Arguments
2013 was Australia's Hottest Year, Warm for Much of the World
Posted on 10 January 2014 by Rob Painting
The following article was written by scientists from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and originally appeared at The Conversation.
By Blair Trewin, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; David Jones, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Karl Braganza, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Neil Plummer, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and Rob Smalley, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
The Bureau of Meteorology has confirmed 2013 as Australia’s hottest year since records began in 1910.
Average temperatures over the continent have been 1.2C above the 1961-1990 average, breaking the previous record set in 2005 by 0.17C. It was also the hottest year on record for South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The other states - Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania – recorded above-average temperatures that rank in their top four hottest years.
Off to a hot start, and no El Niño
The year got off to an exceptionally hot start with a heatwave that spanned most of the continent during the first three weeks of January. Numerous locations experienced their highest temperatures on record during this period, including Hobart (41.8C on January 4) and Sydney (45.8C on January 18).
Moomba’s 49.6C on January 12 was the highest recorded temperature anywhere in Australia since 1998 and the highest in South Australia since 1960.
Nationally, January 7 was Australia’s hottest day on record. January was the hottest month on record and the summer of 2012-13 was the nation’s hottest summer.
The record year wasn’t simply a result of a hot January. Above average temperatures were unusually persistent throughout 2013, particularly between July and October. The unusual heat peaked in September when national mean temperatures were 2.7C above average, more than a degree above any previous September and further above average than any previous month in Australia’s climate history. Many parts of the central and eastern interior were as warm in September as they would be in an average November.
Sydney set a temperature record on January 18. Stilgherrian/Flickr
Every month of 2013 had national average temperatures at least 0.5°C above normal. Only in the second half of June did a spell of below-average national temperatures last for more than a week. The only below-average monthly temperatures recorded for any state or territory occurred in Tasmania in April, Victoria and Tasmania in November, and the Northern Territory in December.
Annual average temperatures were above normal over the entire continent, but the heat was particularly significant over the central continent, stretching from western Queensland across outback South Australia and the southern Northern Territory, into the Nullarbor in Western Australia.
Over this region, temperatures in 2013 were 1.5C to 2.0C above average, and many records were set across a range of periods. Temperatures were closest to normal along the east coast (including Tasmania) and adjacent ranges, as well as the northern tropics – but even in those locations temperatures were generally 0.5C to 1.0C warmer than average.
Most of the previous notably hot years in Australia have come when there has been El Niño or near-El Niño conditions in the tropical Pacific. Following the breakdown of La Niña in the first half of 2012 (and a period of relatively cooler temperatures traditionally associated with this climatic state) conditions have remained close to neutral all year with neither an El Niño nor La Niña state in the tropical Pacific.
The presence of record temperatures without the climatic influence of an El Niño makes the 2013 Australian temperatures especially significant.
Rainfall was near average, except here and there
It was a mixed bag for Australian rainfall in 2013. On a nationally averaged basis, it was close to normal (8% below average), but there were some big variations.
The contrast was especially striking in Queensland and northern New South Wales. It was a wet year on most of the east coast. This was thanks in part to (ex-)Tropical Cyclone Oswald, which tracked down the coast in January and caused heavy rain and widespread flooding from northern Queensland all the way south to Sydney.
Oswald’s rains had little effect west of the Great Dividing Range, and areas more than 300 kilometres inland in Queensland suffered from drought for most of the year. Mount Isa had its driest year on record with only 86 millimetres.
Queensland had both droughts and flooding rains. Sunriseon7/Flickr
It was a wet year over many northern and interior parts of Western Australia. The effects of tropical cyclones early in the year were followed by regular northwest cloud-band activity between May and mid-July, when waters northwest of the continent were unusually warm as part of a negative phase of the Indian Ocean Dipole. Heavy rains at the end of the year, associated with Tropical Cyclone Christine, were enough to take Port Hedland beyond its previous wettest year.
Over much of southern coastal Australia, rainfall was fairly close to normal. From July to October, unusually strong and persistent westerly winds over southern Australia brought heavy rain to the southern coastal fringe, especially Tasmania, but very dry conditions to New South Wales and Queensland.
2013 - the global picture
Globally, it was another warm year. As of the end of November, global temperatures were 0.49C above average, ranking 2013 as the 6th hottest year on record. Thirteen of the 14 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001.
Other parts of the world to experience their warmest year on record in 2013 included the tropical North Pacific region around and east of the Philippines, along with parts of central Asia.
The exceptionally warm waters in the western North Pacific contributed to a very active tropical cyclone season in the region, especially in October and November. In those months there were seven super typhoons (the equivalent of a category 4 or 5 tropical cyclone in Australia) in as many weeks.
The most significant of these was Typhoon Haiyan, one of the most intense tropical cyclones ever to make landfall. It caused massive destruction and claimed thousands of lives in the Philippines in early November.
Overall, after three fairly quiet years, global tropical cyclone activity was slightly above normal in 2013.
In contrast to the record hot conditions in Australia, 2013 temperatures were near normal in the United States. In 2012 it was the other way around, with the United States having a record warm year.
It was also less warm than some recent years at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Arctic sea ice melted to a lesser extent than in 2012, although the total sea ice extent was still lower than in any year before 2007.
Warm waters in the western North Pacific contributed to an active typhoon season, with Haiyan one of the most intense ever. NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre
At the other end of the globe, the extent of Antarctic sea ice reached record-high levels in September. Compared to the Arctic, Antarctic sea-ice extent is not as strongly influenced by recent global warming, with year-to-year climate variability still playing a large role in year-to-year changes in Antarctic sea-ice extent.
In northern and central Europe a hot summer followed a cold spring. It was also an exceptionally hot summer in parts of eastern Asia, especially eastern China, the Korean Peninsula and Japan.
Large fluctuations between extreme heat and cold were a feature of South America in late winter and spring; as one example, snow fell around the Argentinian city of Cordoba in mid-September, only days after it had reached 40°C. At the end of the year an exceptionally prolonged heatwave set many records in northern and central Argentina, including for the capital, Buenos Aires.
Extreme rainfall was not as much of a feature of 2013 globally as it has been in some recent years, though monsoon season rainfall was generally above normal both in the Indian subcontinent and the Sahel region of west and central Africa.
In addition to western Queensland, regions to experience significant drought in 2013 included parts of southern Africa, northeast Brazil, and the southwest United States. California had its driest year on record and San Francisco recorded only 86 millimetres of rain for the year, less than 20% of average and less than half the previous record low.
It has been a warm finish to the year, including the world’s warmest November on record. While there have been some large fluctuations in temperature – in regions such as the Middle East and northern Scandinavia, record or near-record warmth and cold for this time of year have happened within days of each other in recent weeks – the overall picture is one of temperatures well above average.
A warming trend
The temperatures of 2013, both in Australia and globally, are consistent with a long-term warming of 0.8 to 0.9°C over the last century, much of it in the last 50 years.
As temperatures continue to warm, we can expect new records to occur more frequently. The potential for a new global record at some point in the next decade is high – most likely the next time there is a significant El Niño event when warmer temperatures have traditionally been recorded.
The Bureau of Meteorology provides Australians with environmental intelligence for their safety, sustainability, well-being and prosperity. Our weather, climate and water services include observations, alerts, warnings and forecasts for extreme events. David Jones does not consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
Blair Trewin, Karl Braganza, Neil Plummer, and Rob Smalley do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.
This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.
It's worth adding that last year's rainfall anomaly in the East (coastal floods on QLD & NSW due to Oswald while extreme drought inland) happens to be consistent with the CSIRO model predictions in this part of the world due to climate change: the East Coast will become generally wetter and inland drier and rain will be falling in more sporadic and more intense events.
It's also worth adding that this is not just one year, i.e. random weather, as one poster suggested. The increasing frequency and severity of heat waves in Australia can be seen happening over a number of years, of which this last one is the culmination. The frequency and severity of fires seems to follow a similar pattern. I'll add that this is provably unusual, since it is causing well adapted native animals to die by the thousands, like the bats that have been falling on the ground and dying recently, despite their desperate attempts to cool themselves with their own urine. Joeys are found passed out on the ground from heat exhaustio;, if there is one animal that is heat resistant, it should be that one but nothing lives well in the 50 deg Celsiusneighborhood...
Antarctica is a driving force in weather and so climate. (And, I postulate plate tectonics too; if anyone has info olong those lines.) It reacts in proportion to the energy in the atmosphere just like any other region. Sea ice extent, and characteristics are just the way Antarctica reacts to the energy and its particular dynamics. It does not seem right to say "Antarctic sea-ice extent is not as strongly influenced by recent global warming." I don't know how else to phrase it but it does not seem correct.
Speaking of Australia and temperature increase, there is an excellent group from Australia that puts out good overviews of CC research. Here's a chapter from their report from September 2013 "Is CC Already Dangerous?" on "Danger from implied temperature increase": http://www.climatecodered.org/2013/09/is-climate-change-already-dangerous-3.html
It should be a fun year the next time we have an El Nino
PluviAL #3 It starts "Compared to the Arctic,". There has been a much larger change in Arctic sea-ice extent (a reduction) over the last few decades than the change in Antarctic sea-ice extent so the statement in the posting is correct (and rather obvious). I think Antarctica is the opposite of a driving force in weather and so climate, I think it's a deadening force. For example, there's no heat transport from the equator southward in the Atlantic to the Antarctic but there's a large heat transport from the equator northward in the Atlantic to the Arctic.
Why is 1961-1990 still the baseline and not 1971-2000?
DMarshall
The standard definition of Climate as defined by the World Meteorological Organisation is weather averaged over 30 years. Additionally the WMO defines preferred periods to use as reference baselines when looking at climate - 1901-1930, 1931-1960 and 1961-1990. So the baseline fits the WMO standard. And the more different datasets there are that use the common baseline the easier it is for people to work with different datasets doing intercomparisons etc. If the base lines kept being altered then there would be a need to do continual rebasing to allow datasets to be compared.
For some data series there may be operational reasons why a different period is used but they still use 30 years when possible.There is no actual need to adjust a baseline since all the data points are anomalies relative to a base line. The important fact about the dataseries is the relationship between the data points, not what theyt are baselined.to
DMarshall, I'm guessing the BOM use the same baseline period as HadCRUt due to their collaboration over the years. HadCRUt reason for using this baseline is here.
Interesting.
You say Australia is getting warmer.
I am stunned to find how many people still do not believe me when I tell them it is cooling, globally. All the major global data sets are showing that earth had its maximum heat output around 1998 and that we have made the turn down since then. To be fair, I think that I made the prediction that it had started globally cooling, naturally, even before many others had become aware of it. In my final report:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
one of the things I mentioned on what would happen, as a result of global cooling, was:
"At the higher latitudes >[40] it will become progressively cooler and/or drier, from now onward, ultimately culminating in a big drought period similar to the Dust bowl drought 1932-1939."
So how are my predictions concerning this panning out? Well I have not yet started looking at rainfall patterns. I wish I had time for that. Paradoxically, I have noted that one may even expect to see some warming in the areas where it does get drier. This may have happened in Australia as well. What I have done now is to take a sample of ten weather stations in Alaska and look at the change in the average temperature there, over time.
[ I have a picture from excell, alternatively I can send you the file with the results of the ten weather stations)
Alaska is situated between latitudes 60 and 70 degrees. It has a number of good weather stations with reliable results. I took all the average daily data from the stations indicated in the graph from 1998 until 2014, compressed to an average annual temperature. I submit that this sample of weather stations is representative for the whole of Alaska. Note that 9 out of the 10 weather stations are showing a negative trend, i.e. a cooling trend. You can also clearly see that each of the stations’ results correlate sharply with each other in terms of rises and falls. I think it would therefore be fair to take the average of the 10 slopes of the ten linear trends as representative for the whole of Alaska, and indeed, for the whole of earth’s [60-70] latitude (inland only). If we do that, I find that the temperature in Alaska and [60-70] has been dropping at an average rate of 0.55 degrees C per decade, since 1998.
This means that since 1998, average ambient temperatures in Alaska have already dropped by almost 1 degree C. We are not even halfway through the cooling period, which I predict will last until at least 2038 or 2039 (+ 5 years).
Anyone still interested in investing in the Arctic?
Henry, how's about you avoid cherry-picking start date and region, and instead show your math for your global analysis and post your response to the appropriate thread (after reading it and the comment stream that follows).
Follow the link offered in post #10...
Not since the Onion have I enjoed such a wide ranging and disconnected offering of satire pretending to be science.
This might stand alone as one of the funniest attempts (though completely delusional) at denial on the web. Thank god for blogs and the democratization of opinion; albeit uninformed and non-scientific opinion that is pulled out of the tailpipe.
DSL says
Henry, how's about you avoid cherry-picking start date and region
Henry says
this is not cherry picking
Sorry
I always mess this up,
I was trying to do it like you guys instructed
what did I do wrong?
MoreCarbonOK - Your posts display a rather appalling lack of statistical understanding. You've posted trends since 2002 (11 years), trends with uncertainties for HadCRUT4, RSS, UAH (I'll add GISS) of -0.031 ±0.165, -0.079 ±0.292, 0.029 ±0.293, and -0.009 ±0.185 °C/decade respectively. None of those trend estimates rejects the longer term warming trend - you might as well make assertions based on the trends since last Tuesday.
You are making noise about noise. However, you have given a shining example of a bad argument, which might be useful information for readers...
MoreCarbonOK - Use the "Insert" tab of the comment editor to put in hyperlinks or images, or if you prefer use the "Source" tab for raw HTML; those codes no longer work in the "Basic" view.
Moderators - It might be worth updating the Comments Policy regarding HTML insertions.
MoreCarbonOK @17/18.
To link stuff with this text editor you have to ignore all the HTML stuff.
(1) Type in the text you want folk to see. This is not cherry picking.
(2) Select with your cursor the bit of the text you want the link attached to This is not cherry picking.
(3) Select 'link' button on the 'Insert' menu bar and enter the appropriate URL. This is not cherry picking.
Job done.
Thanks MA Rodger. I got it from your comment. I am sorry for the mess I made
This is not cherry picking
All the major data sets show it has been cooling for the duration of 2002-2014 = 12 years = 1 Schwabe solar cycle
[RH] Don't worry about the mess. There's a clean up crew. :-)
wow
I got it. Thanks MA
if somebody can just delete my comments 14 and 17
we might get the view back to normal?
I think according to your site policy, you also have to delete a comment that said or implied I was delusional? (=ad hominem comment)
@ KR
All the data for the last 12 years say it is cooling, globally. This includes my own 3 data sets
henry's work
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. (think of the flooding in Indonesia, Brazil, Philipines, etc). At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.
Hence the warming in places that used to get more rain.
At the higher latitudes, like Alaska, it is getting significantly cooler, as global cooling continues.
@ MA Rodger
how can I show the graph from Excell showing the temp. development of the ten weather stations in Alaska?
[RH] In order to post a chart you have to first find a place to host the image online. Then you can't create a link to the image.
MoreCarbonOK @13... You selection of 2002 as a break point for the trend lines is, by definition, a cherry pick.
@Rob Honeycutt
It would be if you had not studied the drop in maximum temperatures first,
to see the natural pattern emerging
best fit for the drop in maximum temps
any other best fit on my collected data, would have us fall into much more (disastrous) global cooling
MoreCarbonOK - You did read my previous comment regarding time periods too short to obtain statistical significance? Such as the 'trend' since last Tuesday?
I suggest you take a look at the SkS Trend Calculator and look at the uncertainty statistics for those short time periods. The range of uncertainties includes negative trends, and zero - and they include the long-term trend of about 0.16C/decade. None of those are ruled out with only 12 years of data, as there is simply too much year-to-year variation to detect a slow trend. Tom Curtis, one of the other commenters here, has pointed out that an ordinary least squares (OLS) trend line is a mathematic result also including the uncertainty of that trend - something you have been ignoring. The uncertainties on such a short trend mean that you cannot legitimately state there are significant trend changes.
You should also look over at Tamino's Double Standard post - cherry picking statistically meaningless trends works both ways, and both are meaningless:
[Source]
To summarize: your claims are meaningless as viewing too short a data set means you are looking at noise, not trend, and you need to learn something about statistical significance. You are just making noise about short term noise.
@KR
yes, I read everything that you said!
but all of you forgot to look at maxima (to identify natural patterns) and minima (to see if there is any man made influence)
go back to check henry's work
4)
the end results on the bottom of the first table (on maximum temperatures),
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
clearly showed a drop in the speed of warming that started around 38 years ago, and continued to drop every other period I looked//…
5)
I did a linear fit, on those 4 results for the drop in the speed of global maximum temps,
ended up with y=0.0018x -0.0314, with r2=0.96
At that stage I was sure to know that I had hooked a fish:
I was at least 95% sure (max) temperatures were falling. I had wanted to take at least 50 samples but decided this would not be necessary which such high correlation.
6)
On same maxima data, a polynomial fit, of 2nd order, i.e. parabolic, gave me
y= -0.000049×2 + 0.004267x – 0.056745
r2=0.995
That is very high, showing a natural relationship, like the trajectory of somebody throwing a ball…
7)
projection on the above parabolic fit backward, ( 5 years) showed a curve:
happening around 40 years ago. You always have to be careful with forward and backward projection, but you can do so with such high correlation (0.995)
8)
ergo: the final curve must be a sine wave fit, with another curve happening, somewhere on the bottom…
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
chosing one full Schwabe solar cycle (12 years) or multiples (23) is fine, if you know where we are going.
chosing 16 years (as I did with Alaska) and still prove a significant cooling trend is showing you the trouble of the climate change that is coming up ahead
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
MoreCarbonOK - I have replied on the appropriate thread (Thanks, DSL). Please read the opening post there.
MoreCarbonOK, why on Earth do you think that only temperature minimum would be affected by human influences?
@ Tom Dayton
if you are interested you can read some of my arguments here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
I figured that the proposed AGW mechanism implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect.
It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.
That is not happening. This was already apparent to me from the 2007 IPPC AR4 report.
MoreCarbonOK @27:
Exactly. If the enhanced greenhouse effect is the cause of our current warming, night time temperatures should warm faster than daytime temperatures, resulting in a reduction in the difference between daytime maximums and nighttime minimums, ie, a reduction in the Diurnal Temperature Range (DTR):
Of course, as can be seen above, or in the original article, that is exactly what we do see.
What I am puzzled by is your treating the successful prediction of an observation by a theory as disproof of the theory.
(Edited to correct error in figure.)
Tom Curtis says
the cause of our current warming
but
there is no current warming
You can see that Australia is the exception, which, as I have explained before is probably due to it getting drier, i.e. less clouds, and as result more sunshine hours.
If you guys are from BOM I will also bet that if you do trending on rainfall, you will find some increase in rainfall in the lower [latitudes] and some decrease in rainfall at the higher [latitudes].
"a reduction in the Diurnal Temperature Range (DTR):"
this will (also) happen when the maxima are dropping, faster than that the minima are dropping (but they are also dropping)
That this is happening and for you to see that this is happening you have to try and understand
henry's work
If you set the speed of warming out against time (years) you will see that there is high correlation on binomials for all three maxima, means and minima. Use the 4 reported figures of the speed on the bottom of each table and set those out against time. You then get acceleration, or on this case, deceleration of warming
in degrees C / annum2
Hope this helps.
add to 29
sorry, I see there was no title in that display of all the data
it should be: Global cooling since 2000 (Earth Observatory)
The display is a bit more graphical than
this is no cherry picking
MoreCarbonOK @30.
While I assisted in your desire to link to WoodForTrees, I refrained from commenting about the substance of that linkage. I do so now.
You are indeed "cherry picking" with the graph you present, both in the temperature series you choose and in the time periods chosen for analysis.
Note the plot below where a negative trend is only achievable by creating a significant discontinuity with the past. The analysis 2002-2014 is obviously absurd.
Re your comment @20 - Do you still want instruction on inserting images?
@MA Rodgers
Thanks, it would be nice if you can help me
here is the picture I wanted to show initially
to tell you not to worry about the warming in Australia
but to start getting worried about the cooling in Alaska
Alaska is cooling
but I am not yet sure how to put it up here as an image in the comment
MoreCarbonOK:
Per your comment #29 it is of course the case that if, you pick a temperature dataset, ignore the underlying physics when performing mathematical operations to it, and selectively cherry-pick the dates to start your trend lines, you will see what you want to see. Which in this case appears to be global cooling.
Of course, it is also the case that if you have jettisoned physics and correct dataset analysis in order to see what you want to see, that what you see (global cooling) will be a spurious artifact. As, indeed, it is.
@MA Rodgers
Sorry I did not comment on your post, I am puzzled as to what best is and what it represents. I suspect it is not a global data set? The 2010 cooling looks a bit extraordinary to me as well. Perhaps you can explain this to me, before I make a comment on that graph?
@ composer99
1) I picked all 4 major global data sets (except UAH)
2) Yes, you must know or figure out (preferably use your own method, so that you can be convinced yourself) when earth reached its highest output. To me, it looks like 1995, when looking at energy-in and 1998 when looking at energy-out.
hence, if you look from around that time, most data sets (including my own 3 data sets) will show global cooling from the turn of the millennium
Whatever the case, it is certainly not wrong to say that earth is cooling from around 2000.
In fact, I am saying we should get worried about it.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Instruction for Inserting Images into Comments
The image you want to insert has to be already on the web. Even so, some locations are not useful (ie an image on Googlesites will only work for people who are logged into Google. All others see nothing.)
(1) Obtain the URL of the image (Right click on it & 'Copy Image Location')
(2) In SkS text editor, position your cursor where you want the image inserted.
(3) Click the 'Insert/edit image' button on the 'Insert' tool bar.
(4) Paste in the image URL. The text editor also likes an 'Image Description' so type in a short descriptor.
(5) The second page of the 'Insert/Edit image' window - 'Appearance' - allows you to set the image size (amongst other stuff). Ensure the 'constant proportions' box is ticked. The lefthand 'Dimensions' box gives full width at 500px. An image above this width will overflow the thread so adjust accordingly.
(6) Be mindful that the image may be lacking its caption. And crediting the source is a common courtesy.
Thus:-
I think that is all you need to be aware of.
I hope this works
[RH] Fixed image width. I may have accidentally deleted part of your comment while I was fixing the image. If so, sorry about that.
wow
I am getting the hang of this
sorry I am such an old fart
MoreCarbonOK... What I did above was to crop your image down and then resize it to 550 pixels wide. Anything wider than that breaks the formatting of the entire page.
You can also limit the image width by going to the second tab within the insert image dialog box. That will tell you the current width and you can just change the number to something smaller than 550 px.
MoreCarbonOK @27 made a specific claim:
(My emphasis)
I showed @28 from a peer reviewed paper that it in fact was happening, contrary to his emphatic claim. So, @29, he simply changes the subject. Rather than acknowledge his error, he talks abotu something else. What is worse, having set up the DTR as a predicted consequence of an enhanced greenhouse effect, when he finds the test returns the results predicted by the enhanced greenhouse effect he changes the predicted cause.
Very clearly, he is not going to allow evidence to stand in the way of his beliefs. Nor will he acknowledge any of the frequent errors he makes when they are pointed out to him. There is no point, IMO, in further discusion with somebody so lacking in intellectual integrity.
MoreCarbonOK is Henry Pool, who behaved similarly on other topics in 2009--for example, claiming that evidence is "hidden" when it is in papers that are published but require fees or (horror!) a visit to a library. I suggest we all give up on him again, because he has repeatedly demonstrated he is uninterested in actual discussion.
An addendum to my @39, I have just been perusing MoreCarbonOK's website, and came across some of the "scientific" evidence he adduces for his theories:
Might I suggest that he debate his religious views somewhere more appropriate. It is plain he has no scientific views on this subject.
MoreCarbonOK @42:
Henry Pool (MoreCarbonOK) clearly doesn't get it, so possibly others will not either.
The fact is that the "biblical connection", which is a mere numerological coincidence, is not scientific evidence of any sort.
It is not even theological evidence - even if we accept the Bible as a divinely inspired revelation. No book or verse in the Bible says that there 50 half wave length cycles in warming and cooling. Therefore, even if you accept Christian or Judaic relegious claims, the mere mention of a 50 year interval in the Bible is not evidence of a 50 year climate half-cycle.
But even if it was theological evidence, that would not make it scientific evidence. It would have no bearing on the science, one way or another. The only way it could be supposed to be evidence is if you think that finding any coincidental period equating to what you have decided you want to find counts as evidence. But that being the case, that is also Pool's standard when studying emperical data. He approaches the data not to find what it says, but to find how it can be contorted to suport his preexisting opinion.
With that approach, Pool will sift through data to find the pattern he wants to find. If a paleoclimate paper does not show his 90-100 year cycle, he will simply ignore it - and likewise with all contrary evidence. But any data which does show it (and some must inevitably among all the data around, even just by coincidence), he will trumpet as proof of his theory with no more warrant than his trumpeting of the years of Jubilee.
Added in edit:
I will just note that by treating his "biblical connection" and his purportedly emperical findings equally as "scientific evidence", Pool has showed that is purported science is just religion in disguise.
Tom Curtis
I will just note that by treating his "biblical connection" and his purportedly emperical findings equally as "scientific evidence", Pool has showed that is purported science is just religion in disguise.
Henry says
I did not call you Curtis, did I?
In fact, it shows your lack of respect for an opinion based on my own observations that is not yours or the scientists that you believe in. Anyway, I lost you on your argument. Are science and religion not supposed to work together to find the truth? Perhaps you should watch this program
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNJPJ4JwHeE
and see how science and religion can work together to establish the truth.
God bless you all who keep looking for the truth/Truth
Henry
Really, everybody, it is pointless to try to converse with Henry Pool (MoreCarbonOK). He reads little or none of the scientific literature no matter how precisely people point him to it. Despite that he continues to object that there is no scientific evidence. He switches topics at the drop of a hat, then a long time later brings them up again out of the blue, in the process abandoning whatever other discussion he had initiated. I'm unsure whether he is trolling or is sincerely incapable of having a coherent discussion, but the effect is the same waste of everyone's time in either case. An example is a long string of his comments and multiple people's replies back in 2009.
Tom Dayton @45.
You say you are "unsure whether he is trolling or is sincerely incapable of having a coherent discussion". Do you consider it would be worth the time explaining the obvious errors in MoreCarbonOK's 'maxima' results? Or would such explanation be too challenging for its recipient?
(Rob P) - Note that several posts have been deleted primarily because they are off-topic. Further excursions away from the topic of this post may likewise attract the same response.
MA Rodger: No, MoreCarbonOK (snip) would not be influenced at all, though I don't know if that's because he would be unable to understand, or would not pay attention, and if the latter whether he would choose to not pay attention or can't sustain attention. Other folks, of course, might benefit from your explanation, which perhaps should go over on some other post, as Rob P. pointed out.
Tom Dayton @46.
After due consideration, I think the case that MoreCarbonOK should be debunked is stronger than you put. Would SkS hesitate to debunk say a Monckton or a Lindzen because Monckton or Lindzen as the author would not be able to understand why their thesis is nonsense?
So an appraisal of the offending thesis is presented here on a more appropriate comment thread.