Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

You put up a graph from this paper in support of your natural cycles thing. This quote is a direct lift from that papers summary. I no longer have easy access to whole papers on the web but this was from the summary. I posted this a number of pages back.

What if the error introduces a bias in the record – such as a change in the type of paint used on all stephenson screens in a whole country? – you cannot dismiss the effect of small errors, especially where the global temperature anomaly is in the bracket of 0.1 degrees per decade!

But these things are investigated and corrected (as far as possible) over time.

And, as the issue moves up the agenda, we capture more high quality data, which allows us to interpret the less good older data better.

How can you check a record against ice cores, when they themselves are validated against the same records, again house of cards!

Yes that was a bit loose, sorry.

But as per previous post – we are now looking at ice and scrupulously recorded temp data simultaneously. If this starts to make the previous proxy data and temp record look less well matched then there is a problem, but I've not heard that it does.

"Junkyard, the cycles we have seen so far are NOT MODELS! They are FACT" jesus h on a bike Hainey!
The Milankovitch cycles you quote are a theory based on an extrapolation from data ie a model. The ice core data you quote and show the graph for is again an extrapolation from data ie a model . These models just look backwards not forwards. As far as i know no one was around measuring the earths orbital and rotational excentricities 500000 years ago and they were not reccording the tempreture at the time. The dificulty with your position is that you seek to rubbish the use of models by climatologists by pointing to the historic records which are in fact the product of the use of models.

Those who belive that global warming is man made and a problem, are basing their theorys on measuring the actual temperature the actual atmospheric co2 and observable trends . Your "historic fact" is based on how thick a layer of sediment is or how thick a layer of ice is and wether certain levels of chemicals retained in those layers indicates anything usefull about the world at the time the layer was formed.

Intrestingly the geological debate about the Milankovitch cycles apears far from settled.
The climatologists who argue for the existance of man made climate change appear to take account of the existance Milankovitch cycles but suggest that current changes are far too rapid to be due to them.

Does all this sum up as neither side has reliable proof,but both have opinions they will defend by stating that the only reliable evidence is theirs? Sounds like Islam v Christianity to me,personaly I feel we need a few more thousand years of reliable data,but cutting CO2 emissions is unlikely to cause harm.
Ian

Recent climate changes are indeed nothing to do with Milankovitch cycles – there are three of them, and the shortest operates on a 23 thousand year cycle.

IIRC variations in solar energy reaching the Earth due to changes in its orbit only account for c. 50% or less of temperature changes across glacial-interglacial cycles anyway, the rest is due to things internal to the Earth system.

Sounds like Islam v Christianity

Yes, just like that. 🙁

Sounds like Islam v Christianity to me

I would suggest some on here are from the church of Scientology!

But these things are investigated and corrected (as far as possible) over time.
And, as the issue moves up the agenda, we capture more high quality data, which allows us to interpret the less good older data better.

No, they're not – the whole basis of the "climategate" CRU Emails scandal is exactly that, the suppression of studies that question the data, and the refusal to release the raw data and code used for the results!

Anyone who questions the results is called a skeptic and told that the science is settled, it has taken huge efforts to get the data which clearly undermined the Yamal bristlecone pine research, that we were previously told was secure.

I really wonder if you have any idea of whats actually been going on with the data?

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is
trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send to anyone.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

banter

Banter? Yeah, right! 🙄 –

I really don't think you believe that yourself do you rprt? If it was just banter, why did they repeatedly refuse the FOI requests for the raw data and code?

Edited to add: I suppose the "HARRY READ ME" files were just banter as well? Have you read them – its pretty reflective of the quality of the data!

Really.
Ian

I seem to recall that the reason the data wasn't released was that they didn't own the data and as such wasn't theirs to release.

As for the other two papers, if they were rubbish then why not "go to town on them".

Crankboy, i resist engaging you in conversation in fear of "feeding the troll" however…..

The ice core data you quote and show the graph for is again an extrapolation from data ie a model.

Seems to be quite repeatable data though? Unless its being manipulated by scientists?

These models just look backwards not forwards.

Heaven forbid we learn from the past!

Those who belive that global warming is man made and a problem, are basing their theorys on measuring the actual temperature the actual atmospheric co2 and observable trends

What are they comparing it against?

Your "historic fact" is based on how thick a layer of sediment is or how thick a layer of ice is and wether certain levels of chemicals retained in those layers indicates anything usefull about the world at the time the layer was formed.

but this data is gathered by the same scientists who are creating you models for you, are you saying that the data is not valid in anyway?

The dificulty with your position is that you seek to rubbish the use of models by climatologists by pointing to the historic records which are in fact the product of the use of models.

WTF? You've just contradicted yourself about 4 times over! 😯

Why is the raw data not published?

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

Thats how it works believe me, I've been at the sharp end as both reviewer and reviewed.

Because the climate change sceptics were deliberately swamping them with FOI requests as a tactic to disrupt their work. But unless you look at the whole email scandal in context rather than just cherry picking quotes, as the 'meeja' have been doing then you won't see that.

hainey have you addressed any of the scientific points put to you, and you accuse someone who is trying to be constructive of being a troll you are beyond help.

You make no sense

The ice core data you quote and show the graph for is again an extrapolation from data ie a model.

Seems to be quite repeatable data though? Unless its being manipulated by scientists?

just what exactly does this mean of course people are manipulating the data, thats because the ice cores do not contain thermometers hidden away for thousands of years.

I give up.

Don't give up, its quite simple.

The graph i put up showed a cycle, with what 4,5 6 occurences. So assuming all the data is manipulated in the same way, it still shows a trend. No?

I havnt the time at the moment to sift through 12 pages of argument/debate to see if these links have already been posted…but please read these

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/12/foxnews-neil-cavuto-winter-chill-disproves-global-warming-science/

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/11/foxnews-wattsupwiththat-climatedepot-daily-mail-article-on-global-cooling-mojib-latif/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/06/cold-snap-climate-sceptics

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-global-warming-is-still-happening.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-global-warming-is-happening-Part-2.html

Weather is completely different to climate and 'global warming' is a misnomer – atmospheric warming causes a change in climatic patterns which can change weather patterns.

Most predictions show that more 'extremes' of weather is expected if atmospheric warming continues – the UK could well see harsher winters and hotter summers (we are coming out of La Nina as well so its been a colder period).

The UK isnt the world, a cold snap here does not mean one iota on the grand scale of things. The Daily Mail and The Daily Express are headline grabbing using bad science and opinions to grab peoples attention.

Are man made emissions causing atmospheric warming?

The science and logic appears to say yes, evidence appears to back this up.

Will atmospheric warming lead to climatic change?

Science says yes, logic says yes, solid evidence is difficult as there is no precedent for this.

How bad will climate change be?

The truth is that no model will be 100% accurate, but they all seem to point to change of somekind – change in itself is bad for humanity, but rising sea levels and more extreme weather events (droughts, flooding etc…) are some of the things that are touted. This may well lead to greater levels of immigration, greater spread of disease, loss of species…

But the thing is you can take climate change out of the argument completely, and the case for needing to change our current way of life still stands firm. We are completely dependant on fossil oil, gas and coal. These are not going to last forever (and by most accounts, oil and gas wont last for much longer at all).

Cleaner fuels, less pollutants and particulates, cheaper than fossil fuesls after the first generation are up and running…

So why not change whilst we still have the available energy resource to actually do this? There is little point us going 'lets go to renewables' when there is no oil and gas left to make the electricity to run the factories to build the next generation of power sources (whether that be wind, solar or fusion).

Why not make the world better for the hell of it? Sod the economy…as soon as the oil and gas runs out we are screwed financially anyway – we should become as self-sufficient as we can whilst we still can.

This says it better though (may have already been done):

"Mark – Resident Grumpy
Because the climate change sceptics were deliberately swamping them with FOI requests as a tactic to disrupt their work. But unless you look at the whole email scandal in context rather than just cherry picking quotes, as the 'meeja' have been doing then you won't see that."

Hi Grumpy

So why not release all the raw data as it proves what the climate change case and that would go part way to ending some of the anti's. Would it not? Am not trying to be difficult but that seems very simple to me.

Mark

i) if that was true, there are elements within FOI regulations that allow refusal of request as vexatious, this was not the reason given for refusal at the time – only the story given AFTER the emails were released!

ii) Steve Mcintire has detailed all UK FOI requests he has made ( http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/29/the-foi-myth-2/ ) – There should never have been a need for an FOI request for the actual data, as its supposed to be published in accordance with the IPCC protocols!

iii) of course, one reason to refuse to release the data, was to hide the fact that they had deleted a huge chunk of the raw data – as any scientist knows, thats pretty much the no-no of all no-no's!

Z11

You just added a bit after I posted.

The first bit was banter.

The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send to anyone.

Was anything deleted, or was he just talking tough?

hainey – Member
Don't give up, its quite simple.

The graph i put up showed a cycle, with what 4,5 6 occurences. So assuming all the data is manipulated in the same way, it still shows a trend. No?

it does show what happened in the past not what is happening now as

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

Unless your claim is you understand the paper better than the authors?

Therefore they are sayin gthe model can no longe rhold it is broken as there is more C02 NOW than when the models were "true or proof ".

Assuming you agree with cause and effect why has the unprecedented levels not affected the cycle? Is it impervious to external factors? Does forcing no longer occur?

sorry rprt – see the point I've just made above:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Draw your own conclusions!

If the CRU leak had actually contained anything that did show unanswerable flaws in the CC methodology, then the anti-CC lobby would have jumped on it and published it for the world to see.

Havt seen anything conclusive yet from it though…

The papers got the facts out of the expenses receipts quickly enough!

Tim, did you notice the emails that leaked through despite saying "delete this after reading"?

and the ones telling people to delete anything they had on certain subjects?

How are we to know what was in the emails that have been deleted?

so we should assume it was conclusive proof they were liarsand they made it all up?
I agree they should release all the data but it would not alter the opion of most people I suspect.

Other datasets, recordings and readings exist or is everything faked and only internet scientist have seen the truth?

Zulu

I wasnt aware of the deletion of data – that is indeed, very poor. Raw data is the most important part of any scientific process.

You cant read anything from it (it may well have just been bad judgement on their behalf), but i do agree that it doesnt help their cause at all.

Draw your own conclusions!

I'm not saying they weren't stupid to lose data, but clearly this is different data to that discussed in the e-mail.

Data mentioned in e-mail is "a file" that he talks about deleting. Data lost is physical paper and tapes that were thrown away.

My conclusion is banter + stupidity.

when I was a scientist we had to not only keep all raw data for a specified lenght of time ut we had to keep the samples too. Funders demanded it.

Again with the "other datasets exist" – no, surface record temperature data from all nations is pooled!

Edit – RPRT – just review your own comment in light of the fact that the Raw data has been deleted:

But these things are investigated and corrected (as far as possible) over time. And, as the issue moves up the agenda, we capture more high quality data, which allows us to interpret the less good older data better.

Doesn't the Global Historical Climatology Network have a copy of the original lost data anyway?

Zulu-Eleven – Member
Again with the "other datasets exist" – no, surface record temperature data from all nations is pooled!

so we have no datasets from the ocean or the atmosphere then
What do they show?

The sad thing, is that a fair few people (not on here, just generally) seem to be denying CC as it effects their own interests – car enthusiasts, fossil fuel industry etc…

Just because you dont want it to be true, doesnt mean it isnt. I'm into classic cars myself, and I will no doubt end up buying something older (e.g. NOT a prius) when the current car is worn out, but I dont want to be doing starship miles in it at the same time..people need to be a bit more grown up about it and not just kick the toys out of the pram because they dont get what they want.

If you don't feel that it stacks up, then thats fine, thats your opinion and your right to it, but please support this with data if you want to deny it to others…I'll happily read any data people give me that shows the CC isnt happening – the problem is that there seems to be little peer reviewed and solid evidence that has been touted.

If it is all a hoax, where is the rival to the IPCC with the support of Climate Scientists – its not as if the Oil Industry can't afford the research – this report details that ~97% of Publishing Climate Scientists (admittedly its not a huge no. of people) agree with the main theory that CC is occuring and that it is manmade. 82% of all Publishing Scientists (all fields) agree with this.

Junkyard – how do we validate, calibrate and interpret the patchy atmospheric/ocean data?

Yep, we compare it with the most complete records we've got – the surface record.

how do we calibrate and interpret the satellites?

Yep, you guessed it!

House of cards!

Edit – Tim, how can someone demonstrate the science is wrong when the "gatekeepers" to the data wont let them have it, and even if they do get it, the scientific journals wont publish their papers?

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Junkyard – how do we validate, calibrate and interpret the patchy atmospheric/ocean data?

Yep, we compare it with the most complete records we've got – the surface record.

how do we calibrate and interpret the satellites?

Yep, you guessed it!

House of cards!

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at – we have reached the limits of what we can calibrate against (we dont have a spare world to use as a control!)

Does that mean we should just jack it all in, use up the oil and gas, leave a time capsule to our grandkids saying "sorry!" and piss off to the pub?

Tim –

Just because you dont want it to be true, doesnt mean it isnt

on the other hand you could be sceptical about the politics surrounding global warming and yet still think that consuming fossil fuels at the current rate is unsustainable – because, of course, it clearly cannot be sustained for very much longer.

So, compare a sceptic who changed their electricity supplier to a green energy co., tries not to drive too much (but won't have a wasteful hybrid or a polluting diesel) with, say, someone who thinks the government should do something about it, drives a vehicle with a large diesel engine on pointless small journeys, takes 3 or 4 holidays a year, one long haul the other short haul but they "offset" (their guilt, not their consumption) this by paying into a fund that pays people in the third world to stay poor (which on a larger scale is what western governments find so attractive about the global warming concept).

Which of these two people would be worse?

Tim, personally, I think that we should start at the top and review and QA the raw data properly, as it would be in a lab, and only when we've done that, reanalyse from the bottom up, in a more critical manner, justifying any data adjustment with recorded, agreed reasons and protocols – and then seeing what the outcome is.

Huge project, but if its as important as people claim, then entirely reasonable!

This entire process should be data led!

Of course the 2nd person…i'm not blindly following the course of offsetting (cant see how it does any good really – at best its just sticking another plug in the dam), i do like to think that i have a brain in my head 🙂

the thing that gets me is when people try and convince other people its not happening, using bad, bad science and speculation (The Daily Express is a prime example)