus” – which obviously remains a core belief for some.
in your review i also read a line you pick from the book, where the author says the following; “Should scientists deliver that conclusion [that burning coal must be stopped] and then leave it to the politicians to deal with it? Not in his experience. They will fudge the issue if they can.” so i am not sure how comes you take offense to my assertion further up when i said the science had become biased and politicized – with you assuming that i picked this up from the “denialist industry”!? did you not just report it yourself – but maybe failing to make the connection? my suggestion is for people here to mind politically active scientists! for one single reason: bias! the danger lies in there; and not in scepsis, denial or otherwise sound scientific method and progress.
do you know how many state climatologists and other scientists in the US have been fired or muzzled because their scientific views were not in line with the “consensus”, causing political dismay? read up! because i am sure you would stumble upon some very interesting and possibly disturbing facts – assuming you’d have the curiosity to read up on what their findings and assertions were, to figure out whether they were let’s say “scientific” in their approach, and to then judge for yourself whether there were reasons other than political to fire them.
this should be possible if you do in fact belong to the people who like hansen assert that they do recognize the value of scientific scrutiny and doubt.
finally, i would like to comment on one more line from your reply; “the denialist industry doesn’t allow itself to be hampered by needing to produce any working scientific evidence to speak of. The accusations are false and, in view of the seriousness of the issue, dangerous.” for someone claiming to read scientific papers, the first part of your assertion is really surprising! we are talking about upright peer reviewed scientific papers published in the finest journals where ALL climate scientists publish, taking close looks at what is happening to the ice sheets, the temperature records, the CO2 records, hurricane incidence, the quality of models and their predictions, etc. etc. etc. – all published and there for all of us to read should we care to do so and form our own opinions (remember!). if you’d read – beyond the general audience books written for people like yourself – you would be likely to find that for many critical issues the findings of some of those people – rounded up by folks like yourself as deniers (how useful is that really?) – have very palpable, justified and evidence-backed reasons to “believe” (and publish) that global warming is less than projected in the 4th IPCC report (that is a fact the IPCC is now dealing with), that sea level rise forecasts in the several meter range (by scientists such as james hansen) are off by several meters, and that the forcing of CO2 is likely to be substantially less than originally expected and published by the “consensus industry”; also maybe a befitting appellation, as it is – by the way – funded to the tune of (many) billions of dollars.
one of the marked differences between you “the believer” and i “the sceptic” is that i will read hansen’s book with due curiosity (with its roland emmerich movie title), and that i will analyze his claims in light of the existing scientific evidence shored up for and against his claims and findings.
reading left and right along the divide is the only way to get an idea of how serious man-made global warming really is, and how much of it is caused by CO2.
You seem to be arguing that the result is wrong, because the conclusion is dire;
In other words, the result is cast off as shrill, and therefore impossible to be unbiased.
The thing is, they’ve done their homework. The argument was developed and cross-checked through over 150 years of scientific debate. The first “model run” in 1896 using pencil and paper has been refined but essentially validated. The atmospheric physics was worked out in the first half of the 20th century. The other driving forces of the climate have all been quantified, other possible culprits from undersea volcanoes to sunspots and orbital variations investigated and quantified – and there is warming left over.
Excellent, well if you are actually reading science-based things you should figure this out eventually – as an ex-sceptic, I did. The on-line AIP book is very useful in showing how historical some of the skeptics’ claims are.
No, we don’t, so why don’t you tell us, with of course some supporting evidence. We do like that sort of thing around here, not the usual pull it out of your backside stuff the denier nutters are happy with.
Yes, Jim Bob, kindly provide links or references to the papers you cite so vaguely, or stop wasting bandwidth.
“very palpable, justified and evidence-backed reasons to “believe†(and publish) that global warming is less than projected in the 4th IPCC report (that is a fact the IPCC is now dealing with), that sea level rise forecasts in the several meter range (by scientists such as james hansen) are off by several meters, and that the forcing of CO2 is likely to be substantially less than originally expected”
Jimbobwana1
First, let me make it clear that I am not a scientist and do not claim to be able to read scientific papers with close understanding. For my understanding of climate science I rely on what scientists and science writers produce for the general reader, as most of us must. Judgement has to be exercised, of course, but I have seen nothing which suggests that the people I read have closed minds or are part of some mysterious conspiracy to alarm. Quite the opposite. One senses a dismay at what has been discovered. In the case of Hansen it is that dismay which has propelled him into a measure of activism as the years have gone by and the steps he imagined society would take to protect itself have not eventuated. His championing of one economic approach over another may be open to question, but his open warnings to political leaders are far from a politicisation of science. When a scientist foresees great danger is he supposed to be quiet about it?
You obviously consider that a handful of scientific papers which have not gained traction in the wider scientific community contain evidence that CO2 forcing is likely to be less than most believe, that warming is similarly likely to be lower, and that sea level rise will be small. We depend on the intellectual integrity of the scientific community as a whole in such matters. I have no doubt that any such papers have received due consideration and not gained acceptance – a common part of scientific debate as I understand it. You can hardly claim that they represent one side of a great divide in scientific opinion. Certainly they do not diminish the urgency of mitigation measures on which the survival of human cvilisation may depend.
dear bryan,
thanks for your circumspect and cool reply. i find it a lot more appealing than laurence’s and rob’s foul language in response to a few fundamental thoughts i took the time to share, and which i think are important to throw into this debate.
i have moved from “believing” to “fact checking” during this summer of 2009 only because a friend of mine – another environmentalist – pointed me to a number of resources which provide a much more differentiated and unsettled picture about man-made global warming and the climate change debate. like you, and as i already pointed out earlier, i was convinced that the “sceptics” had a second agenda. after some 6 months of research, i still cannot see that being the case. they are just as sincere as the “alarmist” might be – or might have been before they got onboard what some might be inclined to call the the global warming gravy train.
it is important to bear in mind that the IPCC was created back in 1986 to “assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigationâ€. in other words, it was the IPCC’s mission to find – or demonstrate – the existence of man-made global warming. and the IPCC did just that and found it. it is CO2. and where did it find it! in its models – inside computers…
a decade earlier, mainstream scientific thinking still was that we were about to slip back into another ice age. the confusion about the direction in which climate was going as little as 30 years ago really tells us that hard core climate science is still very young, and that many fundamental chemical and physical mechanisms of earth’s climate system are still completely unknown, or otherwise very poorly understood. try to model that!
i am a trained scientist, but i am not a climatologist. i do understand scientific method and process, and i am capable of reading papers, and also the same books you do. and i do read them. more importantly though, is to be able to read up on the assertions of scientists who differ over some of the fundamentals on climate change, and make up our own minds. it is not because we do not find these views aired in mainstream media that they are less sound or important – quite to the opposite. the eerie almost total silence of world wide media surrounding the east anglia affair (dubbed “CLIMATEGATE”) should be a reason enough for anyone to catch a whiff of a dead rat!
ok. let’s get to the “handful of scientific papers” that might stipulate differentiated kinds of GW mechanisms and outcomes. having read some of your posts, it is clear that you realize that climate change “happens” through some jolly complex lot of chemo-physical processes and mechanism scientists are trying to figure out, and that climate change is expected to create major impacts on different levels – such as enhanced storm events, sea level rise, species extinctions, etc. this covers many fields of scientific inquiry, and bodies like the IPCC are commissioned to bring the science together and make sense of it. they put the puzzle together – not necessarily the guy who digs up ice cores on greenland… there are hundreds and thousands of papers in the peer reviewed press which are at odds with the “consensus” position of the IPCC. not just a handful. strikingly though, as for the stuff mentioned further above, mainstream media report virtually nothing which is “climate contrarian” – as james hanson would put it. why, when there is so much of it (as you will find out!)?
probably the most comprehensive resource on this can be downloaded from the following link: http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf . this report was published in july of this year, and has gone unnoticed by the press – worldwide. when you look at the breadth, scope and seriousness of the work involved, you might start to wonder how it is possible that report of this nature goes unnoticed. i for one, cannot figure that out… the report is quite scientific in tone and content, and also very bulky, but i believe it is accessible to the aficionado of climate science. just as i would urge you to read “alarmist” publications with due brains at hand, i would certainly also encourage you to challenge all assertions and findings derived in this report. having bought james hanon’s book already, you will be able to directly compare differing views on the same topics. and for rob – before i waste more bandwidth – the same report provides you with hundreds of very solid references suggesting more or less otherwise…
a more penetrable and even more recent text is the following book which i am just about to finish: Michaels, P.J. 2009. Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know. Cato Institute. Washington, DC. (laurence, the foreword to this book names american scientists who have recently lost their positions as state climatologists for holding scientifically motivated views on climate change which differed – and continue to differ – with IPCC’s findings; see, i did not pull that one out of my rectum, thank you very much).
to me the conjecture here is quite simple. we have been getting anthropogenic global warming and climate change stuffed down our throats left, right and center for the last two decades. governments, an intergovernmental expert panel steered by the UN, the media and a former US vice-president – all send us the same message over and over again. doubt, scepsis, and dissent have been effectively silenced and thwarted to such a degree that folks out there – such as ourselves on this blog – hardly manage to even have a decent conversation about things anymore. “fact-checkers” are likened to holocaust deniers – just because they want to know for themselves. scientists whose findings differ and publish them lose their jobs. others just stay quiet.
you have to read! there are more “inconvenient” truths out there than those fed to us on the broadband. you have to shoot beyond al gore’s DVD and book… and then come back to it and wonder… it’s an enlightening journey, and it is worth every second and penny you will “waste” on it. and since it is carbon neutral, you won’t warm up our planet by doing so!
now i order james hanson’s book!
Professor Bob Carter from James Cook University in Queensland, talks to Nzone Tonight’s Allan Lee on April18th, 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU&feature=player_embedded
Jimbobwana1
If the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute are the sources of your information about neglected science then we will just have to settle to differ. In my view they are obviously guided by ideology. I know they can always produce some scientists to support their position, but none of them appear to work in relevant fields. I sense irrationality when I venture into their territory and would have to do violence to my understanding of educated life to take their assertions seriously. Not that I’m even tempted to.
I wish it were a matter of no great moment, but meanwhile the globe keeps warming, ice keeps melting, sea level keeps rising and I’m alarmed and want to see us take urgent remedial action. Which means that when they campaign against such action, in my eyes they become an enemy of human welfare. I hope that your immersion in that world won’t mean that you want to stop such mitigation measures as we may eventually undertake.
Incidentally Hansen always makes it clear that his understanding of climate change is based first on paleoclimate studies, then observation, with models coming third.
…I see you’ve added a link to a Bob Carter interview. He speaks with an air of authority but he does not speak for those who work closely on the issue, and his assertion that he is in the “middle” position is fictional.
Jim Bob, the tired old denialist sources you proffer prove you to be either a credulous fool or, more likely, an “astroturf” spindoctor working on behalf of the fossil fuel industry, who also fund the Heartland Institute and Prof. Michaels and Carter.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
http://www.desmogblog.com/rm-bob-carter
http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels
Get a life, stop trying to screw up my childrens’ lives, and, please, spare us the crocodile tears of your fake victimhood…
“quite to the opposite. the eerie almost total silence of world wide media surrounding the east anglia affair (dubbed “CLIMATEGATEâ€) should be a reason enough for anyone to catch a whiff of a dead rat!” – Jimbob
Dead duck, “climategate” is a dead duck!.
Yes, jimbobwana1, you’ve been absolutely conned, as your sources show.
I’m a non-specialist with a few basic clues about scientific method, and perhaps a few more clues about propaganda and msinformation when I see it. After the email hack, I’ve upped my reading around the place considerably, and, categorically, there is no doubt where the balance of science lies.
The denialist camp has very little of scientific credibility to show, but an array of repetitive, much-hyped, thoroughly-discredited memes that seem to be rolled out on a rotational basis. That’s been obvious over the last few eeeks and before that, from reading back on the main forums and blogs.
The orchestrated PR campaign to discredit science that started in the rearguard action of the tobacco industry and is now in active in the anti- climate science campaign has been insidious and destructive.
You’ve parroted a number of sources right out of that “heartland’. You have a scientific background? It’s not really obvious from your comments.
Cheers to the regulars here. haven’t been reading here for very long, but pleased to see some informed comments with a New Zealand flavour online.