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

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


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. JimC

    That sounds like better science...

    The thing that came out of climategate was that they were using different means of measurement to create the hockeystick graph and estimate historical temperature values which was always going to be a fail. The only thing that could ever have much credibility is to use the same measurement for every part of the graph: that way at least the errors are consistent... Its scarcely a suprise that solar input is a predominant factor in global temperature unless you're the more manic type of greenie.

    So now we need some more historical measures other than tree rings, based on a lot more data, using consistent means right down the date range and preferably presented by real scientists who don't want to massage the data to meet their theories, because I don't know that only one measure is really incontrovertible: we'll soon be getting back to East Anglia's two trees if we're not careful...

    After all if the temperature really is rising enough to cause environmental catastrophe then it doesn't matter whether its artificial or natural does it? We need to reuce it by the most effective method either way.

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      As far as I understand it

      The thing that came out of 'Climategate' was that a number of scientists who were working very hard were being continually harrassed by a small number of 'deniers', most probably lobbyists for those for whom decreased CO2 emissions would be a bad thing. As a result of the continuous pressure, they cracked and in a small number of cases acted inappropriately as a result. This doesn't undermine the good science that they were doing, and as a result, they are now releaing the raw data that has been used to produce their conclusions. In all likelihood, these data will now be selectively quoted and twisted through bad satatistical analysis to'prove' things that they do not show.

      As to your point about different means of measurement - the 'hockey stick' is well supported by a broad range of measurements, from direct temperature measurements in more recent times, through various rpoxies such as ice core and tree ring measurements. The thing that you have to remember is that ALL of these measurements are proxies for local temperature, not global temperature, and selectively picking any data set is always going to be flawed because of that. If, however, you take the average of all of these data sets, weighted by the confidence (i.e. fossil data that has a low accuracy is weighted less than direct temperature measurement), you do get a rise.

      A final point - if temperature is increasing as a result of rising CO2 levels (which it almost certainly is), that is not our only problem. The CO2 levels themselves cause rpoblems such as ocean acidification and warming. This is already leading to problems such as coral bleaching. Measures that simply reduce the global temperature such as releasing aerosols into the upper atmosphere may buy us a temporary reprieve from rising temperatures but will do nothing to mitigate the other problems associated with raising global CO2 levels.

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        @ Loyal Commenter

        [Citation needed]

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Loyal Commenter

        "A final point - if temperature is increasing as a result of rising CO2 levels (which it almost certainly is"

        Really? certainly doesnt leave much room for doubt....thats very intresting tho considering that CO2 rises as a result of higher temperatures, or to put it another way, temp rises several hundred years before the CO2 does, which makes sence since the largest CO2 scrubber on the planet operates with less efficiency at high temperatures but hey, obviously anyone who says anything against man made climate change must be loonies because "everyone" knows the world only heats up because of us and everyone knows that no other external factor can have anythnig to do with it...

      3. Anonymous Coward

        "global warming" is and was total BS

        "The thing that came out of 'Climategate' was that a number of scientists who were working very hard were being continually harrassed by a small number of 'deniers', most probably lobbyists for those for whom decreased CO2 emissions would be a bad thing."

        And those so called "scientists" were very well paid for their propaganda.

        They still are and EU is giving five _billions_ to these snake oil peddlers.

        Tell me, why?

        Obviously they don't have anything which can stand a scientific analysis and it's about PR and politics, not science.

        "Weather model" where every assumption in it is taken from the hat, is worth zero. Especially it now fails to predict even _current weather_ and dismisses totally the only real source of heat: The Sun. And the fact that _every planet on Solar system_ has become warmer. _All of them_.

        Who is the idiot who believes that Earth is warmed by CO2 and _all the others_ by Sun? How much does he get paid to believe that? Priests come to my mind first.

        You know, even a firm believer has to believe when predictions are more and more wrong every year. Doesn't apply to fanatics, though. They are people who believe in "global warming" when we are deep in ice age. And that's next.

      4. Anonymous Coward

        Climatology priests preaching to skeptics

        "A final point - if temperature is increasing as a result of rising CO2 levels (which it almost certainly is), that is not our only problem."

        You mean we are in trouble because it's spring. That's what is the exxence of what you are saying, of course without understanding it.

        It has nothing to with CO2 (but everything to do with the Sun) and there's no whatsoever proof for that. CO2 was at same level as now _on ice age_. But of course even that is incomprehensible to a priest, he gets paid to believe what he preaches.

        "As to your point about different means of measurement - the 'hockey stick' is well supported by a broad range of measurements, "

        Yes, measurements from 10 years and extrapolated to 100 years. Even less accurate than taking a measurement of a week in spring and forecasting the weather for whole year from that weeks sample. To me it 's obvious bullshit and it should be that to everyone: We _do know_ that climate has _70 years_ cycle: Tell me, mr. Climatologist: How your predictions include that?

        And if you don't know, I do: They don't. At all. Perfect analogy of predicting forever rising temperatures based on one week sample in May. Lo and behold, during this week temperature _has risen_, wohoo, Armageddon in just an year ahead.

        Extremely bad science, if science at all. More like a religion.

      5. Robinson
        Thumb Down


        Excuse my impertinence, but those 3 paragraphs are a complete load of twaddle.

        The first paragraph is a load of twaddle because you're effectively saying that scientists, who's job it is to be sceptical and to criticise each other's work, had a "crisis!" and broke the law in response to a few FOI requests and some criticism (justified), which only arrived because they had previously withheld data and methods and made dubious claims based on even more dubious statistical sleights of hand, coupled with badly collected and managed data. Well, AMAZING!

        Your second paragraph is a load of twaddle because the "hockey stick" is not well supported by any measurements whatsoever. Or rather I should say, the "hockey stick" is not notable or in any way particularly unusual, and is well within the range of natural variation (and of course is reproducible by simply putting rubbish into the algorithm - i.e. red noise).

        Your third paragraph is twaddle because temperature is not increasing as a result of rising CO2 levels. If this theory was correct, we wouldn't have static or falling current temperatures, we would have a mid-tropospheric "hot spot" signal (missing) and previous temperatures would be lead by CO2, rather than it trailing them, as it demonstrably does from looking at ice core data.

        In conclusion, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

        1. BraveOak

          Temperatures aren't

          Temperatures aren't static or currently falling. The longterm trend, as expected, is rising.

          There should be a mid-tropospheric hotspot, in the tropics but it's not clear whether measurements or models are wrong. Noone expects co2 to lead rather than follow temperature in ice cores. Both are compatible with warming from rising co2.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Thumb Down

            Re. Temperatures aren't

            Now that may have something to do with the warm period we are experiencing following the last ice age. I belive that the science shows that it has been warming for 2000 years +/- .

        2. Anonymous Coward

          Re. Twaddle.

          Succinctly put Sir, I owe you one.

      6. Seb123


        Do you work for the Climatic Research Unit?

      7. Phil A

        Re:As far as I understand it

        but wasn't part of the issue that when data was "recalculated" or "normalised" or "frigged" that the original data was deleted and the revised data replaced it?

      8. Charles Manning

        Bad deniers?

        "working very hard were being continually harrassed by a small number of 'deniers', most probably lobbyists for those for whom decreased CO2 emissions would be a bad thing"

        As soon as anyone asks for a bit of proof they get branded as oil lobbyists. Please. That's a pretty lame way of doing "science". Most of the very active "deniers" are just scientists that recalculate and audit the statistical models and point out glaring holes. They do this because they don't want science to be so badly abused.

        It was my understanding that even the AGW brigade have dropped the Hockey stick because it is so broken.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      But it does

      > if the temperature really is rising enough to cause environmental catastrophe then it doesn't matter whether its artificial or natural does it?

      Indeed it does. If it's because something we do it might be a good idea to stop doing that pretty quick. If it's a combination of something we do and something the [sun|planet|ocean|stars] does we might not be able to influence the outcome very much but we'll sure as hell be able to sink a lot of money into trying instead of using it to mitigate the effects, like moving the few hundred thousand islanders somewhere else. So it's quite important why it's happening, and how much is actually going to happen when. Also, the longer the time we have before the situation will turn pearshaped the cheaper methods we can use for mitigation. If the flood is coming tomorrow it would be a really good idea to pay the shipbuilders overtime at whatever rate they demand to get ready. If it's in 10 years, they can work on our ark on their spare time when they've got nothing better to do.

      And there's the rub. This might be an imminent problem, or it might be really long term (several generations) - the simulations are simply not good enough to tell yet. The hard greeners want us to drop everything and do it NOWNOWNOW which might not be a good idea as we still have a few other issues to handle (clean water, education and nourishing food for everyone frex.) and the fossil[e|ized] lobby wants us to do nothing as it is bound to cost them a bundle. I'm just happy I'm not the one in charge of deciding...

    3. Anonymous Coward

      "if", yes. It makes the pigs fly, too.

      "After all if the temperature really is rising enough to cause environmental catastrophe then it doesn't matter whether its artificial or natural does it? "

      There's no reason to believe it would. Not more than it did in 1950s. Everything else is guessing and not only that, but politically influenced guessing to raise taxes, specifially.

      "We need to reuce it by the most effective method either way."

      Except that the whole assumption of continuous rise is wrong (like "the price of the houses only go up"), as wrong it would be to predict something like that in spring and summer: Eventually the heating turns to cooling and autumn begins. Exactly the same way _it did_ in 1950-1980.

      Climatologists have no explanation to that so they convinienty ignore it. That's very bad science, right there: Ignoring measurements because they don't fit in your theory is sure sign as hell that's something smells, bad.

      Assuming something unique is happening while ignoring totally all the data before 1980 is clearly stupid to me and has only political and economical motives: You get paid to agree with everybody else and government laughs all the way to bank.

  2. Guido Esperanto
    Paris Hilton

    Oh rly?

    "probed by specialist ring boffins"

    Paris, she knows a thing or two about specialists.

  3. Sam Liddicott


    And an opposing piece of research will be published in two weeks time followed closely by an opposing-opposing piece of research.

    It sure beats doing anything, and it sure beats squashing research to fake a consensus.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Science? Us?

    Hurrah! So a single scientific report derails years of research which, for most scientists who appear to know anything on the subject, has amply demonstrated anthropogenic climate change.

    (Shakes head in despair.)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Down

      "(Shakes head in despair.)"

      Sakes head due to dogmatic acceptance of the status quo more like.

      Just because it's a single piece of research doesn't give you or anyone else grounds to dismiss it out of hand.

      But that's not how you climate fundies think is it,

      You people prefer the fingers in ears, LA LA LA method of scientific analysis.

    2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      The fact that you've been downvoted 3 to 1

      Gives me cause for despair.

      Two things to point out:

      1) Localised effects cannot be extrapolated to global conclusions. Because it is sandy in the sahara doesn't mean that we should be watching out for sandworms.

      2) It is already known that variation in solar activity leads to a variation in wind patterns at high altitudes. This results in the jetstreams that normally travel at pretty much exactly the same latitudes as the Kola Peninsular to change their course. This is exactly what caused our recent cold winter in Northern Europe, and what caused our airspace to be closed when that Icelandic volcano the name of which nobody can pronounce started producing clouds of ash which would otherwise have travelled to the West, rather than South. Variation in this winds could quite conceivable explain away these results, or indeed not - the point being that it is a more plausible explanation than putting your fingers in your ears and going 'la-la-la global warming is a lie'.

      Disclaimer - I am not some sort of global warming conspirator. I am, however lucky to have a pretty good scientific education, in both chemistry and physics and am more inclined to believe the conclusions put forward by sound, well understood science, rather than disinformation and FUD.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Down

        @Loyal Commenter

        "......that it is a more plausible explanation than putting your fingers in your ears and going 'la-la-la global warming is a lie'."

        For someone versed in science you seem at ease with taking my words out of context, if not deliberately misquoting me.

        Where have you ever seen me say that climate change is a lie?

        I believe that global warming is real and that humans are partially responsible.

        However, I find there is no credible evidence that it will be in any way as severe as current released evidence states.

        I have seen no evidence that it will continue as predicted, only computer models. hmmm.

        I totally reject speculations that the climate will spiral out of control and result in some sort of Venusian "hell". This has no more scientific credibility that the Daily Mail columnists running around flapping their arms and screaming "won't somebody please think of the children"

        I am skeptical because not only am I being lied to but I am also being treated like an idiot.

        I guess i would have been burned at the stake as a geocentric skeptic a few hundred years ago.

        1. Anonymous Coward

          Machiavellism in its best.

          "I believe that global warming is real and that humans are partially responsible."

          And you got 5 billion euros worth of reasons to believe it. Not bad, I'd believe anything if got paid 10 grand in a month to believe it. And obviously, do you too.

          I don't "believe" anything for free and as climatologists have been extremely secretive about their raw data, which is the first step of making real science, I'd say they are bunch of thieves.

          They _know_ that the raw data don't support the explanations they give, so the have to hide the raw data. Also they _have to_ give doomsday scenarios to get paid by the government, which then uses these scenarios to add a huge amount of taxes to the poor.

          Theft in grand scale, _nothing else_. Machiavellism in its best.

          And who is surprised? I'm not.

      2. Anonymous Coward

        So called scientists who defy thermodynamics

        "2) It is already known that variation in solar activity leads to a variation in wind patterns at high altitudes. "

        But _every climatologist_ vehemently denies that solar output increase of 2% _could possibly heat Earth like every other object in Solar system_.

        Essentially they are denying thermodynamic principles offhand because it doesn't fit into their beliefs, essentially paid preachers. That's about as low anyone who calls himself "scientist" can go.

        Do you want bet? On the other side is closed system in vacuum and heating power is increased by 2% and on the other side are climatologists (which use excatly same rhertoric as creationists, not a coincidence). Which is right, thermodynamic rules or climatologists?

        Both can't be right and I wouldn't bet a nickel for the climatologists, denial of truth is furiously happening everywhere, as we speak. Pay first, truth then: Climatologists are going _to collect that 5 billion EU promised them_, no matter what.

        Snake oil peddling is very profiting job, no science involved.

        1. BraveOak

          that's wrong

          "But _every climatologist_ vehemently denies that solar output increase of 2% _could possibly heat Earth like every other object in Solar system_."

          Climatologists think a 2% increase in solar output would have the same effect as doubling co2,, so you are completely wrong.

      3. Charles Manning

        You need statistics and applied maths

        While you might have an excellent education in chemistry and physics, these only take you so far in the AGW arena.

        AGW research is pretty much all based on mathematical models. The most important background for creating and understanding these models is a very good understanding of statistics etc so that you can understand the integrity of the models.

        But seeing you claim (through your unwavering faith) that the models are based on sound physics, I have a question for you. Where's the latent heat in these models? Warming is about adding heat, not about changing temperature. Temperature is only a secondary effect.

        The UEA models go on and on about temperature. Since they are not modeling heat they need little "tweak factors" to keep their models from falling over. That results in a fragile model that is useless for making predictions.

    3. Eddy Ito

      Re: Science? Us?

      Perhaps it isn't a single report. If you weren't so quick to fire off your [dis]missive you perhaps might have gotten to the following.

      "... reference other Arctic temperature studies, all of which show a 20th-century temperature peak followed by major falls of one to two degrees - in one case with the peak occurring as late as 1990."

      The question remaining is to the locale of those studies and how that might shed light on the evolution of global climate patterns. Not that you'd be interested as it could prove a distraction from your anthroclimorphic ministry. Genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      i think you might want to check which people disagree with man made climate change or at least disagree with the extent of your claims, think you will find that there are several dozen studies by some of the most brillient Climatologists who do not support the idea that we are warming up the planet on our own and its all down to CO2

    5. Anonymous John

      Re Science? Us?

      All we know for sure is that the level of CO2 is rising, It's something that is easily measured, and is uncontroversial. Something you can't say about global temperatures.

      Yes, it is a greenhouse gas, but it's still only 0.0387% of the atmosphere. And I'm not convinced that it is having a serious effect on the climate. There are other probably more significant factors that affect it.

      Don't get me wrong. I do think we should switch from fossil fuels, but that means nuclear. Fission now and fusion later. Wind power won't be enough, and I don't want to see power shortages in the next 10 years. .

    6. Andrew Williams

      Erm, in science that's all it needs...

      One thing that rips a prevailing view to shreds.

  5. DaWolf

    quite interesting

    but again, an example of elreg's confirmation bias, where only articles that throw doubt on global warming get any articles.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      elreg's confirmation bias

      One of the reasons I like El Reg is that they do get authors that are biased. But the authors here are rather obviously biased and for most subjects they have a set of authors with conflicting biases. The result is that we get to hear most of the sides to any story, instead of just the side that the company is pushing their journalists to write.

      I'm sure you've noticed that there are a lot of stories exhalting Macs and a lot of them flaming Macs. The same goes for Microsoft, Linux and global warming stories here. The competition between the journalists here is a good thing.

      Though the journalist that believes whole-heartedly in anthropogenic global warming does seem to be rather lax in his writings on the subject; either that or there's not much to write about. I don't follow the subject closely enough to tell either way.

    2. IR

      To be fair...

      You get two different types of article:

      1. New report shows that there is no global warming.

      2. New report shows that humans have nothing to do with the observed global warming.

      So you get to a choice about which one to believe, although some people seem quite happy to contain both views at once...

      I'm not sure why they bother, since the articles are always completely one-sided and the comments always descend into people ranting. Actually, the fact that I read and commented to this probably shows why they think it is a good idea to keep pumping them out.

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Warming is normal at this phase of the cycle, like spring, you know?

        "1. New report shows that there is no global warming."

        Half-truth. You get new reports that this current warming is part of the longer cycle (about 70 years) which has been observed since 14th century, at least.

        As such the warming is _totally normal_, at least as normal as spring. As normal as cold period in 1980's.

        Except climatologists who _can't_ see because it ruins every argument they have in one stroke and thus their income. Show me anyone who is paid very well and speaks against his sole income? There aren't any and _that's_ the real reason why climatologists agree: They are paid to do so. No science involved, but money. EU gives 5 _billions_ to these bastards.

        That's why climatologists have only 10 years worth of data, starting from the coldest year on 19th century:1980. Definitely not a coincidence and availability of "reliable data" is total bullshit, earlier data didn't fit in so it was conviently declared "unreliable". Very handy, wasn't it?

        You choose the data the way you want and you can make any predictions you want out of it. And make a hefty sum of money as a byproduct.

        1. IR

          Keep reading

          What you described is what I wrote in (2).

          This is another problem with the reg, people commenting without actually reading.

  6. solarian

    @Anonymous Coward

    > So a single scientific report derails years of research

    What, you mean like Mann supposedly refuting the Medieval Warm Period because of a single paper?

  7. nsld

    Tell us something we dont know

    CO2 driven "climate change" is nothing more than a tax scam, the only part missing is the pre amble by a Nigerian General with $30 million to share.

    The planets climate has always varied and will continue to do so.

    1. LaeMing
      Thumb Down

      Year right

      Because huge numbers of scientists across a very wide range of political, social and economic backgrounds all agree that arbitrarily higher taxes are a good thing.

      Stop confusing the science with how politicians abuse it.

  8. gardener21


    Interesting. A research paper is published showing data drawn from tree rings which is believed to indicate the summer temperatures over 400 years in one place: the Kola peninsula in NW Russia.

    Lewis Page then assumes that the whole of the arctic region had the same summer temperatures as this one place in NW Russia.

    He then starts assuming this casts doubt on other evidence about average global temperatures.

    Temperature records relating to one place, are extrapolated to a much larger area, then to the whole globe. Marvellous.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      and yet......... only concentrate on the "one" area of the artic that is suffering from reduction and ignore the rest of the artic circle that is actually growing in size? tell me, whos the hypocrite?

    2. Anonymous Coward

      What happened to global change, suddenly?

      "Temperature records relating to one place, are extrapolated to a much larger area, then to the whole globe. Marvellous."

      Temperature records from 10-20 years are extrapolated to 100 years, like climatologists do. Marvellous.

      These people have 400 years of solid data and that's about 20 to 40 times more than so called climatologist have.

      Tell me, wasn't this supposed to be a _global climate change_, meaning it changes _everywhere_?

      Now you tell us it only changes somewhere but not in somewhere else? So it's not a global climate change but local climate change, then?

      Already the cracks in explanations are showing and soon the whole belief system will crumble due the lack of evidence.

  9. envmod

    i think it's time to admit...

    that nobody has an fucking clue about what really causes climate change.

    don't get me wrong, i'm all for renewable energy and green technology, but I think it's time certain scientists stopped claiming to know the reasons for temperature fluctuations on this planet. it could be bloody anything. something nobody's even, the position of our star system in the galactic disc or something mental like that.

    but we still need to stop burning fossil fuels coz they're dirty innit.

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Hold on...

      "but we is needing to stop burning fossil fuelz coz they is dirty innit"

      That's better.

  10. ejoftheweb

    Er yes but

    First, is the Kola dataset published? If not, no one has learned anything from climategate.

    Second, it's only a very small series from a part of the arctic. Solar activity might or might not be implicated, but if it were, I'd expect to see correlations over much more than a single cycle. Should be possible using tree rings to go back at least 500 years and see correlations with solar minima and maxima, if it is indeed the cause. If this variation is only seen for the 1935-1990 period, I'd look much more closely at industrial pollution - soot and sulphate aerosols - as a possible explanation: the period of the cooling seems to me to match fairly closely the maximum period of industrial activity in the region. I'm not saying it is, mind: I'm just saying that's what should be checked, and if the scientists are just using this short series to make the claim for solar activity I would also look very, very closely at who's paying them.

  11. Graham Bartlett

    "Appears to"?

    "as it appears to undermine the direct connection between human carbon emissions and global warming"

    The equation "A+B=C" seems to have passed Lewis by. If B is larger than A, it will be harder to see the effects of A if you can only measure C. And if B goes negative, C could go down even if A goes up. If the Sun's intensity changes, of course the temperature is going to change. It doesn't invalidate every other effect in the system. Nor will it be unwelcome news to anyone with even the most marginal interest in learning the known facts.

    I await Lewis's report in December: "Look everyone - climate change can't be happening, because it's cold outside today!"

    1. Tom 13

      Um, no.

      All the doomsayer climatology starts with the article of faith that the output of the sun has no effect whatsoever on temperature. It continues that since CO2 is going up and temperatures are going up, the two must be connected. The reasoning is not unlike the Freepers claiming that high rates of abortions among Blacks drives down the crime rates. The difference is that while almost everybody is offended by the Freeper claim, only those who care about the integrity of science are offended by the climatologist claims.

      1. BraveOak

        I disagree

        "All the doomsayer climatology starts with the article of faith that the output of the sun has no effect whatsoever on temperature."

        No it doesn't. The Earth absorbs about 240wm-2 sunlight. If solar output increases by 1% that number increases to 241.4wm-2. That's a big amount of additional energy. The problem however is the Sun's output doesn't change much from decade to decade.

        "It continues that since CO2 is going up and temperatures are going up, the two must be connected."

        It was predicted that co2 would cause warming before temperatures started going up.

  12. Richard Tobin


    ... if it wasn't for the fortunate solar influence, human industrial activity would have had a much greater effect on climate? And now the solar influence has worn off?

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    specialist ring boffins

    That'd be Dale Winton and Graham Norton then...

    Seriously though, it doesn't much matter whether global warming exists and is man-made. We should still be finding new technology to make our lives as power efficient and unpolluting as possible. I for one would much rather be able to go to visit family in Mexico City, for instance, and

    * not have to take a shower just because I've been out in the street for 10 minutes

    * not have to worry about smog that reduces visibility to less than 100m

    * not have to worry about my kid having an asthmatic attack whenever the pollution gets too much

    * be able to drive my car any day of the week

    * etc., etc.

    1. Anonymous Bastard

      I'm a forum troll

      One might think points 1 through 3 were caused by a bit too much of point 4.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Up


        You may be joking but you make a good point. With enviromentally friendly technology powering (and producing) our cars, point 4 won't affect points 1 to 3 so much.

        Trust me, if I could cycle everywhere I would, but I don't think I've seen a cyclist in Mexico City for about 15 years for very good reason.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not new research

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

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

  15. Anonymous Coward

    how many trees

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

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

    Greys.. it was probably them.

  16. Anonymous Coward

    re: As far as I understand it...

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

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

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

  17. Anonymous Coward


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

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

    1. LaeMing

      What was abundantly obvious from "ClimateGate"

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

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

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

    2. The Ref


      with you reference to terms.

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

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

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

  18. DominicT


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

  19. gardener21

    Science journalism

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

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

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

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

  20. NeilT

    Dear God Above

    You want it all ways.

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


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

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

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

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

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

    1. Anonymous Coward

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

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

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

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

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

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

      1. The Mighty Biff

        Less spots = cooler

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

        Less spots = cooler sun.

        Science can be tricky like that sometimes

      2. BraveOak

        solar/date corrections

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

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

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

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

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

        They aren't.

    2. Mat Ballard

      Faking the hockey stick

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

      The hard trick is to fudge it away :D

  21. Anonymous Coward


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

  22. Liam Thom

    Warming Shwarming

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

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

  23. Adam 73

    @Loyal Commenter

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Numeric model is essentially assumption and extrapolation, nothing else

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

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

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

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

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

      1. BraveOak

        takes time

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

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

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

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

    2. Matthew Gaylard

      @ Adam 73

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

  24. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Thumb Up

    Highly suspicious.

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

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

    Thumbs up for this.

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Also a longer cycle in Sun

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

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

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

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

      1. BraveOak

        sun and ice

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

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

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

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

    2. EvilGav 1

      Solar Cycle

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

  25. Anonymous Coward

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

    lays in the way they treat evidence.

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

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

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

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'd like to congratulate

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

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Obvious BS

      "huge scientific consensus "

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

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

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

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

      Which, at least to me, is obviously bullshit.

    2. bitten

      No consensus

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

    3. Hector K Spankthrust III

      The funding myth.....

      Hi AC,

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

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

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

      Hector K

  27. Anonymous Coward

    The ring of betrayal...

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

  28. Stern Fenster

    1840 ?

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

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

  29. David Neil

    Publishing raw data might not help

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

    Well worth a chuckle

  30. Goat Jam

    "huge scientific consensus"

    There was no such thing *ever*.

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

  31. Anonymous Coward

    Science changes, beliefs stay. Choose yours.

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

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

    Science changes, beliefs stay the same. Choose yours.

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

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

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Blame business and zealots.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  33. Anonymous Coward

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

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

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

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

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

  34. Pete 8

    Well it was almost a straight line until...

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

    This is how the hockey stick came about.

  35. JoeTheAnnoying

    No need for chicken little...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  36. Futumsh

    @I'd like to congratulate

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

    Erm, No.

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

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

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

  37. Tigra 07

    And the Ice Age?

    It's been obvious they're liars for ages

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

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

  38. P. Lee

    has anyone considered what we do if... warming is as bad as the worst fears but it isn't man-made?

    1. Anonymous Coward

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

      we're all fucked.

  39. lamont

    Does not contradict the science

    Skeptical FAIL.

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Anonymous Coward


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

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

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

      I'll leave you with this to ponder on:

      1. BraveOak


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

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

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

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

  40. seven of five

    The North West Passage

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

    Anyone got something on the North-East Passage?

  41. lglethal Silver badge

    Am i the only one...

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

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

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

  42. Arctic fox

    For frakk's sake!

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

  43. Geoff Campbell Silver badge


    Repeat after me:

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

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


    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

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

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

      1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge

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

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


  44. Graham Bartlett

    @Tigra 07

    Nice to see a balanced bit of reasoning there.

    Yes, they're "manipulating" the data. It's called "controlling for variables". The more you know about how one variable - say, the Sun's brightness - affects global temperatures, the better you can work out how much another variable - say, greenhouse gases - is playing a part. To date, the results of this are more or less "hockeystick" when you consider greenhouse gases on their own.

    In answer to an earlier comment, sure, it only takes one study to prove the theory wrong - but that study needs to be *repeatable*, otherwise it too could be wrong. So far, no repeatable study has disproved the theory.

    And yes, there were big climate changes in the past. Ice covered Europe to a depth of several km. Equally there were times when there was no ice (or hardly any ice) on Earth at all. Quite a lot of people have spent their working lives trying to figure out why this should be - this is why guys and gals are busy drilling ice cores to capture ancient air samples, and latest news is that the last time CO2 levels in the Arctic matched current CO2 levels, the Arctic was at -0.5degC instead of -20 degC, and it kept that up for an awfully long time (a lot longer than the 11-year solar cycle). Equally, various people modelling the behaviour of stars have an input into what the solar output may have been a long time back, in case there may have been major variations there.

  45. Alan Bourke

    probed by specialist ring boffins


  46. neil 15


    ...I will read a science / climate piece written by someone who has a clue. Lewis stick to rubbishing the UK arms procurement, it is plain you have no clue about climate change (or science). Also plain you do not read the papers, but simply reword stuff you have got from other websites. If you knew about climate change you would understand that even those words mean that some places will warm, some cool. You may also be aware of the cooling effects of aerosols, and the effects since the drive to clean up emissions (Acid rain and all that).

    Please, do some research and don't copy stuff written about old papers, it just shows how clueless you are.

  47. Anonymous Coward

    "Huge scientific consensus"

    "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

    The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

    Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

  48. John Hughes

    Interesting - pity about the editorial nonsense

    "an assertion which will cause some irritation among academics who contend that atmospheric carbon is the main factor in climate change.:"

    Why will it cause irritation? One part of the world cooled down. Now, like the global average it's warming up.

    Nobody has ever "contend that atmospheric carbon is the main factor in climate change". The contention is that the observed current warming is caused by the observed current increase in C02 and that the CO2 is released by human activity.

    It is well known that CO2 can come from other sources. But those other sources don't explain the current increase.

    It is well known that other causes can increase global temperature, but they just don't happen to be occurring at the moment.

  49. jonabbey

    Lots of nutsy "skeptics" here

    Yes, of course the Sun affects the Earth's climate. Every climatologist knows this is the case.

    The question is how would changes in solar radiance affect the climate? At what levels of the atmosphere? How would the global climate effects of changes in solar radiance be differentiated from changes due to atmospheric changes? Are there any differences that can be used to examine the competing hypothesis? (Hint: yes, there bloody well are!)

    So-called anonymous coward "skeptics" here seem very happy to toss around the rawest nonsense both for their own position and the position they attribute to the climatological community.

  50. Jim Bob

    Haven't read most of this so...

    ...This may have been said before.

    Measuring temperature using an indirect method, such as tree rings, assumes that the science of that indirect method is competely understood. As has already been stated, science is a bunch of theories prone to being thrown out with a single piece of contrary work.

    So, does this study mean that climate theory is wrong or that tree ring/growth theory is more complex than previously thought?

    As any good scientist should know, "correlation != causation". Isn't that the main pillar of the skeptic argument?

This topic is closed for new posts.