“Forget global warming. The cold, hard facts point to another threat on the horizon – severe cooling.” That’s the strapline over an opinion piece in yesterday’s Dominion Post business section (Sunspots spell end of climate myth), contributed by Bryan Leyland, one of the more vocal of our local climate cranks. It’s an astonishing piece, given a splash treatment by the paper. Consider this sentence, given prominence as a pull-out quote by the Post:
Researchers have discovered that warming since 1975 is not caused by greenhouse gases.
That’s news to me. It would be news to anyone with half a brain. So why then is this “fact” not on the front page of the Dom Post, or indeed the world’s newspapers? Because it’s not true. Leyland is making stuff up.
Leyland, you may recall, was one of the key players in The Listener/Hansford debacle earlier this year[1. A piece by Dave Hansford in The Listener’s Ecologic column pointing out the links between NZ’s climate cranks and US right wing think tanks drew complaints from Leyland and a blustering letter from the Heartland. Leyland was granted a right of reply, which I debunked here. Then things got messy… 😉 ]. As an “energy consultant”, he takes every opportunity to run an anti-global warming line[2. Amazingly, on the same day as his climate piece, he was quoted in a news item about the future of power generation under National: “Mr Leyland was certain National would drop the 10-year ban on new gas-fired power stations. “That is essential and urgent,” he said. There was also time to delay the emissions scheme because the world had been cooling, not warming, for the past two years.” So Leyland’s nonsense is reported as fact!]. His arguments are standard crank nonsense, presented with a certain élan that makes him media-friendly. Let’s have a look at the piece in more detail.
After a dig at a few NZ luminaries and the Kyoto protocol, he dives straight in to his argument:
The evidence is unequivocal. Measurable, let alone dangerous, manmade global warming is not happening, and is not likely to happen in the future. The major cause for concern is the possibility of severe cooling.
There are at least six errors of fact in that single paragraph.[3. • There is no evidence that the world is cooling, so there cannot be “unequivocal” evidence.
• Global warming is happening. The measurements are clear.
• It is, beyond any reasonable doubt, man-made.
• Both the amount and rate of expected global temperature increase will be dangerous.
• Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere continue to increase, and so further warming is not just likely, it’s inevitable.
• The possibility of severe cooling is – at best – a minor concern, and could only happen if a) the sun’s radiant energy decreased significantly, or b) something prevented that energy reaching the earth’s surface – such as increased vulcanism or a cloud of space dust drifting between the planet and the sun.]
He has the chutzpah to turn the IPCC’s statement that the evidence for global warming was “unequivocal” on its head. Otherwise, it’s the usual “warming’s stopped” rubbish, which has been repeatedly shown to be untrue. He embellishes his claim a little later:
Both surface temperature records and the much more accurate records from satellite observations show there was a brief warming period from 1975-98. Since then, the world has cooled and is now at the same temperature it was in 1995. Nobody knows when, or if, world temperatures might increase.
There’s a graph to support this claim (not shown on the web version), based on the University of Alabama’s UAH satellite “mid troposphere” temperature series. Of course most of the world’s life, including humans, live in the lower troposphere, but why Leyland selects this particular series is not explained. One might suspect that it better suits his argument. Leyland also demonstrates that he doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate, or the statistics of dealing with data sets that have a lot of noise (weather) superimposed on a long term trend. But statistical naiveté is not the worst of his errors.
Since the research for the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was completed in mid 2006, researchers have discovered that warming since 1975 is not caused by greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas warming would be at a maximum 10,000m above the tropics.
Observations from balloons and satellites have shown that warming is not happening. Therefore greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are not a major factor in the world climate. This fact alone is sufficient to sink the manmade global warming hypothesis.
Actually, observations from balloons and satellites are consistent with model predictions, the latest research shows. Let’s be charitable, and assume Leyland hasn’t been keeping up. However, he can’t get away with his next leap of faith. To show that greenhouse gases are not a major factor in world climate, you need to re-write the basic physics of radiation and its transmission and absorption in the atmosphere. This alone should be sufficient to to sink the idea that Leyland knows what he’s talking about. Next up – the ritual swipe at computer models:
Computer-based climate models provide the only “evidence” supporting claims that the world is warming, that it will be dangerous, that there will be rapid rises in sea levels and the like, yet these same models failed to predict the temperature peak in 1998 and the steady cooling trend that set in from 2002.
It is obvious that the models have failed to predict major climatic events such as El Nino (1998) and La Nina (2007-08). The models are not an accurate representation of the world climate system and their input data is inaccurate, therefore their outputs are worthless. This fact alone is sufficient to sink the manmade global warming hypothesis.
I’m amazed that Leyland thinks that global climate models are the “only evidence” that the world is warming. There’s rather a lot of evidence in the temperature record, the melting of ice and snow, changes in the distribution of species, and so on – enough to occupy a substantial chunk of the IPCC’s Fourth Report. Seems a shame to ignore it.
He then demonstrates how little he understands the models and what they do. They project what climate might be like as greenhouse gas levels rise, but they do not (and were never designed to) forecast the El Nino/La Nina oscillation. This alone should be sufficient to to sink the idea that Leyland knows what he’s talking about.
But what’s this rising above Leyland’s horizon? It’s that fat old sun, of course…
More evidence is gathering that the sun, not greenhouse gases, drives our climate. Records going back thousands of years show a close correlation between sunspots and climate. The theory is that sunspot- related effects influence the number of high-energy cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere and that these cosmic rays affect cloud formation. Very soon, a major experiment will be set up to test this theory. If it is shown to be correct, that alone will be sufficient to sink the hypothesis of manmade global warming.
This sun stuff has been debunked over and over again. No credible link between sunspot numbers and global temperature has ever been established, and any cosmic ray connection is – at best – tenuous in the extreme. Whatever the result of the experiment Leyland alludes to, real scientists still have to account for the radiation physics of greenhouse gases.
There have been very few sunspots over the past few years and the next sunspot cycle, 24, is beginning but weak. History tells us that such circumstances are associated with quite severe cooling, possibly similar to the little ice age. If this happens, the present financial upheavals will be exacerbated by reduced agricultural output, stormy weather and, possibly, famine.
Leyland is echoing some of the wilder fringes of climate scepticism here. The facts suggest he will be wildly wrong. The sun’s energy output does vary slightly over the 11 year solar (sunspot) cycle, and recent work indicates that this can produce a change in global average temperature of about 0.1C from peak solar output at the maximum of the cycle to the bottom of the trough. As Leyland says, we’re just starting a new cycle, so the sun’s energy output should rise over the next five or six years, warming the world a bit. At the same time, greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are going to continue to rise, increasing the warming effect. “Severe cooling” is about as likely as Leyland admitting he’s wrong.
Taken as a whole, Leyland’s “comment” on climate science is about as wrong as it’s possible to be. To seasoned followers of the so-called “debate” there’s little new – a repackaging of talking points that have been repeatedly shown to be false. What’s remarkable is that a major newspaper should choose to run such a superannuated, fact-free argument and give it considerable prominence.
A few questions. Did the Dominion Post solicit the feature from Leyland? If so, why? Is the BusinessDay section running a pro-ACT agenda, or hoping to influence the policy direction of the new government? Is it acceptable for BusinessDay to carry material that is factually incorrect? Does the identification of the piece as “comment” give the writer the ability to basically lie in support of his argument, and the paper an excuse not to check facts? Why is Leyland not identified as member of the NZ climate cranks coalition?
There is a debate to be had about climate change and climate policy, but it’s not about the reality of the problem. With a new government being formed, you might expect one of NZ’s leading newspapers to offer a considered view of the options: instead they choose to allow Leyland to deny that any problem exists. To me, that speaks volumes…
[Hat tip to Carol, for sending me the printed article.]
Gareth I was amazed when I read this article as well. It is amazing that editors let this rubbish get published! Balanced reporting – I think not!
The evening after this appeared the talk back radio stations had a number of experts who had read this and the association is that if it is in the paper it must be true! It was all doom and gloom.
Why is it that most readers of newspapers do like to conduct any other research or reading on a topic to get a balanced view?
If Leyland was to be believed then we should all rush out and purchase a new puffa jacket, electric blanket and gas heater!!
Right then…cooling is on the way. I’m going to write to John Key (with a cc to the NZC”S”C) to demand a Royal Commission to investigate and determine when it will get here.
And, in the meantime, to insist on a moratorium for all fossil fuel use, whilst the climate is still more-or-less temperate, to ensure that we have enough left for geo-engineering purposes when the going gets really tough.
It’s the only sensible response….
yours etc Andrew
PS. Bryan Leyland is an alarmist and he is going to destroy the economy
Hi all
You guys are just a bunch of climate numpties. See GISTEMP is feeding in wrong data for October using Sept data from Siberia, it must be warm as we had a 0.88 increase in temp. Get your own data sets right first before you chide the denialist side of things. BTW, great result Saturday, National beat the Green/Labour ticket and quite frankly, I hope they give Kyoto the big middle finger. No ETS is required, play monopoly for this.
Denialist 4eva.
Peter Bickle
Re Oct temp: Mountains and molehills sums it up.
BTW dog face, (probably your boyfriend (or wife) on show), look at GISTEMP data for the past 5 years, even they show cooling. This is more than weather pal. The place is a cooling man. get the drift?
Peter: you need to learn the value of politeness, and the difference between weather and climate.
Gareth,
You say: “That’s news to me… Leyland is making stuff up.” I don’t agree. You should know there is at least this reference to a paper by a David Noel. There are others describing other causes of warming and/or disagreeing with the importance of CO2 forcing.
You refer to “six errors of fact” and I looked forward to your refuting them; but you disappoint. If the UK Met Office had used an up-to-date temperature graph, it would have been hard-pressed to deny the cooling over the last 18 months, as it’s incontrovertible. As it was written in September, using August 2008 data should have been feasible, I think. Strange that they did not. One might suspect that it better suits their point of view. Just as exaggerating the Y-axis scale increases the slope of the graph.
I did not see the original article in print, so I cannot be certain about this next point, but I would indeed be surprised if Bryan had not used the UAH lower troposphere (where we all live) temperature series, which is cited extensively elsewhere; I’ve never seen a UAH “mid troposphere” series; does such exist?
Bryan says “observations … [show] that warming is not happening.” You assert that observations “are consistent with model predictions”, without refuting and even without denying that warming is not happening. So, do you accept that temperature anomalies have plateaued since about 2002? And do you accept that they have fallen quite a bit since the beginning of 2007? In other words, do you agree that there’s been no warming since about (at least) 2002?
Frankly, I can imagine your reluctance to admit these points, on the grounds that it may be perceived as agreeing with a sceptical point of view, which you abhor, but I hope that consideration does not colour your thinking. For what it’s worth, I assure you I don’t consider these facts “prove” the non-existence of global warming, for much more time must pass in order to do that.
But it’s a matter of perception, and the concurrent uninterrupted emission of greenhouse gases creates doubt. There comes a point when the average person wonders where global warming has gone and why it is absent when its alleged cause is still very much present. So then some intelligent answers must be forthcoming. To be told that warming is continuing during the cooling affronts the intelligence; they are mutually exclusive. One might predict warming will resume, but not that they coexist.
Cheers,
Richard Treadgold,
Convenor,
Climate Conversation Group.
Mid troposphere exists.
Richard Treadgold, does 18 months of cooling pass tests for statistical significance? What length of time for global temperature anomaly data is required to give a statistically sugnificant result?
It’s pleasing to see a crop of appalled letters to the editor in today’s DomPost. One chap says that he hopes the DomPost will publish a reply from NIWA or someone else who actually has some expertise in the subject; another chap mentions the melting ice pack, and another letter also questions the timing of this piece immediately after the election as well as hoping for a reply by inviting a genuine expert like Andy Reisinger or Peter Barrett.
Hear, hear.
Richard,
Two key points. The first is to do with scale. Climate is not defined by the up and down “wiggles” you can see in the global average temperature figures. Climate is the average of long periods of data. As I’ve said here many times, about the shortest useful period is ten years – the World Meteorological Organisation standard is 30. Looking at short sequences of data proves nothing about climate, as the Met Office graph I linked to shows. Over the last 30 years you can find periods of under ten years where the temperature trend is flat or downwards. If you choose a five year period, as you seem to want to do, it becomes trivially easy to find periods when the trend has been downwards. But that tells you nothing about the long term trend, and that’s what we’re interested in.
The second point is do with the size of the “wiggles” and their relationship to the size of the trend we’re seeing. The up and down variations, caused in part by atmosphere/ocean phenomena such as El Nino/La Nin (ENSO) are large, and over short time periods can make the global average temperature bounce up and down. For detailed statistical consideration of these “wiggles” and their relationship to the underlying trend (the long term trend), I refer you to this post at Open Mind.
It’s also worth remembering that the global average temperature is not a perfect measure of the heat content of the climate system. That’s because 70% of the planet is ocean. Heat entering the ocean can warm the upper layers of water, and show up in the global temperature, or it can be “buried” in the deep ocean by overturning currents – the oceanic equivalent of the general circulation of the atmosphere. And the oceans are huge. So if heat is accumulating in the oceans, but not showing up in the surface record, does that mean the world is “cooling”. Not in any objective sense…
Finally: a challenge. I confidently expect that the 1998/2005 “peak” in global average temperature will be exceeded in the next several years. One reason for my confidence is that 1998 was well above 1997 or 1999 – an outlier, in other words – but that sort of temperature is more or less normal today (you call it a “plateau”). The next significant El Nino will probably cause the global average temp to set a new record. Could be next year, the year after, or the year after that. But the more time that passes, the greater the likelihood of a new record. Fancy a bet? Suitable terms are outlined at Open Mind here.
So, no, Richard. I do not accept that the globe is cooling. The warming continues. When the 1998/2005 peak is passed, will you accept that the “cooling has stopped”?
Is there any point to explain this to Richard.. I bet he will always be a climate change liar. I guess it is important for other people who read this to know why this guy is a lair.
Peter Bickle is really an angry sad man. Got news for him, I doubt National will be any different to Labour, sorry buddy, the joke is one you. Now the US is going to do something about climate change, that mean the world is. Just because China is not committed to Kyoto commitments, does not mean that they are not doing anything.
I struggle to understand how presumably intelligent journalists and business leaders can give any time at all to the assertions of the deniers and have to assume it is out of ignorance. James Hansen’s observation that there is a huge gap between what is understood by the scientific community and what is known by the public and policy makers still holds in many quarters. It doesn’t take a lot of reading to close that gap, but some seem to be avoiding it. For that matter it is not apparent the deniers do much reading – they seem content rather to pass round a few tired items within their circle for recycling in whatever publication they can achieve.
Dom Post letters page here.
This one’s very nicely put:
I see The Dominion Post is continuing to source “expert†information and comment by the prominence given the Sunspots spell the end of climate myth article by consulting engineer Bryan Leyland.
I trust that you will return the favour by inviting Peter Barrett, Andy Reisinger and other real climate-change experts to comment on the technical requirements for building bridges and apartment blocks.
They might well think that the engineers have it all wrong and will use a medieval cathedral or two to show that there’s “no hard evidence†to support particular engineering specifications for strength, durability and safety, regardless of the difference in building materials and construction techniques. I suppose the timing of this “environmental comment†in the paper’s business section has nothing to do with National’s intention to change the emissions trading bill?
MARILYN HEAD
Newtown
I think a complaint to the Press Council is in order. While this was an opinion piece, the paper has a minimum duty to ensure that pieces that are completely factually incorrect are not printed, under principles 1 and 2 of the council’s code.
fragment –
1. Thanks for the reference. I knew the measurements were taken throughout the troposphere, but not which graphs were available.
2. I don’t know.
3. Again, I don’t know, and who does? There’s nothing particularly magical about 30 years, except that it’s a long time for one person to live through. It’s an infinitesimal interval measured against geological time yet it seems to satisfy most people.
Cheers.
Gareth,
You’re right, we are certainly interested in the long-term trend. But I was simply referring to recent movements in the graph and noting a plateau and a descent. You must agree with that. You refer to wiggles—a good word for them; there are little wiggles and giant wiggles. I think that a trend that lasts for about five years is more than a little wiggle—it has become a giant wiggle and it’s safe to acknowledge it.
Giant wiggles may not be statistically significant, but they still must be explained to the satisfaction of the inquiring public mind. Which is me. Don’t forget, there are people asking for large amounts of my money on the basis of these statistical significances, so I wish to be quite sure that they are alarming me with proper cause. People I talk with think the same way, they are in no hurry to part with money. So this is not a drill, Gareth.
By the way, I’m not the first to call temperatures since 2001 a “plateau”. In January 2008, none other than Dr Rajendra Pachauri was quoted in The Guardian as saying he would “look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.”
Thank you for the Open Mind reference but I thought it unconvincing overall. Tamino is very acerbic, isn’t he, and does not dispose anyone to accept his views. But, curiously, I saw little similarity between his temperature scatter graphs and the line graphs commonly used. He should join the dots together, or use just one per month, or whatever would make it easier to read and to compare with the line graphs. His graphs look as though the temperature has risen continuously until the present day, yet I know the GISS, HadCRUT3, RSS and UAH datasets uniformly show cooling since the spike in January 2007. His data seem to end in 2007 but it’s hard to tell exactly.
He claims an annual rise from 1975 (to 2007?) of 0.018-0.019°C for GISTEMP/HadCRU. That equates to a total rise (for, let us say, 32 years) of 0.575-0.608°C. If he had used a graph updated to October, he would find most of that knocked off, since the temperature fall from January 2007 to October 2008 in the UAH dataset is about 0.42°C.
Yes, and then the heat content description. Very good. But when we’re talking about the temperature of the atmosphere it does not help to refer to invisible heat thingies in the sea, where we cannot feel them. If the temperature has gone down, that’s an observation, that is what’s real and that is what we ask about. The question is, how is the greenhouse effect mysteriously warming the sea without touching the air, which is cooling at the same time? Now, that’s alarming! It doesn’t make sense, does it?
You ask rhetorically then answer: “Does that mean the world is “coolingâ€? Not in any objective sense…” But I had mentioned temperatures of the atmosphere, not the world, whatever that is! And they have gone down. You can’t stand up and say oh, but that’s balanced by what’s happening over here in the water! Lower tropospheric temperature does not, by any definition, include ocean temperature.
It’s only a downward wiggle; why argue it’s not there? You accept the upward wiggles, especially the giant wiggles. You’re biased, aren’t you?
Finally, you talk about the 1998/2005 “peak”. Are we still on it? Look at the UAH graph; having already fallen some 0.42°C, how much longer before you judge we’ve fallen off it?
I appreciate the sentiment, but I won’t consider your wager; I’m not a betting man. But thank you.
You don’t need to accept that the globe is cooling, since it will anyway. As for me, I have not made up my mind further than facts can change it. When and if the temperature rises, I will say the temperature is rising.
Gareth, I must congratulate you for finally accepting the view, in however backhanded a style, and however reluctantly, that the globe is indeed cooling, and inviting me later to accept that that cooling will have stopped; for that would have been impossible if the cooling had never begun.
The truth will out, won’t it?
Now, perhaps we can hear an explanation of why it is cooling? As we continue pumping out greenhouse gases and shooting polar bears. Please?
Cheers.
jonno –
Crawl, worm, from behind your nom-de-plume if you dare and glimpse the steel in my lawyer’s letter.
You offer me defamation, but I decline, so who’s left with it now?
The bile drips from your lips and stains your shirt, not mine.
We have never met and I offer you nothing, yet your peace will be troubled by your unprovoked attempt to disturb mine.
I said:
Richard replied:
Dr Gavin Schmidt, in a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, dealing with short term temperature changes:
“Summer” is on its way, Richard.
Yes, that’s a good analogy, and I strongly suspected you were thinking like this; you hear what I did not say.
I do not claim “significance” for the period of cooling you find so difficult to acknowledge, but thank you for doing so again—I only ask for an explanation, and I ask whether it is consistent with the continued spewing of greenhouse gases, and why.
Please refer to what I have written, without nervously imagining what I’ve said.
Cheers.
From Richard’s first comment:
No “nervous imagination” required. “To be told that warming is continuing during the cooling affronts the intelligence…” There is no “cooling” in terms of the planet’s energy balance. More energy is coming in than leaving, so the warming continues. It’s melting ice. It’s warming oceans, and over time, it will warm the atmosphere and show up in the global average temperature. But not in a smooth upward line. The climate system is not like that.
Well, yes, quite so. I understand the argument. But, it slides off the point. For you move from a consideration of air temperature to the planet’s energy balance. I understand you’re trying to account for a “wiggle” of cooling while not letting your listener forget or abandon the idea of AGW, but it’s not a logical exposition.
Yes, there’s no overall cooling if more heat is entering the system than leaving it (though it would be up to you to provide evidence for that). However there is certainly cooling of the atmosphere if the temperature drops, which it recently has—in fact, that’s the definition of cooling. And if the atmosphere cools for long enough, you’re going to get people asking why, and it’s a perfectly valid question after you’ve been yelling at them to beware of warming.
We do ask why. If CO2 is so damned powerful, why has it failed to warm us since January 2007? Temperatures now are about what they were in 1995, for heaven’s sake! If water vapour is responsible for an “amplifying” effect on temperature, is there less of it now, or what?
I think the picture is becoming murkier.
Cheers.
The classic paper is Earth’s energy imbalance: confirmation and implications,Hansen et al, Science 3 June 2005: Vol. 308. no. 5727, pp. 1431 – 1435 DOI: 10.1126/science.1110252.
Note the date.
Thank you. I can only see the abstract; it’s based on flaming models, not observations; I shall check for refutations and satellites that address/will address the energy budget.
So, and my penultimate paragraph?
Cheers.
Your penultimate paragraph makes no sense, because it’s predicated on a “cooling” that isn’t happening, a confusion between weather (wiggles) and climate (see Schmidt comment above), and your water vapour reference is a non-sequitur in those circumstances.
(PS: you can register at Science and download the Hansen paper free of charge).
The cooling is shown by the temperature going down, you just won’t admit the obvious; an upward wiggle to you is climate, but a downward wiggle is weather and thus irrelevant; and both get you out of having to answer the water vapour question.
Temperatures still match 1995, though. Have a look, I dare you.
Thanks for the tip about the Hansen paper.
rtreadgold, now where did I defame you? And what kind of name is rtreadgold, if it is not a nom-de-plume?
Or rtreadgold, are you Richard or Peter, pretending to be another ‘crank’?. You talk about laywers, but defamaing a nom-de-plume won’t have much traction in court, now will it? May be I should contact my lawyer, as you just defamed me.
The latest research suggests the water vapour feedback is “strongly positive”. Paper here.
Jono, When similarly threatened I pointed out that under the Defamation Act (1992)
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1992/0105/latest/DLM280687.html?search=ts_act_defamation&sr=1
That there are several defences, including “truth†and “honest opinionâ€. I invited the person to bring action and I suggested a list of people might be called upon to comment on the “truth†aspect. I heard no more.
jonno –
You ask: “rtreadgold, now where did I defame you?” You accused me, if you remember, without cause, of lying.
You ask: “And what kind of name is rtreadgold, if it is not a nom-de-plume?” See my first comment on this post.
Unless you wish to usefully contribute, please go away.
rtreadgold, you keep repeating the same, tried old lies that climate ‘cranks’ keep repeating… hey… today is a lot hotter than last week, so your argument of .. It’s getting colder over the last few month is wrong.
[Jonno: I deleted your previous comment. Please keep it polite, and avoid the insults. – Gareth]
Richard, the questions I asked about statistical significance are objectively answerable based on the data. You should learn a bit of statistics; you would then, for example, not make the errors in this passage:
This is wriong because the estimate of the 1975-2007 trend is a linear estimate of the trend for the whole period. Even a really cold 2008 wouldn’t make a 1975-2008 trend estimate that differed by much. Statistics is about looking at the properties of the whole data set; it is invalid to place extra emphasis on one particular data point and claim it refutes the identified properties of the whole set.
BTW, that post finishes with 2007 data because it was written in January 2008.
fragment –
I take the point that Tamino was writing at the end of 2007, thank you. Still, we now have the opportunity to update that series, and I would be curious to know, if you’re able to process such things, exactly what difference the temperature f*a*l*l (maybe Gareth can’t read that ;>) ) from Jan 2007 to October 2008 actually has on the “linear estimate of the trend” as you call it. No, I’m no statistician.
However, it’s perfectly natural, given, from Tamino’s blog, “Clearly there’s a strong warming trend in both data sets, with GISTEMP data rising at 0.018 +/- 0.003 deg.C/yr, HadCRU at 0.019 +/- 0.003 deg.C/yr”, to wonder “what was that over 10 years, or 15, or the whole period?” and to multiply the annual rise accordingly.
Having accomplished that simple operation, what would be wrong with imagining the end point changing? There’s no doubt that arithmetic shows the overall ascent reduced by the amount of the fall at the end of the series. The logic of that cannot be faulted.
I regret it was insufficiently sophisticated for you, but I don’t think it was inappropriate, else why cite the annual rise in the first place?
But my main point is that you’ve made the same mistake as our dear jonno, in thinking that I “claim it refutes the identified properties of the whole set”. I don’t and didn’t. I’m just a man looking out the window and noticing that it’s cooled a bit lately, that’s all. Or that it most definitely, without a doubt, certainly, surely, absolutely, beyond question, completely, decisively, emphatically, indubitably, undeniably and without prevarication has not warmed. Recently.
Seeing the change (if any) wrought by the last 22 months’ data would be very interesting, if you have the time and inclination.
Cheers,
Richard Treadgold.
Oops.
The UAH dataset, of course, shows a rise (in other words, a warming) in the global average temperature in September and October totalling 0.328°C. This reverses about half the fall (in other words, the cooling) since January 2007. But my comments can stand.
Richard.
Gareth –
That’s what we’re interested in.
Yes, well, I have mentioned financial concerns which you’ve not addressed. This isn’t just a theoretical exercise. “Your” cronies (those on your side) are ganging up on government to return the climate to normal. And that has to cost me a lot of money. But that’s a risk they’re apparently prepared to take.
Whether it’s warming now or cooling, it will change next week/month/year/decade, so the issue is in the longer term, and that depends upon climate sensitivity to CO2 and other minor gases.
water vapour feedback is “strongly positiveâ€
Hmmm. The effect on the energy balance is from theory, not observation. There’s no description (and I can only see the abstract) of the effect of cloud cover changes, if any. I’d say that could be a major omission.
That’s all for now; I need a drink and dinner.
Cheers,
Richard Treadgold,
Convenor,
Climate Conversation Group.
The bet terms outlined by Tamino were based on the data that were currently available at the time of writing, so updating precisely those terms would in effect be a different bet. It’s based on annual avergaes, so we’d have to wait until the end of the year anyway, or recalculate the data points on the basis of 12 month periods ending in October. But I’ve been keeping an eye on the monthly data and so far the 2008 average is on the low side but in the inconclusive zone for the terms of the bet.
But yes, it would be interesting to recalculate the trend for different periods and/or including the most recent data. Unfortunately I’d need to either make an off-semester trip to campus (I’m only a student) or master the statistics software I downloaded the other day before I could do that. I’m sorry to say that both of these will only happen on an “if I get round to it” basis.
I see you’ve noticed the upwards swing since the start of the year. This is why it doesn’t pay to concentrate too much on particular end points or short time periods – chances are the result will be an artifact of those short-term wiggles. If you compare the trend over a long period with a short-term fluctuation, any conclusion you reach is likely to be wrong when the next short-term fluctuation starts.
That’s not to say these wiggles aren’t interesting in and of themselves – things like El Niño are very interesting – it’s just that climate science doesn’t make claims to predict the timing and intensity of these things, hence they’re not very indicative of whether the predictions of long-term greenhouse gas induced warming are accurate.
“Of course most of the world’s life, including humans, live in the lower troposphere, but why Leyland selects this particular series is not explained. One might suspect that it better suits his argument.”
>>I’m surprised you don’t know. I chose it because, if GH gas warming IS occurring, that’s where it will show up most clearly – according to the climate models and, also, the physics of GHG warming. So, in effect, I was choosing the data that should have favoured the man-made global warming hypothesis — if it was true. Clearly it is not.
“I’m amazed that Leyland thinks that global climate models are the “only evidence†that the world is warming.”
>> with a key part of my sentence — which you have ignored — is about future dangerous warming and sea level rise. It is correct to say that these are purely a figment of computer models. It is also correct to say that the world has not formed in 1998 — because that is exactly what has happened. You can play silly games with trends if you like but if you take a ten-year trend goes down if you take 1000 year trend it definitely goes down. The reality is that straight line trends are nonsense because the climate is always changing and it is largely cyclic.
“No credible link between sunspot numbers and global temperature has ever been established, and any cosmic ray connection is – at best – tenuous in the extreme.”
My original article — which is now on my website — included a plot from a stalagmite in Oman which showed a 3000 year close correlation between cosmic rays and climate. Over the last 2000 years there is a close correlation between sunspots and climate. There is no correlation between the live in the (rather than the 22 year) sunspot cycle — and this is the correlation that the IPCC have examined and not found. How surprising!
I strongly recommend that you study the evidence in an objective manner and desist from making personal attacks on people and their credibility. It is the facts that count. Remember that it is important to distinguish between evidence of local warming, proof that the local warming is evidence of global warming and evidence that the global warming is man-made. To prove it is man-made who need to establish a distant linkage between greenhouse gases and temperature and you need to prove that recent swings in global temperature are abnormal. And always keep one this your mind “If the facts change, I change my opinion. What would you do Sir” (Sir John Maynard Keynes).
One question: how many more years of no warming are needed before you and your friends contemplate the possibility that you are wrong? Is it five years, 10 years, or will you wait until the Thames freezes over – as it did in a little ice age during the “Maunder minimum” of the sunspot cycle. A straight answer please. Everyone I have asked this question of so far – people like David Parker – have evaded it and, instead tried to ridicule me. That, I believe, demonstrates that they will do anything to avoid answering it.
Bryan Leyland
Note that I use of voice recognition program. Therefore there are some words that sound vaguely like what I really said.
“It is also correct to say that the world has not formed in 1998 ”
I actually said “It is also correct to say that the world has not warmed since 1998”.
“There is no correlation between the live in the (rather than the 22 year) sunspot cycle
…between the 11 year.
Apologies for the poor editing but it is late at night.
rtreadgold :
I did take a look, and it’s not a very good match. We’re actually closer to 1997 than 1995.
1997 was (briefly) the warmest year on record at the time, partly due to the strong El Niño that developed in the latter half of the year (and continued into 1998). In contrast, this year began with a fairly strong La Niña and returned to en ENSO-neutral state about half way through the year. The four months since the end of the La Niña have all been warmer than 1995 (or 1997), the next two will almost certainly be warmer than 1995 (which was falling into a La Niña by the end of the year).
You can check the ENSO history for yourself at the NOAA.
All very interesting but largely academic – as Gareth and others have already pointed out, it’s the long term trend that counts.
I’m studying Maths myself, so as an exercise I worked out the trend for the last 22 months alone (using NASA GISS data). I got a monthly trend of -0.012 (+/- 0.26) °C per month, equating to about -1.5 (+/- 30.9) °C per decade.
Clearly this is very silly, the standard deviation is huge compared to the trend.
I then did the same thing for January 2002 to June 2008 (the same period used by Monckton in his recent article at SPPI, and gosh! He’s right! Even NASA data shows a cooling trend (-0.001 °C per month, -0.12 °C per decade).
However when I did the next step and worked out how well the trend fits the data, It comes out at -0.12 (+/- 19.1) °C per decade.
Not quite as silly as it was for just 22 months, but not much better. This is why we need longer time periods with climate data – short periods simply have too much noise in them to detect a trend with any degree of confidence.
One thing I forgot to mention: New Zealand is a democracy and one of the fundamental principles of democracy is that of free speech. Neatly summarised as “I disagree with what you are saying but I will defend your right to say it”. Yet all through this blog there are demands that sceptics should not be given a hearing.
I find this quite amazing. If, as they seem to believe, those who believe in dangerous man-made global warming have an ironclad case, they should not be afraid of those who argue against it. If their case is strong, those who argue against that will fail and will strengthen the case of those who believe in global warming.
Those who would deny the sceptics the right of free speech are, more than anything else, demonstrating that they believe that their case is weak and will go to any length to avoid admitting that that this so. It is also notable that people like Al Gore — and many others — absolutely refuse to enter into a public debate with sceptics. Given that a British court has found many serious scientific errors in “An inconvenient truth” Al Gore’s reluctance is not surprising but nevertheless, it is most regrettable.
I hope you will all consider this seriously, reflect on it and then welcome open debate.
Bryan Leyland
Bryan L,
I will respond to your comments in due course (in this case, a main course).
S2, thanks for the calculations. Those are OLS linear trends? Just out of curiosity, did you account for autocorrelation? As I understand it that leads to increasing the uncertainty even further.
Bryan L,
Re: UAH mid-troposphere temps, you said:
This, I am afraid, is nonsense. First, it’s a global figure, so any purely tropical trends will be obscured. Second, the UAH mid troposphere data is “cooled” because it includes influences from the stratosphere, which is cooling (as is predicted to occur with warming caused by greenhouse gases). Note this paragraph from NOAA’s report on the climate of 2007:
Is it a coincidence that the product you chose to feature shows the lowest warming trend of any gobal temperature data series?
Re: cooling since 1998, you said:
>
I accused you of statistical naiveté, and you prove my point nicely.
Re: sunspots, you said:
This is nonsense.
You said:
Indeed, I share that view. It’s a pity that you do not seem to feel so constrained.
As for your complaint about “debate”, I will repeat something that I’ve said here many times – to you, as well, in your last visit here back in April – you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. Until you are prepared to face up to the latter, you remain, Bryan, a crank.
Regards
Gareth,
I note that, as I expected, you evaded:
“One question: how many more years of no warming are needed before you and your friends contemplate the possibility that you are wrong? Is it five years, 10 years, or will you wait until the Thames freezes over – as it did in a little ice age during the “Maunder minimum†of the sunspot cycle. A straight answer please.”
Very much in line with my expectations!
I repeat:
“Those who would deny the sceptics the right of free speech are, more than anything else, demonstrating that they believe that their case is weak and will go to any length to avoid admitting that that this so. ”
That is my last word on this. This “crank” is off to India as a member of the “Expert Advisory Group” for the world’s largest tidal power scheme. http://www.kalpasar.gujarat.gov.in/mainpage.htm Perhaps the Indians don’t share your opinion of me. But if you want to be as rude about the judgement of my Indian associates as you are about me, please go ahead. Free speech is still allowed.
AGW, I suspect, will be history very soon. If you want copies of “The Great Global Waring Swindle” and the NIPCC report, I have a few spare ones I can send. It might be a very good exercise in risk management for you and your friends. As they say “when the facts change.. You could start swotting up on global cooling! It was all the rage 30 years ago, so its time it came around again. And who knows, it might be real! Watch those sunspots – or to be correct, the absence of them.
Bryan L says:
I answered that question in comment #10 in this very thread. But then you obviously don’t worry too much about reading everything…
So, how much are you prepared to wager, in line with the terms I outlined above?
If your advice to your Indian clients extends to climate matters, then I hope they have the good grace to ignore you, because you are well out of your depth.
Regards
Great stuff Gareth – I wrote a letter to the editor of the dompost as follows:
Forget the Environment. The Cold, Hard Facts Point to Another Threat on the Horizon – Climate Change Skeptics
I refer to your article Forget Global Warming. The cold, hard facts point to another threat on the horizon – severe cooling (Business, Nov 10) by Bryan Leyland. It is misinformed and uneducated skeptics of Climate Change that hinder the efforts of those who are instrumental in attempting to abate anthropocentric climate change. The basis for this article (as it clearly stated) was on scientific testing still to be conducted thus constitutes pure speculation. I appreciate his understanding of the importance of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere – but this importance is limited to the need for a steady concentration and balance with other greenhouse gases. In terms of “the moderate increase of carbon dioxide” I’m not sure which side of sanity he leans towards but a 36% increase since the middle of the 19th century is not moderate to most. It was also stated that the major weather (not climate, as stated) events of El Nino and La Nina have failed to be predicted by computer climate models, this is because they are weather events not climatic cycles thus will always be missed by these predictions due to the embryonic understanding and first-hand experiences of such events. It is also illsounded to base an argument on 6 years of “cooling” – 6 years does not represent a trend, 6 years is barely enough to illustrate weather patterns let alone the climate. Lets take the last 6 years of cosmic rays data and base his argument on this. And finally in terms of climate change policy – we are bound to Kyoto through to 2012 and will sustain ratification post-2012 through the full implementation of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme which will do our bit supporting a global movement towards carbon trading.
fragment:
Yes, they are OLS linear trends.
No, I didn’t account for autocorrelation. I am still struggling to come to terms with autocorrelation (but Tamino’s blog helps), and I’m not convinced that it applies here. It might even reduce the uncertainty.
The (+/-) figures that I gave are simply 2*Sigma.
I wrote a letter to the editor of the DomPost too, but haven’t seen it published or even acknowledged.
There seems to be a worrying new dimension of righteousness in Bryan Leyland’s comments – the CSC must be extremely heartened by ACT being a coalition partner. Well, hello, CSC – ACT got a paltry 3.4% of the party vote, less than New Zealand First and substantially less than the Greens., but you wouldn’t know it from the way they are flouncing about making demands. There’s a lovely summary on Russell Brown’s Public Address blog about the difference in tone between the Maori Party and ACT coalition agreements.
http://www.publicaddress.net/5510#post5510
Gareth 11.12.08 at 11:51 pm
Peter: you need to learn the value of politeness, and the difference between weather and climate.
You of course are polite to Mr Leyland, Professor Carter and others who do not share your nonsensical beliefs.
fragment 11.13.08 at 9:23 am
Richard Treadgold, does 18 months of cooling pass tests for statistical significance? What length of time for global temperature anomaly data is required to give a statistically sugnificant result?
About 5000 years. Five thousand.