Chasing ice: book and film of the week show time lapse evidence of global warming

This looks like a must read and see:

Stein glacier, Switzerland 2006

Photographer James Balog has been capturing vanishing glaciers and ice sheets using time-lapse photography. Recently published a book titled Ice: portraits of vanishing glaciers. It contains some stunning images, including the above “before” shot of the Stein glacier and the below:

And in 2011

There is a an accompanying film showing “undeniable evidence” of global warming:

There is also this clip showing stunning evidence of warming:

For those you claim global warming is the product of flawed computer models, it is near impossible to dismiss the real world evidence.

141 thoughts on “Chasing ice: book and film of the week show time lapse evidence of global warming

  1. Eric Worrall says:

    Noone suggests the world has not warmed since the Little Ice Age, which ended around 150 years ago.

    Nor is anyone serious suggesting CO2 does not contribute to this warming.

    What is in dispute is whether the warming presents a potential catastrophe – whether we are responsible for dangerous global warming, at what point the global warming will peak, and how that will affect us.

    So the glacier thingy is very interesting, but it does not address the vital question of attribution, nor does it address flaws in current models which have led to the current embarrassment of predictive failure.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Eric, I was wondering how’d you dismiss the evidence. Note the melting between 2006 and 2011.

    • zoot says:

      Truly a Galileo moment for Eric.

      • The Worrall Scale may need adjusting.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Uki, you’re back :-)

        • Yes Eric. Some of us have real jobs. Myself, between university lecturing and my own research do find a little bit of time to devote to blogs. For me it’s a Ying and Yang thing. I have to balance the high order thinking I do with reading your comments. I’ve noticed you’ve taken on a more passive aggressive manner in that you seem to be starting your comments with an almost conciliatory statement but then reverting to type. You remind me of a bloke I met once in north Queensland who said, “Mike, I’m not a racist. I just don’t like Indians and coons.” For you its, “Nor is anyone serious suggesting CO2 does not contribute to this warming.” and then you follow it up with stupidity like, “I looked as hard as I could, but I can’t see the CO2 molecules attacking the ice. Perhaps the sun has something to do with it.” Perhaps it was an attempt at humour but we all know that you don’t actually believe the first but subscribe heart and soul to the second.

          I must say though Eric, I am impressed that you are the first to comment on Mike’s posts with increasing regularity. You should try getting up from the computer every now and then go outside, lest you end up with Ricketts.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Thankyou for your concern about my health Uki. I do spend a lot of time at my computer – but enjoying computer time is an asset for a software developer.

          You’re wrong about me not believing CO2 causes some warming. Given that simple physics suggests CO2 forcing, by itself, should produce around 1c / doubling of global warming, its difficult to see how a buildup of CO2 could fail to contribute something. But there is a huge difference between CO2 causing a mild warming, and CO2 causing catastrophic warming, as in the Hansenkan boiling ocean variety.

          If CO2 warming is not amplified, then even at 1c / doubling, global warming will level off well before dangerous temperatures are achieved. 150 years of industrialisation and burning fossil fuels has only increased CO2 from 280ppm to 390ppm. Even if we assume a 10% increase in CO2 every 15 years, it would take at least 75 years to increase CO2 to 630ppm. At 1c / doubling, this would only cause a further rise of 0.6c – well below the “dangerous 2c of warming” touted by alarmists and politicians (note this is a linear approximation – I’ll leave it to you to calculate the logarithmic version ;-) ).

          And in 75 years time I doubt very much we shall be using fossil fuels, at least not to the same extent. By then cheap, efficient solar power should be widely available, better energy storage technology will smooth intermittent power sources, and much safer nuclear technology, such as subcritical Thorium, and maybe even nuclear fusion, will be available.

          If Lindzen is right, about CO2 forcing being counteracted by negative feedback, the contribution to global temperature from CO2 will be even less significant.

          So the case for alarmism very much hinges on whether the CO2 forcing is substantially amplified by water vapour. And I’ve got to say, the alarmist case, the theory that mild CO2 warming is amplified by water vapour, is looking very shaky at this point in time – there has been no significant warming for 15 years, despite a 10% increase in CO2.

        • Now now Eric, what have I told you about statistics when you are not trained in them? I gave you a link to a very good book about statistics that you really need to read. Statistics for Dummies I think it was. But let’s just get back to that physics stuff you seem to like talking about. Can you just answer these very simple questions.

          1. Does CO2 cause warming?
          2. Does water vapour cause warming?
          3. What is heat trapping capacity of water vapour?
          4. Does air that has been warmed hold more or less water vapour?
          5. Is it justified to use a linear equation for something that is growing at a steady percentage over time? HINT. water holding capacity of air increases logarythmically with a linear increase in temperature.

          Finally…if Lindzen is right??? Would that be in that opinion piece you seem to like?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Funny how this “heat trapping capacity of water vapour” has failed to amplify the last 15 year’s buildup of CO2.

          Could it be that water vapour can enter a state in which it causes less sunlight to strike the Earth? I wonder how that could happen?

          Let me know when you find your hotspot Uki.

        • I’ll take that as ,”I don’t know,” and confirmation that you are an ignorant old fool whose opinion is as about as useful as tits on a bull. 5 very simple questions Eric. hang on,i’ll just ask my daughter (she’s 12). ……

          Her answers.

          1. yes
          2. yes
          3. I don’t know but if you give me ten minutes, I’ll use Ebsco and find the answer.
          4. more
          5. I’m not a statistician.

          I’m not sure what that says about you eric, but at least my brash 12 year old has the good sense and is not too proud to acknowledge when she doesn’t know something. you could learn heaps from her.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Here in the southern subtropics, as we swing into summer, there are a lot more clouds in the air, and it rains more frequently.

          Now an idiot like me might think that a lot of the water vapour being evaporated by increased summer insolation is forming clouds, and stopping further warming, by reflecting a lot of sunlight which would have struck my back yard back into space. Some days like today, it actually feels quite mild, due to significant cloud cover preventing direct sunlight from reaching me.

          But who am I to question the prophets?

        • I reckon Eric i might now have to go for a look back through all your statements because I reckon you have ticked off all the top ten climate denier myths and many many many of the others. Let’s see? In this thread alone we have.

          It’s not serious
          The models are wrong
          It’s the sun
          It hasn’t warmed since……
          Climate sensitivity is low

          It’s a shame I don’t have a picture of you Eric (and your permission to use it) because you are the poster child of denial.

          Well its been fun and I’m now inspired but my evening meal beckons. Feral deer roast.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Let me know when the world starts warming again Uki.

      • john byatt says:

        Mike that is good, please expand it and put it on your blog, it is something that they just do not get, the feedbacks to the temperature increase

        sorry my keyboard has suffered from drinking coffee and reading eric ,

        my bad

    • Eric, you may accept that CO2 contributes to warming, but unfortunately your statement that no one is suggesting it is incorrect. Looking at some commenter’s on blogs like WUWT, some people are suggesting exactly that.

    • Eric although you could not see CO2 molecules attacking the ice, there is a strong possibility “that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide molecules significantly decrease the fracture toughness of the ice crystal, making it more fragile.”

      • Eric Worrall says:

        FFS, this is modelling gone mad.

        All they had to do was expose ice to different levels of CO2, and test whether CO2 affected the breaking strain.

        Instead, they used a software model.

        Its a bit like someone using a software model of the affect of tobacco on biochemical systems, to determine the risk of cancer to someone who smokes, instead of simply analysing different rates of lung cancer in smokers vs the rate of lung cancer in non smokers.

        • Eric, how does a scientist build a model?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Normally by observing the results of a controlled experiment, creating a theory to explain observed behaviour, and then testing the predictions of their theory with new experiments.

          For example, Einstein created a model of space and time to explain the anomalies in the orbit of Mercury, and the moons of Jupiter, and other oddities such as the fact that the speed of light remained constant, no matter which direction you measured it, and regardless of whether the observer was approaching or receding from the light source.

          Einstein then made predictions, such as the lensing effect of the sun’s gravity on starlight, which turned out to be correct.

          It was actually quite a close thing. There was another model, a competitor to Einstein’s model, which postulated that spacetime had 5 dimensions, appeared to unify gravity with electromagnetism, and did as good a job of explaining the anomalies in the orbit of Jupiter and the strange behaviour of light.

          Except for one thing – the 5 dimensional model predicted that gravitational lensing of light would not occur.

          This is why it was such a clinching moment when Einstein received a telegraph, during the middle of a lecture, from scientists observing a solar eclipse, stating that the position of stars immediately adjacent to the sun had been displaced in accordance with his theory.

        • Thanks for the history lesson. Good to see you were paying attention to the info coming out around the time of the eclipse. Now, what precisely is wrong with the models you are complaining about? I would reallylike you to pick one and then explain what is wrong with it? Which information should the modellers include or leave out? How should they cahngeany oneof the countless algorithms?

          This is where you engage in vague meaningless assertions or call squirrel….or of course admit that you really are out of your depth and just like spouting denier drivelforthe sake of it.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          A model with predictive value, something which could actually be falsified, would be a good start.

          Nothing is being falsified – model predictions still cover a ridiculous range of climate sensitivities. The graph produced by John the other day, with its 0.8c band of “95% confidence”, shows how silly model prediction is today – almost any scenario “is in accordance with predictions”.

      • Eric, I certainly agree that actual experiments should be done. This modelling research suggests a useful experiment. By itself, I would not put the paper’s importance any higher than a “strong possibility”.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Publishing the results of a computer model, especially when the model was created for a different purpose, as if it is science, is downright reckless. They could have at least asked the physical science department to break a few pieces of ice. It would have only taken a few days effort to confirm or falsify their study.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I agree it would be interesting to investigate it further. But having worked with computer models, I find it a little annoying when scientists appear to confuse them with evidence.

          Even the pharmacology department, which are the likely source of the models on which the paper you cited relied, test new drugs discovered by the models on rats or other lab animals, before they try them on people. Models have to be backed by observations, to be of scientific value.

      • john byatt says:

        it is an important discovery even without global warming and may answer a question that has long been a mystery,

        these guys are not into studies of ice they study fracturing on all types of stuff,

        your comment is immature and to put it bluntly displays a complete ignorance of science

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The difference between physical science and mathematics used to be that physical scientists were expected to relate their findings to observations at some point.

      • john byatt says:

        eric climate models have accurately predicted the temperature for the past hundred years, if they can predict the hindsight , then we can have confidence that they will predict the future, as they are currently doing. we have seen that models that get the enso signal and atmospheric humidity level closest are proving to be the better predictors of warming, past temperature have gone up by 5 to 9C yet the increase of CO2 can only account for 1 to 3 C of that, lets what and see what happens to the planet, i would rather see what happens to the models frankly

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Anyone with a complex model can hindcast. When your model contains a few high order polynomials, you can get almost any curve by adjusting a few parameters, especially if you have a big computer to do the adjustment.

          For example, its quite easy to create a complex non-linear model which produces a good hind cast of stock market prices, by calibrating the model against actual prices. But such models have bugger all predictive power.

          Its forecasting and prediction which proves a model. And so far, they’re not doing that well at prediction. The wide range of climate sensitivities, embarassingly large “95% confidence” bands, and wide ranges of values for other forcings included in AR4 shows they are still going for a scattergun approach, a spread bet – by betting on every horse, they can claim to be a winner when their horse makes it to the finish line.

      • john byatt says:


      • john byatt says:

        but eric stock market models do not run under the laws of physics, starting conditions 1900 entered, model does not know what the date is.

        model reproduces the temperature rise within the 95 percent confidence range for 110 years now, get used to it

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Given that the 95% confidence band has a spread of 0.8c for current temperatures, I’d agree that a 100 year prediction that global temperature will be somewhere between liquid helium and boiling rock is bang on correct.

      • john byatt says:

        Gavin Schmidt did a back of envelope calculation of CS for 2010, it was 3.3C
        you cannot use that as it will change, but that is what the model/observations gave at the time.
        Who do I regard as the most reliable , you or the climatologist running the models

        you did not even make second place

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Alarmists have done a lot of calculations, so the fact they can pick one of them out of a hat and say “see, I was right” is not impressive.

          I’m glad you understand why hindcasting is not evidence a model is valid though.

  2. john byatt says:

    since 1998 model average

    temperature has been on average or above seven times
    temperature has been below average seven times
    last time temp was on or above average 2010
    Dec trend 1970 to 2000 0.2C
    Dec trend 2000 to 2010 0.13C
    removing natural variations and just looking at AGW component

    face it eric , in the end you are left with nothing but your claim that it is all corrupt, you are a conspiracy theorist

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Removing natural variations and just looking at the AGW component assumes the model is correct, which I dispute.

      But lets play the game.

      When does your model predict natural causes will be overwhelmed by CO2 forcing, and that the previous sharp upward trend will resume?

      Or do your models just have a magic bucket called “natural causes”, to explain away their lack of predictive skill?

      • john byatt says:

        asking when the natural causes will be overwhelmed by CO2 eric
        the answer was about 50 years ago
        so a model that predicts the exact temp 110 years later is down to a fluke in your book, you would on that basis not accept anything at all,
        the overall trend has continued for the past three decades, what you do not understand does not make a case against the science, you just do not understand it that is all

      • john byatt says:

        when will CO2 overwhelm nature causes,
        answer, about fifty years ago
        so a model that predicts the exact temperature 110 years in advance. effective,
        you claim is a fluke, you therefore could never accept anything,
        at the moment the natural variations are above and below .8C
        when global temp reaches 2C in about, lets see three decades from now without action the natural variations will be above and below that

        what you do not know does not invalidate the science, you are just dumb that is all

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Funny thing is global warming has stalled since 97. If the planet does not start warming again soon, your linear trend will be well and truly broken – or would be, except your climate heroes have predicted everything between flatline to near vertical as being within “95% confidence”.

  3. john byatt says:

    cop the great dummy spit at the climate sceptics blog, pissed myself laughing

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Yawn. Let me know when the planet starts to warm again John.

      • Uncle Buck says:

        Hey, I thought it has been ‘cooling’ for the past 15 years. This Stein glacier obviously doesn’t read the peerless review blogs.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          No, only cooling for the last 7 years or so. If you go back 15 years, its a flatline – despite a 10% rise in CO2.

          As climate hero Kevin Trenberth said in Climategate email 1255352257.txt (2009):-

          The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
          travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

      • zoot says:

        So, since 2005 the planet has been cooling.
        What has caused the glacier to melt during this cooling spell?
        And if you’re going to insist on quoting Trenberth’s email you should at least make an effort to understand it’s subject instead of proudly flaunting your ignorance. Eric, you really are a boring little tit.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You’re own warmist heroes (at least the CRU heroes) say the world hasn’t warmed for 15 years. As for the glacier, its either regional change, or simply a response to previous warming – I doubt whether a lump of ice that big melts all at once in response to a change in temperature.

  4. Uncle Buck says:

    No it’s 15 years Eric.

  5. mgm75 says:

    Reblogged this on 2012 And All That… The Fight Against Nonsense and commented:
    More reblogging from the superb “Watching the Deniers”

  6. 2012 and all that says:

    Thanks for this. I reposted on my own blog

  7. Eric Worrall says:

    James Hansen, director of GISS, has been arrested at least twice during climate protests, and has been caught out more than once fiddling the temperatures.

    Not a credible source of climate information.

    • john byatt says:

      steve goddard is a clown all temp data sets are in basic agreement, even the BEST results proved the accuracy of the data, get a new drum
      conspiracy theorist you

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Given the siting “issues” discovered by Watts, the entire surface temperature record is junk. NOAA are applying a hockey stick shaped adjustment to their temperatures which peaks at just under 0.6c positive adjustment.

        Hansen lied about his temperatures being raw, remember a month or so ago we had this discussion? His adjustment was far less than the NOAA adjustment (no more than 0.1c or so), but he claimed it was raw -> processed temperatures.

        How does NOAA add 0.6c and create essentially the same temperature series as NASA GISS adding 0.1c adjustment?

        A careful physical audit will be required to tease out any recoverable good data. And firing observers who are so emotionally invested they get themselves arrested wouldn’t hurt as well.

      • john byatt says:

        GISS does not use those UHI stns, so it is quite irrelevant and again even the BEST results confirmed the accuracy for the NH land temps,
        all your arguments originate from your ignorance

      • john byatt says:

        and remember i posted the graph showing the complete agreement after those adjustments, your have the memory retention of a goldfish

        • Eric Worrall says:

          If I had the freedom to add an arbitrary adjustment which peaked at just under 0.6c to the raw temperatures I could probably produce pretty much any shaped curve I wanted as well.

      • john byatt says:

        no you could not as you have already proven that you do not have a clue how and why such adjustments are done

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I don’t much care for the waffle and excuses, the end product is a hockey stick shaped set of adjustment which – surprise – produces a hockey stick shaped temperature series.

          Without the adjustment, the 1930s would be warmer than the present day – and that would never do.

          If you weren’t such a totally committed believer you’d see the funny side.

      • john byatt says:

        without the adjustments the temperature series would be a nonsense, why not google everthing that you do not understand suffixed by for dummies

        you have been offered a few links but steadfastly wish to remain ignorant, the confirmation bias that you display is certainly a funny side to it

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You wouldn’t accept an adjustment of this magnitude from say a tobacco company which claimed its products were not harmful, no matter what excuses they made.

          It is your confirmation bias which makes this silliness palatable to you.

      • john byatt says:

        yes eric it was your scientists that would have produced such results, it was the main stream scientists that produced the rebuttals, nothing much has changed

      • John, in saying that Eric has the memory retention of a goldfish you are being unfair to goldfish. Actual experiments show that goldfish have a good memory for things that are important to them.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Mike, maybe a little blog reprimand is in order here? I don’t see how insultingly comparing my brain to a goldfish is related to the blog post.

          Nah just messing with you Steve ;-)

    • john byatt says:

      goddard in the register claims that the world is now cooling but you do not have the confidence to back up with a grand bet.

      therefore if you do not even believe goddard, why should i

      you post an opinion piece that you do not believe but purely because it is and aid to your delusion

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I said I don’t have $1000 for gambling.

        You don’t have the confidence to take my counter bet – that the world will cool in at least one of the next three years.

      • john byatt says:

        the world will not cool in the next three years, it will continue to vary around the now .08DC anomally , how that is affected at the moment depends on ENSO,

        next year will be warmer because we are now in neutral conditions, if we get an el nino early next year then that will be two years,

        we can say without the slightest doubt that the next three years will all be above the 1951/1980 base
        the planet does not cool, this is your confusion, it just varies as it continues to trend up as it has been doing for decades.

      • john byatt says:

        You do not even know what you are betting against, if you are betting that the world will cool over the next three years then you are on 1000 dollars eric

        if you knew what you were talking about you would have said surface temps, too late, the bet is now on

        good luck, the TOAis still out of equilibrium and will remain so, therefore the world must continue to warm, make the check out to cash

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Wrong, the bet is the world will keep warming above this year’s temp vs the world will cool in at least one of the next three years.

          You’re an idiot if you think I was betting the world would suddenly plummet to below the baseline.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          If you look back, you will see the counterbet I offered was that the world would warm in each of the next 3 years, vs the world would cool in at least one of them, using the Hardcrut4 global surface temperature series.

          Remember we had a big discussion about why I didn’t trust GISS.

      • john byatt says:

        HADCRUT4 does not take the world’s temp,

        the bet is on

    • Eric, I apologise if my comment sounded like an insult. It was John who first brought up goldfish memory. As a self proclaimed expert on fish I was leaping to the defense of goldfish which are not very good at leaping for themselves. It was intended as a rebuttal of the myth that goldfish have a 3 second memory.
      I actually read your comments with interest, and sometime even agree with them.

  8. Eric Worrall says:

    And its not $1000 – As I said, its a reputation think – I don’t have $1000 to bet.

  9. john byatt says:

    ericYou don’t have the confidence to take my counter bet – that the world will cool in at least one of the next three years.

    accepted, all here witness

  10. john byatt says:

    Dummy spit

    of course they are as bad as pedophiles who destroy children’s lives, they will end up destroying generations

  11. john byatt says:

    Eric you are confirming that you accept that the world will continue to warm over the next three years , why else the hand waving?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I believe the world is currently random walking around a flatline – some years are up, some are down. My opinion is based on the near flat trend for the last 15 years. I also believe that in the next decade the world shall enter a pronounced cooling trend, due to solar variation. So betting that one of the next 3 years will be cooler than 2012 is a bit of a risk, but not a huge one.

      • john byatt says:

        you opinion is worthless, based on ignorance, Solar has had a negative contribution since the seventies, guess that you will never get it

  12. john byatt says:


    • Eric Worrall says:

      If you turn the gas down underneath a pot of water, the water continues to heat, it just warms a little more slowly.

      And the fact warming stopped around 15 years ago is interesting, don’t you think?

      • zoot says:

        Ah, I see the problem – you’re original statement was:

        And the fact warming stopped around 15 years ago is interesting, don’t you think?

        You apparently believe that “temperature not rising” is the same as “warming stopped”. Not that you’ll understand it (you are probably the most gormless person I have ever encountered), but one relevant part of your cite is:

        As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          No, the warming stopped 15 years ago. Fact.

          The million dollar question is whether and if it will restart. The MET office obviously believe this is a temporary, transient event, caused by [fill in your excuse].

      • zoot says:

        Eric, this actually explains rather well why you’re wrong:

        I don’t expect you’ll understand it.

      • zoot says:

        I said you wouldn’t understand it.

      • zoot says:

        Says the believer who keeps repeating, without a shred of evidence, that global warming stopped in 1997.
        If only you had a clue …

    • zoot says:

      And the fact warming stopped around 15 years ago is interesting, don’t you think?

      Citation required.

      (And if you’re going to quote Trenberth it really does have to be one of his peer reviewed publications such as the one he refers to in the email you are so enamoured of, not that I’m holding my breath – you don’t “get” science)

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Press release from the hardline warmist UK MET office good enough for you?

        The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming. …

        So a lot of waffle and excuses, but a grudging admission that temperatures have not increased since 1997.

        What this means in the broader context is open to interpretation. But this is what I mean when I say “there has been no warming in 15 years”.

      • john byatt says:

        you do not get it and you never will
        met were showing rose that even his dodgy cherry pick was wrong

        here try to get a handle

        • Eric Worrall says:

          No, its you who doesn’t get it.

          CO2 has risen 10% since 1997, but there has been bugger all warming.

          What if CO2 rises another 10%, with bugger all warming?

          Are you prepared to predict, here and now, that this cannot possibly happen? If so, when should the missing heat suddenly re-appear?

          Because CO2 will rise by another 10%, in the next 10-15 years. If global warming doesn’t kick in, you’ll have a 30 year trend, 20% rise in CO2, and very little global warming.

          We’re halfway to game over for alarmism.

      • john byatt says:

        eric much of the missing heat has already been found in the deep ocean, we now know that during la nina years most of the heat is going into the ocean. the globe is now warmer faster than ever,
        remember ” the missing heat will come back to haunt us”, that is what is happening

        so we have an 0.8DEGc anomally
        we will have about another 0.6Degc over the next thirty years from the ocean cooling to the atmosphere and about 0.6Degc warming due to RF

        2030 the year we reach 2DEGC, i wont be here but you will probably get to see it,
        2DegC will only be a transitory temp on the path to 4DegC

        we need action at Doha or trying to bring emissions down in 2030 may be too late,

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nonsense – it has been postulated that the deep ocean has swallowed the heat, taken it conveniently out of sensor range.

          I wonder what their next excuse will be? UFOs?

      • john byatt says:

        correction 2040 , three decades time

      • john byatt says:

        Now follow the links eric, the research is continuing

        but the heat is there

      • john byatt says:

        for god sake read it eric it is about the energy imbalance

      • john byatt says:

        good grief its Knox and Douglas again and they even cite an E & E paper,

      • zoot says:

        Press release from the hardline warmist UK MET office good enough for you?


      • zoot says:

        Particularly when the article you quote is at pains to point out that global warming did not stop around 15 years ago.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Their *theory* suggests global warming is still occurring. But the *facts* say temperatures stopped rising 15 years ago.

          At some point the divergence between fact and theory should lead to falsification of the theory. What conditions are required for falsification is the interesting bit.

      • zoot says:

        But the *facts* say temperatures stopped rising 15 years ago.

        Citation required.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I just gave you one – an admission that temperatures are not significantly higher now than they were in 97 from the MET office.

          Or are you suggesting the MET office is lying to people?

      • zoot says:

        D’oh! I’ve just replied in the wrong thread. Apologies.

      • zoot says:

        This iwhere it should have gone.
        Ah, I see the problem – you’re original statement was:

        And the fact warming stopped around 15 years ago is interesting, don’t you think?

        You apparently believe that “temperature not rising” is the same as “warming stopped”. Not that you’ll understand it (you are probably the most gormless person I have ever encountered), but one relevant part of your cite is:

        As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

      • zoot says:

        Eric, this actually explains rather well why you’re wrong:

        I don’t expect you’ll understand it.

  13. john byatt says:

    you just do not get it at all with your CO2 levels have increased 10% without warming
    the current warming is due to levels in the seventies, we still have a long way to go.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Funny how CO2 warming has a lag time of multiple decades, but you discount solar warming because the decline in solar activity since the late 20th is not immediately reflected in global temperatures.

      • john byatt says:

        god your getting your mind in a differ her eric , sol,ar is immediate, radiative forcing from increased greenhouse gas with most of the initial heat going into the ocean means that it takes decades for the ocean/atmosphere to reach equilibrium
        this is really basic stuff

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Thats just silly John – the climate has a degree of inertia due to the energy required to heat or cool the ocean, regardless of the forcing. There is no magic difference between heat due to solar forcing, and heat trapped by CO2 – its the same heat energy.

      • john byatt says:

        when i say immediate i am talking 12 months to be more precise

      • john byatt says:

        Solar variations are small compared to RF from greenhouse effect

  14. john byatt says:

    Steve Challis says:
    November 26, 2012 at 7:20 am
    John, in saying that Eric has the memory retention of a goldfish you are being unfair to goldfish. Actual experiments show that goldfish have a good memory for things that are important to them.

    yes i knew the experiment, eric obviously did not though, or he has forgotten

  15. john byatt says:

    wotts up with that

    Regarding the January 7 section on Ocean temperatures, Watts Up With That? link claims: “Four out of 5 Argo studies Now show ocean heat declining.”

    Except that they show no such thing. The authors of the paper summarise the results of four smoothing calculations using one limited data set – the years 2003-2008 (and Mr Bolt reproduces this section):

    “Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2.”

    In other words people, the largest calculated “drop” is smaller than the error, the smallest is one twentieth the error – statistically no drop at all. The same applies to the 3 other studies quoted as showing a drop.

    In contrast, the fifth study (to 2000 rather than 700 metres) shows an increase of 0.77 ± 0.11 – a statistically significant increase. Yet Knox and Douglass claim that this figure is an “outlier”, requiring explanation.

    But in the text (reproduced by Mr Bolt) they note: “A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2” A statistically significant result in full agreement with the “outlier”. And the ARGO website notes five other studies showing significant warmin

  16. […] Chasing ice: book and film of the week show time lapse evidence of global warming ( […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 769 other followers

%d bloggers like this: