Not unprecedented warming, even in last century

I was just looking at the Key Indicators page from NASA, which shows global temperatures over the past 130 years. The smoothed line is based on a 5-year mean, which is arbitrary so this analysis should be taken only as a first-order calculation.

But it's clear that from 1880 to around 1915, nothing much happened. Then for the next 25 years, temperatures rose rapidly, roughly .4C. After which 40 years of very little change (actually a small decline) and then 25 years of rapid increase. Looks like just about .5C during the period. Due to the 5-year mean, data since 2005 is incomplete and not shown, but eyeballing, it seems to have leveled off.

Nobody of any credibility denies that we have warmed somewhat in the past 150 years, although some reasonable people think the rise is exaggerated by changes in land use. However, even taking NASA's numbers (not suggesting that they originated them), the pattern since 1880 makes the CO2 theory a little dicey. We had decadal periods with, respectively no rise, a sharp rise, no rise, and a sharp rise. The sharp rises took place in periods when CO2 was not a significant driver and when it was. The placid periods included a pre-AGCO2 period and one during which CO2 was rising rapidly. The CO2 "signal" isn't evident.

You can always fix this with a computer model by declaring a CO2 signal, subtracting it from the recorded numbers, and identifying whatever remains as natural variation. However, the argument that the increase can only be manmade CO2 emissions because the pattern is unprecedented doesn't stand up.

Thomas Friedman is Naive

In a recent conversation with Christiane Amanpour, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times commented about how we should take strong action against a 1% chance of catastrophy. Also today, I've read that medical researchers doubt that all old men should take daily aspirin, because there may be no clear margin of benefit.

That's another story, but consider the difference in views. Friedman is prepared to spend wildly on the off chance that it will be needed. He sees no downside, just the positives of a cleaner environment and new technologies.

There are huge downsides. One is that government-sponsored research will be ineffective and will be distributed politically. The view that there is unlimited money available for research so whatever increment we achieve is a positive, is simply naive.

The other risk is that governments will gain extra power combating global warming and, coming to enjoy it, will decide not to relinquish it. We have avoided the world that George Orwell foresaw in 1984, because one of the superpowers resisted the encroachment of government.

In the new world order, people like Joe Romm will enjoy added influence. If you asked me whether that frightens me more than an extra couple degrees of heat, I wouldn't hesitate for a minute.

An interesting concept of "independence"

I usually excerpt that reference other articles, but today's story about the new independent review of IPCC should be examined end to end:

NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) — An independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the world’s top climate science panel, which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report, a United Nations environmental spokesman said Friday.

The board’s work will be part of a broader review of the body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, who spoke on the sidelines of an international meeting of environment ministers here.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been under fire since it was pointed out that the 2007 report included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, although there is no scientific consensus to that effect.

That brief citation — drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted — and sporadic criticism of the panel’s leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change. The climate panel’s assessments are a crucial source of guidance for policy makers addressing global warming.

But mainstream scientists and the United Nations have said repeatedly that the evidence that human activity is a major factor in global warming remains unshaken.

Mr. Nuttall said the review body would be made up of “senior scientific figures” who could perhaps produce a report by late summer for consideration at a meeting of the climate panel in October in South Korea.

He said that several countries had made clear at the meeting here in Bali that they would prefer that the review panel be appointed by an independent group of scientists rather than the climate panel. He said that plans for assembling the panel would be announced next week.

“I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue,” Mr. Nuttall said.

One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports.

Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science.

Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, told reporters here this week that he did not support a ban on the use of gray literature and that the news media had overblown the climate panel’s missteps.

The 2007 report on climate change cites more than 10,000 scientific papers and is more than 3,000 pages long.

So much to discuss. First, the IPCC report has been under fire for much longer than the Himalaya fiasco, and its problem is not a lack of consensus to support it. There isn't an iota of evidence to support it and there isn't a credible individual who supports it.

We were also told that the IPCC would use purely reviewed science. They haven't and rather than explain why this is not important, they are explaining why it is convenient. Because evidently it allows them to discuss things that aren't fully understood. Since this is indeed a document relied upon by international policy makers, why this is an advantage is not clear.

We are all getting tired of counting large numbers, which are supposed to prove reliability. This is a government report. Does anyone truly believe that there would be any problem finding 10,000 papers funded by governments which would support the government view, particularly since future funding depends on doing so?

Meanwhile Reuters, maintaining its legendary objectivity, divides the believers and unbelievers into two camps, described as "mainstream scientists and the United Nations," on the one hand, and "some quarters," in opposition.

Based on this, it's reasonable to suppose that the composition of the "independent" review panel will be chosen by the same people who chose the IPCC. Perhaps not the IPCC exactly, but people with a vested interest in confirming it. It's like the defense being able to choose the jury without consulting the prosecution. I'm nearly certain that Steve McIntyre will not be asked to participate, or even consulted on who should.

Another whitewash is underway. Penn State has delivered one for Professor Mann. The "respectable" scientists will do one for IPCC. But in the end, the problems remain. Temperatures are not rising. A lot of snow is in fact falling. Arctic ice is not changing much. CO2 and global sea levels are trending below the straight line, rather than rising above as we've been warned to expect. Hurricane seasons have been unimpressive.

Sooner or later, the warmists are going to have to deliver something more attention grabbing than CO2 concentrations, or Copenhagen is going to mark the high water mark of their influence, rather than just another step towards the goal.

Warming is causing snow

OK, I'll buy the argument that heavy snow in Philly is the result of cold-enough temperatures and unusually moisture-laden air. But now we're getting in in the Deep South. They don't normally get snow now due to lack of moisture but lack of cold. This simply suggests we're having a severe February, that can't be explained by any flavor of global warming.

Those of us in the skeptic, not denier, camp don't object to the consistent use of science in support of public policy positions, but we get a little tired when heat waves in Europe, Katrina, and so forth are quickly attributed to AGW, but snow in Atlanta and record snow in Britain just mark a blip or even another consequence of AGW that nobody had thought to mention before. At least before 1998. With the failure of consistent warming to appear, there have been some "everything is due to AGW" warnings, but increasingly frequent blizzards haven't been mentioned that I recall.

A little consistency would be nice.

Our linguiistic losses

Old people like me can only shake our heads at learning that Sarah Palin is criticizing Rahm Emanuel for calling people he disagreed with f*cking retarded in a conversation not intended for general public consumption. Not for "f*cking", which would have got you sent to detention when I was in school, but "retarded."

"Retarded" is a euphemism. It means "stupid," and was devised by well meaning people who didn't want to call stupid people "stupid." Unfortunately, as with so many euphemisms, after time it becomes associated with reality and people start to use it as such. Then we decide we won't call stupid people "retarded" either.

Now we have moved to "challenged," which has already moved to the joke level and will sooner or later become an insult. There is a silver lining to this. Eventually, the original words become so dissociated with reality that nobody remembers and they can be used freely. For instance, nobody complains if you call an idea "lame" or a person an "emotional cripple," although both words succumbed to euphemisms generations ago.

Maybe like Gaia, the English language has built-in response mechanisms to attacks on its integrity.

Arctic Ice and Solar Cycle

The gurus of solar cycles were wrong about the timing of Cycle 24, but the sun seems to be kicking up and we're clearly on the rise. Whether we reach the oft-revised target date and intensity, I wouldn't hazard a guess. My interest was always a bit quirky, based mostly on my irritation that people were positively denying possibilities that were real, but I had no real idea why sunspots might affect climate. The Arizona guys were saying that it's the next cycle that will go really quiet, not this one, so we're a few years away from seeing if they're right.

Meantime, the Danish measurements of far North temperatures show somewhat colder weather this January than in the recent past, but the Japanese data on ice extent shows no clear pattern. The multi-year graph still looks like spaghetti. I'm guessing that September will be much like last September, which will disappoint Al Gore.

Also Time Magazine which has run an alarmist story about how ice in the Beaufort Sea seems thin. It's pretty close to a "duh" moment. The researcher discovered this in October. In mid October, the ice extent had grown by about 50% from the September low. On the edge, naturally, so if you take an ice breaker into the ice, you will first encounter thin new ice. This is surprising? That observation is accompanied by additional, unscientific observations of an ad hoc nature.

The author writes for a warmist Web site. I think when someone whose career depends on the success of AGW writes about global warming, there should be some sort of warning label.

When will China begin seriously running US Foreign policy?

It's only a matter of time. They are unhappy that we want to sell arms to Taiwan. How do they expect us to earn the money to buy their poisonous widgets? Now they are disturbed that Obama might meet the Dalai Lama and are expressing their concerns with veiled threats.

When you sell your soul, you eventually have to pay the devil his due. We are addicted to improbable stories of easy benefits. We believe people who say they are honestly generating impossible financial returns and are then shocked when they turn out to be running Ponzi schemes. And we are now believing that the Chinese are beneficently letting us enjoy the fruits of their manufacturing labor with no expectation of eventual payment.

They will want payment. The veil is rising. They are tired of the United States exercising an independent foreign policy that may conflict with theirs, and it won't be long before the President realizes that he can't meet the Dalai Lama if our primary banker says we can't.

Abstinence only works with the right question

The new "abstinence only" sex education report is supposed to be surprising. Leaving aside the small sample size, only about 600 divided into four groups, there is the oddity about condom use. Teaching about the advantages of condom use and disadvantages of unprotected sex should have had an impact. According to the report, it didn't. That fact raises a red flag.

However, a larger question is the methodology. How do we know they're not having sex? They say they aren't. Since no data is given on the results from students not involved in the study, the presumption is that only students in the study were asked, so they presumably knew they were being asked by the same people who had been instructing them.

So picture the situation. Child A has been getting instruction in safe sex. He is asked whether he's been having sex. He says yes. Child B has been getting instruction to the effect that sex is intrinstically unsafe. He is asked whether he has disregarded the instruction. He says no. Is this scientific?

Fewer than 100 girls took part in each group. I will be more impressed if, at the end of the ninth grade, it were to be calculated how many in each group got pregnant. Having sex is not a public health issue. Getting pregnant or spreading STDs is, and since the practice that brings them about is the same, the quickest test for that is objectively observing pregnancy rates. The jury is still out.