I did warn you
Well, I did warn you! My last blog (December 30th) reported that several US weather forecasters were predicting that most of the Northern Hemisphere was in for a punishing January, casting doubt on our Met's forecast of a mild winter.
Since then we've had record snowfalls and low temperatures from North America to Scotland to China (where Beijing has just had its heaviest snow for 60 years) to South Korea (whose capital has had the worst snow since records began in 1937). So I think we can say the cold weather is global (for those parts of the globe where it is winter).
On Wednesday's show I hope to interview the head of the Met, who's just had a big rise. It will be interesting to discover why the rise -- he's now paid more than the PM -- is merited. (I say "hope" because I'm flying in from France very early in the morning -- so keep your fingers crossed the airport is open!).
Of course one very bad December/January is not proof that global warming isn't happening. The planet could still be warming as part of a long-term trend. But if it is the long-term must be seen as more than a decade -- and even then the evidence is mixed. I recently referred to the satellite temperature measurements of the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). It started logging temperatures in the lower troposphere (where warming should be most marked) in 1979 and it does show a rise over the past three decades -- but only of about 0.2 degrees C.
Its figures for December are now in and they show that over the past decade (1999 to 2009) average global temperatures have not changed, even though CO2 emissions have continued to rise unchecked (Kyoto making no discernible difference). I've used 1999 as the starting point because 1998 temperatures were boosted by the non-global warming El Nino effect -- otherwise we'd be talking about a drop over 11 years).
Now it is true, as the Met points out, that the past decade has still been a pretty warm one by recent historic standards. But it is clear that over the past 10 years temperatures have not risen in line with increased CO2 emissions. That fact is not necessarily a clincher in itself but it does suggest that when President Obama and others (including our own Prime Minister) say the "science is settled" they might not be right -- and that the scope for continued controversy and debate is vast.
CLICK HERE FOR THE DAILY POLITICS ARCHIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING CLAIMS.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~03~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
You could do worse than acknowledge the stand taken against the CO2 carbon trading scam on many, many blogs, including mine and Richard Norths. A very good place for your agile wisdom is http://www.icecap.us/.
I am also most happy were you to stoop to a more lowly place and see "climate" at my pad!
Complain about this comment
Interesting post, Andrew, but aren't you taking a risk? Even hinting that you might be a 'denier' (which appears to mean refusing to take what 'scientists' such as Al Gore say on trust) will surely not please your bosses at the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
anybody who studies global warming will be aware of 'el Nino' and the effect on 'glabal warming'.
I think that over the weekend Brown referred to the attempt by 'Britain' to get the football world cup to come to England. Now I think that England, is not actually Britain, Britain is Scotland, Northern Ireland anmd Wales. England is England, not Britain.
It is the problem of people referring to something which it is not which is part of the problem of global warming. It seriously cannot go on for much longer.
I am so looking forward to PMQs tomorrow. I think that the Speaker really ought to do his job. No reference allowed by the PM to conservative policy. If he fails in his job, then it is just so over.
Complain about this comment
Careful Andrew, you will have Gordon and the Milliband brothers calling you a "Flat Earther"!
Its a good thing that your flying from France to the UK as, by not travelling from there to the UK by land, you will get a much better view of the horizon ..... which exists because the Earth is not flat.
That is allowing for good visibility on a warmer, sunnier and atmospherically clear day. Something we could all do with, especially as me and my old bones could do with some global warming where I am! ;)
Complain about this comment
Whilst Britain struggles to cope, I am really impressed with the Chinese solution to the worst snowfall in 50 years in Beijing: mobilise 300,000 people and give them all a shovel...!
Complain about this comment
Leeds United beat Manchester United on Sunday this dramatically opens the debate over who is the better team! Established football guru's say Manchester United....but I think this proves we cannot be sure
Following this type of reasoning I think you go on match of the day and modestly claim Leeds United are the best team in the country
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17808-climate-myths-any-cooling-disproves-global-warming.html
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Careful Andrew.
If Dianne Abbott hears you blaspheming like that you'll get a thick ear!
Repeat after me.
It is getting warmer. It is getting warmer...
Now, don't you feel better?
Complain about this comment
I'm still laughing to myself at your intv with Prf Watson who was totally gobsmacked when you referred to UHIs :D
The more that comes out - the more flimsy their case and more ad hom their attacks.
Look forward to your forensic skills - don't forget that your guest was Mr WWF when they changed from looking after wildlife/conservation into a lefty lobbying organisation - just like the RPSCA did.
Such a shame that these great institutions have been traduced.
Complain about this comment
You might care to try a straw poll like I have done over the past two months among friends, relatives and strangers, ranging from teenagers, students, young and old professionals, and senior citizens.
I asked "You've all heard about this CO2 climate warming debate, but what percentage of CO2 do you think there is in the atmosphere?"
The initial reaction was surprise and confusion, they had not considered it in that way. "No idea" was the most common answer, but I pressed them for a figure.
Their estimates ranged from 1% to 80%.
They were astonished when I said it was less than one twenty-fifth of one per cent - about 390ppm. They all thought it must be much higher.
I was shocked at their ignorance in the face of all that's going on about this subject, it says something about the literacy of the debate - and these are not stupid people.
I would love Mr Neil to ask the same question of politicians but I guess they or their helpers read his blog so the cat's out of the bag (not that it was ever a secret).
The reality is that the concentration of CO2 is so low that it is amazing that plant lfe can fix it and photsythesise in the first place.
My view is that climate change is always happening and always will, and there are many good reasons to recycle, and reduce pollution. But this carbon trading scheme - dominated by fraud - and the quasi-religious hysteria as well as phony gravitas from the climate change lobbies smacks of another Y2K scam, only worse.
Western society is predicated on anxiety (think about it) and vested interests exploit this by seeking subsidies and legislation to lower the cost of marketing and selling their products.
This isn't always a bad thing - I remember a short term government subsidy to consumers in the 1970's to install two inches of loft insulation. As distributors we couldn't believe our luck.
I have yet to see any politician invoke Le Chatelier's Principle, which basically says in any dynamic system (e.g. planet Earth!) the effects of applied changes (e.g. CO2 emissions, vulcanism, etc., ad infinitum)is to cause the system to react in such a way as to minimise the effect of those changes.
I wonder to what extent this basic principle is, or could be, factored into climate models.
I despair of the polical parties. Cameron has displayed his economic naivety by sticking a wind turbine on his roof (never dare lecture us about cost/benefits!) and Brown and Milliband's obsession with wind farms will I predict to be shown as the 21st century version of those appalling system built tower blocks erected in the 1960's and 70's.
There is so much carbon available for burning it is scary - like methane hydrates and tar sand. The problem is marginal cost of extraction. Answer? Artificially jack up the price of what we are all ready using, under the guise of green economics peppered with anxiety - the current opium of the masses - so a tax and spend government can tell us it's for our own good.
Encourage carbon sinks of all kinds, develop biomass (ours and animal waste generates methane)and use old mines for storing CO2, it is an easy gas to store and liquefies under a little pressure. But it's not been done on a significant industrial scale.
Our civilisation is predicated on energy intensive materials - we don't live in straw houses and use donkeys for transport any more. Glass, steel and concrete define our civilisation. That won't change. Improving technology will provide the answers - anybody over 50 has seen momentous changes in technology and its applications since they were at school.
Look back at the Y2K scam and read what zealots said about it then. And laugh. I don't think the true experts believed it all, but with a few notable exceptions, it suited them to exploit it for personal gain - political, religious and material.
Methane has been shown to have over thirty times the effect of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. So I look forward to the government leaflet that says don't delay lighting your gas cooker when you turn it on, and shoot all ruminant animals.........
If there is another large volcanic eruption so much aerosols and dust will be put into the atmoshere that the earth will cool again for a while. And what will the zealots say? Thank God for that, we've got a few more years to save mankind.
People who may not yet even be born will look back at all this and laugh the same way we laugh at flat earthers, creationists and supporters of the phlogiston theory.
Complain about this comment
Does anybody remember this story, from December 2005 Britain faces big freeze.
I'm interested to know how this story has developed over the last four years.
Also note from this article, that although we're sat in the UK freezing our nuts off today (well half of us are!), colder weather in the UK is actually a consequence of global warming...
Complain about this comment
Sorry for the tryping error. Try this hyperlink instead Britain faces big freeze
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I hear tell that the BBC are setting up some interviews with major figures prior to the election this year and are requesting questions from listeners/viewers that never seem to get answered by those with the political nouse to dodge and weave the tough ones.
In that vein would it be presumptious of me to request that you ask John Hirst if he will be available to engage in the independent enquiry being set up by Sir Muir Russell into the allegations surrounding the source data being utilised by the Met's climate model predictions, as he was so eager to get involved by writing to seventy of his colleagues recently in an attempt to 'fend off an unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of climate.'
Also would he agree that the enquiry should be made as public and open as possible to ensure that climate science can regain some of it's creditability, maybe even televised by the BBC.
Best of luck.
Complain about this comment
Andrew, your research bases are impressive and mean you have more than an inkling of the subject.
Please, please study some climatic anthroplogy sites, even the university of East Anglia which has studies which state that 10,000 years ago the emergence from an ice age forced people into "civilized communities" which were then hijacked by the religious/political animals so they could claw their way to the top of the tree. I doubt the department that was doing the current global warming studies even spoke to their anthropologist colleagues.
Global warming is an open book but it stinks.
Complain about this comment
The nub of the matter is the Medieval Warming Period which has been central to 'warmists' flawed theories, as evidenced in the UEA CRU e-mails and the systematic revision of thousands of Wikipedia articles by members of the AGW lobby.
They have always treated it as a major flaw and have even gone so far as to revise their data and climate models to make it go away. Therefore, any data they produce that doesn't show it can be disregarded immediately. You can't re-write history and the mere attempt to do so is evidence of their own misgivings, but it makes it apparent that the world has been warmer than it is now without any CO2 effect.
There might be a greater issue if they could show that cyclical changes in temperature coinciding with increased CO2 would have a greater effect, but the problem is that this has not been scientific research, but an attempt to prove a pre-determined conclusion. The point is that they can neither predict nor explain the cyclical temperature variations, and have therefore had to simplify their climate models, and as has been shown, then adjust them.
AGW isn't a scientific cause, it's a fad.
Complain about this comment
15 Gomer
Fad ? Fraud more like .
Complain about this comment
Ive been trying to get to the truth of the validity of the ice-core method for ascertaining C02 in the atmosphere in the past. And have asked for a response to this view by Dr Jaworowski:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6
By the National Snow and Ice Data Center:-
http://nsidc.org
I'll let you know if they reply.
Its my view that we need to analyse all the other methods of measurements of the past in terms of the atmosphere and its become clear, post the emails of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia we cant trust scientists who behave in this way - they have negated themselves and we need a new platform - its pretty much rotten - they seem to be using the Climate Change agenda to force wider agenda's.
Unfortunately some of the scientist who oppose are politically naive leaving themselves open to ridicule. But very serious questions remain:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmGiiNQ0yHQ
Check out from 6.25 onwards if you don't have time to go through the whole lot.
Dr Lindzen is ridiculed for views on lung cancer and smoking in Wiki.
Ive also asked to be kept informed of Jasper Kirkby's important CLOUD 09 experiment:-
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
No reply as yet except from a few secretarial persons.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
isn't it fantastic that there are now warnings about the use of gas to supply energy. The fact that there is a recession is meant to mean to mean that we are not using as much gas as we could do, only there isn't enough gas if we do come out of the recession. Acoordingly it is important that we stay in recession so that we don't run out of energy. Thank goodness they are closing the Corus plant up north!
As for wind farms, how much do the fans rotate when the weather is cold and still, also how dangerous are they with snow accumulkating on their 'wings'.
It would appear that as well as having pupils living in their school catchment areas the teachers should as well. It would appear that it is not the problem of getting pupils to schools it is the teachers who live as far away as possible who are the problem. The government must insist that only teachers who live within five walking miles of a school are allowed toi be employed at the school. None of this living in the nice suburbs, or in the country, they get paid too much for my liking.
Complain about this comment
@Andrew - cheers for the continued interest. It is very telling that you have resorted to doing your own research into the data:
"I've used 1999 as the starting point because 1998 temperatures were boosted by the non-global warming El Nino effect -- otherwise we'd be talking about a drop over 11 years"
"the Met points out, that the past decade has still been a pretty warm one by recent historic standards. But it is clear that over the past 10 years temperatures have not risen in line with increased CO2 emissions" - please ask him about this. Will be very interesting to hear the reasons he gives as to why this is happening.
Oh - and could you get Jasper Kirkby on - he looks like an interesting man to have on your show(s) in 2010.
Complain about this comment
The one thing that UEA CRU have proved is that their scientists undertook a systematic campaign to amend records to suit their agenda. They were less engaged in scientific research than data manipulation and became little more than political lobbyists.
The Wikipedia episode is quite bizarre and the clearest evidence of 'Record Change' being a far more sinister danger than climate. The Climategate e-mails cannot be discounted, and those that wish to do so betray their bias.
There is no climate model that can be trusted, which makes it impossible for 'warmists' to make any credible predictions as to future temperature changes. Models that don't show the MWP can be deposited in the trash without paying them any attention. Scientists cannot explain how or why warming and cooling periods have occurred in the past, and the only thing that is certain, is that CO2 wasn't responsible.
There is such a massive financial interest dependent on this bandwagon keeping on rolling, that even reality won't bring it to a halt easily. They must face the issue of the MWP, otherwise the whole of AGW is nothing more than a scientific cult. The problem then, is that it exposes that their prior scientific work was debased. You don't embark on a co-ordinated campaign of global record changing unless you have major problems in your research. This is quite a unique event, and has never been attempted on such a global scale before.
The campaign against the BBC, evidenced in the UEA CRU e-mails, was more successful but altering the history of ttheplanet was t=rather too ambitious. Worryingly it exposes a degree of obsessive megalomania normally only witnessed in despotic tyrants.
Like the UEA CRU computer files, the Wikipedia episode is both hilarious in implementation and chilling in ambition.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I have been listening to the media this mnorning and conversations about how the debate on immigration is also warming up. Lord Carey for example making comments!
So, what I would say is that surely one way to dissuade immigrants from warmer countries is to say that Britain is actually freezing. It is not warming up at all, and it is likely that you will not find the climate to your liking, sorry weather to your liking. You won't know from one day the next what it will be like, and as for wearing your traditional dress, well it is seriously not advisable.
On the issue of immigartion then one thing which I think we can do is to abolish all taxpayer funded translation services. No more councils issuing their advice in any language other than English, same with the police. If anybody arrested, or detained, in this country cannot speak accpetable English then out you go. It must be obligatory for everybody in this country to speak English, taught in English, and to pray in English. I say that because it is in my lifetime that the Roman Catholic church stopped using Latin, because it was thought to be divisive. So the same must apply to any religious ceremnoies, including all other faiths.
I know that this must be seen to be a contentious issue but I consider that unless these sorts of debates are held then we will have the same problem as exists with global warming and climate change. These issies must be discussed and arguments in favour or against tolerated. Nobody can stop anybody else thinking, it is the road to a seriously divisive society. What do others think?
Complain about this comment
Andrew a sceptic, who'd a thunk it!
Meanwhile, from our white and strangely quiet world I hear that Mandy is going forth, hopefully wrapped in Ermine to help the gilt sales and prevent a currency crisis
It would also appear that Bob Pesto is calling the market
As has been widely pointed out, the price of gilts would be lower still, if many investors did not believe that there's likely to be a budget-slashing Tory government elected later this year.
Which means that if the popularity of the incumbents were to increase, that could trigger a further fall in sterling and a funding crisis - which would presumably de-rail any gains being made by Labour in the opinion polls.
I wonder if you could get him on and actually ask how his own involvement with politics historically and his current affiliations sets him up for working for the impartial BBC?
Complain about this comment
Mentioning immigration Catch22 brings up the Gurkha issue that has raised its head again, which is hardly any surprise. The government was manhandled into accepting something which was only ever going to have adverse repercussions.
Now we learn that there are up to 12.000 ex-Gurkhas ready to turn up on our doorstep destitute and, so the forces charities say, requiring at least two thousand pounds to set themselves up.
The fact is that the UK is not short of benefits to look after anyone in need and there are no grounds for making separate arrangements, which I presume is the intention here. Life is tough in Nepal, there is no doubt about that, but ex-Gurkhas are priveleged in comparison. Coming to the UK will not be the Shangri La they might imagine and they won't have the standard of living they expect.
Conceding a right to come to the UK doesn't impose any obligation beyond that. This was always the rather naive aspect of the victory that was gained by supporters. The inevitable result of this ongoing campaign is the accelerated phasing out of Gurkha regiments. which is probably not such a bad thing.
If they come to the UK destitute, they'll be living on the breadline, but that's the way many UK citizens live. I think someone's misled them into believing otherwise. Maybe they should have been told this at the outset.
Complain about this comment
Check out the Japanese Meteorological Agencies global land temperature anomalies for the last week:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/synop.html
Select "temperature anomaly" from the drop down. You'll see that cooler than average weather is not covering the entire northern hemisphere. Southern europe is warmer than normal, as is south west asia, north africa and newfoundland.
Complain about this comment
re 21 Catch 22
Right idea but there are too many invented and non-jobs in the qungocracy and public sector and the chief turkey rearer (one Gordon Brown) won't vote for Christmas.
I do not believe any mainbstream politician has the courage to restate what government is, and is not, about. Let's start with personal responsibility and get a consensus on the percentage of GNP they are entitled to. With a reduced need to raise so much tax, and fund deficits, they could afford to get out of the pockets of multi-nationals who threaten to up-sticks.
Call their bluff - we still have 60 million consumers in the UK.
I have had a few run-ins with health & safety people, employment tribunals and no win no fee lawyers over the years, inventing anxieties and threatening sanctions. Without exception I called their bluff because the first lot had over-stepped their brief and the lawyers were trying it on.
In this current snow spell I heard that one of our ladies took five hours to struggle into work, and get home again. She's over 65 years old. I bet some people reading this are saying - what an idiot she was. We appreciated her commitment, but not because we were going to make any money as a result.
A little bit of snow, and schools are shut. Pathetic. If you can't turn up for wotk, you shouldn't expect to get paid.
A friend of mine once told me many years ago what it was like running your own business. He said "You wake up with a splitting headache, your hand goes out to that invisible bottle on the bedside cabinet called "Guv'nors pills". You take one and it's amazing how soon you feel better."
This disastrous statist non-elected PM we have has a vested interest in developing the "client state" spending other people's money.
I feel sick that in 1997 I was taken in by New Labour.
Complain about this comment
Good morning each & Andrew.
We have long had the lies, we have lately had the damned lies and now we must feed-off the statistics.
There IS only one thing that matters in 2010.
The election!
They know it and we know it.
The ONLY way forward, the ONLY way for change of any sort to come about is CHANGE at the election.
You can inject yourselves with numbers till the cows come home all you shall achieve is numbness.
Why not, Andrew. Instead of perpetuating the Fug of double-speak, stick to questions of Democracy?
Whether the future is warm or cold it shall still be OUR future.
The only question is;
Shall we--the--people be a part of that future or spectators as we are now?
IF wtp are to blame for anything it is allowing this game of politics to get out of hand. Wtp must regain the reins and cease to leave the driving to the same old nags.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I heard this morning that mandelson has announced in the Lords that there is to be an extra days holiday to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the Queen ascending to the throne. Mandelson refers to this as a 'bank holiday'. Can we stop having bank holidays but in future refer to them as public holidays. What with the way the banks have been brought into disrepute.
As for the Queen, will the public holiday be cancelled if she was to 'pass away'. What if Philip were to 'pass away' before the holiday, would the holiday be cancelled or will it be a national day of mourning. As for the Queen opening the Olympic games, she will won't she? What on earth will happen if she were to pass away just before the games. There must be contingency arrangements, we should be told so that we the people can be in the loop.
May I suggest that the holiday announced by Mandelson be given a specific title, maybe Queenie Day, or something along those lines. Let's reconnect with the people, a competition to name the day.
Complain about this comment
Another excellent blog. I am so fed up with climate change frenzy fanatics. The politicians just utilise it to increase taxes. I do not buy into this hype, however, I do believe that we should be careful not to completely pollute our planet and realise we need to find alternatives for finite fuel sources. If politicians really were scared about climate change, surely they would be investing in real life changers such as hydrogen car research etc and would not be encouraging continual population growth.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear Andrew - you massacred the poor man from the Met.
In the end he had to admit that his forecasts were meaningless and little better than anything a Tarot card reader could provide.
However, he has the benefit of knowing that he can return to his plush office and retain his bloated pay packet and bonuses. If his bonus had any relevance to performance, it would depend on forecasting accuracy.
Thankfully he didn't mention AGW, though he was having enough difficult coping badly with your onslaught, he probably didn't want to hop on another hobbling steed.
Complain about this comment
Well done Andrew,
your interview with the head of the lamentable Met Office (or Ministry of Defence) was brilliant. The only problem was that the back drop was not fair to exeter cathedral. It is covered in snow, it is snowing here in Exeter very heavily. i mean seriously heavily for exeter.
Our MP, Ben Bradshaw, was instrumental in getting the Met Office down here, with massive investment in computer technology, and it would seem that the money has been wasted. The Met Office completely distorted the housing market when they came down here, and there are not many benefits to local employment as most of the staff transferred as soon as they saw what a great deal it was.
The Met Office also organised a conference where people were brought in from all over the globe to discuss global warming. I mean it has been obvious that these conferences must be curtailed, nobody heard of computer video conferencing!
Complain about this comment
Andrew
Let's get one thing clear - you are not a 'denier', 'flat earther' or 'sceptic'
You are a journalist that is actually asking (unlike virtually all of the mainstream media) the questions that we all want answered
For example why is the science 'settled' (it is a cliche but nonetheless true that 'settled science is not science')
Why is 'consensus' important, even if it were true (and it most certainly is not if you conduct the most cursory search on the internet), didn't Einstein say that only one new theory was required to potentially invalidate his Theory of Relativity?
Why has the scientific method been abandoned?
Falsification of records
Adjustment of raw temperature data in highly dubious ways
Refusal to release raw data and models
Evasion of FOI requests (and don't swallow the Met Office release of data - it is all the 'adjusted data' not the original raw data
Collusion in the peer-review process
Faith in proxy temperature data but ignoring other contradictory proxy data
Selective use of data to 'prove' their theory
Why has so much faith been put in global climate models of a chaotic climate system which clearly are not validated and contain unsubstantiated assumptions about positive feedback etc and ignore clear influences such as cloud cover? And whose outputs have not been observed?
I could go on and on......
In the final analysis this chap heads an organisation which (through the Hadley Centre) is a major promoter of anthropogenic climate change and has intimate links with the people implicated in 'climategate'
Finally you might like to remind him of the recent Met Office medium term predictions (BBQ summer, mild winter etc) and ask him why we should have faith in any of their predictions beyond 5 days?
Complain about this comment
...and so it came to pass...
"It's the elction, stupid."
Bank holiday?
Q-day. Queue-day, Cue-day. ?
Complain about this comment
Re 31. MarinSolitaire:
Consensus is important because it is the position reached by many experts, and that tells us something about the state of the evidence.
The science that is settled is that humans are raising co2 levels in the atmosphere, and that rising co2 causes significant warming. The science that isn't settled involves the details, like precisely how much warming, the effects of that, etc.
The scientific method has not been abandoned. Raw station temperature data is available from the GHCN site and source code for models is available. The models are of course our best understanding of how the physics in the atmosphere work. Temperature records have to be adjusted as the raw data contains errors. The agreement between independent satellite, ocean and surface records gives confidence that the adjustments in any single record are not in error or fabricated.
Complain about this comment
If you look at the operations of the UEA CRU in the whole, you can see that they applied techniques more reminiscent of the Stazi or Chairman Mao.
Their e-mails evidence that they wouldn't allow the BBC to dare to stray from their own narrow orthodoxy, and the astonishing Wikipedia revisioning exercise was as hilariously inept as it was chillingly ominous.
Science witout debate isn't science. The attempt to rewrite history and science has only served to highlight the deficiencies that AGW supporters know exist in their own work.
Complain about this comment
Re 33
'Consensus is important because it is the position reached by many experts, and that tells us something about the state of the evidence.'
The implication is (1) that it is all 'experts', which it clearly is not and (2) that the 'experts' are actually 'experts' in climatology which most are not (in fact the IPCC is almost completely scientist-free)
'The science that is settled is that humans are raising co2 levels in the atmosphere, and that rising co2 causes significant warming. The science that isn't settled involves the details, like precisely how much warming, the effects of that, etc.'
I agree although 'significant' is rather subjective isn't it?. So what you are saying is that anthropogenic climate change is unproven, so the science is not 'settled'
'The scientific method has not been abandoned.'
It certainly had at the CRU. I assume you do not defend the subversion of the peer-review process
'Raw station temperature data is available from the GHCN site and source code for models is available.'
No - read climate audit
'The models are of course our best understanding of how the physics in the atmosphere work.'
Best does not mean 'good' or 'accurate'. They are no better than a SWAG at the moment as our understanding of climate processes is so poor
'Temperature records have to be adjusted as the raw data contains errors.'
Funny how those adjustments always reveal an upward trend.....(see Watt's Up with That)
'The agreement between independent satellite, ocean and surface records gives confidence that the adjustments in any single record are not in error or fabricated.'
Even the most cursory research indicates that there is no corroboration (and the satellite temperatures were calibrated against the discredited temperatures manipulated by the CRU and other 'climategate' conspirators). You also make no comment on the selectivity employed where contradictory information has been consistently ignored
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
you did not give us any warning on this breaking news. Of course there should be a leadership challenge.
If Brown does win the election then he will stay for a full term. If not for a full term then who will we be voting for. Surely labour know that we cannot have the same situation as happened with Brown with his coup when replacing Blair. If labour are elected with a majority, as is possible, then would there have to be a general election when Brown does resign, which he will because he will not state that he will serve a full term.
Complain about this comment
35. MarinSolitaire:
The IPCC doesn't generate science, it reviews it - and it's scientists doing that reviewing. The studies it reviews are of course by scientists. You can also see from published literature that AGW is a dominant theory in climate science, ie a consensus. That doesn't mean it's correct but you asked why consensus important. It's important for laypeople to gauge what experts in a field think. For example I know nothing about the data behind continental drift but as the consensus of experts accept it, I also will accept it myself until that changes.
There was no subversion of the peer-review process evident in the released CRU emails. Scientists were discussing, in angry terms, papers they considered were rubbish and had been given an undue free pass by journal editors.
Raw station temperature data is indeed available from the GHCN website - I've downloaded it myself.
If the models were a SWAG I wouldn't expect them to all show strong warming from doubling co2. If there is one thing the models therefore show us, it's that physics as it is currently understood is incompatible with low climate sensitivity, which of course is strong evidence.
The satellite records were not calibrated against the surface record. They are independent measures of global temperature. The close agreement between the satellite and surface records validates the two and makes it highly unlikely that any errors, deliberate or not have affected the qualative picture the surface temperature records show of warming over the past 30 years.
Complain about this comment
# 33
Infinity
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard
We are now seeing that the supposed consensus was an artificial creation (much like a lot of the AGW data).
You are making assumptions that are invalid, and proven to be so, from the UEA CRU's own internal e-mails.
Do you recognise the existence of the MWP ?
I can't put it more politely, but if you don't, then your views are those of a crank. The UEA CRU and IPCC data was massaged to remove it, making it both unreliable and ridiculous.
On the issue of consensus I can provide a very substantial list of notable scientists who challenge AGW - up to a thousand, including Nobel prize winners, but consensus, especially when achieved by artificial means, proves nothing.
Complain about this comment
Re 38 GomerPyle:
Crichton made a bit of a strawman there. Consensus isn't used within the workings of science, it's used by laypeople on the outside to assess what the science is currently showing.
The consensus in the field of climate is evident by trawling over the published literature, looking at degree level textbooks on the subject and looking at the sessions of climate science conferences. It's quite clear from all three of these sources that manmade global warming is a dominant theory in that field of climate science today.
Complain about this comment
36 C22
The traction for the leadership challenge is outlined on the letters page of today's Guardian. It is all down to the options for minotity government/hung parliament.
Complain about this comment
# 39
infinity - you can't answer my question on the MWP, but then the UEA CRU and IPCC couldn't either, and that's why they undertook a systematic revision of earth history.
Your every convoluted explanation dissolves into insignificance against this one incontrovertible fact.
You can believe what you please, it bothers me not because I have the answer to thwart you from persuading others.
Complain about this comment
i don't think you can call yourself a skeptic if you are selectively skeptical
so called skeptics refuse to believe anything about a theory with bucketloads of evidence, vigorously debated and refined over almost 200 years, supported by 99% of scientists, then blindly accept a couple of articles they found on the internet that support their predetermined viewpoint
Complain about this comment
Could all be toast - eaten and forgotten by tomorrow, but would still like to see Hoon on the show.
Complain about this comment
Re 41 GomerPyle:
If you want to significantly increase the odds that I answer a specific question, then just ask me that one question, or at least put it first before any others. I saw what you wrote about consensus and crichton so made a post about that subject accordingly.
As for the MWP, yes it existed and all reconstructions show a vaguely defined period (anything from 9th century all the way to 15th) in which temperatures are elevated. The uncertainty is in both how warm it was during the MWP compared to today and what period exactly the MWP refers to.
Complain about this comment
The Copenhagen summit seems to have had the equivalent effect as appointing a Minister for the Drought in the 1970's which prompted weeks of rainfall. Of course the Head of the Met Office may also have something to say about the BBC's short range political forecasting after his interview on the show was followed by the brushing aside in the style of Michael (what hurricane?) Fish, of the possibilty Labour leadership challenge before the election.
Complain about this comment
I do find it amazing how the whole anthropogenic climate change theory has become a religion for some
I leave these facts:
The IPCC process has been exposed (much of the so-called science was adjusted after peer review)
Temperature data has been altered without adequate justification
Current climate models are unvalidated
Adaptation to climate change is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than mitigation via CO2 emission control (even by half-hearted measures the in the Copenhagen Accord)
Some of the strongest advocates of anthropogenic climate change, including the chairman of the IPCC, have serious financial interests which in any other field would disqualify them from office
All these facts are out there - but you won't find them on the BBC
Complain about this comment
The reaction of 'warmists' to the MWP is like garlic to vampires.
Now I'm 'Gomer the Vampire Slayer'.
"With the release of the Climategate e-mails, the disappearing trick has been exposed," Solomon declared. "The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear."
The warming period is reinstated and those who tried to remove it are themselves now removed. A niece piece of ironic justice.
In spite of my humorous attitude never forget that these people's intent was to take away debate by rewriting the records to support their agenda. The important question is why any impartial scientist who is only seeking to discover the truth would want to do this ?
Keep your garlic handy.
Complain about this comment
re 42
'i don't think you can call yourself a skeptic if you are selectively skeptical'
Rubbish - the scientific method does not require wholehearted acceptance or rejection of a theory in toto
'so called skeptics refuse to believe anything about a theory with bucketloads of evidence',
most of which is based on manipulated temperature 'evidence'
'vigorously debated and refined over almost 200 years'
anthropgenic climate change dates back 20 or 30 years
'supported by 99% of scientists'
no it isn't
'then blindly accept a couple of articles they found on the internet that support their predetermined viewpoint'
or blindly accept the consensus viewpoint, so much easier isn't it?
Any mildly curious person can find authoritative information that at least partially calls the anthropogenic climate change theory and the evidence supporting it into question
Complain about this comment
# 46
Very true MarinSolitaire - the 'warmists' are no better than high priests of a cult that relies on secret mysteries.
Now that they have no evidence of any warming (in fact it's been cooling if anything) they point to records they spent a lot of effort and energy rewriting. They're trying to find warming in the oceans, but no luck there either.
They've debased their own evidence, produced climate models that don't work and never will, and have destroyed their reputations and done severe damage to the green cause.
May the Medieval Warm Period forever protect you all from the curse of warmism.
As for Gordon Brown (a man I detest with a vengeance) I think he plays a losing hand well, but that's probably not what his MP's are looking for. If Labour appear to be distracted from the pressing economic problems, they will pay dearly.
Complain about this comment
The two central questions about climate change are:
1. Are average global temperatures increasing at a rate or in a way never seen before?
2. Are any temperature changes unquestionably man-made?
What intrigues me is the apparent 'support' of 'the majority of reputable scientists' for the claim that 'yes' is the answer to both of the above questions.
Are all these scientists specialists in the fields of climatology and atmospheric pollution effects, or are most of them from other specialities who simply agree that, in general, the investigative work seems to have been carried out sensibly?
Have all of these scientists independently verified the analyses that have been carried out, starting from scratch with the available basic data?
Have they shown conclusively that, starting with the raw data, all sets of reasonable assumptions and logically constructed computer models lead to the same conclusions?
Maybe they have, but someone correctly pointed out in an earlier post, some days ago, that 'consensus' is not a word that can be applied in a scientific context, where experimental repeatability is the normal tool used to establish validity. 'Consensus' is a political word and is symptomatic of the climate question being hijacked by politicians.
Complain about this comment
good science requires that you are skeptical not only of opposing ideas but of your own
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
Richard Feynman
Most of the non global warming hypothesis quoted in this discussion are extremely ropey at best and all have been firmly rebuffed, often years before any of us were born
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9912-timeline-climate-change.html
The physics behind the greenhouse effect were first discovered by Jean-Baptiste Fourier in 1827 - starting the debate (183 years ago - admittedly it wasn't until 1890s that man caused warming was hypothesized), its a myth that climate change was only discovered (or invented depending on your viewpoint 30 years ago)
For example on a previous posting someone raised a very good question about the IR absorption of CO2 being saturated and overlapping that of water vapour. It turns out this was resolved in the 1930s, "physicists started to realise that high in the atmosphere, where pressure and temperature are much lower, the absorption properties of gases change. Ångström's experiments had been done at sea level and room temperature."
A good visualisation of scientific opinion
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consensus-among-scientists/
In science I totally accept that 'the expert' is the lowest form of evidence but maybe with a issue as complex as this you need to trust, just as you would trust a heart surgeon and scientific medicine to save your life (rather than being skeptical, resolving to train as a medic, conduct your own extensive research, then do it yourself)
the problem is people rightfully have no trust in the establishment and its take on science (just look at the way its bent evidence on drugs (david nutt), DNA databases and copyright)
however this is established science and its essential not to confuse it with the establishment
Complain about this comment
Also one of the huge successes of climate models was to predict the effects of the massive eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines.
Models predicted an average temperatures drop for two years before rising again. The models predicted the length and amount of temperature drop and also the regional variations that transpired.
it could have been a fluke but very unlikely :)
Complain about this comment
Still nothing on the MWP I notice mcjhn1
"...one of the huge successes of climate models was to predict the effects of the massive eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines."
That comment makes me want to cuddle you. You aren't being serious are you ? Give me credit for not ridiculing you mercilessly, but don't tempt me too much.
Complain about this comment
Amazed that nobody has raised the issue of getting around in Andrew's predicted arctic conditions.
Living in a hollow out in the sticks it is quite a challenge to get out and up to a main road, negotiating the abandoned Bentley was interesting.
The main A roads were not a lot better but passable with care and 99 per cent were driving very carefully indeed, the 1 per cent idiot was still tailgating and overtaking on bends etc.
One aspect that appears to me to cause a problem is the design of modern tyrs. They appear to be designed to kid the owner they are driving a formula one car, low profile and with widely spaced vee grooves emmanating from the centre of the tread to move rain but absolutely useless in snow.
Whatever happened to the old Town and Country block treads that could deal with everything ?
Oh yes and give BMWs and Audis a wide berth when travelling in snow, rear wheel drive and equally useless at getting traction as the tyres they are fitted with.
Complain about this comment
here you go
medieval warming period
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england.html
and for good luck
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11645-climate-myths-we-are-simply-recovering-from-the-little-ice-age.html
but I realize your are using zombie arguments that do not live or die but the laws of mortal arguments, even if you shoot them in the head they'll be resurrected on a another website or comment board tomorrow, the day after and the day after that and waste someone else's time
Complain about this comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/bbc-swaps-coldest-december-since-1981-headline/
Complain about this comment
mcjhn1 wrote: "Trust the scientists."
You Truly have not read the database releases.
And the moment you link us to Nature Magazine, or New Scientist, your credibility goes right out the window. These two organizations, for unfathomable reasons, have censored too many real scientists, and promoted AGW as settled. Their behaviors fly in the face of their published Mission Statements.
http://www.tysknews.com/News/untangle_climategate.html This is a good, short summary of the “science” that most scientists are defending.
Complain about this comment
# 55
Now don't get tetchy mcjhn1 or I won't be kind.
I must admit that I have found some articles from that source highly amusing, but may I offer a scientific source that even you can't contest ?
NOAA Paleoclimatology is a branch of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
"Medieval Warm Period - 9th to 13th Centuries
Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century indicated that regional North Atlantic climate was warmer during medieval times than during the cooler "Little Ice Age" of the 15th - 19th centuries. As paleoclimatic records have become more numerous, it has become apparent that "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum" temperatures were warmer over the Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent "Little Ice Age", and also comparable to temperatures during the early 20th century. The regional patterns and the magnitude of this warmth remain an area of active research because the data become sparse going back in time prior to the last four centuries."
Amusingly they refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (2007) as a source, but they have a tendency to blow hot and cold, if you'll forgive me saying.
I could say QED but I prefer to say BADABING.
If you have the North Atlantic Oscillation up your sleeve, I'm ready and waiting for you.
Complain about this comment
It works like this. Given that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports manmade global warming, scientists and scientific publications overwhelmingly reflect that. And then psuedoskeptics use that as an excuse to ignore anything they say.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
with reagrd to warm welcome by labour for the Brown leadership challenge I think that people ought to closely analyse the comment by Jack Straw.
My understanding is that he said that Gordon Brown will be incharge until the general election. Now he is not saying what will happen immediately after the election, whichever way it goes.
The problem for the voter at the general election will be if labouyr win how long will it be until others then challenge him for the leadership. It seriously cannot go on like this! I do not want Brown but most of all I really do not want Balls, or Cooper, and I don't think that many others want that either. As for Darling he can say what he likes but very soon after the election he will be toast.
Complain about this comment
Re 58. GomerPyle
What's this?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html
I see a Medieval warm period.
Complain about this comment
# 61
Isn't that what I just told you ?
Another 'whoops' moment (one of many) that the AGW cultists don't like to admit.
If you ever mention it you'll be thrown out of the club, but now you believe in the MWP ?
Complain about this comment
#59
Surely if the scientific evidence was 'overwhelming', there would be no scientists who were sceptical (not convinced) or held an opposing view? But that's clearly not the case. It seems that words like 'overwhelming' and 'consensus' and 'settled' are being used as political bludgeons in an attempt to crush any questioning.
Complain about this comment
HI Andrew,
Thanks for nailing the bloke from Met office - Pure TV Gold. Thanks for also being brave enough question the BBC party line on Climate PS.Please watch out for falling gargoyles when you leave the building ;-)
C
Complain about this comment
Are people still fooled by the UEA email phony scandal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY&feature=player_embedded#
Complain about this comment
I'm running on normal road tyres.
Having just got up Muswell Hill in 6 inches of snow I can fully recommend driving an old Toyota banger and the wonders of 4 wheel drive.
Complain about this comment
Re 63 mike-jay:
"Surely if the scientific evidence was 'overwhelming', there would be no scientists who were sceptical (not convinced) or held an opposing view?"
No, it just means most.
Complain about this comment
Re 62 GomerPyle wrote:
"Isn't that what I just told you?"
I'm sorry, I thought you were claiming the IPCC and scientists massaged the MWP out of existance. So I was deeply suprised to see the graph in the IPCC report which I linked to showed no such thing.
Complain about this comment
Q1 If you are not prepared to change your views on this issue after reading ideas and theories please ignore this message and all my others...
The article doesn't say the medieval warming period didn't happen just that its doesn't mean that threat climate change today is nonsense.
Your quote makes the crucial point that temperatures in this period were comparable to temperatures during the early 20th century...i.e. not as hot as the late 20th century.
why?
more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was then
incidentally that graph is a good example of the scientific rigour that has formed the currently theory.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg
not 1 or 2 detailed datasets but 12, all 12 are in broad agreement.
I understand your attack on the UEA people and your right, their behaviour is a disgrace but theirs is only one string of the bow of truly colossal evidence.
Ok you may argue that the all other 11 datasets (in this case) and the 1000s of other studies and papers are all frauds and part of a conspiracy but then i apologise to say, you come across as a bit loony
I apologise for getting a bit arsey but I fear this misunderstanding, distrust and disrespect for scientific method and scientists will cost lives like it has done before
Andrew Neil has a history of ridiculing established science with disastrous effects, when editor of the times he supported the line that HIV does not cause AIDS. It is estimated that even between 2000 and 2005, around 350,000 people with AIDS died unnecessarily in South Africa as a result of these ideas.
Complain about this comment
#67
Overwhelm: defeat completely (Concise Oxford English Dictionary)
Your use ('most' scientists) is a typical political distortion for propaganda purposes.
Complain about this comment
Nos 17
I received a reply from nsidc on the ice-core question and have asked permission to post here. It seems to answer one question regards defusion, It would be very good if some researchers could get a reply from Dr Jaworowski I'm going to try and see if I can make contact but don't think I will. This can only really be peer debated by scientists of relevant experience.
If / when I have permission I will post.
Complain about this comment
Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski's paper - its for specialists only really:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Re 70:
If overwhemling evidence in science requires all scientists to agree then it's probably a standard that can never be achieved. Either that or it's a flimsy standard whereby a single contrarian scientist could break it at the drop of a hat.
Needless to say I find my use of the word overwhelming to make a lot more sense. I would say there is overwhelming support in the scientific community that Earth orbits the sun for example. I would still say that even if you could find a list of 4 scientists from around the world who have decided to be skeptical of the idea.
Complain about this comment
More on Dr Jaworowski :
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
Complain about this comment
mcjhn1???? You say there are 11 data sets??? I'm just a teacher, and even I know better.
Here's that data for all of you. http://www.tysknews.com/News/untangle_climategate.html
"There are two terrestrial data sets and two from satellite sensors….
Given that there are four datasets, it might at first be thought that systematic scientific corruption in the compilation of just one dataset would have very little significance – and that is the line that is being hawked around by the embarrassed environmental journalists who are acting not as independent journalists but rather as willing apologists for the Team at the moment."
However ALL of the data sets require calibration and while satellite data sounds impressive… well…….
Since the satellites do not have thermometers on board, and would be in the wrong place for taking the Earth's near-surface temperature even if they had them, their atmospheric measurements have to be processed and reconstructed so as to become a temperature record. That requires the measurements to be calibrated. And what are they calibrated against? The instrumental surface-temperature record, of course. Therefore, if the surface temperature record has been accidentally or artificially enhanced in order to show greater warming than what has in truth occurred, the satellite temperature records that were originally calibrated against it would tend to show the same inaccurate overstatement of "global warming".
So much for technology when dealing with centuries of temperature measurements.
Complain about this comment
Re 75 ManBearPig4:
I don't know who started the myth that satellites are callibrated with the surface record, but it's not true. The satellites are not callibrated with the surface record, the UAH and RSS temperature records are independent of the surface temperature records.
Complain about this comment
I hope the satellites aren't as faulty as the ones they used in Medieval times.
The problem is that the back slapping mutual peer reviewing process that this cabal of scientists employed, worked fine at getting the show on the road, however it didn't prevent conflicting evidence being proposed as proving AGW. Some of the stuff that Al Gore was putting forward as evidence was laughable. That's why I can knock down warmist claims purely by quoting from their own 'evidence', and this has all been 'peer reviewed'. If that's peer reviewing my parrot can get off his perch and start earning his seed.
There has been no scientific objectivity, just one pre-determined conclusion. There is no need for scientists to hide or destroy records. This is totally unheard of in scientific circles and renders their work pointless. They've broken so many scientific taboos I foresee that most will spend their futures denying involvement.
Al Gore didn't even get the date for the Medieval Warming Period correct, and this 'simple truth' from a non-scientist rubbishes the claim that it is now much warmer than during the MWP.
"How can it be warmer now than the MWP are anthropoligists lying when they say viking farms are buried in permafrost ?"
Attempting to re-write earth history was a ridiculous enterprise carried out by those who can have no confidence in their hypothesis. If they'd got away with it I expect that the consensus would have been one hundred per cent, but they got caught before they could achieve that.
May the MWP keep us safe from warmists.
Complain about this comment
It could be warmer today (ie in the past decade) than in the medieval warm period. A single location like Greenland tells you nothing about the globe as a whole. There are some locations that have evidence we are beyond MWP temperatures. Eg fossils thousands of years old being discovered in receding glaciers.
Complain about this comment
Andrew wrote:
"Its figures for December are now in and they show that over the past decade (1999 to 2009) average global temperatures have not changed, even though CO2 emissions have continued to rise unchecked (Kyoto making no discernible difference)"
The Met Office (2008) has stated that:
"[...] due to the natural variations in climate, we expect to see ten-year periods both globally and regionally with little or no warming and other ten-year periods with very rapid warming. This complex behaviour of the climate system shows why we need to examine much longer periods than ten years if we are to fully understand and quantify how the climate is changing."
Andrew wrote:
"The planet could still be warming as part of a long-term trend. But if it is the long-term must be seen as more than a decade -- and even then the evidence is mixed."
According to IPCC (2007, p5):
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level"
References:
IPCC (2007). "Summary for Policymakers". In: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html
Met Office (2008). "Global warming goes on". Met Office website.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
Complain about this comment
GomerPyle is so right,. If they could airbrush the snow out they would! The department rests on the fudged figures of the University of East Anglia charged with the job of burying a world decline in temperatures and on being part of the duplicity of carbon taxing through Al Gore et al These unelected so called saviours that are set to benefit substantially at the expense of those who pay the hyped charges for energy.
A truly fantastic bit of interrogation that would never have happened had the leaked e-mails never have surfaced.
Complain about this comment
# 78
Please elucidate infinity. Did they revive the fossil and ask it what the weather was like ?
I'm not sure what you're trying to claim by such a vague statement. A fossil found in stratified ground deposits is useful, but one found in a glacier is much less so as glaciers aren't static. Many climbers have perished on Mt Everest and the environment is so harsh that most aren't collected. If they are deposited in a glacier then they will reappear some time in the future, but that's the natural action of a glacier, not AGW.
NASA - Earth Observatory website
"Carbon Dioxide Did Not End the Last Ice Age
If CO2 caused the warming, one would expect surface temperatures to increase before deep-sea temperatures, since the heat slowly would spread from top to bottom. Instead, carbon-dating showed that the water used by the bottom-dwelling organisms began warming about 1,300 years before the water used by surface-dwelling ones, suggesting that the warming spread bottom-up instead.
The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms," Stott said. The complexities "have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future."
That's interesting as I read an article by glaciologists upset by the ignorance of AGW proponents who didn't understand how glaciers worked, and they also proposed that their melting was from the bottom up, and thus geo-thermic. For any area where the temperature never rises above
freezing this must be so. Therefore measuring ice thickness in those areas actually disproves atmospheric global warming. Another article by NASA didn't find any substantive decrease in ice at the poles. in fact it was increasing in some areas.
On the same subject
"NOAA 5 years ago decided that it would be a good idea to monitor our oceans temperatures since the Climate Warming Modelers all predicted that our oceans would show significant warming trends even higher then land air temperatures. In order to monitor the oceans temperature, NOAA launched 3000 robots in the oceans which would monitor the oceans temperature on a continuous basis and send the information back to NOAA scientists
So whats the outcome of this 5 year study....Ocean temperatures over the past 5 years have actually slightly decreased. That means no global warming. That means the main indicator of global warming that the IPCC has been so worried about has shown zero change in ocean temperatures."
The models are wrong, and so is the 'science' or it would be detected in the evidence. Back to the drawing board.
There appear to be some major players on the skeptic side don't you think ?
May the glory of the MWP keep us all cool and allow only heretics to overheat.
Complain about this comment
Forgive me for repeating it, but this appears on the NASA Earth Observatory website - the well known cranky 'flat earthers' who know nothing about science.
"The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms"
.... and some geezer tries to prove otherwise with a plastic bottle in his kitchen sink on the TV so he must be right OK ?
Consensus - my holy MWP thinks otherwise. Who's the 'flat earther now Gordon ? Have fun at the next Druid's get together.
Complain about this comment
Something to keep your eye on - the sun:
http://solarcycle24.com/
As you can see no sun spots today. But at least the political situation is hotting up with 'activity'.
Complain about this comment
Can I say how much I enjoyed the spectacle of Mr Hirst being comprehensively7 skewered yesterday
Well researched combative Journalism
Maybe the rest of the BBC ought to start it?
I note that the BBC Trust is going to investigate alleged climate change bias at the BBC
Funny old thing......
Complain about this comment
To adopt a rational and even handed approach (which is something the IPCC and UAE CRU have never attempted let alone achieved) I would concede the loss of ice at the two poles, but there is no real understanding of why this is happening. It does turn science into a primitive cult to then blame AGW as the culprit when the evidence from the principal world sources of scientific evidence show no temperature rise, in the atmosphere or oceans, in the last 10 years.
The only evidence that's clear is a lot of data fudging and graph wrangling to make the data fit the message. One explanation for the loss of ice, without any temperature change, could be changes in the direction of sea currents and other factors which do not make AGW the prime culprit.
I'm not saying that AGW isn't a culprit, though no one knows what it's being blamed for - warming, cooling, none of these ? It's difficult enough to establish even any pattern of global warming as the world isn't homogenous. One part warms and another cools which is what has happened in the past and always will happen. The underlying cycle of natural climate change isn't understood, and there's no doubt or argument that such a thing exists, but no one understands how it works or can predict it. This makes climate modelling nothing more than an experimental novelty. It has no place in providing accurate climate forecasts. That is plain ridiculous.
To say that forecasting is proven because it's possible to foresee cooling following a volcanic eruption, is like saying that you're a doctor because you know if I punch you on the nose it's likely to blled. Foreseeing one individual, well catalogued, phenomenon is an unimpressive party trick which is relevant to nothing.
The AGW issue is likely to fail, not over well argued scientific evidence, but because no one's going to bite after such an appalling winter. That will be upheld as the reaction of the unscientific moron mob, but the AGW issue was raised by Al Gore in an unscientific pantomime of hype. The irony of the clash of ignorance will be satisfying to witness.
The AGW mob so nearly achieved their aim of polluting the science, but were caught red handed. They even tried to hook the world's most pre-emminent climate scientist into their charade, but he was scathing in his response to their invitation to join their cause.
"Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science – when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject."
This scientists believes in AGW (I do not wish to misrepresent his views) but this is his response to an invitation from UEA CRU. It gives the feel of a sage slapping down an over eager puppy and putting them in their place. He was clearly offended by and dismissive of their approach.
Complain about this comment
I remain unsure on many aspects of the the (A)GW story that is unfurling, but am one for erring on the side of caution.
Hence I am generally supportive of most warnings that are sincere and, as well as they can be, honestly founded.
Which means if bazillions need to be spent, so be it (where from, with political cultures that seem to feel population and economic growth won't have environmental consequences, I cannot imagine).
For me the 'argument' on whether or not anything is happening, or not, is to a large extent moot (but not to be ignored at a sensible level). Too much political capital, supported by media coverage, has passed under the bridge. Folk globally now believe that they are suffering solely as a result of someone else's actions (ironically having been told so by them), and I can see no way that they will ever now buy that their population expansions, deforestation or dubious building siting has anything to do with their problems.
Hence for me it is for the engineers (Old, pompous definition I recall; 'To shape the forces of nature for the benefit of mankind') and skilled, independent (not legions of income-sapping bean counters or carbon tax shifter-arounders) number-crunchers (and most good engineers are that too: (New..er, less pompous definition; 'An Engineer does for a shilling what any other fool requires a £')) who need to get busy and make good cases.
Hence, for the sake of my kids, and their future in it, I draw the line at rolling over on everything that is demanded, or excused, in the name of 'climate change'.
High on my eyebrow-cranking list is a succession of box-ticking, target-meeting, over-bonussed civ self-serves, quangocrats and doe-eared, poorly-briefed media moppets with a microphone (so you know you can 'trust' them) reading from press releases that kick off with the word 'unprecedented'. Like every contingency-lite eventuality 'wasn't me, guv' 'manager' of this country. I just heard such a one on lunchtime news, adding '...nothing like it in 30 years'. Now doesn't that suggest it has happened before, then? And why the big surprise if all the models are running to form? Having it all ways is a luxury that cannot be afforded, especially when it comes to public trust... and persuasion.
I try and assess things by their enviROI... environmental return on investment. Now if the once in a blue moon event of it snowing in winter means that it's not cost-effective to have grit or gas to hand, fine, but there needs to be a raft of much better, clearer ways of coping and or advising how to cope. Not...Ooops!
What I have witnessed so far does not encourage me that the money handed so far to those who claim to know what's best is in the most competent or efficient of hands. Much less honest.
And the balances and lessons of preventions and cures don't seem to have been well learned even over millennia, from affordably fast track planned flood plain housing to the consequences of frozen water in cracks 'complemented' by aggressive scouring. Come the thaw, I anticipate a bumpy, expensive ride.
So I'll be hoping that from EU-funded artificial trees to pumping goo into the stratosphere or dumping iron in the oceans, to 'zero'-emission 'leccy cars to wind turbines without sensible inclement condition back-ups, our national broadcaster can be relied upon to hold our 'leaders' to account such the money invested in future is done so wisely and based on sound science as opposed to that, recently, which is more of the recent 'settled' Brown/Miliband/Newsnight variety.
Which seems different to that I recognise, in many worrying ways, if with a few welcome exceptions.
Complain about this comment
Nos 17
No reply from National Snow and Ice Data Center to my request to post their reply to Dr Jaworowski's work on ice-core methods.
and no reply from Jasper Kirkby on his CLOUD 09 experiment.
So getting no where.
Complain about this comment
as the met office has screwed up again I have extended my stay in Capetown for another week
I have fallen in love with SA and the people and the wines andthe food
and the golf courses
Must say I am enjoying the break from fighting thecauses of the Chad pipeline and localauthorities but I SHALL return to pickup the sword again
Currently traveling along the Garden Route tasting Lots of wine and sea food
Warm regards to all my fellow bloggers and no punk intenedonly toCrofty!? Xxxx
Complain about this comment
If GW doesn't want to be seen as a big con, why are all the people involved in it making obscene amounts of money from it?
We have the head of the MO earning more than the PM?
Can no-one smell a rather large rodent here?
Complain about this comment
Re: #89
Exactly! It certainly can't be his ability to predict weather he is being paid for.
I can't remember being told temperatures will remain stable. I can remember a lot of things about warming though.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I can really see anybody arguing the fact that reducing polution is anything other than a good thing, but what is happening to all the monies thay are removing from us in 'green' taxes?
I see that France is already staring to install charging points in city's for electric vehicles, a standard set up that will be utillised by the vehicle manufacturers. Renault will begin to roll out vehicles as of next year in their line up, hopefull starting the first affordable alternative.
And what is the UK doing? Using the monies to prop up all the bad debts no doubt.
I would love to see an alternative to burning fuels for everyday transport, if nothing more than to stop the Middle East having us 'over a barrel' litterally.
Complain about this comment
#92 cbrpilot
"Global problems require global solutions" is what they tell us. The bureaucracy created by COP15 to handle the monies which apparently must change hands will be the nub of a new global government -- a "new world order"; that is what this con is really all about.
I recommend looking out for Lord Monckton who follows this all very closely, and seems to understand what is going on very well. He seems to be concentrating his efforts in America: the last bastion of freedom; where opposing views can still get heard, and where it may make a difference.
As far as we are concerned: on paper the British government has already treacherously sold us out to the new European Soviet of course; so our policy is tied up with that. We should concentrate on getting our democracy back (such that it was)!
Complain about this comment
Subject:
I did warn you
Posting:
Andrew - I don't know where you stand on the Climategate (I preferred Fabrigate, but it'll have to wait for the next Big Lie denouement), but your interview with the UK Met Office's John Hirst astonished and delighted me simply because I never thought I'd see the day when the BBC would see fit to broadcast such an unwarranted and scurrilous attack on this fine, upsta... (er, shome mishtake, etc).
What I wished you to put to him, however, was this:
Notwithstanding the mantra of the The Met Office to the effect the "weather isn't the same as climate", and the fact that it itself honours this stricture more in the breach than in the observance, it cannot escape the following reasoning:
• It chooses to be in the business of predicting both climate and weather;
• So does Piers Corbyn
• Piers Corbyn's predictions of medium-term weather are skilful;
• The Met Office's predictions of medium-term weather are not;
• The Met Office predicts AGW catstrophe;
• Piers Corbyn does not.
Conclusion - all other things being equal, trust Piers Corbyn's climate predictions before those of the Met Office.
I choose Corbyn only because of the prominence his recent predictive success has enjoyed, and of course because of his splendid hair. I'm sure others have been equally skilful.
Complain about this comment
Nos 17
OK I have permission to post this now :
'here is what Jim White, research scientist at the University of Colorado, wrote about how accurate CO2 measurements are in ice cores, and that the CO2 would not diffuse to different layers. Scientists have been recording CO2 in the atmosphere since the 1950s and find that the CO2 measurements from ice cores since that time do correspond, validating that method of study.
The basic answer is that the diffusion rate of gases in solids is very
slow, slow enough that on time scales we are interested in with ice
cores (1 million years or less), it does not alter the gases.
A bit more information is that the gases start out as smoothed or
diffused by gas diffusion and movement in the upper 80m or so of the ice
sheet, a porous, styrofoam like layer called firn. So when the bubbles
are frozen into the ice, we are already seeing a somewhat smoothed
picture of the atmosphere. The amount of smoothing depends on the rate
at which snow accumulates. Lots of snowfall means little smoothing as
ice forms rapidly, while low snowfall rates means more smoothing as as
ice forms slowly, giving air more time to mix in the firn. The worst
this gets is a several hundred years, which is not a big problem for CO2
as it has a long mixing time in the atmosphere and so does not vary
rapidly.
We can purposefully go places where snow accumulates rapidly and get the
CO2 records with the least mixing. Places like that give us CO2 records
that we can directly compare with measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere,
which began in 1958. Those direct comparisons are clear: ice cores in
Antarctica faithfully record greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.
By the way, the gases start out in visible bubbles, then those gases
dissolve in the ice crystal and form what we call clathrates, which a
cage of H2O molecules around air molecules. You can't see the bubbles in
clathrate ice. The terminology is a little thick, but the physics is not
complicated.'
Complain about this comment
Pity I cant get Dr Jaworowski response to this. If any BBC researchers fancy a go please do .
The Sun today :
http://solarcycle24.com/
Substantial sunspots and increased solar wind from last week.
Complain about this comment
The biggest difficulty Mr Neil is the jousting attitudes which constantly seek to score points rather than illuminate.
I watched old Paxo on Newsnight last night haranguing the Health Minister about some dodgy foreign doctor on NHS Out of Hours. The poor bloke had a point: he put in place a procedure which wasn't followed locally. Like you as a parent telling your 14 year old not to get pissed and come home by 10. Most of them do what they're told, a few don't. Are we to suggest that the Schools Secretary is to blame for your/someone else's 14 year old being a naughty boy/girl, eh?
It's been the same with the weather/climate too, I'm afraid. Any skeptic trying to raise issues reasonably has been harangued off air. 20 years of bullying orthodoxy and now the tide may be turning a bit. Either the arctic ice is gone in 5 years or it's an ice age in 10 has been the staple diet for a decade. Actually, the ice is coming back a bit, this year, especially north of Russia, but Newfoundland's a bit milder than normal. The minimum amount in September seems to be going up a bit and folks reckon it'll restore some more this summer too. Snow's on the ground across a lot of the N. Hemisphere right now, but no ice age is coming soon.
Doesn't sell newspapers, does it??
Actually it might......a newspaper for calm, well-adapted adults.
Headlines which engage readers, rather than scream prejudice in your face, eh?? I'd not heard about the Russian supermodel building play parks before today, and her name meant nothing as I clicked the link. The article was excellent......heart-warming in fact.
Job description, Mr Neil? Collaring rogues or informing the public?? Interrupting answers to win the joust or teeing up the opposition with a full-toss if your first chappie tries to blether his way off-message??
Problem for you media lot is this: all us nobs who occasionally watch you are tired of the format. Politicians trying not to answer questions and you trying to catch them out. We'd rather watch something else.
Paxo had a woman from Chicago on last night who criticised Wall Street - that was new, wasn't it?? Whether she was right or not was less important than it brought new light on the situation - what news should be about, eh? Although the Beast of Wood Lane did lament that Cable and his US counterpart seemed to agree on all things, which he found 'jolly depressing'. I found it refreshingly calming....perhaps you should think of 2 folks together putting one case first - harmony; then two folks putting the other case - harmony. The watcher sees both sides but isn't seeing hair being pulled out, cheap shots being spouted and Paxo playing the ref in a Boxing Match. Part of a new portfolio of approaches, perhaps?
Complain about this comment
Andrew:
Yes, and, you should be appreciated for giving the approriated warning in the weather department....
-Dennis Junior-
Complain about this comment
Well I did warn you sounds like a good starting point for a discussion...any takers?
All debts to be settled on entry!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS