No, it isn’t yet April 1.  See here.  You gotta love the bit about this all being a “long post-mini-ice-age warming”. But still, I admire his (partial) intellectual honesty. Well, maybe that is overly generous since there never actually was a “break” in the warming.

The post includes this figure (from here):

A few things are worth noting:

1) Even accepting the faulty logic of a short-term lack of change in the global temperature measurements being a “break in the warming”, looking at the graphic above, it doesn’t look like a decade-long break to me.  As even Bolt admits, 98 was really warm due to a strong El Nino.  The only recent cool period, is 2008.

2) I also noted that the figure helpfully labels excessively warming periods driven by a volcanic eruption and EL Nino, but fails to point out that the cooling in 2008 was caused by a strong La Nina.  Hence Hermits question (see below).

3) Finally, this exercise of tracking monthly temperatures is silly and unscientific.  I am ashamed to have partaken. It is like following daily polls in a election race. I need to be more rationale about all this!

Anything else?

As usual, the comments on Bolt’s blog are telling:

How can El Nino be a warming event? My understanding of El Nino is that it is the re-distribution of head from one part of the globe to another. Surely the net effect of El Nino should be zero globally!

I’ve always thought it was a grave tactical error for AGW skeptics to continually point to an apparent arrest in the temperature’s upwards trend.  It is always going to fluctuate up and down into the future.  Climate has always changed and will continue to do so.  This sort of data will be used by alarmists to shout “we wuz right all along yah yah”.

Sketics would be better advised to continue to chip away at the total lack of evidence that is it is increased CO2 in the atmosphere that is causing climate to change.

So what ,they cant change it ,and warm is way better than cold ,take a look at the march figures ,looks like its down again.

Very interesting. The question which comes to mind is why is the pattern so erratic.

Is there something inherently random in what the satellites are measuring? Are the satellites measuring the same part of the atmosphere each time?

If a known el nino and the mt pinataubo eruption produced displacements from the norm, then what has happening on the globe in the last year and a bit?

Hermit of Hermit Park
Sat 06 Mar 10 (08:23am)

Anybody want to tackle some of these?  Maybe someone with nothing better to do this weekend?  I love the ones about El Nino and the measured variability.

It is also telling that, so far, not one of the Boltites has questioned the new position their leader has handed down to the clan. Where are the free thinkers and radicals in this rebellion!

Update 1

I am proven wrong; several clan members are rebelling and blaming it all on El Nino. (see Bolts updates)

Update 2

See this comment from Marrcus of Perth:

How can it be warming with record amounts of snow and ice? Something odd is going on here. Has there been tampering with the data? Just wondering. It doesn’t add up.

Just amazing…

Even more:

I thought the the US, Canada, and Europe just had their coldest winters in 30 years.  Maybe temperature measuring devices were not working because they were frozen. Has this data been fudged?

Mike of Charters Towers (Reply)
Sat 06 Mar 10 (09:34am)

The Earth is doing what it normally does, we have had years of no change, then we have had years of a slight cooling, now we are seeing a bit of warming. It’s all natural.

LH of Brisbane (Reply)
Sat 06 Mar 10 (09:34am)

 

6 Responses to NOW he tells us: Andrew Bolt, changes position, admits planet is indeed warming

  1. Phil M says:

    How can El Nino be a warming event?

    How can the Earth orbit the sun, when clearly, you can look up in the sky & see the sun orbit the earth? You cant see the earth orbiting the sun, but you can see the sun orbiting the earth, so surely this must be correct?

    Maybe Hermit should spend 2 minutes doing some googling before conducting science by opinion.

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov//tao/elnino/faq.html#why

    It is always going to fluctuate up and down into the future

    Keep this sentence in mind, you are going to see me say something amazingly contradicting in a sec.

    Very interesting. The question which comes to mind is why is the pattern so erratic.

    And there it is. Make up your mind Hermit. Does it fluctuate or not?

    Is there something inherently random in what the satellites are measuring? Are the satellites measuring the same part of the atmosphere each time?

    Oh noes, I can sense another “they are just measuring the hot spots!!!” similar to Anthony Watts’s surfacestation.org campaign that had his fans convinced that the UHI effect were corrupting data from weather stations….only to be proven wrong in subsequent studies by Mene et al. Will we soon see alegations that NASA & NOAA are only choosing hot spots in the atmosphere to measure?

    How can it be warming with record amounts of snow and ice? Something odd is going on here. Has there been tampering with the data? Just wondering. It doesn’t add up.

    A pre requisite before entering any climate change forum should be:

    Q: “Do you understand the difference between weather & climate? Please explain. ”

    This question works both ways as many times I see new backers of the pro agw side appear on forums stating emphatically that “adelaide just experienced its hottest day in 60 years!!! global warming is real!”

    The easy way I find is remember that weather is what happens day to day & climate is what happens year to year.

    Mike of Charters Towers perfectly illustrates someone who doesnt understand this.

    The Earth is doing what it normally does, we have had years of no change, then we have had years of a slight cooling, now we are seeing a bit of warming. It’s all natural.

    LH of Brisbane (Reply)
    Sat 06 Mar 10 (09:34am)

    LH is a different creature altogether. She is a political creature & I have debated with her on many forums. She spends her time on far right wing sites & often sites them as proof of this & that. She comes from the side of the debate that Clive Hamilton mentions & what our Klem subscribes to. She knows she is wrong but pops up in all different forums saying the same thing, as she believes she is fighting a political war & as Klem here famously stated:

    klem said:
    “Yet the science remains rock solid”

    That may be true. But what counts is perception. Perception is reality, and when the public preceves that he science is bad, that’s all that matters. The public will determine policy based on preception so kiss AGW good bye baby! The skeptics have won. It’s over, go home.

    Here is an excerpt from another site where I debate LH:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/markmann/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/just_hot_air/#commentsmore

    Besides using the oregon petition, she used this gem:

    You may like this link, it’s about an old map that was discovered, I found this very interesting, as I enjoy reading about ancient history. Anyway have a read of this.

    The link she refers to is this:

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/200908206079/energy-and-environment/ancient-map-disproves-global-warming.html

    Where they show that only 2000 years ago Antarctica was ice free & had flowing rivers & was mapped out. She had no answer to my statement that the Vostock ice cores are 800,000 years old. I asked her in another blog if she had any more to say about that & she said “many scientists believe that theory that Antarctica was ice free 2000 years ago”.

    Yeah, like Fred Singer who disputes that smoking causes any ill health. There are always scientists willing to sell their souls for a few $$$.

    These sorts of people like LH, Klem, Bolt, Akerman, Watts etc are the insidious misinformers of climate change & not the innocent questioners who are new to the debate & cant quite grasp the science as yet. Like Bolt & Klem, LH knows if she convinces enough people about idiotic bullshit ideas, then the science matters little, as Klem says “what counts is perception”.

    When it comes to vote time, Klem is absolutely correct….unfortunately.

  2. David Horton says:

    “Adelaide just experienced its hottest day in 60 years!!! global warming is real!” This is a bit misleading Phil. The point that I (and many others) make is when we keep getting recordhigh temperatures, or record sequences, or record dry periods, or record floods. In fact I would argue that a major problem we have is that commercial media outlets don’t report context for weather events. It is always “within living memory” (so what?) or, worse, “for 100 years” (which implies that there were such records 100 years ago, when in fact they mean “since data began to be collected in a particular place”). There has been a study showing that while weather does indeed continue to fluctuate, with cold snaps here, and hot periods there, and snowfalls in Washington, there are far more heat records being broken than cold records, a situation that would come from global warming.

    Deniers make much of cold days or wet days, we need to make much more of record days. Cold and wet days are weather, record days are climate change.

  3. Phil M says:

    This is a bit misleading Phil. The point that I (and many others) make is when we keep getting recordhigh temperatures, or record sequences, or record dry periods, or record floods

    I agree David, maybe my meaning wasnt clear enough. I agree, “record” anything isnt anything to be sneared at, but a comment of hottest day ( not hottest day on record)in 60 years in isolation of the rest of the trend is meaningless. It just means that by stating that particular weather event in isolation of the rest of the trend it allows people like fox news to pounce on the recent snowfalls in Washington & say “where is the global warming Al?” or “biggest snowfall in 90 years!!”. Completely ignoring the fact that there were 10 or more larger snowfalls in Washington since measuraments began & the overall trend is a constant upward trend anyway. The same commentators werent there the previous years to back AGW when there was little or no snowfalls.

    Same with some of the “hottest” in 5, 10 50 years etc that you hear reporters here in Australia say. The overall trend is definately up & the hot day probably IS due to AGW. But to latch onto this in isolation of the trend just leaves the door open for the predictable conversation you see on forums that pans out like this:

    Pro AGW guy: “Adelaide has had its hottest day in nearly 60 years”
    AGW Skeptic guy: “The hottest day on record there was actually 100 years ago”
    Pro AGW guy: “But its been getting hotter here each year”
    AGW Skeptic guy: “So what, Washington & much of Europe are fighting blizzard conditions”.

    The pro guy is too new to the debate to have the trend graph on hand & the agw skeptic guy isnt about to lend him a hand & show him that both in Adelaide , Europe & Nth America, the trend is up & has been that way since the late 1890′s.

    Deniers make much of cold days or wet days, we need to make much more of record days.

    Couldnt agree more.

  4. LH says:

    Phil M,
    Before you actually start talking about someone, how about getting facts right.
    The post that was put in Andrew Bolts site is definitely me.
    However, the debate you say that you have had with me on other sites, is not true.
    It is unfortunately a different LH of Brisbane.
    Since seeing this I have found other sites that LH has posted on
    that are not me as well such as:-

    http://www.carsguide.com.au/site/news-and-reviews/car-news/hyundai_could_clear_the_air

    I am not into cars at all that much, yet friends found a lot
    of comments from LH of Brisbane.

    But by your posts it does look like an interesting debate. I must Thank You for the link to the old map. I have starting reading a bit about Claudius Ptolemaeus, and have found him very interesting, and have put this old map in my collection.

    You posted:-
    “LH knows if she convinces enough people about idiotic bullshit ideas, then the science matters little”

    I don’t know which one you are talking about here, as I am also a female, but it saids a lot about this web site, allowing such language, it also saids a lot about you.

    In future so there is no misunderstanding I will be changing my blog name to Lizzie 79, and I am on Andrew Bolts site most days if you would like to attack me over anything that I post.

  5. rg riggs says:

    What is it that you have against Andrew Bolts site?
    Andrew has always printed very good articles.
    Have you even bothered to read any articles and do
    some research for yourself on some of those articles.

  6. Timmy says:

    Hmmmmm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.