Global warming, eh?

I\’m in southern Portugal. The Algarve. Towards the end of May.

And I\’ve got the wood fire going in my office to prevent my hands going blue as I type.

Global warming, eh?

50 thoughts on “Global warming, eh?”

  1. You are a denier, which means you are:

    A, A religious nutter
    B, A member of the Vast Rightwing conspiracy
    C, A Lackey of Big Oil
    D, A bit chilly

  2. I think we have to give this year a pass. Once you correct for how close hell came to freezing over – Tottenham nearly beating Arsenal in the league?! – the temperatures are only to be expected.

  3. Well, I`m in a beachfront villa in southern Thailand looking out over the Andaman Sea. It`s positively tropical here. Time for another cold one.

  4. Timmy, Timmy, Timmy. Don’t you know they call it “Climate Change” now, not “Global Warming”? This is so there doesn’t have to be any actual warming involved.

  5. What Matthew said.

    Weather is not climate, unless it’s weather that can be woven into the global warming narrative.

  6. The global warming is merely hiding. Possibly in the oceans, or maybe on the Moon. Everybody knows that last year was the hottest year on record since the universe became transparent.

    Who are you going to believe? Impartial scientists whose jobs depend on there being global warming to study, or your own lying eyes?

  7. Oh bugger!
    Just drove thru Sevilla & be going over the bridge soonest. In jeans & a T-shirt. Me coat’s hanging by the hall mirror.
    Any chance of borrowing a jumper?

  8. Or possibly Gaia herself has postponed the global warming so as to test the faith of the righteous and separate the sheep from the goats. When her prophet James Hansen returns from the mountain with two tablet computers displaying William Connelly’s efits on Wikipedia, all you doubters and Koch-funded deniers will be smited with great vengeance and furious anger.

  9. Martin – it has a deity (The Planet), priesthood (the arbiters of The Science), prophets (Gore, Hansen, Suzuki, Ehrlich), holy texts (IPCC Reports), sin (measured by your carbon footprint), indulgences (carbon offsets), predictions of End Times.

    They don’t have a plausible version of redemption yet though, unless shivering in one’s carbon-neutral eco-yurt made out of hemp grass and discarded car tyres is meant to be a state of grace. And the windmill farms are a poor substitute for cathedrals.

    Still, might be better than selling The Watchtower.

  10. Perhaps if you assert enough times that AGW isn’t real the laws of physics will change.

    However, if you want to determine by observation whether global warming is happening, about the worst possible way would be to look at temperatures on the Atlantic coast of Europe. See “North Atlantic Drift” to get some insight into why.

  11. PaulB

    In the past, you have often shown analyses based on BEST which, as you know is a land-based measurement. Why have yo0u never analysed the entirety of the planetary surface? Perhaps because those measurements all suggest that “warming” has slowed down since the start of the 21st century?

  12. Silly boy. It’s ‘global warming’ when it’s hot and it’s ‘climate change’ when it’s cold.

    Do keep up.

  13. Tut tut, Tim, you misunderstand.

    When it’s cold it’s just weather.

    When it’s hot then it’s Global Warming.

  14. Have drink and it becomes warble gloaming!

    That climate is changing (and has changed over the period of humanity’s ability to measure) I have no doubt.

    Since the AGW (now ACC) fuss started, I have applied the same fine instincts I bring to losing money and unsuccessfuly seducing women to the question.

    I see crappy models that haven’t worked. Too many questions not only unanswered, but ignored, enormous sums of money frittered on academe and an enormous fuss in the MSM linking just about everything to AGW. Funnily when I see the fisking (which is invariably of higher quality than the original) and NO fisking back, I get fidgety… 400 ppm and enormous articles in the MSM and what? Nuttin, cos it means nuttin, except a chance to scare.

    I see petty politics, discredited money-grabbing academics, gasland, which we know has been totally discredited but the MSM doesn’t or hasn’t admitted it. Obama, Prince Charles, Gorey et al are so unconvincing because they are operating on faith and seem to know less than me, a total amateur.

    Invoking the precautionary principle has become the argument loser’s refuge.

    But it looks like the wheels are finally coming off.

    Even the EU is realising that the cost of trying but failing to achieve the results theoretically necessary will bankrupt us before we even notice and it looks like common sense might start to be applied.

    I am looking forward to a fun year or two, as we see back pedalling, rewriting and weaving and ducking. I have made a list of friends who poo-pooed the idea that AGW is not a problem, the same ones who said there could never be a property crash in Spain, (surprise, surprise), ‘cos now all of them say they saw the crash coming. This time I ain’t gonna let them get away with it.

  15. The BBC says it stopped getting warmer 15 years ago but that doesn’t mean that the long-term impact will be any smaller – just for the few years that we can check on and come back and complain.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
    PS It is logically indefensible to deny AGW exists as we have burned more than 100 billion tonnes of coal and more than 100 billion tonnes of oil in the last 40 years – the argument is over whether this is *significant* relative to variations in solar radiation.

  16. Oh look, PaulB is repeating the long-debunked lie that global warming will cause Europe to cool by shutting down the thermohaline circulation. Look up, er, Shutdown of the Thermohaline Circulation to see why.

  17. Tim are you unaware that Global Warming cause hotness, coldness, more rain, less rain, more snow, less snow, hail, no hail and every other type of climatic event.

    Silly boy!

  18. When I were a lad back in the 70s we were promised a new ice age. Global cooling.
    Science then changed its mind and the same people that were crying out for something to be done started crying out about global warming. Not entirely keen on people who switch religions like that.

  19. RA: I said nothing about a shutdown. Meanwhile, experts agree that global warming will reduce the circulation. Which, as I said, makes the Atlantic Coast of Europe a poor observation point for global warming.

    MD: there was never a scientific consensus for global cooling. This is a myth.

  20. @Steve

    Do not omit that as a religion AGW also has a garden of Eden – bucolic farmers with their smocks bringing in the wonderful harvest on a sunny day while their wives prepared a huge meal and the children larked about among the wheat with nary a bad word between them. Then came the knowledge of the steam engine and the innocence was lost.

  21. @PaulB

    Yes of course Global Warming is happening. It has been going on since the little ice age 300 hundred years ago. You know, the one when people skated on the Thames. And it started heating up again and did so before the steam engine was invented.

    Maybe AGW is happening too – i.e. man made global warming due to Co2. But the evidence for it looks bad – there has been a giant amount of C02 emission in the last 10 years and average global temperatures have not moved a bit.

  22. Is it Old Testament Global Warming you don’t believe in, chaps, or New Testament Climate Change? Or Mormonish Climate Weirding?

  23. Bloody right it was cold!
    And not even anything decent in Sanmar to warm up with.
    Def considering putting the Algarve on the best avoided list…….. Must do better.

  24. Diogenes: really? I followed your link. And I followed the link there to the proceedings of a conference in Rome. The proceedings run to 500 pages, so I skipped to the conclusions. And the conclusions, where they talk about climate change, say:

    All [of a list of] authors were able to show, using records dating back to the end of the 18th century, that there has been statistically significant warming of large parts of the globe between the mid-19th century and recently. However, as indicated particularly by J.M.Mitchell, and shown also for sea temperatures by M Rodewald, this temperature increase has recently attenuated.
    [my translation from the French]

    So there you have it. According to the source material, there was a consensus that there had been approaching a hundred years of warming, which at least two scientists thought had recently slowed down.

  25. @PaulB

    Given the defects in posting on this site, this comment will probably not make it through. Tant pis!

    The proceedings run to 500 pages – so you did not realise that each paper was given in both English and French – so you are inattentive as well as selective in your reading.

    here is a selection of extracts from papers and comments that suggest that at that time, cooling seemed to be the dominant trend. Incidentally, the calibre of the papers seems to be way higher than anything provided by present-day practitioners of climate science, before activists like Hansen destroyed the credibility of the field.

    Page 19

    In trying to fit all the many bits of evidence together, one can hardly avoid the conclusion that during the period of the instrumental record there has in fact been a fairly general if not an overall warming-at least up to the 1940s. It would appear that this was slow and irregular at first but became more rapid later reaching a peak somewhere in the 1930s-40s. There can be no doubt that the rise has not been uniform or symmetrical in respect to the Pole; it has been least or nil in middle latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere and greatest in high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, especially in areas bordering the Atlantic Ocean. It also appears that the rise of temperature in some areas has lagged behind the rise in others; in fact, for a time at any rate, the fluctuations in some places have been opposed to those in others. Moreover, the warming has embraced short-period variations, and might only be part of a much larger period fluctuation covering perhaps some hundred years.

    R. G. VERYARD

    Meteorological Office, Air Ministry, London

    Page 178

    With the above dif

  26. Page 180
    C. C. WALLEN. Like oLher speakers I wish to express my great interest in and admiration for the contribution given by Dr. Mitchell. There are just two points which I would like to raise because they have bearing on my own home area. It was surprising to me to find that Dr. Mitchell refers to the Scandinavian area as one where pressure has fallen during the recent period of
    decreasing world temperature indicating rather an increase of temperature. This
    necessarily must be due to the selection of the period of comparison : in this case the forties and the fifties. Already seven years ago, using temperature
    records from Sweden, I pointed out that the so-called recent climatic fluctuation upwards trend seemed to have changed into a decline.

  27. Diogenes: As I said, I skipped to the conclusions, because that’s where you’d find a consensus. And the consensus was that the warming trend had weakened. I’m naturally delighted to learn that this appears in English also.

    Still, the consensus now is that there was a slight fall in global temperatures in the middle of the 20th century, so the scientists who reported it in 1961 were right. But this has got nothing to do with the claim by Martin Davies above which I contradicted: “we were promised a new ice age”.

    If you like I will qualify “there was never a scientific consensus for global cooling” to “there was never a scientific consensus that global cooling would be a problem”.

  28. @ PaulB and Diogenes and …
    What matters is “can we do anything that will decrease the suffering caused by Global Warming?”
    My (miniscule minority) view is that we can only do a little about Global Warming but we should try to do what we can (so, as far as I can I walk or use public transport and have solar water-heating panels and a stove that burns waste wood – sawing it up keeps me warm – and wear a Harris Tweed jacket in winter …)
    Re # 22 An even worse way is to take recordings from a number of sites in the USA adjacent to inefficient (well, in the USA what else do you expect)) power plants that are now present but did not exist when the time-series commenced. Faking data to produce “hockey stick” graphs doesn’t count as observation – I particularly object to this because my father was a brilliant hockey player (and the rest of my family was good).

  29. john77: Diogenes mentioned that I sometimes refer to BEST. I use their results because Muller – the leader of the team – is a climate sceptic. One of the studies they published looked at the effects on temperature measurements of using urban stations. Their conclusion: “The confidence interval is consistent with a zero urban heating effect,”

    btw, I’d guess that your father’s game was what Americans call “field hockey”. If so, your objection would be less pertinent.

  30. @: PaulB
    I’ve no idea what the Yanks call it – the Russians call it “hockey on grass” – but why do you think that the shape of the sticks is significantly different? I’ve been pushed into watching Ice Hockey on TV a couple of times (sadly not Czechoslovakia v Russia in 1968 which is the one game I should have wanted to watch) and the difference from old-fashioned English sticks is marginal: Pakistani sticks have a much shorter horizontal but surely the length of the horizontal and the minor difference in the angle between the shaft and the striking tip is irrelevant. Women’s hockey hold sticks at an angle to the vertical like Ice Hockey players – one reason why mixed hockey results in so many bruises as men play the ball much closer to their feet than women and they run into into each other’s sticks.

  31. @ PaulB
    I expect a competent set of measurements to show some warming unless the earth would, excluding AGW, be cooling, since – as I have said umpteen times – burning several hundred billion tonnes of fossil fuel should warm things up. However the so-called “scientists” who published widely reported global warming “data” but failed to report the necessary adjustment for human intervention in the immediate neighbourhood that included some electricity generating plants with an efficiency of <30%, so leaking more than twice the electrical power generated in heat to the surrounding area have generated a credibility gap.
    If you can kick the "Global Warming/Climate Change" lobbyists into providing HONEST data, please, PLEASE, do so. Until then I find demands to pay rich householders four or five times the going rate for electricity generated from their solar panels to be paid for by the poor through their electricity bills vastly objectionable and subsidies to wind farms whether or not the windmills actually turn and produce any electric power ludicrous.

  32. john77: er, ice-hockey sticks are roughly the shape of the famous “ice-hockey stick” graph. And (field) hockey sticks aren’t, not even the traditional English ones which were still seen occasionally when I used to play the game some years ago.

    Your point about burning fossil fuels warming things up directly is not a very good one. Solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface is about 8000 times the energy we get by burning fossil fuels (according to some numbers I just looked up). So to balance the fossil fuel energy with increased radiation from the earth, assuming that things were previously in balance, and that a fourth power law operates, would take an increase in absolute temperature by a factor of (1+ 1/8000)^(0.25) , which corresponds to less than a hundredth of a degree.

    Regarding the temperature data: please follow the link I gave which gives careful (and sceptical) consideration to the issues you raise, and finds them insignificant.

  33. @PaulB
    Thanks but that paper answers a different point (about urban areas being warmer than rural). Some of the data used to demonstrate warming included time-series from sites near to which power stations and/or factories had been built after the start of the measuring period so raising the district’s ambient temperature in the latter measurements but not the former. Sceptics who pointed out that this distorted and overstated average warming were denounced.

  34. john77: I suggest that if that BEST team, which started off with views on (other) climate scientists much like your own, has found nothing to say about power stations, that would be because there’s nothing to be said.

    But let’s consider the theory on its merits. What proportion of temperature stations do you think are situated next to power plants, and how much temperature error do you think is caused by the plants?

  35. @ PaulB #47
    You do have a point but looking at various sites I find one saying that solar radiation *reaching* the earth’s surface is more than 8k times human energy consumption and another saying it is 2k times but (i) reaching is not “absorbed” and (ii) absorption includes that used in photosynthesis; adjusting for both does not make fossil fuels account for the whole of global warming – I never thought or suggested that it did – but the effect is certainly a measurable %age of that observed: more than 0.1 degree rather than less than 0.01 degrees.
    The difference between the 8k times and 2k times may be the difference between fuel consumption and energy production reflecting the low efficiency of old-fashioned and/or coal power stations: I was looking at fuel consumption and the 8+k site was referring to energy used (presumably excluding transmission losses).

Leave a Reply

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