The Global Warming Pause – definition

Shows IPCC predictions versus reality

Shows IPCC predictions versus reality

Back around 2007 I posted a section in Wikipedia Global Warming talk page titled “The Pause”. In this I pointed to the lack of warming since AR3 and the growing number of articles referring to the lack of warming. (I was told there was no pause)

Since then, the “pause” has become accepted terminology to describe the fifteen years or more years without significant warming in the global surface temperature. But sooner or later we are likely to see a significant up or downward movement. This will lead to disputes as to whether the “pause” has ended. Therefore I foresee that we need a definition of the pause.

AR3

My original basis for asserting that there was “a pause” was that the warming predicted in AR3 had not occurred. AR3 gave a prediction of warming between 1.4 and 5.8C between 1990 and 2100. This is shown in the above graph (last updated at end of 2009 around Climategate) This is equivalent to limits of between 0.127C and 0.527C per decade. AR3 definition gives a prediction starting in 1990 so a strict test of whether the surface temperature is within this range would be the trend starting from 1990 with the average temperature in that year.

However, I personally feel that predictions should not start in the past. Therefore I much prefer a definition starting in the year AR3 was published (2001), this also happens to be the start of the “millennium” and as the above graph shows, there was little change in the following years, so I do not think this favours either cooling or warming.

A Definition of the Pause

The pause, implies a trend close to no trend, but how close? Above 0.13C/decade, the trend would be within the IPCC prediction and so considered “warming”. No trend would certainly be a “Pause”.  Therefore I think the simplest place to change from “warmign” to “pause” would be at the half-way point of 0.064C/decade. (1.4/220) Therefore:

  • A trend higher that 0.065C/decade should be considered warming
  • Less than 0.064C/decade would be a pause
  • But below -0.064C/decade would be cooling

Addendum

Just in case it is relevant, I will recount the reason why I started using the phrase “the pause”.  Having tried to edit Wikipedia global warming article (first as a believer and latterly as a skeptic) I realised that it was extremely difficult to get anything in which even vaguely suggested global warming wasn’t a massive “happening now” problem.

However, I had begun to see people talk about the lack of warming and I thought anyone writing a school essay would be asked to “put both sides” so would need this material.

The reason I chose the word “pause” is because better and more accurate words like “stopped” or anything implying and end, would never ever have been considered by the editors on wkipedia.

I was using the concept of a tape recorder – which is paused before the action continues. This I hoped would remove the implication of “warming being at an end”.  Despite a wealth of evidence that there was a pause and that it was being actively discussed in reputable sources my edit was summarily and quite falsely dismissed. (It wasn’t long after I decided it was pointless trying to edit wikipedia and it was best just to let the editors have their biased articles as I think that way people are more likely to view them as the propaganda they are.)

This entry was posted in Climate, History. Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to The Global Warming Pause – definition

  1. Old Huemul says:

    AR4 was not published in 2001, but 2007.

  2. Skeptics bit themselves in the chest: 17 years of no ‘’significant’’ warming, they think that will bring them victory…?

    In reality, that’s the sneakiest trick the Warmist have pulled. Reality: even if there was any warming, or cooling, they wouldn’t know – because nobody is monitoring on the 99,999999999% of planet. The truth: ‘’by stating that was no ‘’significant’’ warming – the Warmist succeed two things a] to build trust, that they are honest – that’s the most important for any crooked person – Because is in the Warmist’ computers – they can lift the temperature again, when it suits them and b] they don’t say that it didn’t warmed, but ‘’no significant’’ warming… Which means: ‘’they can monitor even ‘’insignificant’’ warming – WOW! Nobody is monitoring on 99,999999999% of the planet, but they can come up with even ‘’insignificant’’ warming = mother of all lies – unfortunately, the ‘’Skeptics’’ are buying the crap (stand by, they are for a big shock)

    • I think we can accept that the surface data is only a proxy for actual surface data and that data series like HADCRUT – are only a poxy for that proxy (with large numbers of reported upjustments).

      However, whilst it’s easy just now to say the proxies are “paused”, because if anything they are cooling, at some point we are going to experience either further warming or cooling.

      So, I’m drawing these two lines in the sand for defining “warming”, “pause” and “cooling”. This will enable us to say “the last ten years have been cooling” without the same fiasco of the warmistas redefining what “cooling” is just to suit them.

      Likewise, I now thing if we find a period of further “increase in temperature”, we can rightly point to this article and say “it’s not quite what we call warming yet”.

    • Scottish Sceptic says: ”at some point we are going to experience either further warming or cooling”

      I never take notice of those ”phony fluctuations in global temp” because I know that they are all wrong, BUT, .I can ”predict” exactly when the IPCC global temp will go up: a] if is a big event as Kyoto Conference happens again, or b] if lots of people start ignoring their treats, so they will make them panic again..

      It’s in their hands – they can lift the temp at will anytime it suits them. The ”pause” evolved, because: if the temp goes up every year – by now would have gone up by many degrees / people would have stopped to believe – so they themselves invented the ”pause” because they are clever manipulators.

      The ”self global temperature adjusting mechanism” is perfect – controlled / regulated by the ”normal / honest laws of physics” – unless those laws are abolished by legislation and in UN – only those laws have the whole truth

  3. The science of this is over my head but I read somewhere that air pollution causes cooling. China?

    • prayerwarriorpsychicnot, that is half truth. the truth: During the day – CO2 goes high up and creates ”dimming effect” = on the ground cooler / similar as water clouds do (that was used for the propaganda in the 70’s – they were massaging the numbers for cooling planet by year 2000.

      the other half of the truth is: at night CO2 slows down cooling – that is used in today’s propaganda for the phony GLOBAL warming.

      reality: the effect is minuscule b] cooling effect during the day and slowing cooling during the night CANCEL each other – it’s only milder climate by 0,000000000000001C, big deal… that’s the truth

      • Thanks for that Stefan, science never was my forte. I am totally agnostic where global warming is concerned. Since when have politicians solved real problems? The zealotry suggests just another political scam. However, the survival of the human race is threatened by the destruction of the oceans, destroying the rain forests is a crazy experiment, GM is another crazy experiment, the soils are being depleted, water is becoming a problem, we are running out of oil – the honey bees and other pollinators are under pressure – these are immediate problems affecting us now, and daily getting worse. And increasing population is not making anything better. Where is the political zeal for dealing with real problems? Exactly!

    • prayerwarriorpsychicnot, you should be more optimistic; politicians do what the media and majority thinks. Most of the daily scaremongering is not correct

      1] because of overpopulation – when fuel demand becomes bigger than supply, will be a big war; because we are addicted to oil, that war will not solve the problems – but look at the bright side: if half of population goes;, there will be plenty left / better for the planet.
      2] yesterday an ”expert” was scaring on TV that:” if the bees are gone – will be no more fruit and crops” The truth: 99,5% of the pollination is done by the wind – bees only go to 100m radius – wind spreads pollen for miles b] asthmatic people suffer from pollen – that pollen is NOT brought to their nostrils by bees, but by wind – although, honey tastes good

      3] oceans are getting destroyed, but not by CO2! All the olive oil, chicken,,pork, lamb fat and industrial oils end up in the sea from untreated sewage – those oils / fats spread on the surface and prevent water by splashing to replenish itself with oxygen – big part of the sea, for big part of the year the water is oxygen deficient for most variety of fish, that’s why is less fish, not because of over-fishing. If people stop blaming CO2 and get real, lots of problems can be solved

      P.s. obviously you are a Kiwi, I have a post mentioning New Zealand – would like you to read the whole post and tell me if I’m correct, regarding the comment about New Zealand, I like to double check, when I’m something in doubt: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/methane-ch4/

      • The damage to the oceans is multi-faceted. I hadn’t thought of the loss of splash. Perhaps also there is a type of poisoning from all the plastic. Can’t help you with NZ. Other side of the world, UK. So that makes you an Aussie, I guess. I lived there for about 3 years when I finished school, but couldn’t take the heat. Mum was from there too. Pleased to meet ya!

      • prayerwarriorpsychicnot,
        Hi, the Poms didn’t do very good in Brazil, did they?

  4. If the term “pause” is justified it can only be ended, not when warming starts again but when it has caught up with the “trend” the IPCC claimed.

    This is the same principle as a recession not being over until gdp has reached the level it was at before the start, rather than simply getting 3 months of growth.

    If “warming” is, as theory says, directly proportional to CO2 levels the “pause” must simply by an anachronism and we would have to get back on the trend, not restart at a lower level, since CO2 has kept rising.

    Since we are now about 0.8 C below “trend” it takes a considerable act of faith (or dishonesty) to say there is any serious possibility of it ending.

    • Neil, I had to reread your first sentence (now in addendum).

      You have a point about when the “pause” ends.

      I’m still in favour of perhaps a 10 year running linear regress as the test using the 0.063C/decade trend.

      However, there is as you suggest another concept of “catching up” with the predicted warming.

      My feeling is that even with a return to rising global temperatures, these predictions will get steadily lower over the next few decades – as well as including more and more room for “natural variability” (which is usually hidden by taking the start point back a few decades so that they have a massive spread of “predicted” values at the current date.

      These should each be assessed according to their own starting conditions and predicted trend FROM THE DATE OF PREDICTION.

      • I suspect they will get lower, and fuzzier (as in catastrophic global warming > “climate weirding” BBC) and the dates recede into the future and more hedged about by “if”, “expected” etc.

        Hansens’ original 2-4 by 2050 looks silly already.

        Or maybe they’ll just find “we have always been at war with” catastrophic cooling and nobody ever claimed otherwise.

  5. Pingback: These items caught my eye – 26 June 2014 | grumpydenier

  6. Richard Mallett says:

    1. Global temperatures have been rising since 1880 at an average 0.65 C per century (NCDC and GISS) or since 1850 at 0.47 C per century (HadCRUT4)

    2. (a) Hadley Centre Central England Temperatures have been rising since 1850 at 0.62 C per century.
    (b) From 1659-1850, Central England Temperatures rose by 0.18 C per century.
    (c) From 1772-1850 (when daily records started) Central England Temperatures rose by 0.37 C per century.
    (d) Therefore, since 1850, the rate has increased by somewhere between 0.25 and 0.44 C per century. Anthropogenic effect ?
    (e) All of the above have included warming / cooling / stasis periods. Roughly speaking, we can say that there was, since 1880 :-

    cooling 1880-1910 30 years
    warming 1910-1945 35 years
    cooling 1945-1956 11 years
    pause 1956-1976 20 years (when we were being warned of a coming ice age)
    warming 1976-1998 22 years (‘hockey stick’)
    current pause 1998-2013 15 years and counting.

    • That’s a very useful set of figures I a good “sense check” of whether the 0.64C /century warming is a sensible figure. The figures you’ve given are:

      0.65, 0.62, 0.47 C, 0.18C, 0.37C, 0.25, 0.44 /century

      So, the only period using the article definition that would could as “warming” would be the “since 1880 at an average 0.65 C per century (NCDC and GISS)”

      As for the other periods, I don’t have anything to hand, but as far as I recall the 1970-2000 warming and 1910-1940 was 0.48C over 30 years, which is 1.2C/century

      Again from memory, I noticed a lot of periods with about 0.1C change per decade. As such I think we will get a lot of decades with 0.1C change so the threshold is low enough to give up lots to talk about. And I remember the Met Office predicted 0.6C/decade warming over a nine year period (when it cooled by 0.1C/decade)

      The pragmatist in me would prefer a round figure like 0.05C/decade – what do you think?

      • Richard Mallett says:

        Yes, that would cover it. Personally, I prefer to express it in terms of degrees per century, otherwise it just seems a vanishingly small amount. People don’t really know what 0.05 C is in reality.

    • Richard, Richard, nobody knows what was last year’s ”global” temperature, to save his / her life BUT, you know with ”precision” the GLOBAL temp to one hundredth of a degree for 1880’s – you are a genius. You are perfect example why the Warmist are succeeding to loot the nations… With few unreliable thermometers, not even calibrated to one hundredth of a degree, you managed… brilliant.

      if you say that the moon is made from mozzarella cheese, I will believe you, I’ll believe you

      • Richard Mallett says:

        Precision is not accuracy. We have to use the data from the several sources that we have. If we just say ‘we don’t know what happened / is happening’ then we just give up.

      • Stefan, we’ve had 15+ years without a significant change in temperature. Sooner or later THE PROXY instrumentation metric is going to go up or down.

        Either way, that is going to end up in huge arguments as to when “the pause has ended”.

        The alarmists will claim a very small upswing is “warming”, they will likewise claim that only a massive and century long down-swing is “cooling”.

        If we decide a figure NOW – which is the same for warming and cooling, then no one can argue that we are just coming up with this figure because it suits us.

        So, whether or not it represents the actual temperature, what figure do you want us to select as the trend limit for warming/cooling.

        If we can get a consensus around a figure, this will vastly improve our case to argue our view when we do see a change IN THE PROXY (irrespective of whether it represents any real physical quantity)

        • Richard Mallett says:

          Incidentally, you probably know (or can guess) this already; but using the 2000 year ice core record from Law Dome, Antarctica, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 and temperature; so we can dismiss that one very easily.

          • Richard Mallett says:

            It was actually ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.txt (linked from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html ) plotted against all the above records, plus the 2000 year reconstruction from Craig Loehle. None of therm are anywhere near statistical significance.

          • Richard Mallett says: ” None of therm are anywhere near statistical significance”

            Richard, can you really ”believe” their temp data for a thousand years ago?
            At that time people were scared to sail more than 30km west of Portugal, not to fall off the planet – the planet was flat then… who was collecting the daily temp data for them / for you in both Americas, Australia, Antarctic; with what kind of thermometers?!?!?!
            Can you see now what the Skeptics are born losers? Please help me, I would like to know

          • Richard Mallett says:

            We can tell what the temperatures were 2000 years ago from :-

            1. Ratios of oxygen isotopes O18 to O16 in ice cores; sediment cores from the ground, lake beds and ocean floors; corals, pollen and algae. Because O18 is heavier than O16, it condenses and falls as precipitation in warmer temperatures.
            2. Plant fossils in sediment cores, since different plants grow in different temperatures.
            3. The amount of magnesium in coralline algae.
            4. Boreholes – air temperature leaves a thermal imprint on the ground; so by measuring the temperature at various depths, the temperature at different times in the past can be deduced.
            5. Width of tree rings, maximum late wood density, and isotopic composition.

          • None of these are direct proxies for global temperature.

            All need calibrating so as to “scale-up” the metric to indicate global temperature.

            We don’t have an absolute measure of global temperature – so we have nothing to calibrate these proxies against.

            So, in the end, the temperature give by these proxies is just a guess of how these proxies scale.

          • Richard Mallett says:

            Yes, of course. Science is often about educated guesses. But educated guesses can result from a convergence of evidence. For example, the temperature proxies that I mentioned give a period for the Medieval Warm Period of about 820-1040, and for the Little Ice Age of about 1440-1740. Scientists can (and do) argue about the dates; but nobody (except perhaps Michael Mann) would deny that these periods were anomalous.

        • Scottish Sceptic says: ”I assume this 7200 record is what you are referring to”

          Mike, guess what’s the temp now, in your room – first guess, then look at the thermometer = you will be wrong by 2-3-4C – That is NOW, that is IN YOUR ROOM, on the other hand, they can guess correctly the temp about 7200 years ago, for the WHOLE planet? WOW!

          Those ”correct” guessings” for the last 150y ago, (since Darwin published his book) are the precursor of all today’s evil.about the phony GLOBAL warming…
          Ask those ”researchers”’ to guess what will be the temp in your yard tomorrow – you monitor and will see that they will not know… is your backyard on this globe?

          • I would guess 21C … the wall thermometer reads 21.6 (over the TV)

            And you are right about the temperature – the “average” of available sites is only an indirect indication of planetary conditions.

            However, despite it being far from perfect – and whilst I would love to get the best skeptics to really dig into the figures and come up with something I know isn’t biased, it is something we will continue to argue about for years.

            But one thing we can head off is a definition of what constitutes a “pause”.

          • Scottish Sceptic says: ”I would guess 21C … the wall thermometer reads 21.6 (over the TV)”

            You can guess better than me, a] because you watch the weather report for tomorrow on tv, subconscious coordination b] because in Scotland there is no humidity – humidity is deceiving in subtropics and tropics – when is humid – feels like 40C, when is only 32C – next day no humidity, gets to 37C, but feels as if is 31C.

            Those ”researchers” had to ”guess’ the temp for Australia, south America, Oceania, for year 7200!
            you try to guess the temp for New York and Sydney for yesterday’s temp; then find out in papers that you will be wrong by 4-5-6C. Proxy data is all crap!

      • Richard Mallett says: ”If we just say ‘we don’t know what happened / is happening’ then we just give up”

        Richard, the reality is opposite: if you use that misleading data as factual – is a white flag, you sounder to their lies

        BUT, If you use those lies that they are dishing to the naive; to prove that they are lying – that’s different

        , ”pretending” to believe that they can monitor with few thermometers the temp on the WHOLE planet – after, don’t blame them when they treat the Skeptics as 4y old kids…

        Richard, can you remember this, it can guide you correctly: ”planet earth is NOT as human body – when is 1C warmer under the armpit = the whole body is warmer by that much. In the environment, the temp is different on every 100m and changes every 15 minutes” can you remember that? Can you pas that to your Met office? They will hate you, but they will have respect for you; but, if you use their misleading data as factual = you are shooting yourself in the foot and misinforming the rest of the skeptics; therefore: you are doing the Warmist dirty job!!!!!!!…
        stefanthedenier

      • Richard Mallett says: ”Ratios of oxygen isotopes O18 to O16 in ice cores; sediment cores from the ground”,

        Richard, Richard… 1] O18 is heavier so insignificantly that they do not classify themselves, even if the shonks were honest, wouldn’t be able to distinguish. b].in the soil, different gases and elements end up deeper because use cracks in the soil, holes from decayed roots, get taken deeper by worms and other bugs = that ”research” is complete crap.

        2] ice cores: Richard, they say that on Antarctic there is 600 000 y old ice – so, when they drill 50-70m, that for them represents 1000years deposit of ice

        THE TRUTH: there is no very old ice on Antarctic. They see that is no snowing, no clouds there, so they think that the ice is very old – couldn’t be further from the truth

        b] ice on Antarctic, Greenland is constantly ”MELTED” from below, by the geothermal heat. that heat is not much, but because is protected by a kilometer of thick ice as perfect insulator on the top – that unlimited coldness in the air cannot cancel the geothermal heat below. Ask the miners going 1km deep down, the temp is +40C, Antarctic is not different than other continents, has lots that heat
        Why it didn’t melt all the ice there, because is no snow or rain to replenish the ice, you ask?

        Yes there is! The ice on those two places is replenished every year by an extra meter of ice – similar amount is melted from below = therefore: the OLDEST ice on the bottom is one thousand old. ice is replenished by freeze-drying the moisture from the air! you say that is no moisture and clouds in Antarctic’s air?

        That’s how it goes: for 8-9 months in year – the COLD / HEAVY air from above Antarctic is picked up by the ”earth’s centrifugal force” and billions of cubic kilometers comes in form of those ”HIGHS” to all over Australia, the northern parts reach up to Port Moresby – to avoid creation of vacuum – simultaneously moist air from Indian and south pacific goes to Antarctic – coldness crystallizes that moisture in that air / is called blizzards and that’s how is replenishing the ice constantly. Same as the old fridges needed to defrost every few weeks because was building ice, without rain or snow in the kitchen – the more often you open the fridge door = more ice is created from moist air in the kitchen. Rodger, Antarctic doesn’t have door, moist air gets there from every direction. SO: they are lying about their ”researches” for CO2 and other pollutants in the ice, for a start they are wrong about the age of the ice

        That’s how it goes: Warmista sitting on the toilet, kilcks in his mind that: if he can find a particular thing in the Antarctic’s ice – will be good for the warmist propaganda – next day tells the boss his brilliant idea – boss approves funds from the taxpayer and the shonk ends up on Antarctic – ”pretends” ”researching” to legitimize the lot and expenses; and the bias media is waiting to declare his ”terrible news” to the world; his ”discovery was made in the toilet, not on antarctic. If by accident he discovers something correctly there, that doesn’t suit the propaganda – he can come back home as Moses with the tablets, written in stone, but wrong for the propaganda the world will not hear about it OR they will interpret that: that thing happened thousands of years before. SO, they tell the lies to the public, they know that: for you is cheaper to believe them than to go to antarctic / drill and check for yourself that they are wrong!… Actually, they have created enough zombies, that will believe them anything…

        Richard, instead of prolonging the story, why don’t you go to my website, read few posts, learn how they operate, learn how to use the normal / honest laws of physics; so: when they serve you crap -> you can tell them exactly WHY it smells fishy, without having to go to Greenland, Antarctic and other remote locations
        here is a post to start; but read the bloody lot, because my English is limited, you need to see the whole picture first,read few posts ::http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/methane-ch4/ http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/midi-ice-age-can-be-avoided/

        • Richard Mallett says:

          I’m sorry, but your limited English is no excuse for swearing at me. That is totally unacceptable.

          • Richard, Stefan – please no insults direct at other commenters.

          • Richard Mallett says:

            I will no longer reply to Stefan.

          • When people come from very different backgrounds they often view the same thing in very different ways. That makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion and that leads to frustration.

            As far as I can see Stefan was just getting frustrated that he couldn’t find a way to get over his point in a way that you would understand/accept.

            Sometimes we just have to accept that we are just not going to understand each other within the time and means available to us.

          • Richard Mallett says:

            However frustrated you are, swearing is never acceptable, and that’s all I said to Stefan.

            [Mike here: different people have different ideas of what is acceptable. But I would suggest both trying a little harder to tolerate the other and perhaps leaving it for a while]

        • Scottish Sceptic says: ”Richard, Stefan – please no insults”

          Mike, Richard is accusing me of ”swearing” – he should be a gentleman and point out where??? That must be his dirty trick – to get me blacklisted; because he can see that his proofs are not really proofs. I just learned how to spell the word ‘swear” thanks Richard.

          Mike I never swear on the web, or in private, you should see the abuses and swearing I get on the Warmist blogs; but I personally don’t swear even them, Richard was polite to me, why would i swear, is not fair of him to invent that.

          Anyway, when on the subject, somebody copied you and offered $10000 on

          Climate Denial Crock of the Week
          with Peter Sinclair
          For a Quick 10K – Prove Climate Change is Not Real!

          • Perhaps Richard really meant he felt like he was being sworn at and clearly you were getting hassled as well.

            I just wanted to avoid things getting out of hand, so if you could just put in that extra bit of effort I would appreciate it.

          • Richard Mallett says:

            As you can now see, I have quoted the part where I was sworn at. Just because it happens on other blogs doesn’t mean that it should be allowed here.

          • Richard, it takes two to create an argument. One to give offence and one to take offence.

            Your original statement that you don’t like be sworn at was reasonable because you are entitled to that view. But going on about it and attacking someone else is not acceptable.

          • Richard Mallett says:

            All I did was to provide the quote when I was asked for it.

          • Can we go back to talking about climate, politics, multiculturalism or anything less controversial than who said what why, when.

          • Richard Mallett says:

            Absolutely. I am currently plotting graphs of CRUTem4 station temperature records that started before 1850. For those that started before 1839, the trend from 1700 to date is +0.25 C per century. From 1850 to date the trend is +0.63 C per century. So yes, the trend is steeper, but it will take 317 years from 1850 to 2167 to reach the magic 2.0 C that is supposed to bring about the catastrophe.

          • Scottish Sceptic says ”Perhaps Richard really meant he felt like he was being sworn at”

            Mike, I thought you must be a sleep by now – you must be nocturnal, bravo!
            If Richard doesn’t want to talk to me, no worries. I think he is trowing tantrum, as when somebody says to a child that: ”maybe Santa is not for real” children grow out of it

            P.s about my previous two comments; was spouse to be one comment, but posted itself without me finishing first, so I made the second one to finish – regarding the warmist blog, sorry

          • Richard Mallett says:

            You said ‘read the ****** lot’ – that is totally unacceptable.

          • Richard and Stefan, please will two both try to be more tolerant and stop attacking each other.

        • Scottish Sceptic says:
          Mike, my comment was posted before I even finished it, have to finish it here:
          ”On that ”hardcore Warmist post” that copied you; you should get there as an adventure – and because: if you want to win the battle, need to read all their comments on that post and see how your opponents operate – simultaneously you will see the abuses I get on the Warmist blogs, but I never swear.b] somebody got so upset for me commenting on warmist blogs – yesterday one got on my blog and used abuses and four letter word – I was still polite to him, anyway, see how your real opponents operate, if you want to win the battle, I hope this will get you there:

          :Climate Denial Crock of the Week
          with Peter Sinclair
          For a Quick 10K – Prove Climate Change is Not Real!

  7. Scottish Sceptic asked:: ”how do we enter ice ages then?”

    Well, it’s big question and deserves big answer; as long as you don’t complain for big comment: I’ll tell yo how those ice ages started, and how and why they finished.

    How LIA started:
    Just before LIA, po population in north Africa increased – uncontrollable wildfires made Sahara bigger and started producing ”
    extra” dry heat – that extra dry heat increased evaporation in the Mediterranean Mediterranean doesn’t have any tributaries to replenish the water deficit from higher evaporation- it’s only Nile – decreasing vegetation upstream decreased water in Nile. Therefore: EXTRA warm-water from the ”Gulf-stream” was going from Mexican gulf into the Mediterranean – ”gulf-stream” supplies water to Mediterranean and in north-sea / Baltic – more into Mediterranean = LESS share warm tropical water going to Denmark and Latvia = less warmwater to evaporate around England and less warming the area = LIA. was created.

    you will instantly say: but now Sahara is just as big, why and how LIA finished?!! Constant debate when LIA finished, because in the finishing years might influenced other freak events, so, it’s unclear for them, BUT, YOU will tel them exactly which year the LIA officially finished! I’ll tell you how: you go to the library, or google and find out what year exactly the Suez canal was opened. BECAUSE: from that year on; some of the water ”deficit” from evaporation in Mediterranean was supplied by water coming from the Red sea into Mediterranean (i think was 1883, can’t remember)
    ”Less gulf-stream hot water” needed to come to Mediterranean = BIGGER share started going to Denmark – more tropical hot-water started evaporating around England and was warming the are = LIA finished!

    Plus: you will find out that: since finishing day of LIA until today; LESS water from river Rhaine and river Seine from Paris drains now in the sea. because of use lots of water for industries, for bigger cities, much MORE irrigation = LESS cold water from the Alps drains into north sea, probably only half of the water now, than during LIA. What that means: because is high evaporation there because hot and cold water meet = north and Baltic seas started sucking EXTRA tropical warm-water from the Mexican gulf – when more warmwater evaporation, warms more England. Do you think that those events affected the WHOLE planet. You ”Skeptics” think so…
    The biggest proof of LIA you have is: on a picture people scatting on frozen river Thames for few days. Well, two years ago, 1000miles south/ closer to the equator; in Serbia and Romania rive Danube 10 times bigger river than Thames, was completely frozen for two weeks, well recorded, same as Thames frozen scatting (people record unusual events, good days are boring) , BUT – now the shonks were not able to declare it as: midi ice age for 150y, because: when Danube was frozen and people were dying from cold in England, Poland – at exactly the same time was record braking heat in Australia and people were dying in the big bushfires. Now you know how and why it happened – tell the world in your English.

    HOW THE BIG ICE AGE FOR 12000 ”STARTED”?
    Preparation for it, started about 50 000y ago, when people invented how to make fire artificially, easy; before that, fire was only from volcanoes on the planet, not much, and from electric storms, which starts fire when is raining and doesn’t go far, but, by rubbing two sticks, the mongrels created all the deserts on the planet- after 20-30-50 fires, vegetation gives up. they didn’t have helicopters to put the fire off – it was continuously for million square miles.

    In north Africa was getting overpopulated, lots of activity – Europe was too cold for them 25 000y ago, with not much cloths; north Africa was perfect for life – They created the desert in Sahara – by about 2500y ago Saharan ”dry heat” was evaporating all the water in the Mediterranean. Mediterranean became as Dead sea is now, no water..Gibraltar straights didn’t exist; was land bridge between Africa and Spain – so it wasn’t possible water from Atlantic to come into Mediterranean, I mean Mediterranean, Ionian, Aegean, Adriatic – because Caspian and Aral where too far from the ocean, they dried also.

    Saharan dry heat was destroying water vapor created in north Atlantic = less moisture was going from there into the northern polar cap to renew the ice every season – because the salty currents from below were eating the ice – Arctic became without ice cover – currents from Bering goes via north poll than down by Norwegian and Labrador currents to Atlantic and then as colder water sinks deep below the surface, but is still cooling the ocean on the way to Mexican gulf. (please note: the ice on the polar caps in not replenished by the water vapor created there, but the moisture comes from warmer latitudes – therefore: warmer water = MORE ice on the polar caps/ you guys from both camps are completely back to front. Polar caps have enough coldness, to crate another 30km thick ice on the top of the existing one, only if there was enough raw material coming for ice creation, what’s that ”raw material”? water vapor is badmouthed by both camps)

    When Arctic’s water was exposed to the unlimited coldness in the air – water without ice as insulator – was doing two things a] was cooling the water extra, and as double cold with the coldness in the air was blowing south and was ”intercepting” the moisture in Europe and north america – no moisture was left for renewing the ice in arctic – it created, what I call: ”ice doughnut effect”: 100m thick ice in Europe, up to kilometer thick in north america, because the ”gulf-stream” didn’t exist, because Gibraltar and English Chanel didn’t exist the hot surface water was staying in the Mexican gulf and was producing lots of evaporation / water vapor – where that moisture was meeting with the cold air from the north, was packing much more ice than in Europe

    now the warmwater from the gulf-stream coming into Mediterranean and Baltic sea is keeping Europe warmer than it should be, plus in winter the water itself in those inland seas didn’t exist and was not helping Europe with warmth.
    2] because the currents going via north pol without ice as insulator, that water was getting much colder and that ”extra coldness” was cooling all of north Atlantic. because Arctic for those currents that go from Bering via north pol down south to Mexican gulf – arctic is serving exactly as your electric hot water system to heat your water for hot shower – only instead of getting it hot – is making it COLDER, when that current doesn’t have ice as insulator to the unlimited coldness in the air. SO: : ”no ice on Arctic’s water – makes COLDER northern hemisphere, NOT warmer as both camps are told to believe; because ”white ice reflects sunlight crap; in reality water has a ”mirror effect” and reflects sunlight even more. SO, less ice on arctic = more vortexes coming from arctic, south. Air in northern hemisphere was ”colder, from north pol to the subtropics / parallel of Cancer obviously – that air was shrunk – to avoid creation of vacuum lots of air from the S/H was gone north = on S/H was LESS air than it is today. therefore: with less air permanently = on the southern hemisphere was ”WARMER” than normal. Ice ago didn’t make ”colder planet” the Pagan belief is crap. Global temp goes as the children’s ”see-saw” plank in the park = the more one side gets warmer – other side of the planet gets ”colder” than normal – that’s what the normal laws of physics say, both sides of the plank don’t go up, OR down SIMULTANEOUSLY!!!!!!.

    Scotty, I will tell you some other time how that ice age finished and why, if you are still interested; because my comment is getting too long, no matter how much I’m trying to compact is. See you!

    • Stefan, you’ve put a lot of work into the above post, but when I tried to work out where you differ from the typical skeptic view, I was left wondering.

      I went to your site, to find out, but I couldn’t find a simple account of what you disagree on.

      This makes it very difficult to judge what you are saying. This is because when we work from different initial assumptions, it is difficult to know why you are saying what you do, so I don’t understand the point you are making.

      Do you anywhere have a very simple summary of the main issues where you differ from skeptics.

    • Scottish Sceptic says: ”I went to your site, to find out, but I couldn’t find a simple account of what you disagree on”

      Mike, we agree on everything and want same result- only not on two things – the second one will explain in another comment, here is the first:
      Skeptics say that were in the past hips of ”global” warmings – I have proved that: they were NOT ”global” (same as I explained to you about the LIA – .they were not ”global” that’s it. I have the proofs – THEY get upset, because their ”knowledge” .and the laws of physics don’t mix

      2] I’ve done my research on the street, the verdict is: 98% of the people never read the ”climate change” blogs:- IT’S MOST IMPORTANT what they think: ”if global warming can happen = probably will, better be safe than sorry” that’s their bottom line, and nobody can blame them for that. So: media and politician do what those 98% think, they don’t care what warmist &skeptics arguing on the web.

      3] the point is: I have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that: by the normal laws of physics – those Skeptics ”global” warmings were not global; because the laws of physics don’t permit that – which means: in 100y from now SAME laws of physics will be; therefore: ”the Warmist don’t have a case” – the leading Warmist can be in jail in less than a year – but for me to prove that the laws of physics are the most reliable = upsets some skeptics as Richard is the best example.

      If I put Hansen or similar (even Plimer) on a witnesses stand – where they will have to answer questions, instead of avoiding, or saying: ”but look, all the skeptics know about the ”global” warmings, we will not listen to you” – if people on the street know what I have – in less than a year – media and politicians would have listened only what the skeptics say. B] Warmist can decimate the skeptic’s ammunition in 3 days – there are some very clever of them; but they are not doing it, because it suits them – skeptics are giving oxygen to the warmist. Mike, you know physics, use it; (second disagreement in the next comment, not very complicated) need my morning coffee first

  8. Richard Mallett says:
    ” I am currently plotting graphs of CRUTem4 station temperature records that started Rbefore 1850. For those that started before 1839, the trend from 1700 to date is +0.25 C per century. From 1850 to date the trend is +0.63 C per century. ”

    That sounds really interesting and look forward to seeing them. More than happy to post them here – but it sounds like something Anthony would be happy to post.

    • Richard Mallett says:

      All the CRUTem4 graphs are available via a Google Earth interface at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/crutem/ge/ but of course it doesn’t let you choose long records specifically. There are about 170 stations that started measuring before 1850, but many of those have short or long gaps in the record, so I guess they need to be whittled down in some way, which I haven’t attempted to do yet. Recommendations on any criteria to apply would be welcome :-)

      • I’ve often wondered about getting such data and putting on line ourselves?

        • Richard Mallett says:

          Well, let me know how you want to go about it, and I will be happy to help if I can. People at the Hadley Centre and Berkeley Earth obviously use some sort of script to produced hundreds of charts, while I have to do it manually, so I’m limited to hundreds :-)

          • My original idea was to get R files online to acess and process all the various files.
            However, it was a bit catch-22, as I couldn’t find anyone who had a working R file and it’s hell to search for (WHOEVER THOUGHT OF ‘R’ AS A NAME SHOULD BE SHOT!!)

            I’d suggest a simple start is a list of site URLs or if not too many a list of specific files. That would give me an idea of what’s involved.

          • Richard Mallett says:

            There are only two files, both accessed from the bottom of http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem4/station-data.htm :-

            Files
            NB. The Station data file does not contain certain Polish stations for which permission to distribute has not been granted.
            crutem4_asof020611_stns_used.zip Station data
            crutem4_asof020611_stns_used_hdr.txt Header lines from above

          • But those are only monthly data!

            You know what would be a really good project is just to identify all these various data sources and even give a one line description to each.

            Indeed, best of all would be an example piece of code to read in the data and plot it.

          • Richard Mallett says:

            I have combined the header and data, and computed the annual average for each of the stations with data before 1850 (before 1836 so far) and plotted them in Excel. What other data are you looking for apart from ‘only monthly data’ ?

          • Richard Mallett says:

            Since you haven’t replied to my reply of yesterday morning, does that mean that you don’t want / need anything from me ? I will continue plotting the graphs for my own edification, of course.

  9. Pingback: The Sceptic dictionary | Scottish Sceptic

  10. Pingback: The Academic Ape: Instinctive aggression and boundary enforcing behaviour in academia | Scottish Sceptic

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>