I well remember a meeting of the Hamilton group of Amnesty International back in the 1990s, when a visitor who lived in the Maldives turned up, wanting to find out more about how AI worked. It wasn’t long before we found out why he was interested, as he told us the story of repression and out-of-sight political prisoners in his country.
One of those prisoners was Mohamed Nasheed, whose party won an election in 2008, ending the 30 years dictatorship which preceded it. He is now President of the Republic of Maldives. It was no easy path to the presidency. His several imprisonments added up to a total of six years, 18 months of which were spent in solitary confinement. And it’s no easier now that he is there. The Maldives, comprising numerous coral islands, is the lowest country in the world, with a maximum natural ground level of only 2.3 metres, with the average being only 1.5 metres above sea level. Its vulnerability to climate change is obvious. It’s certainly obvious to Nasheed, and he’s not taking it lying down, as he made very clear in his blog written last year before the Copenhagen conference:
“No one in the Maldives is applauding the recent pledge of the G8 nations to try and hold temperature increases to 2 degrees and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to 450 parts per million. A few years ago, those might have been laudable goals, but new science makes clear they’re out of date…
“In January 2008, James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, published a series of papers showing that the actual safe limit for carbon in the atmosphere was at most 350 parts per million. Anything higher than that limit, warns Hansen, could seed ‘irreversible, catastrophic effects’ on a global scale…
“For the Maldives, climate change is no vague or distant irritation but a clear and present danger to our survival. But the Maldives is no special case; simply the canary in the world’s coal mine. Neighboring Asian countries like Bangladesh are already suffering from saltwater intrusion as seas rise; Australia and the American southwest are enduring epic drought; forests across western North America are succumbing to pests multiplying in the growing heat. And all of this is with temperature increases of nearly 1 degree — why on earth would we be aiming for 2 degrees?”
He has recently appeared — via video link — at the Hay Festival in the UK. The Guardian’s accounts here and here were enthusiastic.
Appearing by live video link, Nasheed showed more life and animation in 2D than any of the politicians currently wandering around the site (there’s a lot of former Labour ministers with time on their hands these days) usually manage in the flesh. Where our MPs duck and dive and try to say as little as possible that might upset anyone, Nasheed went in with all guns blazing.
Ed Miliband interviewed Nasheed. There were several points where his sense of the urgency of the issue was very apparent. When asked about educating people about climate change he declared it is too late for that.
“What we really need is a huge social 60s-style catalystic, dynamic street action. If the people in the US wish to change, it can happen. In the 60s and 70s, they’ve done that.”
But he also expressed uncertainty about the US, considering China and India actually far more receptive to the concept of climate change.
“My sense of China is that they tend to believe in climate change. My sense of the US is that a fair amount of them simply don’t believe in it.”
He noted how, unlike the developed world, India listened to small countries’ fears over the issue. “The refreshing thing about India is they listen to people, certainly they listen to the Maldives.”
Nasheed said countries committed to tackling climate change should press ahead with agreements and emissions reductions regardless of whether they took more recalcitrant nations with them.
“We cannot wait for the lowest common denominator where everyone agrees to doing almost nothing.”
He’s not waiting, like New Zealand, for others to take the lead. The Maldives is embarking on a programme to become the first carbon-neutral country within 10 years. It has three large wind farms under construction and photovoltaic technologies are being developed, although the country is also having to build sea walls to repel the ocean and energy-hungry desalination plants to replace fresh water supplies lost to the sea.
It might look like hoping against hope, but this was his conclusion:
“I believe in human ingenuity. We are not doomed. We can succeed and we must work along those lines.”
Brave words, though there must be times when they become difficult to say. The Maldives lives on the edge of a slow disaster. We can be grateful for the clarity and persistence with which Nasheed and others like him keep drawing attention to what is happening. But the forces of denial in rich countries are not yet exhausted. Few politicians in power in those countries are willing to speak with like clarity to their populations, and denialist bluster still holds considerable sway among legislators. Nasheed’s concern that the US is not yet ready to face reality is well founded. It is by no means clear that we will act in time to save the Maldives from the ravages of a rising sea.
Note: There’s a short video clip here from the UN Environment Programme in which Nasheed sets out his concerns in very reasonable terms which are his trademark. This Al Jazeera interview covers more specific ground. I liked his statement in the course of it: “Leaders cannot afford the luxury of ignorance.“
from: http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/advic…
"Public observance of any religion other than Islam is prohibited and importation of non-Islamic religious material is illegal…."
"It is illegal to import alcohol into the Maldives …"
"Homosexual acts are illegal in the Maldives. …"
In some ways it's a pity that catastrophic sea-level rise remains a figment of James Hansen's fevered imagination, as the submerging of this theocratic hole would almost be a positive outcome.
More concern for the world's poor, there, Steve?
Yes, Mr. Geopolitics is back! It's 'fruit-loop' Evo Morales all over again. Nasheed's been in charge since 2008. I suspect the Islamist features of the state of the Maldives might be somewhat more long-standing than that, particularly given the 30 year dictatorship. And may even be popular, repressive though they doubtlessly are.
Steve's take on what the appropriate fate is for Islamic democracies that refuse to vote in candidates that he approves of is, well, rather over the top, but it's not without precedent…
It changes the science not one whit. And for those of us who don't think drowning is an appropriate fate for those who don't meet our high standards that remains the real issue here.
Oh, he forgot to tell you; he cut off the bit that tells you you can still get a beer at the resort bars.
And you're still giving the Easterbrook train-wreck the appropriate wide berth, Steve? Wise man, if not a brave one…
"It changes the science not one whit. …"
Speaking of changing the science, see the dear old Royal Society is in full scale retreat over its alarmist prononcements: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05…
Meanwhile:
"The proportion of people, questioned in a survey by Ipsos Mori, who believe climate change is 'definitely' a reality has dropped from 44 per cent to 31 per cent in the last year. " http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253326/J…
At least the 1500-year old book of desert fables that rules the Maldives is showing more staying power than the book of fables you guys believe in.
Ah, the cut-and-paste memes of the moment – I've seen them already elsewhere Steve who's-still-shying-away-from-condemning-blatant-fiddling-the-numbers-elsewhere.
And as I've said elsewhere: first off that's 43 members out of 1300 or so seeking some sort of, what, acknowledgement that 'science is never settled'? Big deal!
Two: oh, dear the hard-driven Exxon dollars have ensured we're losing the popularity contest in some places at the moment! Again, this changes the science not one whit. Imagine, if you're capable, the 1633 headline: '93% of Romans Agree: Galileo is a Madman!'.
You'll forgive me, at the close of the warmest decade on record, and with the warmest 12 month period having just past, if I really don't quite see what polling proves with regard to actual climate. And being rather silly doesn't exempt you from the laws of physics – if it did I'd join your side of the argument!
I wasn't aware that 'we' believed in a book. I'd say 'can you point it out to me' but that'd only encourage more nonsense.
So, I'll leave you to it. Remember now – it's Ctrl+C followed by Ctrl + V – that's the boy!…
Or Phil Jones' favorite: <DEL>
I admit I got a laugh out of that one, Steve!
That is offensive, Steve.
Sure, disagree with the Maldives' laws. I do too. But saying that they deserve to be destroyed because of their laws? That is either fascism or mental illness or both.
If the laws of the Maldives bother you that much, go there and work to have them changed.
Islands being destroyed? Seems not:
"For years, people have warned that the smallest nations on the planet – island states that barely rise out of the ocean – face being wiped off the map by rising sea levels. Now the first analysis of the data broadly suggests the opposite: most have remained stable over the last 60 years, while some have even grown." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627633.70…
Yes I know the Maldives are in the indian Ocean. But the principle that coral Islands are proving resilient still holds.
And yes the article has the obligatory disclaimer that we must still be wary of future SL rise (always seems to be in the future eh?). This is New Scientist after all.
There are a few southern states in the U.S. that have laws that I do not like, is it OK to flood them as well?
Steve
Head on over to Wotts Up With That http://wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
And watch Anthony Watts get debunked on a daily basis.
Or check out this video of Monckton being audited.
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/global_wa…
More like shredded
My recent post Climate Change and Disinformation
Steve – you're baack, how hilarious!
Quickly, what do you think of your plagiarist mate Easterbrook being caught with a graph full of lies? Or is that just par for the course on Planet Denial?
ROFL
1) There has not been any global warming for 12 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
2) Projection of global mean temperature by the IPCC is incorrect as shown in the following chart:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…
Note that the observed temperatures are LESS than projections if CO2 emission had been held constant at the 2000 level.
3) Projection of global mean temperature by Hansen et al 1988 is also incorrect as shown in the following chart:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/h…
Note that the observed temperatures are LESS than projections if CO2 emission had been held constant at the 2000 level.
4) The pattern of global mean temperature is cyclic as shown in the following chart:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…
As a result, the effect of CO2 on global mean temperature is nil, zilch, naught.
As shown in the above chart, the global mean temperature has started its cooling phase until 2030.
As a result, dangerous Climate Change (aka global warming) does not exist.
So you just repeat the same meaningless junk over and over again. Are we supposed to be impressed by this?
Okay. so I'll repeat myself: if we have been in a "cooling" phase, why does more and more Arctic ice melt each year? If it's getting cooler, shouldn't there be more ice?
Arctic ice has been increasing since 2007. Back to its long term average actually.
Steve, you can't even lie well!
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_i…
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100504…
Hint: before spouting off any old thing try checking some sources other than WUWT!
And incidentally http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/02/291… (Even the bloody Sherpas are now in on the conspiracy! But that's alright, because they're bound to be the kind of people SW doesn't approve of!)
As for Girma, a genuine waste of our space and time, I've been saving one of my favourite quotes for him:
Ad hominem and unrepentantly so! Go and plague someone else…
Oh, and I have to note, only in the parallel world of the Deniosphere are 30 year trends questionable and 3 year trends (albeit invented ones) convincing!
Probably best to ignore him because he's incapable of understanding anything he's told.
More from the poll referred to above, from the same report in the Daily Denial :
"The latest poll found 31 per cent of British adults thought climate change was definitely happening, 29 per cent agreed 'it's looking like it could be a reality'"
Does adding 31 to 29 mean that the majority accept global warming ?
What about this bit :
"However, only 6 per cent said climate change was not happening at all"
What a tiny percentage. So small, in fact, that the following person must have been one of those very few who were asked and admitted their denial : (CONT)
(CONT)
There has not been any global warming for 12 years:
You can see the evolution of this nonsense at Deltoid. Be warned: it goes on a bit and Girma keeps repeating himself.
Start practising your WWWWWW noises…
Dear Bill
Here is what NASA published twelve years ago:
NASA FACTS – Global Warming – April 1998, NF-222 http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2…
“… For example, in the early 1970’s, because temperatures had been decreasing for about 25 to 30 years, people began predicting the approach of an ice age! For the last 15 to 20 years, we have been seeing a fairly steady rise in temperatures, giving some assurance that we are now in a global warming phase.”
Dear NASA, because temperatures have been increasing for about 25 to 30 years, why are people now began predicting catastrophic global warming?
I know 1998 holds a strange attraction on your side of the debate, Girma, so I'm both intrigued and encouraged to discover that you acknowledge that –
are they the words you intended to punch in?
and even something as clear as…
…is a bit heretical, isn't it? (Whaddaya know? I can quote selectively too!)
Ah, that'll be the same NASA that's overrun by alarmist propagandists, blind to the possibilities of flaws in their models? (Try reading the WHOLE paper, folks!) Nice to know what they were thinking last century. Have they published anything since then, do you know?
NASA FACTS – Global Warming – April 1998, NF-222
The direct radiative effect of doubling carbon dioxide is relatively small, and there is not much disagreement on this point among models. Where models conflict is in
regard to the secondary, or feedback effects. Models that predict a very large warming from carbon dioxide show cloud cover changes that greatly amplify the warming effects, while models that predict more modest warming show that clouds have a small or even
damping effect on the warming.
Can we match the observation of temperature trends with the model predictions? The temperature record of the past hundred years does show a warming trend, by approximately 0.5°C. However, the observed warming trend is not entirely consistent with the carbon dioxide change. Most of the temperature increase occurred before 1940, after which Earth started to cool until the early seventies, when warming resumed. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, has been increasing steadily throughout the past century.
Girma – do youself a favour by reading WG1. This was state of science in 2007 and far more relevant than the long-debunked stuff you keep bringing up.
Yeah, Phil, don't you be moving the post! I'm not sure how you did but just don't do it! (Girma, you might want to do some more research on English vernacular!)
Note that after mocking NASA for referring to the small number of ice age predictions made back in the 70s Girma now predicts – an ice age!
Did I miss the meeting where the deniers all decided the true temperature of the earth is what it is right now, or however much warmer it gets to (which is still cooler, remember – just look at Easterbrook's chart; no, don't resist – go with it!) while we all actually grew up in an ice age?
bill
You wrote, "small number of ice age predictions "
So science is decided by hand counts?
The end is near. Couple of years, at most. You will see it with your own eyes. Unless you say freezing winter is caused by global warming.
Philscadden
No more moving of the post.
You will see your believe crumble to pieces with your own EYES with the freezing winters that started last year continue for couple of decades.
You will then say, the freezing is caused by global warming. Big Chuckle!
The effect of human emmission of CO2 on global mean temperature is nil, zip, naught.
Global temperature is cyclic:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…
Girma – do you simply not read anything that debunks the rubbish put out by incompetent amateurs or do not understand the debunking? Do you have a science background? The “freezing winter” was over what was globally the warmest months on record. Check skeptic Roy Spenser if you dont believe me. As for cyclic, my eye – but then this has been debunked before for but you didnt appear to notice?
No and Yes respectively.
If you follow any of the other 'warning' links to other threads posted above you'll discover that not only is our friend a biological spam-bot; he's such a diligent little biological spam-bot that even having his name in posts on some other blogs will automatically pull your comment into the 'administrative review' queue!
(some perspective – not for the fainthearted!)
Thanks Bill, I will stop wasting my time.
NASA Facts NF-222, April 1998
The direct radiative effect of doubling carbon dioxide is relatively small, and there is not much disagreement on this point among models.
Why the repetition – do you think this makes it true? Why not look at the science position now rather than in 1998. Do you all that effort on research and new satellites hasnt created a better understanding?
There it is again! What would you guys have to talk about without 1998?
That was the greenhouse theory of NASA in 1998 . (i.e. CO2 has insignificant effect in increase in global meant temperature)
Here is the DATA since 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
Translation of the chart: No warming for the last 12 years!
That is, no global warming with increase of human emission of CO2 for 12 long years.
How many more years do you need to disprove a theory? 2, 5, 10?
Or is it that CO2 causes global warming, CO2 keeps global temperature trend constant & CO2 causes global cooling.
What do you call believe contrary to evidence?
(Hint: starts with R)
What do you call believe contrary to evidence?
(Hint: starts with R)
News flash – Denial does not begin with an R
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
"2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880"
"January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade."
The data from GISS that comes from global warming advocates is not believable.
The same institute cannot be a witness, a prosecutor and a judge.
What about the AMSU-A satellite data, which show that this year is warmer than any of the preceding 12 years.
Or are you suggesting that Roy Spencer isn't a sceptic at all, and is secretly part of the Conspiracy To Make You Poor?
What about the AMSU-A satellite data, which show that this year is warmer than any of the preceding 12 years.
Or are you suggesting that Roy Spencer isn't a sceptic at all, and is secretly part of the Conspiracy To Make You Poor&tm;?
dappledwater
What matters is the trend of the temperature for the last 12 years, not the individual values.
If the current global temperature plateau continues for five to ten years, your beloved man made global catastrophe will be dead.
You may cause grief to you, but it will be “cheering news” for me!
This is wasted on Girma but anyway, if you take the last 30 years, the linear trend increases as you increase the period.
Ralph Cicerone
(President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences)
In the wake of the UEA controversy, I have been contacted by many U.S. and world leaders in science, business, and government. Their assessments and those from various editorials, added to results from scattered public opinion polls, suggest that public opinion has moved toward the view that scientists often try to suppress alternative hypotheses and ideas and that scientists will withhold data and try to manipulate some aspects of peer review to prevent dissent. This view reflects the fragile nature of trust between science and society, demonstrating that the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole.
NewScientist
How climate scientists can repair their reputation
(Bob Ward)
… climate science is facing reputational meltdown similar to the Roman Catholic church's over allegations of child abuse and the British parliament's following the scandal over MPs' expenses…
NewScientist
Girma wrote : "You will see your believe crumble to pieces with your own EYES with the freezing winters that started last year continue for couple of decades."
It might help if you show how much of the globe was affected by those freezing winters and how they affected the global temperature. Do you know ? If so, provide some evidence not copied from Denier blogs.
Did you happen to notice how unwintery were the Winter Olympics ? No ?
Girma wrote : "How many more years do you need to disprove a theory? 2, 5, 10?"
You seem to misunderstand what it is a 'Theory' is. Any theory can be disproved at any time by the use of reason, argument and science. Do you have any ?
Judging by your use of blogs and quotes about the politics of global warming, I guess you have nothing to back up any of your beliefs.
Girma wrote : "What do you call believe contrary to evidence? (Hint: starts with R)"
Wrong, but I'm not surprised you can't see it. The word you are looking for is 'Denial', which starts with a 'D'. You are deep in it, unfortunately.
Meanwhile, try plotting some graphs and trends that are more representative of significant trends – i.e. 30 year ones. I know you won't, though, because that would mean going against everything you have read on those Denier sites. Shame.
JMurphy
Once you arrive at a maximum of a profile (1998 for global mean temperature anomaly, GMTA), the trend changes and you START from the maximum value to calculate for the trend AFTER the maximum.
In calculus, we go to the extreme and calculate the slope (tangent) at a point! Unfortunately, we don’t have a continuous curve to calculate this slope. The closest approximation is my equation:
GMTA=0.0059*(A26-1880)-0.52 +0.3*COS(((A26-1880)/60)*2*3.1416)
GMTA Trend (slope) = 0.0059-0.0314*Sin(((Year-1880)/60)*2*3.1416), which is obtained by differentiating the above equation.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…
For Year = 2002,
GMTA Trend = 0 deg C/ decade (global warming plateau or maximum of GMTA)
Compare the above with the following chart:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
Yes, the global warming trend is over, the global warming plateau is going to be over soon, and the global cooling phase will start.
So if this year turns out to be a new "maximum", will you admit that you are completely and utterly wrong?
Not likely. You will just tell us about how the next 10 years are going to see the start of the ice age.
Like yourself CTG, I only reply to these organic spambots on account of lurkers, who may not know any better. Hopefully Gareth's patience will soon run out.
Hopefully Gareth's patience will soon run out
It may indeed. If Girma sticks exclusively to his topic, and ignores everybody else's, he'll be for the moderation queue. You can't have a conversation with someone who isn't listening…
One year's temperature does not matter. What matters is the trend from the previous maximum to now.
So far the trend for the last 12 years according to hadcrut3 is FLAT!
One year's temperature does not matter. What matters is the trend from the previous maximum to now.
Why not the previous minimum?
Richard
Global mean temperature turning points were about year 1880, 1910,1940, 1970 & 2000.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200…
You calculate meaning full trends only between these years. For the latest 30 year trend calculation, our starting year is about 2000.
After you reach the summit of a mountain, when you move downhill, you start calculating the slope starting from the summit.
The slope during your climb is irrelevant.
Reminds of my pet frustration when walking in the hills. You see the summit, struggle up towards it, only to find when you get there that there's another one ahead, and so on until you're completely knackered when you finally get to the real summit. In Girma's case, of course, we all get knackered long before we get to the top…
Amazing Grima has just redefined the discipline of time series analysis.
Question how do you know when you are at a peak and not just a ridge?
Doug
…how do you know when you are at a peak and not just a ridge?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…
Peak: 1880, 1940, 2000, 2060 etc (assuming no shift in climate in the FUTURE; offcourse, none during the last 130 years of temperature record)
Ridge:1910,1970,2030, 2090 etc (same assumption as above)
So, one year is enough to determine a maximum, but not enough to determine a trend, is that it?
So far the trend for the last 12 years according to hadcrut3 is FLAT!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
No its not! You clearly misunderstand the graph you are apparently referring to. The graph is a graph of temperature anomalies. ie how much warmer each year was in comparison. Choose that graph and then do a linear trend line – the resulting trend is clearly not flat!
It can't be flat and be a cycle at the same time…
ctg
If you examine my cyclic chart above, the temperature at its local maximum or minimum stays nearly constant for about a decade.
I'm tired of playing with the troll.
Go learn some statistics, Girma. You are analysing noise, and producing plenty in the process. Nothing you have said so far has any relevance whatsoever. Time series analysis is complicated stuff – you can't just point to peaks and troughs on a graph and call them trends.
ctg
Put your money where your mouth is!
Do you dare to bet?
Warming global mean temperature trend from 2009 to 2015 or flat according to hadcrut3 observation you win; otherwise, I win.
Looser gives $100AUD The Australian newspaper so that it gives it to the charity of its choice.
Do you dare to bet?
How about $1000 (or perhaps more. We are only talking future of the world after all). Goes to escrow (say Royal society). However, I would struggle ethically to take a bet unless I had some confidence that you had read and understood WG1. You might like to note what other well informed skeptics are prepared to bet on before you throw money away. http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting…
Phil, he's done a lot of this! IIRC some posters at Deltoid are keeping a tab of Girma's $1000 punts. It's part of his shtick.
Personally I find 'All Girma (or responses to Girma) All the Time' pretty tedious.
Sorry Bill, but getting on my nerves too. I struggle with this as it would appear he is just gullible victim of the denial machine but suggesting that science isnt strong enough for a $1000 bet when science is asking for rather more than that really isnt a good look either. I just wish he would make an effort to understand what is wrong with "temperature is cyclic" argument and other rubbish from WTFUWT so he has better idea of who to trust.
Here is the effect of CO2 on global mean temperature:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
NIL!
or without the cherry-picking…
Seriously, I think the evidence suggests he's worth ignoring. The more you feed his ego, the more he'll come back with inanities…
Yeah, I know, but it's just so much fun baiting the troll…
Can I suggest we just do the inevitable and bounce him?
We've pretty-well exhausted his demonstration value as a fine example of what so much of denialism is all about – witless repetition, an absolute refusal to pay any attention to whatever anyone else is actually saying, an unshakable conviction of correctness no matter how absurd the belief, and an aphasic blindness to internal contradiction (well, it's either Denialism or unmanaged Aspergers!)
Everyone else had to ditch him eventually…
God knows how anybody's ego could be stroked by making an absolute ass of oneself in an international public forum.
But why? The more Girmas and Wrathalls there are, the easier it is to rebut the "sceptics". Bring it on, I say.
bill
Put your money were your mouth is!
Do you dare to bet?
Warming global mean temperature trend from 2009 to 2015 or flat according to hadcrut3 observation you win; otherwise, I win
Looser gives $100USD to The Australian newspaper so that it gives it to the charity of its choice.
Do you dare to bet?
sorry $100AUD
I rest my case. This is becoming a Girma Circus.
I already know which one of us is the 'Looser' Girma, thank you.
Ah, the Oz – the crackpot's favourite!…
Prediction for CO2 concentration in the atmosphere:
CO2 concentration will reach 0.04% (400 ppm) of the atmosphere about May 2014!
Any objectors?
So what?
Greetings TrueSceptic
I am just testing my prediction ability so that I will beat someone on a bet, as I will do with your 100 USD that you are going to depart from.
The CO2 figures are quite predictable. I expect 400 ppm in 2014-5.
Our bets are about temperature, though. You can't win the first one until 2020 and you might lose both this year.
TrueSceptic,
Don't forget we are using the hadcrut3 data as shown in the following chart in out bet:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:2…
Is this the case?
or this one:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/to:2…
The WFT average (compress) for 1998 is 0.528667. HADCRUT's own average, which we agreed on last year, was 0.526, which is slightly less. I'll see if that average has been adjusted since, or if the average is calculated differently. I'm not sure how best to average anomalies but obviously HADCRUT is the preferred authority.
We agreed on the HADCRUT3v data. What WFT shows should be identical but obviously we'll check when the time comes.
Just for Girma,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:199…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:199…
(The above show GISTEMP, rather than HADCRUT3. Girma prefers the latter, of course, because it shows what he/she wants it to show)
But, to show meaningful trends (not cherry-picked ones), here are the 30 year trends for both GISTEMP and HADCRUT3 :
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:198…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
(Don't look Girma, it doesn't confirm your cherry-picked world-view and goes against all that you have read on those Denier sites)
Finally, temperature against CO2 :
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:198…
(Oh dear, Girma)
HADCRUT3 against the full Mauna Loa record.
Girma is really fond of cherry-picking, and then somehow able to ignore the poor fit of his oscillation idea against the temperature record.
Do you dare to bet?
Warming global mean temperature trend from 2009 to 2015 or flat according to hadcrut3 observation you win; otherwise, I win
Looser gives $100USD to The Australian newspaper so that it gives it to the charity of its choice.
Do you dare to bet?
sorry, addressed to the wrong person (truesceptic ingnore it)
I know that you are sincere, so why don't you respond to others' comments, such as my cite above?
Me and you have to wait for future observations to see who is right.
We have done our debates.
Our judge is future observations.
IPCC projections does not look good at all: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…
Please answer the question. You posted misleading and cherry-picked graphs of temperature vs CO2. I posted an honest graph
over the full Mauna Loa record
JMurphy
Your first link gives a warming rate of 0.1 deg c warming per decade for the giss data: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:199…
However, the IPCC states:
For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenario http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/…
However, for the hadcrut3 data the warming rate is ZERO deg c per decade: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
And, for the UAH National Space Science data the COOLING rate is –0.05 deg C per decade. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to…
The model says a global warming of 0.2 deg C per decade. However, the observation says a warming of 0.1 deg C per decade for giss, zero warming per decade for hadcrut3, and a cooling of –0.05 deg C per decade. Which means the models are wrong.
Girma, your cherry-picking gets better and better !
When you compare the IPCC projection for the first two decades of the 21st century to a HADCRUT3 trend from 1998 to 2008, you are doing what you do best : make it up as you go along and hope no-one notices.
Sorry to spoil your fun.
To anyone else interested, this shows the following link shows HADCRUT3 data for the years 2000 to 2009, which gives a direct comparison against the IPCC projection, even if it is only half-way through the actual two decade projection time period :
HADCRUT3 DATA FROM 2000 TO 2009
Notice that trend : 0.0028/year, or 0.28/decade.
Oh dear, yet again, Girma.
Dear JMurphy
You can not yet include any value for 2010 in trend calculation, as we are just only about half way through the year and the values from the coming winter is not yet taken into consideration.
As a result, here is the trend for the last 12 years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
Which is FLAT!
FLAT at 0.41 deg C!
You are getting more and more bizarre as you get deeper and deeper into that pit of Denial you are stuck in.
Who included any values for 2010 ? I know I didn't so I suppose you must have seen that in the strange world you occupy, where you only see what you want to see.
You are not only a Denier – you are a dishonest Denier. I wish I had listened to others when they recommended ignoring you, and it now appears that you can add this site to that long list of websites where you have no credibility whatsoever. I just hope that you get some benefit in your real life because you are certainly discredited in your online presence.
I feel sorry for you but I won't be wasting any more time on the cherry-picking comfort blanket which you use to believe in whatever you want to believe in. I reckon you're a Creationist too so it's a waste of time.
Good: now JM can undertake something more productive, like teaching the cat to touch-type, or explaining Kierkegaard to the dog… 🙂
Kierkegaard to the dog? That was last week. They're on to Nietzsche now…
…der Hund und Überhund.
😀
…or preferably Hund und Trüffelhund
I would probably get more rational responses doing either of those two activities, too ! And see more progress…
I think Girma is sincere. Highly delusional and incompetent, but sincere all the same.
Seven years ago, on 5-Jul-2005, Phil Jones wrote:
The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
Dear Phil, it is now five years since you wrote that comment. Now you have 5 more years of additional data and according to your own dataset, the global temperature trend since 1998 has been flat.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
Is this significant?
JMurphy, is that the "scientific” community" that Phil is referring to that your belief is based on?
(I have made a mistake; you have not included the 2010 value; but you started from 2000; why ignore 1998?)
That is 11 years. Have you learnt nothing in all the time you've been using WFT (which I introduced you to last year)?
Yes, it is you who introduced me to WFT and thank you for that.
…and the rest of us forgive you for it, too! 🙂
Because…?
It was my idea of a joke! …because having discovered WFT Girma now directs our attention to it rather a lot (in fact, he seems to do everything rather a lot), and this usually involves the picking of the cherries!
Actually, you can, because they are anomalies, and in any case most of each winter in the NH is after 31 Dec.
But JMurphy did not do that.
continued
Dear JMurphy, how can you believe in something that is just wrong? Or shall I give a couple of more years to compare projections with observations before you chuck your bizarre conclusion that call a plant food a pollutant.
Dear Girma, I try not to believe in anything which may be wrong. So far, my record is good. Not the same for you, I would imagine.
Never mind, breathe in more of that CO2 and cut down on the oxygen – too much of the latter is too good for the brain…
JMurphy
At least stop the big scare of climate catastrophe.
It does not exist.
It only exists inside some peoples head.
Disproving Man Made Global Warming
The observed temperatures are BELOW projections if CO2 had been held constant at the 2000 level as shown in this IPCC chart:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…
Obviously, IPCC projections are wrong.
Why not reject a theory when it contradicts observation?
JMurphy
Seven years ago, on 5-Jul-2005, Phil Jones wrote:
The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
Dear Phil, it is now five years since you wrote that comment. Now you have 5 more years of additional data and according to your own dataset, the global temperature trend since 1998 has been flat.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
Is this significant?
JMurphy, is that the “scientific” community that Phil is referring to that your belief is based on?
sorry, it is "five years ago"
How could Phil say that the world had cooled from 1998 to 2005?
I thought it was just nearly flat.
TrueSceptic
CO2 concentration has been continuously increasing. However, global mean temperature is cyclic.
During the warming phase of global mean temperature, CO2 and temperature just happen to accidentally correlate with each other. However, when the global temperature is at its static or cooling phase, there is no correlation, as shown in the following chart.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
Here is what NASA wrote about the cyclic nature of global mean temperate in its NASA Facts, April 1998, NF-222:
…in the early 1970’s, because temperatures had been decreasing for about 25 to 30 years, people began predicting the approach of an ice age! For the last 15 to 20 years, we have been seeing a fairly steady rise in temperatures, giving some assurance that we are now in a global warming phase.
Truesceptic, during the decrease in global temperature for 25 to 30 years in the 1970s, CO2 was increasing. As a result, no correlation between temp and co2!
Unfortunately, NASA has withdrawn access to the file NF-222 in its website. Why?
"25 to 30 years in the 1970s"? Do inhabit some parallel universe where decades can be as long as 30 years?
Do *you*…
You now what I mean.
From 1940s to 1970s, temperatures decreased for about 25 to 30 years (as the NASA Fact sheet states)
Yes, there was sharp rise in the late 1930s and a sharp drop during the 1940s. I don't know if anyone has been able to explain this.
Global mean temperature trend for the four datasets since 1998
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
Data from Hadley Centre / UEA CRU => Zero deg C per decade (Flat)
Data from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies => 0.1 deg C per decade (half the warming rate of the IPCC projection)
Data from UAH National Space Science and Technology Center => -0.05 deg C per decade (slight cooling)
Data from Remote Sensing Systems => -0.06 deg C per decade (slight cooling)
Dear AGW believers, where is the accelerated warming of the IPCC?
It just does not exist!
What do you call believe in something that does not exist?
Silly man, why don't you take your head out of your arse and look at the 30-year climatological trends?
Your zombie "arguments" betray a wilful ignorance of science, statisitcs and physical reality.
1998 was an outlier, caused by a strong El Nino; this year, 2010, with a milder El Nino looks set to beat it. What will you deniers say then, you footnotes to history?
Rob
One year's value will not change the 12-year trend that much.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
The "footnotes to history" are those who deny what they see:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…
"12-year trend" is an oxymoron, you big silly. The site warns about playing with the trend line feature and fooling yourself by using short intervals that aren't significant. Want another one almost as short?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
You cannot include any value from 2010, as we are only half way through the year and it does not include the coming northern winter.
Girma,
The NH winter occurs in which months?
The NH summer occurs in which months?
The SH winter occurs in which months?
The SH summer occurs in which months?
TrueSceptic
I have found a better website to check our bet:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/had…
0.529 is also the WFT average to 3 decimal places. I'm happy to agree on that, even though it is slightly (0.003) higher than the figure we agreed last year. I can't find the source for 0.526 now; was it a typo, I wonder?
Ok
Good luck, as you need it.
Global mean temperature decreases from June to December
As a result, I expect GMT less than 0.5 deg C.
Idiot child, put 1989 or 1979 in as a starting point instead of your cherry-picked 1998, redraw the graph and then try denying what you see…
This is called "physical reality", a concept that you appear to be unfamiliar with.
You don't even have to go to 1989 or 1979.
Merely use 1997 as a starting point.
One year won't make much of a difference will it, eh?
Once you reach the summit of a mountain, your starting point to calculate the downhill slope is the summit itself.
The slope before the summit gives you the uphill slope, and it is irrelevant for the downhill slope calculation.
Plug in 1998 to 2010 and one downslope flattens out and the other 2 become less steep.
Plug in 1999 to 2010 and there isn't a downslope to be found.
The summit of your mountain is part of a mountain chain and while you are mesmorized by that 1998 peak, the climate is climbing the next mountain.
Then, Girma, we agree on one thing – it is all downhill for you from here…
Rob
If the global mean temperature is not downhill in the coming years, I will become a believer in man made global warming.
TomG
You wrote, the climate is climbing the next mountain
The 1998 peak of 0.53 deg C of 12 (more than a decade ago) has not yet been exceeded. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/had…
There is no “next mountain” to be seen. Three of the datasets show negative global temperature trends.
Actually, from those emails, Mick Kelly is worried about these negative trends and wrote Phil Jones: Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing! http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=92…
TomG, will you find it “awkward” too?
No. Because it is something that has not happened.
But using Wood for Trees and putting in 1999 to 2010 I find a warming trend.
That is happening.
Do you not find that awkward?
those "liberated" emails
TrueSceptic
According to historical patterns, you cannot win the bet this year. This is why:
The global mean temperature this year up to April is 0.508 deg C. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/had…
According to historical patterns, global temperature decreases from June until December. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Surface_air_tem…
As a result, if the historical pattern is repeated, you cannot win it this year.
Here is the link again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Surface_air_tem…
global temperature decreases from June until December
Well, I confess that I'm surprised that NH temps don't peak in Jul-Aug, or bottom out in Jan-Feb, but it doesn't matter in any case. It is the anomaly that matters, as someone has explained to you, IOW how warm each month is, compared with the reference (baseline) for that month.
Well, the graph Girma posted is a re-drawn version of figure 7 from Jones et al., 1999. If you read the paper (which Girma clearly didn't) it has a good discussion of seasonal effects, as well as the purpose of using anomalies rather than absolute temperatures.
And yes, that's Phil Jones. Don't you just love the irony of Girma trying to use a paper by the "high priest of AGW" to prove that AGW doesn't exist?
Thanks ctg,
That PDF's a keeper. Fig 7 there is in fact what I would expect, and the NH and GLO curves have the same shape through the year that I get in, say, the HADCET figures, although with different values, of course.
The NH and GLO peaks are in Jul, not Jun, and in fact Aug is also higher than Jun. The troughs are in Jan, not Dec, with Feb also lower than Dec.
Girma's German (!) graph looks odd. The curves are shifted left relative to the months, and they look too precisely sine-like. What was Sandra Burger doing?
Sorry, last attempt of the link
Global Mean Temperature Decreases from June until December
How come global mean temperature changes of 4 deg C in a year is normal, but a change of 1 deg C in 100 years is catastrophic?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9…
Yes, we know that you don't know the difference between weather and climate, Girma, but the rest of us do.
Seriously, there is a lot of good material out there that can tell you all this. I suggest that instead of just endlessly displaying your ignorance here, you go off and actually learn something. You might actually get a bit more respect if you did that.
Until then, you are just pissing everyone off and contributing nothing. Time for you to go, I think.
So if the global mean temperature changes by 4 deg C due to weather it is ok, but if it changes by 1 deg C due to climate is catastrophic? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9…
I have as much right as you have to express my sincere thoughts. I am not going anywhere unless censored by admin. I am not abusive to anyone. I am just expressing my truth as I see them.
No, you are just endlessly repeating the same stuff over and over and over and over, without taking in any of the points other people are talking about. That's not debate, that's putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la-la-la".
For example, why did you just repeat that link? Did you think I didn't read it the first time? Did you think it would become relevant if you repeated it?
The graph you have shown is an illustration of how temperatures vary over the course of a single year. Yes, there are variations throughout the year, because summer is warmer than winter (thanks for pointing that out, I never would have guessed). The northern hemisphere is warmer than the southern hemisphere, because there is more land in the NH (again, thanks for pointing that out). The overall effect of this is that over the course of a year, the global average varies.
Does this mean that it is not warming? No. If you look at how temperatures are measured, for example GISTEMP, you will notice that each data point is one month, and is expressed as an anomaly with repect to a baseline average – in the case of GISTEMP, the baseline is 1961-1990.
That means that each individual month is an anomaly from the average of that month in the baseline period. In other words, the annual cycle that you showed in that graph has already been subtracted from the temperature anomalies in the WFT graph. And as you can see, the temperature is very defnitely going up.
Is 1ºC going to make much difference? Well, think about how the average is derived. On the graph you seem to like so much, it says the annual global average is 14ºC (which incidentally is exactly what the average from the GISTEMP baseline is). This average is calculated from thousands of surface temperature measurements, ranging from about -90ºC to +60ºC. So, yes, a change of 1ºC in the global annual average can in fact represent changes of several degrees in individual parts of the world, certainly enough to substantially alter climate.
Thanks ctg
Thanks ctg,
Do you know of other sources for absolute monthly global temperature, or even of the anomaly baselines?
As I mention above, the Jones et al paper is good, and there is a fair bit of material on the source page for GISTEMP.
Thanks, ctg, for the very clear exposition above. Would you mind reposting the link to the Jones et al paper you mention?
CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman
Adapted from the Caltech commencement address given in 1974.
During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas–which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it. This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact that we have difficulty in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked–or very little of it did.
But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFOS, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I've concluded that it's not a scientific world.
(Continued)
But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school–we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.
(continued)
You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.
[ IPCC’s interpretation of Global Mean Temperature pattern]
Alternative interpretation of Global Mean Temperature pattern]
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
(continued with web link correction)
IPCC’s interpretation of Global Mean Temperature pattern
Alternative interpretation of Global Mean Temperature pattern
Girma, your tired old zombie "arguments" have been debunked over and over on this site – can't you do some reading before putting your foot in your mouth?
Even better, try swallowing 0.04% of your body weight in arsenic, or, better yet, polonium…
Rob Taylor
Could you please enlighten me on what Mick Kelly was taking about when he said, “Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!” http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=92…
Is it possible that the global mean temperature for the last twelve-year is flat as shown in the following chart and there has not been any accelerated catastrophic global warming? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…
Girma, is it possible you are anything other than an AGW denialist sock puppet, endlessly recycling the same old dreary sludge on behalf of the industries that are polluting our planet?
No, it isn't. They're trying to hypnotise their opponents into a state of wearied somnolence. It won't work.
Rob
Please don’t blame me for the "recycling"!
Fortunately, the foundation of the AGW house is built on the theory that human emission of CO2 causes catastrophic global warming that can be verified.
Is this theory supported by the data? Is the foundation of AGW made of sand or concrete? If it is made of sand, anything that is built on it will finally fall and will cause enormous damage.
Blame the data. Blame the observation. Blame the science.
1) Flat global mean temperature trend for the last 12 years
2) Exaggerated Projections by the IPCC
3) Observed Global Mean Temperature Data
I can not help from "recycling" when talking whether the foundation is made of sand or concrete. It is sand!
Girma, save this tripe for the ACT or Wishart blogs, where it may delight some other deluded idealogue…
A blast from the past – not a good one, unfortunately.
You may know that Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed was ousted in a military coup in early 2012. As far as I know he is still sheltering in the Indian Embassy – he will be arrested if he steps outside, and returned to gaol (he’s already spent 6 years incarcerated by the regime for his pro-democracy activism prior to being made president in the country’s first democratic election in 2008.)
Making a bitter irony indeed of some disgraceful comments above, the new regime has both reverted to its fundamentalist roots and has ceased to campaign globally on the issue of its nation’s vulnerability to rising seas. The coup was also US-backed. (If this seems somehow contradictory to you, read some modern history!)
You can see Nasheed talking about these issues here.
I’m writing this now specifically because Avaaz has a petition at the moment that is attempting to dissuade this new/old government from administering 100 lashes to a 15 year old girl who was repeatedly raped by her step-father, as punishment for her ‘adultery’.