back to article Researchers: Arctic cooled to pre-industrial levels from 1950-1990

New research by German and Russian scientists indicates that summer temperatures in the Arctic actually fell for much of the later 20th century, plunging to the levels seen at the beginning of the industrial revolution. The new results are said by their authors to indicate that solar activity exerted a powerful influence over …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not new research

    BIt confused, the article mentioned in this report was published last November (9 months ago) and originally accepted by the journal in May 2009 (15 months ago). How is this 'new' research?

    What is new is the press report from UFZ who are obviously having a quiet summer and wanted something to promote themselves.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Alien

    how many trees

    Just for the sake of completeness and after a report about the last climate change tree data.

    Was it just one lonely Scots Pine that had trouble staying warm?

    Greys.. it was probably them.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    re: As far as I understand it...

    "This doesn't undermine the good science that they were doing"

    That's the whole problem... they weren't doing good science.

    None of what they did amounts to a hill of CO2 producing beans unless it is properly independently verified and published in peer reviewed journals. It then needs to be reproduced by other groups and not ones that happen to conveniently believe in the same outcomes. If the problem really were the pressure put on East Anglia by the nay sayers, all they had to do was release their raw data. To refuse or conveniently lose a load of it fatally undermines their credibility.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Boffin

    Deniers

    As far as I'm concerned, as soon as anybody uses the word "deniers" then they have lost all credibility. This is science not religion, its about facts, not faith, nor is it about using labels on people to pigeon hole them and discredit them.

    Real science is about gathering data, using consistent and reliable methods for interrupting and presenting that data. Theories are then used to back up, explain or question the data. What is abundantly obvious from "climate gate" is these people cooked the books to suit the theories that suited them and their research.

    1. LaeMing
      FAIL

      What was abundantly obvious from "ClimateGate"

      was that the science was solid all along but the people skills of certain of the scientists in the face of organised hostility by self-publicists and industry patsies could have been better.

      And that the media will always spin anything for maximum copy turnover (but we already knew that one).

      It is a bit iike the "controversy" over the dating of the fosil record: "These two scientists here disagree over whether the sediment layer is four-point-one or four-point-three hundred million years old. CONTRAVERSY!! - the young-earthers must have been right with their estimate of 6000 years afterall!"

    2. The Ref
      Boffin

      Agree

      with you reference to terms.

      At least they have stopped using the term sceptic, mainly as for the last few centuries scientists have been proud to be sceptical. Articles that cast scientists vs sceptics used to really p155 me off.

      I am a sceptic and proud. My beliefs on climate change I prefer to keep to myself in public forums.

      The scientists from East Anglia and other labs have done themselves a huge dis-service and undermined their own credeibility. Testing a hypothesis is good science - publishing findings to that hypothesis is good science - but cherry picking data can only bring discredit.

  5. DominicT
    FAIL

    Anti-science

    The lack of scientific understanding shown by some Reg contributors is a joke. Forget about the somewhat crackpot loony right-wing climate change deniers, but the authors? This is meant to be a technical site, where people how some understanding of science and technology, yet here's another article that is scientifically illiterate. I can only assume that this is trolling to get page views... or at least I hope so.

  6. gardener21

    Science journalism

    I am by no means an expert in this area, but it is Intriguing to read more about the actual research. The existing picture is that temperatures cooled in most arctic regions for a long time, but they have begun to rise from around 1990 onwards. It is suspected that the post 1990 increase is related to man made climate change.

    The tree ring data was drawn from 69 trees, from the treeline of the Khibiny Mountains on the Kola Peninsula in NW Russia. It showed a similar pattern of declining temperatures, until around 1970, and then a warming pattern since 1990.

    The interesting bit being that the temperature variations from the tree ring data, up until about 1970, seem to closely match with solar activity. Since 1970, they no longer correlate with solar activity and other features seem to have come to dominate.

    Can we have a Reg article about how new research into tree ring data confirms the recent warming trend in the arctic? It further shows that natural effects used to dominate temperature variations in the area studied, but now something else is dominating.

  7. NeilT
    FAIL

    Dear God Above

    You want it all ways.

    The planet has been cooling since 1998 and it's all about the Solar Output isn't it???

    Really!

    2000-2001 was the peak of solar cycle 23. Yet it was cooler than 1998. Why? Indonesia burned in 1997 putting another full 1ppm extra CO2 in the atmosphere for the 1998 summer, skewing the balance, which was redressed by melt in the cryoshpere.

    2007 - 2010 are bookends to the lowest solar minimum since the Dalton Minimum. YET global temperatures have never been higher. By the time 2010 is over 1998 to 2010 will be the 12 warmest years on record.

    The National Academy of Science (normally completely silent on items of dissent), have come out and completely exhonerated Mann. In fact Every Single scientist who has tried to reconstruct Mann's work has come out with a hockey stick of varying sizes no matter what *recognised* data set selection they use. The only Exception being the ONE report which claims Mann's work is rubbish. That report, on analysis, uses an unrecognised data set selection process. It's called "only use data sets which can't possibly produce a hockey stick"

    Then we get ONE analysis of tree ring data in ONE place in the world and it's all over. Climate science is bunk. Never mind that Russia is burning because it's hot and dry (yes that was forecast in the climate models), let's debunk thousands of man years of approved and accredited work with ONE analysis. Oh and let's not forget that this kind of drought and fire risk in Russia was not forecast to happen for another 50 years yet.

    I'm tired of "Drive By Disinfomation". I've decided that Drive By Reality should balance it out.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      Solar system gives us a hint, except for clueless, of course.

      "2007 - 2010 are bookends to the lowest solar minimum since the Dalton Minimum. YET global temperatures have never been higher. "

      Yes they have, like in 10th century. But if your "never" is more like "never after 1980", then I can agree. But tell us, why reference point is coldest year in 19th century? Accidentally chosen? You can bet your ass it wasn't.

      Also: You got it excatly wrong way. Solar minimum means less sun spots ie. _hotter Sun_. Sun spots are way cooler than rest of the surfaces, thus less radiation. Fits perfectly to the temperature curve and as activity has risen, has the temperature fallen and that anybody with eyes could see that in winter 2009-2010.

      Back to high school thermodynamics: What happens if you increase the radiation to an object in vacuum?

      Tell us why every object in Solar system is reaching record temperatures? Man is putting more CO2 in those other objects too? Even in those who haven't athmosphere.

      1. The Mighty Biff
        Headmaster

        Less spots = cooler

        Paradoxically, the sun is slightly cooler during a solar minimum :

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png

        Less spots = cooler sun.

        Science can be tricky like that sometimes

      2. BraveOak

        solar/date corrections

        "Yes they have, like in 10th century. But if your "never" is more like "never after 1980""

        Dude, 1980 is in the 20th century not the 19th. I let it go once thinking it was a typo. Seriously it does throw me because I am not sure if you meant 1880 or meant to say 20th century.

        "Also: You got it excatly wrong way. Solar minimum means less sun spots ie. _hotter Sun_. Sun spots are way cooler than rest of the surfaces, thus less radiation. Fits perfectly to the temperature curve and as activity has risen, has the temperature fallen and that anybody with eyes could see that in winter 2009-2010."

        Solar minimums mean less sunlight reaching earth. 2009-2010 has seen some of the lowest levels of sunlight reaching Earth on record.

        "Tell us why every object in Solar system is reaching record temperatures?"

        They aren't.

    2. Mat Ballard
      Grenade

      Faking the hockey stick

      The reason why it's so easy to create a hockey stick in an analysis like Mann's is because the hockey stick is in the raw data:

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

      The hard trick is to fudge it away :D

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    News?

    "Increased Sun activity makes earth warmer". No kidding.

  9. Liam Thom
    Boffin

    Warming Shwarming

    The effects of global warming whether beneficial or harmful, man-made or otherwise are insignificant compared to the problem of rising population. You don't need to analyse tree trunks to realise that we are using far too much of the earth's resources and genuinely threatening our own standard of living to a dangerous extent.

    The Pope could make a start by not decreeing the wearing of rubber birth control products to be a sin.

  10. Adam 73
    Stop

    @Loyal Commenter

    If you have a scientific backround (like most people on here no doubt) then your aware that volume of research is not proof on its own. Everything is a theory which at any point could be disproved by one experiment/research paper.

    The whole idea of the scientific method is that everything is fully documented and performed without intent to gain a specific result (other than maybe a guess about what you think will happen). Based on the results you then generate/further validate a theory, this can then be further backed up by additional research (with more advanced methods) or potentially disproven (again with more advanced methods). What that means is that everything is to be considered until it is scientifically disproven (there is no such thing as certain scientific proof, only a theory as yet disproven).

    The problem that most of us have is not the actual outcome but instead the political nature of what is happening. I have no doubt that most scientists involved are just trying to perform good science. The biggest problem with studying the earth's climate is that there are so many variables that it is almost impossible to model all of them and their interaction with each other.

    However on both sides of the camp (and recently to pro climate change have been worse!) there have been inroads by non-scientists (I'm referring to you Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to name 2!) who have hijacked the science to generate and validate political statements REGARDLESS of what the science is actually saying (more often than not its actually saying "we dont really know!"). Greenpeace pushing a more socialist (quick everyone run back to the caveman days!) mentality, the westminster politicians sensing fresh taxable blood to fund their expenses et cetera, at which point science is now no longer in control of the debate and will be twisted and bent to the political will.

    This isnt helped by the likes of the BBC's so called "scientific" explanations dumbing everything down to the point of near uselesness (not to mention they dont seem to give equal airtime) leaving the masses in confusion (and you know what happens if you spook the herd!)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      Numeric model is essentially assumption and extrapolation, nothing else

      "If you have a scientific backround (like most people on here no doubt) then your aware that volume of research is not proof on its own. Everything is a theory which at any point could be disproved by one experiment/research paper."

      Very well put. A theory, _any theory_, is shot down with one counter-example while 10 million supporting "research papers" don't make it more believable it is alone. Darwin needed only one paper to prove himself right. If _you are right_ one paper is enough.

      That's something climatology believers won't accept. Never.

      To me, this tree ring research proves that "global warming" isn't happening or it's not global, ie. not a valid theory, make a new one. Either theory is valid _in is entirety_ or it's not. There are no "select this piece and ignore the others in this case because they don't fit in our theory" -excuses allowed.

      _And that's hard science, based on reality_, not on some make-believe numeric model which is based on assumptions. Numeric model is essentially assumption and extrapolation, nothing else. As such, worse than worthless when assumptions are wrong.

      1. BraveOak

        takes time

        "Very well put. A theory, _any theory_, is shot down with one counter-example while 10 million supporting "research papers" don't make it more believable it is alone. Darwin needed only one paper to prove himself right. If _you are right_ one paper is enough."

        The problem is laypeople cannot spot whether a paper is valid and shoots down a theory or is invalid and fails. I raised my eye for example when you said "To me, this tree ring research proves that "global warming" isn't happening or it's not global"

        Why is that? Have you read the paper or are relying on this article's interpretation?

        Laypeople didn't realize Darwin or Einstein had caused a paradigm change. It was other experts who got it first and laypeople only latched on when they realized the new paradigm was enjoying significant acceptance by experts.

    2. Matthew Gaylard

      @ Adam 73

      Funny how the cranks like yourself pontificate about the scientific method but seem to consistently have some pretty basic and easily checked facts wrong. It's not too hard to see where the good science is here.

  11. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Thumb Up

    Highly suspicious.

    I'd thought the solar cycle ran in the range 9-11 years so 60 years would cover about 5 of them (very roughly).

    One of the *other* issues of "Climategate" was the difficulty in getting research that did not seem to match the *consensus*. It's good that this seems to have been published *fairly* quickly after the fieldwork was done.

    Thumbs up for this.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      Also a longer cycle in Sun

      "I'd thought the solar cycle ran in the range 9-11 years so 60 years would cover about 5 of them (very roughly)."

      The short cycle is about 11 years but there's also a longer cycle, about 70 years. Which was causing warming ("spring& summer") until 2008 or 2009 and now we are going back to normal in next 20 years. Anybody surprised?

      Just like in the 1950 to 1980, all downwards and in 1980 the ice age a was a real threat, according to _same climatologists_ than now. 180 degree turn in opinion (because facts they don't have). 30 years of downhill _has to be compensated_ with 30 years of uphill. How hard is to comprehend that? The top came and went and it's downhill from now on all the way to same temperatures than in 1980. CO2 has nothing to do with that.

      Unless, of course, your salary is depending on that you won't comprehend it.

      1. BraveOak

        sun and ice

        "Which was causing warming ("spring& summer") until 2008 or 2009 and now we are going back to normal in next 20 years. Anybody surprised?"

        Solar output peaked in the 1950s, it's been about flat since then, recently it's declined somewhat significantly. There is especially a lack of correlation between sunspots and temperature over the past 30 years.

        "in 1980 the ice age a was a real threat, according to _same climatologists_ than now"

        No, back then climatologists didn't know whether humans would have a net cooling influence from sunlight-blocking pollution, or a net warming influence from greenhouse gases. Both possibilities were aired at the time. Since then climate science has advanced and understands more about greenhouse gases and aerosols and have realized the human greenhouse gas warming effect will be stronger than the aerosol cooling effect. This is a case of science progressing, not changing it's mind.

    2. EvilGav 1

      Solar Cycle

      The solar cycle may run on a decade or so level, but the termination shock extent runs on a more relaxed 100 year or so cycle - it's currently around the lowest it's been for 100 years.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    The most irrational argument by supporters of man-made climate change

    lays in the way they treat evidence.

    Climate change supporters use the fact that they have many small pieces of evidence as cumulative proof that man is almost solely responsible for destroying the environment.

    But when others point out many small pieces of evidence that disagrees with this supposition they point at each one individually and say, that one fact is insignificant and proves nothing.

    If only these people could see how ignorant this argument is, unfortunately the dogmatic can never see the error of their thinking.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'd like to congratulate

    the advertising industry (and ExxonMobil and other patrons) for the way in which they've managed to move the debate from the huge scientific consensus to side-shows like 'the medieval warm period' (when europe was warmer, but NW USA, Pacific, Antarctic were cooler), 'climategate' (scientists cleared by 3 inquiries, now some looney wants an inquiry into the inquiries!), the 'Little Ice Age (cf Maunder Minimum, reduced solar activity & other possible causes).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      Obvious BS

      "huge scientific consensus "

      Let me correct you in one thing: Huge _political_ concensus. It has nothing to with science: A make-believe explanation to justify massive amounts of new taxes.

      IPCC is _political_ organization and as you may have noticed, the behave excatly like one: Propaganda, lies, excessive secrecy, zero tranparency. Which one of these is a symptom of reliable science, tell us?

      Darwin made _one research paper_ and won even "the huge scientific concensus" was _against_ him. He didn't need a propaganda machinery to advertise his ideas, the ideas themselves did that. Why IPCC exists, then?

      Also, essentially you are claiming that _the majority is always right_, even in science.

      Which, at least to me, is obviously bullshit.

    2. bitten
      Coffee/keyboard

      No consensus

      "move the debate from the huge scientific consensus to side-shows" I don't think there has ever been a scientific consensus over global warming. In the cold sixties climatologists were mainly talking about the possible upcoming ice age. The first stories about warming explained that the sea would rise once all the North Pole ice would melt (no Archimedes for us). The first greenhouse models talked only about CO2, not about clouds. etc.

    3. Hector K Spankthrust III
      FAIL

      The funding myth.....

      Hi AC,

      would this be the big evil Exxon (and big oil) who funded a claimed £1 mill to 4 dastardly machiavellian "skeptical" US thinktanks? Whilst on the other hand funding Stanford $100 mill to research energy sources to fight global warming? Or lets mention the evil BP funding similar research $500 mill? And bringing it back home shall we mention the £4 mill spent by the UK gov spinning AGW indoctrination? Kinda puts it in perspective doesnt it? The AGW spin and research industry is worth a heinous amount of money.

      And who do we find funding CRU? Errr BP, Shell, Sultinate of Oman

      http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

      Let put that old "evil deniarrr industry" chestnut back in its box shall we?

      Hector K

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    The ring of betrayal...

    Looks like tree-huggers will have to find some other source of primary evidence to transfer their physical affection to.

  15. Stern Fenster
    Headmaster

    1840 ?

    "... actually began in 1840, before the industrial revolution had even begun."

    Not begun in Russia, do you mean? Because by 1840 we sure had one hell of a lot of railways, foundries, coal mines and dark satanic millery round Blighty way.

  16. David Neil

    Publishing raw data might not help

    If you don't have any idea how it was gathered and have a clear idea of what it represents:

    http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

    Well worth a chuckle

  17. Goat Jam
    FAIL

    "huge scientific consensus"

    There was no such thing *ever*.

    What there was was a bunch of loud, shouty idealogs dressed as scientists using faulty data behind closed doors with visions of scientific grandeur if only they could convince the world that they were the one truth and that all should bow down and fund them so that they could lead us to salvation.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Science changes, beliefs stay. Choose yours.

    "which they've managed to move the debate from the huge scientific consensus to side-shows "

    A theory is exactly as strong as it's weakest link and CO2-theory has so many weak links they are making side-shows by themselves.

    Science changes, beliefs stay the same. Choose yours.

    After the fact that every planet on Solar system is warming was discovered, the CO2-theory was and is dead. Making Earth an exception is a religious relic from 16th century.

    Only firm believers support it and of course those who get paid to do so and there are several _tens of thousands_ of people who do: 5 _billion_ buys many supporters.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Blame business and zealots.

    If there actually is a definitive truth to be had about global warming, there are plenty around who are very motivated to prevent us seeing what it might be.

    In one corner you have the green zealots, who believe in man made global warming with virtually religious fervour, not least because it dovetails nicely with their views on a hundred other aspects of human civilisation and activity. They also have the heartfelt backing of those businesses in the global warming industries; renewable energy, eco friendly transport and heating technology, etc. The green businesses may well be run by those who believe in The Cause, or just the usual bunch of cynics but in slightly less uptight suits.

    In the other corner you have Big Business minus the green bits and their legion of sad, sad apologists. All they care about is making money now, and the best way for them to do that is by doing what they've always done in a stable business environment. Those in the really dirty carbon spewing industries are obviously especially highly incentivised not to wish to change their habits. They don't care what the actual truth is and are quite happy to throw truly vast sums of money at the sleaze merchants of the PR and legal industries to convince the rest of us there is no issue at all to worry our empty little heads about - just keep partying while we bury the facts you really don't need to know!

    The green zealots don't have the cash to pay for the glossy ads and lawyers that seem to cleanse even the dirtiest oil stains, but they can harness the relentless enthusiasm of their dedicated acolytes to dismiss anything at all that might rock the boat - why confuse the masses with anything short of a fait accompli?

    In the middle are the rest of us, and like plenty of others I'm profoundly fucking sick of the lot of them. I appreciate none of this is a fixed science, but I'd just like some leading authorities in the field to stand up and hand out the unvarnished story as they understand it without having to crawl a dozen websites to figure out where the funding for their latest research emanated from or which side of the political divide they advise on which points to make and which to conveniently omit. Science work best (and is most trustworthy) when it is independent and sticks to doing what it says on the tin. When those motivated by slavering greed or an overenthusiastic desire to save us all start editing the message they devalue science itself and deny the rest of us any opportunity to make a sound judgement short of undertaking an entirely new career.

    A hundred years ago or so, a German archaeologist had some firmly held beliefs about the Great Pyramid and the relationships of it's dimensions and alignments to the value of Pi. His credibility took a serious kicking when he was caught by an assistant sawing an inch off a sarcophagus to make it fit his eccentric theories. History records him as a cheat and a liar; but at least the fate of human civilisation didn't hang on his honesty.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Too bad, no data for non-believers, they might read it wrong.

    "This doesn't undermine the good science that they were doing, "

    _Where is_ this so called "good science" then? And more specifially: Where is the raw data to support it?

    Ah, it's a IPCC secret. Too bad, no data for non-believers, they might read it wrong. Essentially a religion with holy numbers which are not shown to any skeptics. How convinient, isn't it?

    All we have is an numerical guesstimate made by IPCC for political purposes.

  21. Pete 8
    Boffin

    Well it was almost a straight line until...

    they shoved millions in grants my way, then just near the end of the graph, the guy with the cash winks at me and nudges my elbow, bumping the pen.

    This is how the hockey stick came about.

  22. JoeTheAnnoying
    Unhappy

    No need for chicken little...

    I've lived through an abundance of environmental "disasters":

    - In the 1970's, we were going to run out of oil by the year 2000.

    - In the 1980's, nuclear war was going to cause global winter, freezing us all to death.

    - In the 1990's, a superbug (probably genetically modified) was going to cause a global pandemic, plus our growing population was going to starve us all to death by 2030.

    - In the 2000's, we have global warming.

    I'm really, really tired of environmentalists playing chicken little and trying to terrify the general public into doing what they say, whether or not what they say is accurate. (I happen to be an environmentalist, making it doubly embarrassing).

    Why not a simple, "You know, the world would be a much nicer place if, over the next 20 years, we could try to drop the human population down to around 6 billion, and we could reduce all emissions by 10%"?

    Yeah, I know the answer -- no one listens to reason. Everyone listens to panic. And capitalists hate anything that stifles growth ("It costs MONEY to reduce emissions!!!!"), while a wide assortment of folk (not just Catholics) oppose any notion of birth control.

    But wouldn't it be nice to see someone propose an easily-achievable solution over a reasonable time frame, instead of idiotic "turn yourself carbon-neutral" kits?

    Sigh.

  23. Futumsh

    @I'd like to congratulate

    'climategate' (scientists cleared by 3 inquiries, now some looney wants an inquiry into the inquiries!)

    Erm, No.

    Why do you think there were three inquiries. The first two were loaded with individuals who had a vested interest in the AGW theory, such as Lord Oxburgh, chairman of Globe International, which lobbies governments to take action on climate change.

    The last (The Muir Russell Review) was an attempt to look more neutral, but failed miserably when Philip Campbell (Editor in Chief of Nature Magazine) was forced to resign before the inquiry even started due to statements that he made saying that the CRU scientists had done nothing wrong.

    The scope of the Muir Russell Review was also primarily concerned with the emails, and not the manipulation/hiding of data.

  24. Tigra 07
    Megaphone

    And the Ice Age?

    It's been obvious they're liars for ages

    Why the need to manipulate data if the facts are so solid?

    The Ice Age did exist and people didn't cause it, neither do they now cause global warming

  25. P. Lee
    Troll

    has anyone considered what we do if...

    ...global warming is as bad as the worst fears but it isn't man-made?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Terminator

      yeah, unfortunately it is a two minute calculation and the results are

      we're all fucked.

  26. lamont
    FAIL

    Does not contradict the science

    Skeptical FAIL.

    Climate science has consistently predicted that climate change up until the past 20-30 years was dominated by largely natural forces (orbital cycles, solar cycles, volcanoes, etc), and that only in the past few decades should the temperature start to respond to increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the integration over time of historical build up of CO2 and thermal lag in the Oceans.

    Anthropogenic climate change from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is also partially offset by anthropogenic emissions of climate-cooling aerosols.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

    Prior to 1900 anthropogenic climate change is largely negligible, and up until 1960 the aerosol emissions largely balance GHG, but it is only post-1960 that anthropogenic GHGs are predicted to have dominated climate change.

    So, this is like using pictures of astronauts in space to "falsify" gravity. Actually, gravity predicts that astronauts should experience zero gravity. Similarly, climate change predicts that prior to the last few decades that non-anthropogenic forces should have dominated. This article just confirms that climate science has been correct, and is yet another piece of evidence that natural forces have dominated in the past and have only very recently become completely decoupled from typical behavior because of the introduction of anthropogenic GHGs.

    Of course in the "skeptical" world, black is white and evidence that is completely constant with climate science is now evidence that contradicts climate science. All that this new study does, however, is contradict a simplistic parody of climate science that editors at The Register hold -- they have, in fact, falsified their own understanding of climate science, but that just underscores the fact that the editors here know nothing at all about climate science.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Nonsense

      Prof. Jones recently admitted that over the last 15 or so years the warming has not been statistically significant. Remarkable. So, you would have us believe that climate science predicted that global temperatures would respond to the surfeit of CO2 and produce ... no statistically significant warming whatsoever. Riiiiiiiight. I think I've got it now.

      People who pretend to support AGW advocating climate scientists due to an innate understanding of the science are highly amusing. What these people are good at is parroting the latest debunking from AGW propaganda websites such as http://www.realclimate.org/ It's not big and it's not clever, I'm afraid.

      In order to produce their scary models showing how we're all going to burn to crisp/drown in rising seas over the next century unless we DO SOMETHING NOW!(tm) they have to assume that CO2 has substantial positive forcing on temperature, i.e. an amplification effect such that more CO2 causes an exponential increase in atmospheric temperature. There is no scientific evidence to support this theory. Nada. Until they can prove that this is the case, none of their scenarios have any credible weight whatsoever. Not just IMHO either but in the opinions of some pretty serious climate scientists and physicists.

      I'll leave you with this to ponder on: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162192

      1. BraveOak

        Nonsense2

        "Prof. Jones recently admitted that over the last 15 or so years the warming has not been statistically significant."

        It's significant at something just under 95%. Anyway the warming over the past 16 years is statistically significant (above 95%). So what's your excuse now? The expected longterm warming has happened.

        "they have to assume that CO2 has substantial positive forcing on temperature, i.e. an amplification effect such that more CO2 causes an exponential increase in atmospheric temperature. There is no scientific evidence to support this theory."

        Yes there is. It's not an assumption for a start, it's an outcome of how we understand the workings of the climate. At best you can argue that our understanding will turn out wrong. But you can't argue that our understanding is based on assumption, because that aint true.

  27. seven of five

    The North West Passage

    is shipable now. It wasn´t ten years ago.

    Anyone got something on the North-East Passage?

  28. lglethal Silver badge
    Coat

    Am i the only one...

    ... who considers chopping down trees to get data on climate change to be just a little bit stupid?

    Considering that in one tree you have potentially up to 500 years of continuous data. You then go and cut it down to find out that data, but in doing so your cutting off any chance to increase the record! Surely there must be some way to do this research without needing to chop down the tree...

    Wont someone think of the environment.... Oh, right...

  29. Arctic fox
    Flame

    For frakk's sake!

    Instead of arguing/howling like a bunch of ferrets in a sack why cannot we for once see what we could *agree* on in this context. Those who believe that human generated emissions are a primary driver of climate change want, at the very least, a move towards lower impact, more efficient technologies. Those who believe that the human contribution has been exagerated will all the same recognise that competition for scarce resourses is going to be an increasing problem leading to the destabalisation of whole societies and regions on this planet with a consequent dramatic increase in warfare economic or military. Far more efficient economic development (which almost by definition means reduced environmental impact) is in the interests of all of us regardless of who or what we wish to "blame" for the challanges humankind faces. The two extremes, the "its our Godgiven right to piss all over this planet" and the "humanity is the source of all evil" brigades can go fuck themselves.

  30. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
    FAIL

    <Sigh>

    Repeat after me:

    "Single geographical point cooling is probable in a warming global climate"

    Pin it above your desk. Look at it periodically. Think about it before you write any more specious bollocks. Thank you.

    GJC

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Single geographical point cooling is *even more* probable in a *cooling* global climate"

      Get someone to tape it on your back under the "supercilious wally" sticker. Oops sorry you didn't know that was there did you?

      1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
        Happy

        Yeah, I know it's there....

        ....I leave it there as a filter to sort out the fuckwits from the properly intelligent thinkers.

        GJC

This topic is closed for new posts.