« Previous | Main | Next »

2010: The year Britain shivered.

Paul Hudson | 16:30 UK time, Thursday, 30 December 2010

According to the Met Office December 2010 will turn out to be the coldest December since 1890 based on the Central England Temperature (CET) dataset which started in 1659.

They also say that December 2010 will also be the coldest December in the 100 year UK temperature series, covering England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, easily beating the next coldest December in all these areas

2010 has also been the coldest year since 1986, off the back of winter 2009/2010 which was the coldest since 1978/79.

Interestingly, the CET 12 monthly rolling temperature averages peaked in April 2007 and have fallen continuously since then.

Remarkably, at a time when global warming remains a very high profile issue around the world, the 2010 UK CET figure is around the levels recorded from the years 1659 to 1758 - and well below the median figure for the whole series which runs from 1659 to 2009.

For the UK at least, the climate in the last few years far from warming, has been very definitely cooling.

This could be yet more anecdotal evidence that the prolonged solar minima which started around 2007 continues to influence the UK's climate.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 5:55pm on 30 Dec 2010, Gadgetfiend wrote:

    I wonder whether Piers Corbyn will be correct in saying this winter will be the worst for 100 years. That really would put the cat amongst the pigeons.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 7:04pm on 30 Dec 2010, Wallace wrote:

    Hi Paul, you got a mention in Joe Bastardi's Accuweather blog today. Well worth a read for anyone who has not read it, nearly as good as yours Paul ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 7:42pm on 30 Dec 2010, philip Naylor wrote:

    A well worded blog, Mr H, considering that, for anyone working for the Met Office or the BBC, taking an objective view of world temperatures is not always looked on kindly.
    Keep up the good work.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 8:08pm on 30 Dec 2010, bandythebane wrote:

    Whatever the facts of the matter may be the Trolls are still going to come out fighting.

    James Hansen at Nasa/Giss e.g. is still saying that on a "rolling average" basis using the Menne statistical method he invented himself 2010 is still the warmest year ever! How many do you think will believe him?

    Also, over on the Daily Mail they are quoting a published paper which links high snowfall in the UK with Arctic ice meltback. The lack of correlation between these two is apparent from a first glance at the relative statistics.

    How many billions of good money are we going to waste on this kind of nonsense? How on earth can they expect us to believe in global warming on hearsay when all around us we can see for ourselves that it just isn't happening?

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 9:55pm on 30 Dec 2010, jkiller56 wrote:

    Paul
    These are very interesting statistics. What would be even more interesting would be figures for other parts of the world (more specific than just a global average).

    Presumably if the sun is the major influence on temperature, then it ought to be affecting temperatures much more widely than just the UK -in temperate areas particularly.

    Your comparison of this years values with late 17th early 18th cent (little Ice Age)times prompts the contradiction that in those days the arctic was distinctly cold, whereas now there are constant reports of it being unusually warm at high latitudes. Indeed as far as I understand it, the arctic was the first region of the globe to cool substantially in the LIA. Given that the LIA is often attributed to low solar activity, the logic does not entirely add up as yet - it seems to me. Perhaps it is simply too early to tell?

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 10:34pm on 30 Dec 2010, brossen99 wrote:

    Perhaps the reason England retained the Ashes in Melbourne last week was because it was a relatively freezing for average Aussies 19C, the boot was on the other foot in Perth where England got stuffed with temps in the mid 30s. I was in Perth just before Xmas in 1987 and one day the temp got up to 41, perhaps you could check back the weather for the latest Adelaide test, I think there was snow in their high mountains recently. As far as I can remember the Aussies had a cold winter 2010 also, record lows recorded on the River Plate at the other side of the southern hemisphere ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 10:44pm on 30 Dec 2010, MatthewDalby wrote:

    Paul usually writes a very good blog, however his latest entry fails to live up to his usual standards by failing to mention how the recent extreme weather bears on climate change. Obviously at first glance the fact that we have had all sorts of records broken for low temperatures would seem to disprove global warming. However the truth is anything but. Just because Britian has experienced record cold this says nothing of global temperatures as a whole, it may be worth remembering that last winter while we had record cold parts of Eastern Canada were 20 degrees warmer than average and the organisers of the winter olypics in Vancouver faced serious problems due to mild temperatures and lack of snow. Data from one small part of the world (e.g. Britian) should never be taken in isolation and used to represent the earth as a whole. Anyone who thinks that this years weather disproves climate change is either indulging in some very wishfull thinking or simply burying their heads in the sand. Manmade climate change remains the most serious threat ever faced by humanity so is'nt likely that some people will sieze on any opportunity to deny it as this will allways be easier than facing up to reality and the fact that they are going to have to make significant lifestyle changes to help avert global armagedon.
    Interestingly Paul mentions the solar minima and the effect this could be having on our weather. There is growing evidence that changes in solar flare activity have an effect on Global climate. Since this activity usually runs on an 11 year cycle what we could be seeing now is a temporary slowing of global warming which will reverse itself in a few years time when temperatures will again start to increase rapidly.
    Clearly the last months (and last winter's) weather have been unusual, allthough not unprecidented, after all we had a run of very cold winters in the late 1970's/early 1980's. If anything this could be taken as further evidence of climate change since all climate change models predict an increase in extreme weather events/disruption of "normal" weather patterns.
    To repeat, anyone who thinks that the recent weather makes a mockery of climate change is either incredibly ignorant of the basic science involved or indulging in some very dangerous wishfull thinking in order to avoid facing up to the responibility they have to do something about it. climate change remains a very real and present danger and our recent weather does nothing to change this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 11:08pm on 30 Dec 2010, brossen99 wrote:

    #7 Matthew

    If only Pinocchio's nose had been cut for timber, perhaps then we could have built " Jerusalem " in England's green and pleasant land. ( not the virtual west bank financial apartheid based segregation of the population we now appear to be heading for )

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 11:26pm on 30 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Paul,

    I have to agree with Matthew Dalby (@ #7) in this case. I think it's important to put our recent experiences here in the UK in the context of global temperature.

    Someone mentioned James Hansen. The following article, authored by him, adds the necessary perspective:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/

    Readers will note that large parts of the Arctic are MUCH warmer than usual, largely because of reduced ice coverage. We saw a very similar pattern last winter too.

    Of course, all of the datasets, including the satellite data, show 2010 as being very warm globally........ and November 2010, whilst the UK was shivering, was the warmest November on record at a global level, despite a significant La Nina event.

    Another slight concern I have over your present post is that you appear to be encouraging your readers to draw too many conclusions from very short time periods. Any researcher working in the field of climate science will tell you that you need to be looking at trends over 30 years or more to draw meaningful conclusions. So pointing out that CET was at its highest in 2007 and has since declined actually tells us little or nothing about long term trends. 2010 has surely been so cold here in the UK because we have had back to back cold winters - this COULD be part of a trend or it could equally be a freak occurence.

    You mentioned the possible link between cold UK winters and low solar activity. For the benefit of other readers, I'm presuming that this is the paper you are referring to:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/fulltext

    Equally, though, other possible reasons for the recent cold winters across parts of the Northern Hemisphere have also been proposed:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/cold-winter-in-a-world-of-warming/#more-5596

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 11:34pm on 30 Dec 2010, brossen99 wrote:

    In the latest scientific report on the subject the Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. In another recent scientific development NASA is now saying that the global temperature will only go up 1.64C if CO2 is doubled to 780 ppm and with CO2 only increasing at 2 ppm a year its hardly an urgent problem.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 11:39pm on 30 Dec 2010, brossen99 wrote:

    http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/27/german-climate-professor-slams-climate-religion/

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 11:56pm on 30 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    brossen99 @ #10

    Please can you show me your sources for the above claims? In fact, I have a fair idea of where the first claim came from, so I'm actually more interested in the second, which you say comes from NASA - please can you supply your link for this?

    Now, regarding Arctic sea ice, I suggest that you take a look at this informative video, which puts it into proper perspective:

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 00:13am on 31 Dec 2010, brossen99 wrote:

    # Paul

    Perhaps if alleged climate scientists had not been doing there level best to smash up the arctic ice sheet with icebreakers in the name of research when in reality they were trying their level best to open up a viable and lucrative north west passage to commercial shipping, thus allowing the sun to heat the dark water, perhaps the ice would not have shrunk so much in the first instance ?
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/

    http://www.sott.net/articles/show/219487-New-NASA-model-Doubled-CO2-means-just-1-64C-warming

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 00:18am on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Well that's a shame.

    I have had no problem posting links to that particular website in the past..... not sure why the moderator removed the link. So for the benefit of brossen99, we'll try this one instead - and please pay attention........ you might actually learn something you didn't know!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea_WTUgaOq4

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 00:32am on 31 Dec 2010, brossen99 wrote:

    # Paul

    I hold my hand up on my ice sheet data which was 2009, although it was increasing then it is growing less slow this November, but then the weather patterns are unusual as can be explained by Piers Corbyn and his theory involving the complex interaction of the moon's and the earth's magnetic field with the radiation from the sun.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 00:37am on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    brossen99 @ #13

    It seems that the Washington Post blog has fallen foul of a misrepresentation of the facts which has been doing the rounds in the blogosphere!:

    http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=potholer54#p/a/u/0/l3vIWD4tAHc

    It's amazing just how badly scientific papers can be misquoted!

    Now to Prof Werner. He is, of course, entitled to his views, but I would be interested to know his qualifications and research area. It is he who is out of step with the scientific community:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 00:59am on 31 Dec 2010, brossen99 wrote:

    # 16 Paul

    It would appear that you are committing my earlier ice sheet data sin with your last link, 2007 is a long time ago ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 01:31am on 31 Dec 2010, brossen99 wrote:

    #Paul, try and pull this one to pieces, NASA still says less than 2C warming whatever of the three models they used?

    http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2010/12/24/climategate-kiwis-final-chapter/

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 01:41am on 31 Dec 2010, Lazarus wrote:

    "NASA still says less than 2C warming whatever of the three models they used?"

    Are you sure you have gave the right link? It isn't to NASA and there doesn't even seem to be a link from it to NASA, or is it me being thick?

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 09:43am on 31 Dec 2010, timawells wrote:

    It is scary to hear that people still believe in Global warming. I found out that the whole argument was based on false evidence appearing real. That was in 2006 when I was working for a Carbon management company, my sales had been great while I had believed in the myth, after that my sales dried up. I couldn't sell something I didn't believe in.

    I came to the conclusion that the sun can burn hotter or colder over a period of time, which has happened over eternity.

    The people who believe in Global warming have got so much to loose and keep coming up with some really strange theories, why they are still right.

    Remember weapons of mass destruction, they were never found and the same will be said of Global warming in the future.

    I am all for cutting back on acid rain and real pollutants, but C02 is the red herring.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 10:41am on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    brossen99 @ #17 & #18

    The poll was indeed conducted in 2007, although the article itself, together with the unprecedented list of major scientific bodies supporting the science of AGW, has been updated much more recently.

    In fact, the scientific consensus has continued to grow and there are only a tiny handful of scientists researching in the field who do not hold the consensus view. Their concern is not over the empirical evidence (which is irrefutable). Rather they still question the rate at which CO2 will warm the planet.

    All of the above makes a nonsense of timawells' unsubstantiated claims @ #20.

    Now turning to your link in #18. This actually relates to New Zealand. I have looked at this in some detail and it is a non-story - manufactured by an organisation which has made lots of questionable allegations in the past. Here is a rather different perspective on the same story:

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/a-christmas-cracker-for-the-cranks/

    Did you not take on board the points raised by Potholer in his video? The problem is that you are blindly accepting the claims of internet blogs which make no attempt to check the authenticity of claims before posting them. Indeed, many of the blogs post these stories specifically BECAUSE they tell the story the blogger wants to hear! Then the same old nonsense gets copied and pasted right across the internet and takes on a "reality" of its own.

    I am a scientist and one thing you learn if you carry out research is that EVERYTHING has to be properly corroborated with verifiable facts. Otherwise it counts for nothing. Only peer-reviewed scientific literature has been thoroughly tested by third parties to ensure it is robust - this is something conspicuously absent in all of the claims I see being made above.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 10:56am on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    brossen99

    Here's a bit more information regarding "climate sensitivity". It shows the range of projections of temperature rise for a doubling of CO2. If all of the NASA models do indeed show only 2 degrees of warming, they are at the bottom end of the range found by the scientific community as a whole:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

    There are links to all of the relevant scientific papers in this article.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 11:20am on 31 Dec 2010, brossen99 wrote:

    Paul #various

    Perhaps you will be satisfied when the corrupt politicians sponsoring the climate science have frozen and starved millions of UK low income families to an early death. Perhaps you will be OK, got a good safe well paid job and can afford the 760 quid a year extra to sacrifice to the eco-fascist quasi-religion. I know you don't like rough calculations but it would appear that the cost of the climate scam will effectively double the equivalent rate of income tax paid on the minimum wage.

    These are the type of people pushing the hardest to prove a man made link between CO2 and what is quite probably natural climate change ?

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming-alarmist-calls-for-eco-gulags-to-re-educate-climate-deniers.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 11:23am on 31 Dec 2010, PingoSan wrote:

    "Only peer-reviewed scientific literature has been thoroughly tested by third parties to ensure it is robust"

    Of course. The hockey stick was pal-reviewed and we all know how robust that was!

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 11:33am on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    brossen99 @ #23

    If you want to believe that type of nonsense then clearly I'm not going to change your mind.

    However, I would ask you to read the following articles which point to what is REALLY going on here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Conspiracy-theories.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-vs-commercials-and-spam.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/2010-Climate-BS-of-the-Year-Award.html

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 11:44am on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Pingosan @ #24

    We've done the Hockey Stick to death many times, Pingosan!

    Michael Mann's original statistical analysis was flawed, as he openly admits. However, independent reviews and subsequent research have merely served to confirm his original findings. There is a link to the most important review in my last link above.

    There has never been any real basis to the claims that the peer-review process is corrupt:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-peer-review.html

    Of course, certain individuals continue to claim that the peer-review process has been corrupt in this particular case or that, but close scrutiny shows that the evidence simply isn't there.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 11:59am on 31 Dec 2010, brossen99 wrote:

    #Paul

    I suggest you read this link and inwardly digest it.

    http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=128193

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 12:26pm on 31 Dec 2010, timawells wrote:

    Paul Briscoe

    I think you will find the major factor causing Global warming is the temperature of the sun, end of story. I found that back in 2006, with a little investigation of my own.

    What happens if the world is going through a mini ice age and we haven't considered that food will grow slower!

    I knew the day that Robin Cooke resigned that there weren't weapons of mass desturction. When Nigel Lawson came on TV and said that Margaret Thatcher had paid scientists to find reasons for coal causing global warming so she could close pits down, things just escalated out of control. Basically if people are paying you to proof something, then you are going to find as much evidence as possible, to protect your income. I couldn't sell my soul for money.

    That we are more concerned about CO2 emission, than dirty pollutants, doesn't say much for the powers that be. I am glad I am intelligent enough to make my own mind up, but what I find scary is that people believe these scientists and politicians.

    A lot of people are going to end up with egg on their face and like the titanic going down, if you aren't careful you get sucked down with them.

    The met office cann't get the weather right from one season to the next, so why believe them when they talk about Global warming. Their models must be pretty inaccurate, so are going to be even more inaccurate longer term.

    There used to be a gardener who came on the TV and predicted the weather, based on his intuition over the years. I can't remember his name, but I bet he must be having a chuckle about what people are saying about Global warming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 1:29pm on 31 Dec 2010, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    According to the daily provisional minimum CET figures published by the Met. Office, the average minimum CET for December was -3.28c, which makes it by far the coldest December since 1878, beating even 1890 and 1981, which had figures of -2.7c.
    The puzzling thing is that the M.O. provisional figure for December is only -2.5c, which of course is not as cold as 1890. I have double checked the individual figures and I can't work out where the M.O. get their figure from. Maybe they have some alternative "official" figures which they haven't yet published on their website.
    On the other hand, the provisional mean CET looks like being about -0.2c. This would make it on a par with 1874, but not colder than 1890 based on mean temperatures, although official figures are usually lower than the provisional ones, assuming the provisional minimum figures are correct.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 1:44pm on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    brossen99 @ #27

    Have you not asked yourself where Andrew Kenny's claims come from? Where are his references to scientific literature to back up his claims?

    Do you REALLY think that pretty well every major scientific body around the World would be endorsing the science of AGW if Mr Kenny was correct? After all, several of these major bodies made submissions to the enquiries into "Climategate".

    In fact, Andrew Kenny is simply repeating a whole host of myths about AGW science that have all long since been refuted. If you want to check out what the science REALLy says on the points raised by Mr Kenny, you will find them here, together with links to the scientific literature that relates to them:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Please feel free to come back at me if you have REAL evidence that the literature linked to above is flawed. However, unsubstantiated and bogus claims of the type you are linking to have no place in this debate.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 1:49pm on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    timawells @ #28

    The scientists are actually pretty certain that it ISN'T the sun:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

    ...... and here's more information explaining why yje Earth isn't simply warming up after the "LIA":

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-advanced.htm

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 2:16pm on 31 Dec 2010, brossen99 wrote:

    Paul#30

    Look Paul everybody over 45 and was a half bright teenager at the time watched Magnus Magnusson's series on The Vikings and how they colonised Greenland and practiced temperate farming there. I believe that the Vikings referred to the Eskimo's as the wretched skrilings, even though when the climate changed they managed to stay on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 3:09pm on 31 Dec 2010, PingoSan wrote:

    "Michael Mann's original statistical analysis was flawed, as he openly admits. However, independent reviews and subsequent research have merely served to confirm his original findings. There is a link to the most important review in my last link above."

    Absolute nonsense. The only "independent reviews and subsequent research" that got the same answer as Mann were ones that used the same flawed proxies (including some upside-down) and dodgy statistical methods.

    You have been told this multiple times. The misinformation from AGW adherents about the broken zombie hockey stick really is ruining this blog at times.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 4:15pm on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    brossen99 @ #32

    This is another old argument favoured by sceptics.

    All of the claims about past temperatures are based on heresay and proxy temperature reconstructions, both of which are unreliable. The key point is that the example you are quoting is evidence of warm conditions in a particular REGION, whilst we are now experiencing GLOBAL warming. Regional warmth can occur due to changes in ocean currents, but the present global warming can only be explained by an enhanced greenhouse effect:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 4:29pm on 31 Dec 2010, Feetinthesnow wrote:

    Well what a lively set of comments today.

    Plenty of patronising tone from one or two (you know who you are) who seem to believe that their links are fine, but other peoples' are somehow always deficient. Such a position always worries me.

    You can swap arguments all day long with those who have a religious zeal for CAGW. They will always bend anything to their needs. Hot is warming, cold is warming, wet is warming, dry is warming. Weather is not Climate unless an AGW proponent says it is. AGW is un-falsifiable as they say.

    I like to keep an open mind, but I distrust those who bend data to fit their story and the ClimateGate emails (I have read hundreds) show just how much of that has been going on. When such manipulation of data (both in terms of always positive adjustments to temperature and massive cherry-picking) is needed to keep a narrative going there is something fishy.

    When individuals indulge in illegal denial of FIA requests to cover up the lack of rigour in their work - how can they be trusted? Remember that much dodgy data and dodgy practices went into the UN IPCC recommendations that governments spend 100billions on CO2 reductions.

    Much of the dodgy science was covered up for a long time by gamed peer-review as well as the FIA request denials. The scales have fallen from many eyes and an increasing number of scientists are converting to the dark-side. There are very many "Warmists" who you can detect framing an exit strategy.

    It will be a while longer before the AGW narrative completely falls (too many people have a vested interest in keeping it going) but ClimateGate shone a light on the process and the cracks in the wall get bigger every day.

    Let science be open and free from bias - we need to see a return to proper peer-review where all data is freely available.

    Anyway I hope you all have a great 2011 and beyond whatever the Climate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 4:32pm on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Pingosan @ #33

    "Absolute nonsense. The only "independent reviews and subsequent research" that got the same answer as Mann were ones that used the same flawed proxies (including some upside-down) and dodgy statistical methods."

    No! That is certainly what McIntyre CLAIMS, but others who understand the SCIENCE better than he does disagree with him. Are you, for example, saying that the US National Academies of Science, the top scientific body in the US, got it wrong? If so, please provide some proof.

    The other report (Wegman) was sponsored by a US administration trying to play down AGW and was highly questionable:

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/04/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-1-in-the-beginning/

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/08/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-2-barton-wegman/

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/08/wegman-under-investigation-by-george-mason-university/

    More recent proxy reconstructions have been based on other methods and different statistical analysis. There's no hiding from the fact that they back up Mann and NOT McIntyre:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 4:51pm on 31 Dec 2010, David Evershed wrote:

    I suspect that a looming issue is the definition of "warming" and the measure used.

    Historically there is an absence of data for the majority of the earth's surface covered by water. So is it sufficient to just consider longer term averages over the land surface?

    Then are we measuring the total amount of heat present on the earth's surface or an average temperature across certain places for particular annual or other periods?

    At what altitude are we considering the temperature? At any one location should we be taking the telperatute at several altitudes or just at the various levels of the earth's surface at that location?

    Over what period do we need to see a trend before we agree that this means warming and what variation from previous variations do we need to see before we decide that this time it's different?

    I predict that depending upon the definition and the measure used there will be conflicting answers. So first the debate should be about the definition and what we should be measuring in order to decide if global warming is taking place compared with previous periodic variations.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 4:58pm on 31 Dec 2010, Hudsonfan wrote:

    Paul @ 9. Are you (once again) going to tell us that a 30 year period can point to future climate trends? I have pointed out time and time again that climate change/global warming has been going on for millions and millions of years and that most have had far greater impact on the earth and its inhabitants than the piffling change going on now. Be honest Paul,30 years is not even the blink of an eye in terms of so called trends and to suggest so is absolute rubbish! I will repeat again that previous changes had no input from mankind whatsoever, we were'nt here thats why!

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 5:05pm on 31 Dec 2010, bandythebane wrote:

    Paul

    Hard to take Paul, but the old claim that Mcintyre does not understand the SCIENCE won't wash.

    McIntyre at root is not discussing the SCIENCE (whatever that may be)at all. The only thing he ever discusses is the statistics used justify a range of dodgy conclusions made by those practising their sloppy SCIENCE.

    There are no doubt plenty of better statisticians than McIntyre, but none of these it would appear has worked in "climate science". They most certainly do not include either Mann or your beloved and much quoted Hansen.

    Who in climate science would you nominate yourself as a resident expert in statistics?

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 5:06pm on 31 Dec 2010, H2SO4 wrote:

    All this fuss about a miniscule temperature change which cannot be possibly be measured to the accuracy that is being bandied about.It appears that we are comparing variations against a standardised temperature - but what is the accuracy of this measurement +or- 1C, 0.1C ?
    And what does it relate to? Air, land, sea ? I would adopt the precautionary principle that seems to be in vogue - In this case because the spending of zillions of dollars is based on the significant risk that it would be wasted and/or relatively ineffective then as a precaution we should do nothing.

    In any event, just as animal / insect populations grow until the environment will not sustain them and then they die off, so the same is well on the way with mankind.




    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 5:45pm on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Feetinthesnow @ #35

    With a science-based PhD and research experience, I have a fair idea of how the scientific process works. This is why I prefer to post links to articles which back up what they are saying using the scientific literature. If you feel that my sources are "bending" the science, please provide evidence to support your claim.

    The problem here is that far too many are making claims which do not stand up to proper scientific scrutiny. If you have real scientific evidence to offer then let's hear it...... but if you are merely relaying unsubstantiated assertions from blogs you might just as well post a section from the Bible!

    Now, you have made serious allegations against the scientists. Several reviews into Climategate only upheld one of these - that scientists at CRU failed to meet FOI requirements. Even then, the review teams pointed out that the raw data did not belong to CRU, was publicly available, that the methods used to make adjustments were published and that it was possible for anyone with the requisite scientific expertise to produce a temperature series of their own which confirms the scientists' findings - ie. THE SCIENTISTS WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO HIDE ANYTHING; THERE HAD BEEN NO CHERRY-PICKING AND NO BENDING/FIDDLING OF DATA. FURTHERMORE, 2 OTHER SURFACE DATASETS AND 2 SATELLITE DATASETS CONFIRM THE SAME TREND:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-temperature-record.html

    Now regarding peer-review....... the review teams found NO evidence of corruption of the peer-review process. Rather the problem was that email conversations had been presented without proper context:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-peer-review.html

    I have looked at other cases where sceptics have claimed there is evidence of peer-review corruption. I have yet to see one which is remotely convincing.

    ....... but there's far more to this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html

    So, if you're going to make claims to the effect that the science contained in IPCC AR4 is flawed, you are going to have to find some PROPER evidence.

    Meanwhile, the scientific consensus is actually growing...... and while so many of you were pre-occupied with the fake scandal of Climategate, the top scientific body in the US cam out with its own endorsement of AGW science:

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782#description

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 5:57pm on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Pensfold @ #37

    Your questions are entirely fair.

    After over 100 years of research in this area, the scientists have considered the points you're raising. There have been detailed studies into how many stations are required to get an accurate representation of global temperature.

    However, the point to remember here is that it is not the absolute temperature which is important. Rather it is the CHANGE in temperature - this is why the graphs tend to show the "temperature anomaly" rather than an absolute value. The fact that there are three independently constructed surface temperature series plus 2 satellite series (which measure radiance of the planet as a whole) adds to the confidence that the data is a reliable indicator of the rate of warming.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 6:07pm on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Hudsonfan @ #38

    As you say, we've been through this before.

    The point here is that the scientists have a pretty good idea what caused past changes in climate and they can account for all of the major factors operating at present. This is what allows them to be so confident that the present warming trend is primarily due to AGW.

    For example, it really doesn't matter that it was warmer at times in the past because it is also known that at those times CO2 was much higher whilst solar intensity was lower.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 10:50pm on 31 Dec 2010, Brent Hargreaves wrote:

    Paul Briscoe, would you like to comment on these three points?

    a. The Central England Temperature data, being the longest series of direct measurement, would show a significant rise if the whole Earth were warming. It doesn't, a strong indication that it isn't.

    b. As you'll know, competing with the CO2 hypothesis is one which says that solar activity (of which sunspots are just a visible symptom) governs cloud formation by cosmic ray penetration. Feasible, would you say, or already refuted?

    c. As a man of science, are there any criteria which might cause you to abandon the AGW theory in coming years? Put otherwise, is AGW falsifiable and if so what falsifiabilit criteria would you apply?

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 11:23pm on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    bandythebane @ #39

    "McIntyre at root is not discussing the SCIENCE (whatever that may be)at all. The only thing he ever discusses is the statistics used justify a range of dodgy conclusions made by those practising their sloppy SCIENCE."

    So McIntyre claims..... constantly! The problem is that there is far more to successful statistical analysis than simply being good at statistics. In order to use statistical analysis appropriately you also need to have a good working knowledge of the science you are studying - this is the area where McIntyre and McKitrick are clearly lacking. This is also why their claims need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

    The following article from Deepclimate details attempts by McKitrick to get a paper (McKitrick and Neirenberg) published. McKitrick claimed that his experience provided eveidence that the peer review process was corrupt, but his paper was actually refused for publication in the Journal of Climate because it was not of a high enough standard:

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/04/05/mcclimategate-continued-mckitrick-wrong-on-ipcc/

    Some bloggers appear to believe that McIntyre can do no wrong and never stop to question anything he says........ but he is an ex-mining exuctive, NOT a climate scientist. Frankly, he is not really qualified to claim that the science itself is "sloppy"........ and various independent reviews have proved him wrong several times over.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 11:29pm on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    H2SO4 @ #40

    I would point you to the fact that, despite the error bars that you allude to, the recent warming trend is significant at the 99.99999% percent level.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 11:50pm on 31 Dec 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Brent Hargreaves @ #44

    "The Central England Temperature data, being the longest series of direct measurement, would show a significant rise if the whole Earth were warming."

    Not necessarily! Heat is not evenly distributed across the planet, so a lack of significant warming in one location is not proof that there is no warming globally.

    However, let's take a look at the CET data plot:

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/

    There has been an obvious increase in temperature since the 1970's. Sure, if the present falling trend continues unabated then the warming will be wiped out. However, it's far too early to say that will happen in practice. Any scientist will tell you that it is the long term trend which counts and NOT short term fluctuations. So unless we get several more cold years in succession, it is FAR too early to suggest that warming has stopped in the UK.

    "As you'll know, competing with the CO2 hypothesis is one which says that solar activity (of which sunspots are just a visible symptom) governs cloud formation by cosmic ray penetration. Feasible, would you say, or already refuted?"

    The scientific consensus is that this CANNOT explain the present warming trend:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

    "As a man of science, are there any criteria which might cause you to abandon the AGW theory in coming years? Put otherwise, is AGW falsifiable and if so what falsifiabilit criteria would you apply?"

    In fact, I answered exactly that question on a recent thread below. Specifically I said that it would require:

    Evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

    Another process sufficient to explain the present warming.

    An extended period of cooling (or lack of warming) without an assignable reason.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 11:01am on 01 Jan 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #44 - Brent Hargreaves wrote:
    "a. The Central England Temperature data, being the longest series of direct measurement, would show a significant rise if the whole Earth were warming. It doesn't, a strong indication that it isn't."
    I presume that you are referring to the short-term, but as a sceptic myself, I have to point out that over the long term, CET does show a rising trend, actually slightly above global temperatures, although the relative trend is not constant. Since 1850, CET has shown a rise of about 0.22c per century relative to HadCRUT3. Recently, based on the 10 year and 30 year moving average differences, the increase in CET has been above that trend, following a period from about the 1950's to the 1980's when CET generally fell relative to HadCRUT3. The relative cooling of CET compared to HadCRUT3 over the last few years, should be seen in the context of a record high 10 year m.a. difference of - 3.94c in 2006. Clearly CET only represents a very small part of the UK, let alone the planet, so one wouldn't expect an exact correlation. Of course, while this is clear evidence of warming, it is only circumstantial evidence that warming is substantially man-made.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 11:12am on 01 Jan 2011, oldgifford wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 50. At 11:38am on 01 Jan 2011, Feetinthesnow wrote:

    As I said in an earlier comment arguing with zealots is a waste of time.

    From your many comments Paul Briscoe.

    You rebut Brent Hargreaves who said

    ""The Central England Temperature data, being the longest series of direct measurement, would show a significant rise if the whole Earth were warming."

    by saying

    Not necessarily! Heat is not evenly distributed across the planet, so a lack of significant warming in one location is not proof that there is no warming globally.

    You have a very good point Paul - unfortunately when there has been the smallest rise in CET we have been told that it is evidence of AGW. Any rise in anything is always due to AGW. You cannot have it both ways - but then again warmists always do.

    At no time did the ClimateGate investigations look at how the data had been handled, and since the investigation was done by warmists, we all know why. The emails tell their own story with even bullying of their own side to publish nothing inconvenient. The raw data was available and showed no real warming - it was how the data had been moulded that was at issue, and which was hidden.

    You don't need an investigation since the UEA has confirmed that the emails are genuine. You just need to read them. Paul - you can deny malpractice if you like, but the CRU emails have shaken even some ardent AGW supporters. The messages show gaming of peer-review between a handful of scientists, while denying access to the data to everyone else; bullying of editors of scientific journals to block publication of descenting scientific evidence; massive cherry picking of temperature and tree ring data to arrive at the required answer. These are not accusations Paul, they are detailed in the emails.

    Your statements about lack of hidden data is wonderful. We now know for instance that the warming trend in Antarctica was based on one station in the peninsula. The data was once again hidden from scrutiny despite repeated requests for transparency. When you look at the rest of the continent it is cooling very slightly and ice is growing. The peninsula is a volcanic region.

    None of all this disproves AGW, although CAGW adherents are in decline, with the Met Office and NASA producing less dramatic projections recently. BUT as I said earlier we need a return to proper science not the bastardised version we have had fed to us over the last decade or so.

    Anyway - how did all this start? Mr Hudson only said

    "2010: The year Britain Shivered"

    - perhaps we can't even agree on that!!!!!



    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 11:48am on 01 Jan 2011, Feetinthesnow wrote:

    Oh I forgot

    Latest verification of Hansen's predictions are in

    http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/2133-hansens-computer-vs-the-real-world.html

    You couldn't make it up could you????

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 12:00pm on 01 Jan 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #46 - Paul Briscoe wrote:
    "I would point you to the fact that, despite the error bars that you allude to, the recent warming trend is significant at the 99.99999% percent level."
    Even if that is true, all that proves is that the warming trend is very unlikely to have occurred by chance. It doesn't prove what the cause is, as proponents of AGW like to imply that it does.
    What I do know is that that if this year had heen warmer than 1998, that would have been significant, but if it isn't, it won't be.


    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 12:05pm on 01 Jan 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    I had been wondering why so many boilers had been freezing in the cold.
    This may be part of the explanation:
    http://thegwpf.org/uk-news/2124-green-shambles-britains-eco-boilers-freeze-over.html
    Seriously, would you buy anything recommended by John Prescott?

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 12:15pm on 01 Jan 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    Paul Briscoe
    You said this in another blog:
    "I think it is completely wrong to expect the scientists to involve themselves in the public debate as it is extremely important that they distance themselves from what has become a highly politicised process - advocacy is not a good thing in a scientist!"
    Whether the scientists like it or not, they ARE already involved in public debate. If I were a scientist who saw my work being misrepresented to the public, I would want to correct that. Otherwise, "silence is approval".


    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 1:08pm on 01 Jan 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    The GWPF are quoting Philip Eden as saying that this December was only the second coldest on record, i.e. since 1659, based on mean CET.
    http://thegwpf.org/uk-news/2134-its-official-december-was-the-chilliest-in-120-years-.html
    In fact, it only missed out on being the coldest on that basis by a single day, since as at the 30th., it was -0.9c.
    On the other hand, the minimum CET figure was -3.77c, making it much colder than 1890 on that basis, but only definitely the coldest since 1978, since minimum figures don't go back before then.
    The M.O. are still showing -2.5c.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 1:17pm on 01 Jan 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    Sorry, there was a typo in my previous post. I meant to say:

    "On the other hand, the minimum CET figure was -3.77c, making it much colder than 1890 on that basis, but only definitely the coldest since 1878, since minimum figures don't go back before then."

    The M.O. ranking file for min. CET now shows -3.8c for 2010, making it the coldest on record.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 2:37pm on 01 Jan 2011, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    Dear Mr Hudson

    Thank you again for your thoughtful mature and unhysterical posting. It is a shame that other posters do not follow your lead.

    I would suggest that anyone who wishes to view the CET Temperatures before the Met Office rationalised the data, that they Google Professor Manley and look at the graphs for all seasons, nothing unusual there.

    I am surprised at the unsubstantiated attacks being made on Mr McIntyre, attacks which in tone and tenor are very similar to those made by the Hockey Team members in the Climategate emails.

    Why anyone would mention on this serious web site Real Climate is beyond comprehension. Real Climate's output is discreditable and criticism is heavily censored.

    Mr McIntyre and Mr McItrick showed that the Hockey Stick graph was a statistical nonsense. The leaked emails showed the extent that self named climate scientists were willing to go to support their own views and manipulate the data and use fun factors in their computer code. Thus the leaked emails exonerated the work of McIntyre and McItrick whilst consigning the work of the Hockey Team to the dustbin.

    Well done the BBC for refraining from mentioning climate change over the last month or so, your license payers would not have been much pleased if you had tried to pin the blame on Global Warming?

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 2:48pm on 01 Jan 2011, oldgifford wrote:


    Happy New Year to one and all.

    “ MatthewDalby wrote:

    “Obviously at first glance the fact that we have had all sorts of records broken for low temperatures would seem to disprove global warming. However the truth is anything but. Just because Britian has experienced record cold this says nothing of global temperatures as a whole,”

    Paul Briscoe wrote:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/

    Readers will note that large parts of the Arctic are MUCH warmer than usual, largely because of reduced ice coverage. We saw a very similar pattern last winter too
    Readers will note that large parts of the Arctic are MUCH warmer than usual, largely because of reduced ice coverage.”

    I have to question the accuracy of the global temperature measurement network. Remember the hockey stick curve when they abandoned their proxies because the proxies showed cooling, not warming so then they turned to the thermometers that showed the warming they were looking for – hide the decline and all that?

    Paul quotes GISS and arctic warming but take a look at this post.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/20/giss-arctic-trends-disagree-with-satellite-data/

    GISS apparently doesn’t use thermometers north of 80 degrees but a 1200KM smoothing, as one note says it assumes the weather in London somehow affects the weather in Moscow.

    To my simple mind projecting a temperature 1200 KM away from an actual measurement is stretching the science far more than I am comfortable with. In my little village temperatures either side of the railway embankment differ by up to 2 deg.

    Coupled with the fact that there are now more measuring stations in the populated areas than in the unpopulated areas and the massive increases in temperature as you approach the urban heat islands, suggests there may be a warm bias in the global temperatures calculated using the smoothing techniques. I know adjustments are made for things such as UHI and when they move stations but how good are the adjustments?

    I still don’t understand how the carbon theory still has credibility. According to this theory global temperatures should still be rocketing, but they haven’t.


    New Study Shows No Correlation Between Temperature And CO2 Levels
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/new-study-shows-no-correlation-between-temperature-and-co2-levels/

    The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence.
    http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3447

    Given the strong causal link between CO2 and warming, what are we to make of periods where CO2 does not correlate with temperature?
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

    and of course, even though Paul will not look here,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/

    Yes correlation does not prove cause and effect but a theory without correlation of the results surely is a disproved theory.

    Paul wrote “After all, several of these major bodies made submissions to the enquiries into "Climategate".”

    Paul, you say you are a scientist, but having seen the way the enquiries reported do you have any confidence in them?.

    From the Muir Russell report:
    14. Finding: The extreme modes of expression used in many e-mails are
    characteristic of the medium. Crucially, the e-mails cannot always be relied upon
    as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behaviour that is
    extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.

    So the guys that wrote the emails were lying in the emails? Funny how the police always produce emails in court as evidence but the report doesn’t think they can be relied on?

    Or this

    27. On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way
    consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there
    was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails
    might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a
    subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should
    have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for
    FoIA and EIR compliance.


    Next time you are on a speeding charge try asking the magistrates to let you off because you were just unhelpful in abiding by the speed limit.

    Blast! I forgot, global warming also causes global cooling, silly me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 3:53pm on 01 Jan 2011, BluesBerry wrote:

    Europe, the US and many other places are suffering through one of the coldest winters on record. How can this be when we are supposedly experiencing global warming?
    Global warming activists have warned for years that warming could cause the "great conveyor belt" of warm ocean water to shut down. They say that such a shut down could - in turn - cause the climate to abruptly change, and a new ice age to begin. (The "great conveyer belt" of ocean currents are largely driven by the interaction of normal ocean water with colder and saltier ocean currents.)
    The Great conveyor belt stopped for the first time a month or two after the BP oil spill started. This correlates the breaking of the Loop Current with the biochemical and physical action of the BP Oil Spill...but climate change was happening before that, right?
    Mind you the oil spill didn't help: The oil spill sludge is still in the Gulf; it will interfere with the normal temperature and salinity processes which drive the ocean currents, and may shut down the ocean currents and CHANGE THE WORLD'S CLIMATE.
    The leak has been capped, but the oil-sludge (literally tons of it) has covered the bottom of the Gulf like a carpet. Effect? We have to wait.
    The jet stream, the United States' stormy weather maker, has crept northward and us weakening. Means
    - less rain in the already dry South and Southwest and
    - more storms in the North
    - more and stronger hurricanes.
    Two other jet streams in the Southern Hemisphere are also shifting pole-ward. There is a general northward shift of all sorts of phenomena in the Northern Hemisphere. Ecosystems cannot keep up
    Neither
    - a shutdown of the conveyor belt or
    - a Northward-shifting jet stream
    explains the extreme cold being experienced right now in the US East Coast, UK, Southern California, Australia and many other southerly locations.
    If either condition was occurring, England and other parts of Europe would indeed be getting hit with blizzards, but Southerly locations shouldn't be getting hit.
    The Met - England's official climate agency - says the problem isn't that the jet stream has shifted North, but that it has temporarily shifted South. In 2010, a high-pressure weather system over the Atlantic is blocking the jet stream’s normal path and forcing it to the north and south of Europe. The areas of high pressure act like stones in a stream - blocking the normal flow of milder air from the west and instead forcing colder air from the north down across the UK. Met Office spokesman: "The problem is we are not getting the warmer Atlantic air that normally keeps our winters mild."
    Some climate scientists believe that the dramatic retreat of the Arctic sea ice over the past 30 years has begun to change the wind patterns over much of the northern hemisphere, causing cold, Arctic air to be funnelled over Britain during winter, replacing the mild westerly airstream that normally dominates the UK's weather.
    If this all seems like jibberish (and it does to me), it more or less says that weather patterns are changing and God knows why!
    Then, comes the fact that there is evidence of global warming on Pluto, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune's moon. So, is the sun involved?
    Given the different theories about claimate change, some contend that we should do nothing until the dust (snow) settles. Does this not suggest that we should, in compliance to the October, 2010 UN resolution against tampering with the weather (i.e. using weather manipulation), STOP TAMPERING WITH THE WEATHER! STOP!
    I note from the Washington Post that the American Government has "switched" from one type of chemical to another because it was BELIEVED THAT THE FIRST CHEMICAL WAS CAUSING A HOLE IN THE OZONE LAYER. According to the Post, the chemical which the government was switching to is 4,470 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
    Who gave the United States permission for the experimentation that affects the entire world and contravenes the October UN resolution?
    It gets worse: Government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth's upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of global warming.
    Others are suggesting cutting down trees and burying them. (Can you belueve?) Other ways to geo-engineer the planet are being proposed.
    Under what aithority is all this being done? Has the UN approved?
    The approach should be:
    1. do no harm,
    2. act in accordance with the October UN resolition.
    If the United States wants to do something meaningful, let them: reduce their humungous Carbon Footprint from wars/bombs. I propose that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have wiped out any reduction in carbon that had previously occurred. What is the carbon impact of Predator bombs that destroy entire villages?
    Elimintate cap and trade.
    The bailout boys (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and the other Wall Street investment banbs) love cap and trade. Obama must ensure that the these hige investment banks (too big to fail); the same companies that made billions off of bundled derivatives and other financial scams are going to make billions from carbon trading. These guys can find ways to make money from anything!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 4:22pm on 01 Jan 2011, bandythebane wrote:

    I learned yesterday via the BBC no less that the percentage of Britsh people who thought global warming was a significant problem fell from 44% to 28% during 2010. No doubt after December this trend will continue, however loudly Hansen, Mann, WWF, et al may protest.

    In part (as we have debated here)this is due to the last three winters being cold enough to make the whole idea risible. It is also however due to the Climategate episode showing so clearly how keen "climate scientists" were to skew the results and prevent fair and open scrutiny of their science.

    McIntyre deserves our thanks for his contribution towards bringing this out. He may be criticised (as here) by zealous supporters of the "message" as "not a climate scientist", but in fact only an outsider could possibly be in a position to point out the extent to which the climate change emperors are without clothes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 5:02pm on 01 Jan 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #60 - bandythebane
    I have to say that while I don't think that the last three U.K. winters disproves "global warming" as such, it does cast into doubt many of the outlandish predictions made by proponents of "climate change". I suspect that what we will see during 2011 is a scaling back of those predictions by those proponents, while at the same time attempting to convince themselves and everyone else that the underlying theory is correct. Remember however, that every time a prediction is made less extreme, that means that a "sceptical" point of view will have been justified.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 6:56pm on 01 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Feetinthesnow @ #50

    "....unfortunately when there has been the smallest rise in CET we have been told that it is evidence of AGW. Any rise in anything is always due to AGW. You cannot have it both ways - but then again warmists always do."

    Please can you point to anywhere in the peer-reviewed scientific literature where it is stated that short term rises in temperature in a particular region (ie. warm weather) is proof of AGW? The scientists carrying out the research are always at pains to point out that this is not the case.

    I agree that the public came away with that impression, but that is not down to the scientists. Rather it is down to the media and the failure of the Met Office to properly counter the perception.

    "At no time did the ClimateGate investigations look at how the data had been handled, and since the investigation was done by warmists, we all know why."

    No! One of the reviews was carried out by MP's and the others by scientists - it would be silly for it to be any other way as only scientists understand how scientific procedure normally operates. If they were "warmists" as you call them, it would only be because the vast majority of scientists have objectively assessed the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion that AGW is a real threat.

    Did you actually look at the findings in any detail (beyond the fact that they didn't find the fraud you were hoping for)? Muir Russell and his team were able to download the raw data, WHICH WAS FREELY AVAILABLE ONLINE. They were able to use the published methods of Jones et al (also freely available online) and in just 2 days produced their own temperature series which confirmed Jones' findings - in other words, in line with normal scientific procedure, it was entirely possible to reproduce his methods and his results - NO FUDGES, NO FIDDLING! Russell also pointed out that 2 other datasets (using different stations and methods) plus 2 satellite series, produced in a totally different way (ONE BY A LEADING SCEPTIC!) also confirmed Jones' findings.

    So where exactly is your evidence that the data has been fiddled? Rather, the problem is that most sceptics don't UNDERSTAND how the data is handled, whilst a few mischievous individuals spuriously claim that the scientists' methods are dubious.

    Now regarding your claims of bullying and corrupt peer review, the various reviews looked at this too and concluded that there was no case to answer. Here are the findings of the US EPA:

    http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/56eb0d86757cb7568525776f0063d82f%21OpenDocument

    These were nothing more than "candid discussions" in private emails that someone mischievously presented out of context. If you had looked in detail into the individual conversations and their FULL context (as the reviews did) you would soon have realised that the scientists had no case to answer.

    Please also take a PROPER look at this article and in particular point 7:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html

    Of course, people who have staked a lot on discrediting AGW HAVE to claim that the enquiries were a whitewash....... BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO PRODUCE REAL EVIDENCE TO MAKE SUCH ASSERTIONS. Do you have any? If the stolen emails are all you have to go on, then you're really scraping the barrel - they show NONE of the things you are claiming.

    "We now know for instance that the warming trend in Antarctica was based on one station in the peninsula."

    Well that's funny........ because O'Donnell, McIntyre et al actually used the data you claim was "hidden" and CONFIRMED the warming trend in Western Antarctica found by Steig et al! Was their paper flawed too? This is yet another non-story blown up out of all proportion by people who are determined to discredit scientists.

    "although CAGW adherents are in decline"

    Prove it! Why would the USNAS have come out so strongly in favour of AGW in May 2010 if support for it was "in decline"?

    "with the Met Office and NASA producing less dramatic projections recently. BUT as I said earlier we need a return to proper science not the bastardised version we have had fed to us over the last decade or so."

    All misrepresentations and propaganda from individuals and organisations which have no REAL evidence to support their agenda!

    It's time to stand on your own 2 feet (in the snow if necessary) and find some proper scientific evidence of your own rather than plumbing the depths with baseless and frankly libelous allegations.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 7:14pm on 01 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    feetinthesnow @ #51

    "You couldn't make it up could you????"

    Sadly, the GWPF often do!

    In just a few seconds I have already spotted one major flaw in the present post - the "actual" graphic is for 31st December 2010 whereas the one attributed to Hansen is actually based on models which smooth data over several years. So even if the graphic is indeed Hansen's projection for 2010 (which has yet to be confirmed), the 2 are NOT directly comparable.

    Why am I so sceptical about the graphic?

    It's not that long ago that GWPF were found obscuring data from the Met Office which didn't support their assertions.

    Also, I think much of the data manipulation is done by Christopher Monckton....... and there are plenty of examples of his misrepresentations available online.


    Here's what he got wrong in his presentation to the US Congress:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Monckton-got-his-IPCC-predictions-wrong.html

    Now why would he need to do that if he had any REAL evidence?


    Here's his misrepresentation of arctic sea ice:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is_Arctic_Sea_Ice_Just_Fine.html

    Now why would he need to do that if he had any REAL evidence?


    Here's an article linking to a whole collection of "Moncktonisms":

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-reply-to-Monckton.html

    Now why would he need to do that if he had any REAL evidence?


    Perhaps you can now understand why I take articles such as the one you've linked to with a pinch of salt!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 7:37pm on 01 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    QV @ #52

    "Even if that is true, all that proves is that the warming trend is very unlikely to have occurred by chance. It doesn't prove what the cause is, as proponents of AGW like to imply that it does."

    True, but the question I was asked was not about the CAUSE of the warming trend. It was regarding the large internal variability in the data.

    "What I do know is that that if this year had heen warmer than 1998, that would have been significant, but if it isn't, it won't be"

    I don't think that's fair at all! The scientists have always pointed out that it is the long term trend which is important. It is sceptics who have used short term fluctuations, with 1998 as a starting point, in their attempts to undermine the science. You can hardly blame the Met Office if they now play the sceptics at their own game!

    However, the next IPCC report will, as always, concentrate on the long term trends, regardless of whether 2010 proves to be the warmest on record.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 7:46pm on 01 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    QV @ #54

    "Whether the scientists like it or not, they ARE already involved in public debate. If I were a scientist who saw my work being misrepresented to the public, I would want to correct that. Otherwise, "silence is approval"."

    In my experience, most scientists are "creatures of habit" and they prefer to operate through their normal channels - ie. through scientific literature. If they are asked they are generally very candid..... but most of the media are after a good story rather than wanting to accurately report a story. So very often scientists end up getting quoted out of context if they do try to contribute!

    So actually responding is a mixed blessing!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 8:07pm on 01 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    MMUGW @ #57

    "Mr McIntyre and Mr McItrick showed that the Hockey Stick graph was a statistical nonsense. The leaked emails showed the extent that self named climate scientists were willing to go to support their own views and manipulate the data and use fun factors in their computer code. Thus the leaked emails exonerated the work of McIntyre and McItrick whilst consigning the work of the Hockey Team to the dustbin."

    I've already dealt with that nonsense above! ...... but to recap:

    "Mr McIntyre and Mr McItrick showed that the Hockey Stick graph was a statistical nonsense."

    Yes, the statistics in the original paper were flawed, but the USNAS review found that it actually made little difference - they upheld the findings of Mann et al. Of course, subsequent work using other proxies and different statistical analysis has only served to confirm Mann's original findings.

    "The leaked emails showed the extent that self named climate scientists were willing to go to support their own views and manipulate the data and use fun factors in their computer code."

    The various enquiries looked into the emails in far more detail than you obviously did and considered them in their proper context. They concluded that the scientists had no case to answer.

    The raw data actually belongs to the country of origin rather than CRU and most of it is freely available online (and it is not CRU that is blocking the availability of the rest of it). The methods used for data handling are also published, so it is possible for anyone who knows what they are doing to create their own code and reproduce the scientists' work.

    If the scientists were indeed using a "fun factor" in their code, it would be obvious the moment anyone else tried to replicate the work. In any case, the other datasets confirm the reproducibility of CRU's work. It's also very easy to prove that there is no bias introduced during the processing of the raw data:

    http://gilest.ro/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 10:27pm on 01 Jan 2011, brossen99 wrote:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_qconsensusq_opiate_the_97_solution.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 11:02pm on 01 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    oldgifford @ #58

    "I have to question the accuracy of the global temperature measurement network. Remember the hockey stick curve when they abandoned their proxies because the proxies showed cooling, not warming so then they turned to the thermometers that showed the warming they were looking for – hide the decline and all that?"

    I have to say that I'm disappointed by that paragraph, Oldgifford.

    The decision to discard proxy data which failed to follow the known temperature record was entirely appropriate. Would the USNAS have upheld Mann's findings if it wasn't?

    I also fail to see how it brings into doubt the instrumental temperature record. Scientists will always use instrumentl data where it is available. They only use proxies where there is no alternative.

    You have linked to an article by Steven Goddard at WUWT regarding problems with the GISS evaluation of arctic temperature. You are correct in thinking that I view any article at WUWT with deep suspicion..... and not without good reason! Steven Goddard sadly has the same problem!

    Here is an article which explains GISS's methods in a little more detail and shows that they are not as questionable as Mr Goddard might have you believe:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/DMI-data-on-Arctic-temperatures-Intermediate.html

    I still don’t understand how the carbon theory still has credibility. According to this theory global temperatures should still be rocketing, but they haven’t."

    Don't forget about thermal inertia, Oldgifford! The temperature is constantly playing catch up!

    You then mention another article by Steven Goddard which claims to show there was no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the Pliocene warm period. It seem that Mr Goddard may have been up to his tricks again!

    I haven't found the original paper as yet (probably not out), but here is a far more detailed account of Prof Ravelo's work:

    http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/12/14/bering-sea-was-ice-free-and-full-of-life-during-last-warm-period.html

    As you can see, the theme of her presentation was very different from the gloss Goddard put on it! The following article gives more details as to why that particular period was so warm:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Estimating-climate-sensitivity-from-3-million-years-ago.html

    So far from there being "no correlation", scientists have actually used the large changes in CO2 during that period to help calculate climate sensitivity! Now perhaps you will understand why I don't trust Steven Goddard as a source.

    I've had a look at Soares' paper on CO2/temperature correlation and I'm not very impressed - this may be why neither the AGW proponents nor the sceptics seem to have shown much interest in it. First of all, I'm not at all clear about what he's actually done. If he has simply used raw annual data, complete with all of the other natural cycles (ENSO/solar) included, the "noise" is bound to mask a great deal.

    I was particularly struck by the following statement in the abstract:

    "Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption."

    To my knowledge he did not measure ocean temperature. You wouldn't expect CO2 to follow a short term fall in temperature unless the oceans also cooled significantly...... especially as Man has consistently been adding more CO2 to the atmosphere during the period in question.

    The Skeptical Science article you linked to actually covers this subject very effectively:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

    You simply wouldn't expect CO2 to correlate with temperature in the short term because other variables come into play. It is for precisely this reason that scientists use smoothed data.

    Finally, you linked to WUWT regarding a paper by Joe D'Aleo. As you say, correlation doesn't prove a causal link. Although PDO does correlate to some extent with short term temperature variations, it has no trend at all, so it cannot possibly explain the recent warming TREND:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-intermediate.htm

    "So the guys that wrote the emails were lying in the emails? Funny how the police always produce emails in court as evidence but the report doesn’t think they can be relied on?"

    With respect, the police would only offer up emails as proof of a crime if there was also evidence that things said in them had been carried through! Furthermore, quite a lot of the allegations were based on emails being taken out of context.

    With regards to FOI requests......

    The government response to the various reviews pointed out:

    "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data." This was due to confidentiality agreements. The point was made that the scientists could have been more "helpful" by going back to the owners of the data to ask for permission, but the law certainly did not require them to do this. Given the aggressive approach (and harrassment) used by certain individuals towards them, it is hardly surprising that they chose not to!

    "Blast! I forgot, global warming also causes global cooling, silly me."

    Well, you would certainly be very silly if you thought that!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 11:31pm on 01 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    brossen99 @ #67

    Yes, the number of climate scientists included in the Doran study was quite small........ but the consensus was still very strong (82%) amongst the scientists as a whole (3146 individuals of whom over 90% had PhD's).

    Here is another more recent study which looked at over 1000 climate scientists:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

    As you see, the consensus was every bit as strong as the one found by Doran for a smaller sample size.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 00:11am on 02 Jan 2011, bandythebane wrote:

    I kind of agree with your 61 QV. Nothing much on its own proves anything.

    However the likes of the Armagh Observatory data set, which goes back more than 200 years and is about as reliable as you get in anything related to "climate science", shows a plausible long term relationship between solar cycle length (and intensity) and temperatures.

    As Paul has mentioned here previously, this kind of data has been used by David Archibald and others to project that with the great length of Solar Cycle 23 and the current low solar intensity we may expect the immediate future to be cold.

    We can only watch what happens and judge, but I have to say that so far Archibald's expectations are looking a lot more plausible than those of e.g CRU or the Met Office.









    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 00:45am on 02 Jan 2011, nibor25 wrote:

    I've kind of stopped reading Paul Briscoe's comments (Sorry Paul)... generally because there are too many, they are too verbose and most point to the usual suspect sites.

    I did have a look at the PNAS link however and did a bit of Googling. For an alternative view try.

    http://www.examiner.com/environmental-policy-in-national/global-warming-s-stephen-schneider-the-light-that-failed

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 01:20am on 02 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    nibor25 @ #71

    I too am up late!

    Sorry you find my posts too verbose, but it is very difficult to give a complete answer to points raised without going into considerable detail. It would be far easier if others posting here used sources backed up by scientific literature!

    Sadly Stephen Scheider is now no longer with us, but just before he died, he and his colleagues produced the following response to criticisms of their paper:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/expert-credibility-in-climate-change-responses-to-comments/

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 02:26am on 02 Jan 2011, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #62, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    “ ….. Well that's funny........ because O'Donnell, McIntyre et al actually used the data you claim was "hidden" and CONFIRMED the warming trend in Western Antarctica found by Steig et al! Was their paper flawed too? This is yet another non-story blown up out of all proportion by people who are determined to discredit scientists. ….. “

    Every novel claim made by Steig 09 has been shown to be the result of flawed mathematics.

    If the climate scientists had been prepared to accept the criticism of their earlier work this failure could have been avoided. A failure that passed climate science peer review but was immediately apparent to bloggers. A failure that was known to bloggers almost two years before it was made known in the official literature.

    This is no way to do science.

    It is also sad to see people still defending the various Hockey-stick reconstructions. If they could just come to terms with the fact that they are wrong then maybe the path would be opened to methods that may give us a better understanding of natural variability and allow us to plan accordingly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 07:53am on 02 Jan 2011, Feetinthesnow wrote:

    RobWansBeck

    I completely support your remarks in #73.

    It amazes me how people can just go on regurgitating AGW stuff that has been totally debunked.

    As you say the Mann Hockey-stick is a prime example. Access denied to data for years on how it was produced, then McIntyre back-engineers how it was done. US Stats soc condemns the method used as worthless. By this time it is the basis of advice to the World to spend billions cutting CO2.

    Surely Mann's big mistake was erasing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. According to the hockey-stick they never occurred. He should have realised that too many proper Climate people knew that to be wrong.

    So for later IPCC reports a new hockey-stick is produced using the Briffa tree-ring data, now of course equally discredited. Years of refusal of requests to see how the tree-ring data had been derived - we eventually find the H-S is based on a few trees out hundreds.

    The full story is here in layman's terms.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

    What is worse overall is the fact that the ClimateGate emails show that pressure was put on Briffa to come up with something that matched the story.

    And this is Science?

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 09:19am on 02 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #73; Feetinthesnow @ #74

    You appear to be accusing me of simply regurgitating AGW dogma. Are you not doing exactly the same with regard to the sites you follow? The difference between us is that my sources can back up what they say with scientific literature whilst yours rely on misrepresentations of the facts.

    RobWansbeck, Steig had already realised that his original data handling was not perfect and issued a "corrigendum" of his work in Nature before the O'Donnell paper was released. If what you say is correct, please can you account for the following quote from lead author Ryan O'Donnell?

    “Overall, we find that the Steig reconstruction overestimated the continental trends and underestimated the Peninsula – though our analysis found that the trend in West Antarctica was, indeed, statistically significant. I would hope that our paper is not seen as a repudiation of Steig’s results, but rather as an improvement.”

    This statement doesn't fit very well with WUWT et al's claims of a "rebuttal". This is simply the way science advances in practice....... but as so often happens, the sites you follow have made exaggerated claims to score points........ knowing that you'll lap it up rather than go and check the details for yourself.

    Feetinthesnow, your claims regarding the "Hockey Stick" don't fit in with established facts or the findings of independent reviews. Again, you are merely parroting unsubstantiated assertions made by those you "follow".

    Here is a detailed rebuttal of what McIntyre was claiming regarding Yamal - done as it should be done, in a professional, factual way, without the innnuendo and baseless accusations:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

    So why did your source get its facts so badly wrong? Could it be because it was written by Christopher Monckton? Have you not followed any of my links detailing his endless misrepresentations? Anyone who posts such nonsense on such a regular basis cannot be considered a reliable source.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 09:19am on 02 Jan 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #64 - Paul Briscoe wrote:
    "I don't think that's fair at all! The scientists have always pointed out that it is the long term trend which is important. It is sceptics who have used short term fluctuations, with 1998 as a starting point, in their attempts to undermine the science. You can hardly blame the Met Office if they now play the sceptics at their own game!"
    Without wishing to be childish, the Met. Office, aided and abetted by the BBC, started it, not the other way round. I don't recall scientists rushing to put the record straight.


    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 09:23am on 02 Jan 2011, timawells wrote:

    Paul Briscoe

    I will believe scientists when they start to use some common sense. Statistics mean nothing, anybody can collect information to proof a point. Science has to be as much common sense as scientific evidence or it means nothing. They need to join the real world and stop trying to make science more important than it really is.

    I wonder which planet the scientists who believe in Global warming live on, it certainly isn't earth.

    Margaret Thatcher gave money to proof that coal caused Global warming. In order to claim their money scientists universities are going to back up what she says!

    Some other guy came up with the Hockey stick approach to make a name for himself and a lot of people followed, not checking things out for themselves. If scientific evidence is based on a false evidence appearing real, then it doesn't hold much weight in my mind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 09:38am on 02 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Feetinthesnow

    I want to quickly return to your link @ #50:

    http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/2133-hansens-computer-vs-the-real-world.html

    Having now looked at this in more detail, I can confirm that my initial impression was correct - it is yet another misrepresentation.

    The graphic attributed to Hansen is indeed lifted straight from his 1988 paper, but you'll note that it says "2010's" and NOT "2010". This is because it is Hansen's prediction for the decade up to 2020.

    I have already pointed out that the comparison used by the GWPF is not a valid one as it uses the graphic from a single day. Figure 5 from the following article is the closest equivalent graphic and the one that should be used for this comparison:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm

    If you read the entire article, you'll see that the scientists agree Hansen's 1988 paper overplays the warming slightly (but not in the way GWPF are claiming!). He used a higher figure for climate sensitivity than the one currently in use by the IPCC. All in all, though, given the data available at that time, he wasn't too far out.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 09:55am on 02 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    timawells @ #77

    "I will believe scientists when they start to use some common sense. Statistics mean nothing, anybody can collect information to proof a point. Science has to be as much common sense as scientific evidence or it means nothing. They need to join the real world and stop trying to make science more important than it really is."

    All that statement tells me is that you do not really understand how science works in practice. In the study of dynamic natural systems there is no such thing as absolute proof. You can't simply do a few bench experiments and expect to get an answer. What the scientists have to do is collect EVIDENCE. Once sufficient different lines have been collected a consensus is reached.

    Statistical analysis is an integral part of any study into these complex natural systems. For example, it was statistical analysis which finally provided scientists with confidence that smoking is linked to serious dieases...... and there are many other things which we all take for granted today which used exactly the same approach.

    "Margaret Thatcher gave money to proof that coal caused Global warming. In order to claim their money scientists universities are going to back up what she says!"

    Except that many of the scientists researching AGW do NOT receive money for their work - they do it as a sideline. On the other hand, it has been shown time and again that organisations linked to the denial of AGW have received funding from oil, energy and mining industries.

    "Some other guy came up with the Hockey stick approach to make a name for himself and a lot of people followed, not checking things out for themselves."

    No! The "hockey stick" was a genuine attempt to reconstruct temperatures for periods before there were thermometers. All that was wrong with the original paper was flawed statistical analysis. Subsequent papers have corrected this. It is people determined to discredit the science who still claim the proxy reconstructions are flawed. In truth it is just a divertion, as proxy data is not needed to uphold the science of AGW.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 10:55am on 02 Jan 2011, Feetinthesnow wrote:

    Oh dear Paul Briscoe - you are addicted to the Kool-aid aren't you. I admire your ability to defend the indefensible.

    Your reply to me at #78 is just laughable. The guy is well adrift and we all know it. The real world is not following any of the model predictions.

    Your reply to Timawells at #79 is a prime example of ignoring the reality. There has been no hockey-stick construct that has stood the test of "real" peer review - not just mate review.

    AGW was theory that man was causing accelerated warming with CO2. 20+ years on there is no firm evidence to support that, and this has lead believers to bad science, obfuscation, lack of transparency, exaggerate unproven trends and scaremongering, to keep the narrative alive.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 11:14am on 02 Jan 2011, Feetinthesnow wrote:

    Paul Briscoe @75

    I have read the ClimateGate emails

    I don't have to take anybody else's word for what has clearly taken place.

    You believe what you want.

    I have an open mind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 12:03pm on 02 Jan 2011, brossen99 wrote:

    http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=290&c=5

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 12:30pm on 02 Jan 2011, oldgifford wrote:

    I have to congratulate Paul Briscoe for his measured attempts to defend his ideas, makes coming to this blog a real pleasure.

    Paul you mention the hockey stick and the MWP and cite this paper:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

    Did the MWP exist? This paper suggests it certainly did using reliable proxies.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/02/0902522107.full.pdf

    And it was world wide:
    A new 2,000-year-long reconstruction of sea surface temperatures (SST) from the Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) suggests that temperatures in the region may have been as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as they are today.
    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=39136&tid=282&cid=59106&ct=162


    “but the present global warming can only be explained by an enhanced greenhouse effect”

    Sorry Paul, this paper shows it’s not the greenhouse effect, and as you wrote “Only peer-reviewed scientific literature has been thoroughly tested by third parties to ensure it is robust” it must be robust.

    So the science is now settled. [ who said that? ]

    International Journal of Geosciences
    Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes
    Paulo Cesar Soares
    Earth Sciences, Federal University of Parana (UFPR), Curitiba, Brazil
    Abstract
    The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence…………

    http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileName=IJG20100300002_69193660.pdf&paperID=3447

    I do question the science that predicts a temperature 1200km away because they have no data, and I stick my comments of hide the decline.

    “I also fail to see how it brings into doubt the instrumental temperature record.”

    Well if the proxies differed so much from the measurements one or the other is incorrect. Which is it, the proxies of the hockey stick or the method used to measure and calculate global temperatures?

    You site this link,

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/DMI-data-on-Arctic-temperatures-Intermediate.html

    Interestingly one of the replies shows a 30 year temperature cycle, and if that is driving the arctic temperatures then it is indicative of natural causes not CO2.

    “Don't forget about thermal inertia, Oldgifford! The temperature is constantly playing catch up!”

    I haven’t forgotten inertia, however the warmists have us believe that just because we have seen temperatures rise in the previous 30 years it must be climate not weather. Who decided 30 years? Perhaps it fitted their argument. Some would have us believe that the current increase in CO2 levels is the lag between the MWP and the build up of CO2 as shown my Mr. Gore.

    We can see from the recent peer reviewed papers that we had similar global temperatures in the Roman and MWP periods so what is new about the warming/cooling we have now? We do not have evidence that it is CO2 causing it, we have a theory and as I said earlier the results don’t back up the theory.

    Global warming does cause cooling, the postings from this site say so and as it slates the “deniers” it must be true:)

    “It's obvious to knowledgeable people that colder temperatures and heavier snowfall PROVE global warming is real. That concept is impossible for a conservative mind to understand, but it is so.”

    “Some of these hypothetical mechanisms even suggest that global warming might well trigger the next Ice Age.”

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162314

    And from Real Climate so it MUST be true:
    “A timely perspective article in Science this week addresses the issues of upper atmosphere change. ‘Upper’ atmosphere here is the stratosphere up to the ionosphere (~20 to 300 km). Laštovička et al point out that cooling trends are exactly as predicted by increasing greenhouse gas trends, and that the increase in density that this implies is causing various ionspheric layers to ‘fall’.”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/

    I’m not particularly sad spending time on this blog but at the present time I am unable to walk without pain or get on my bike so this at least gives my fingers some exercise.

    OG :))

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 1:02pm on 02 Jan 2011, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #75, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    “ ….. Steig had already realised that his original data handling was not perfect and issued a "corrigendum" of his work in Nature before the O'Donnell paper was released. ….. “

    Steig learnt of his errors by reading blogs. His first response was to suggest that the bloggers take a Matlab course and realclimate's Gavin weighed in with this derisory comment to please his faithful readers:

    “ The poor level of their response is not surprising, but it does exemplify the tactics of the whole ‘bury ones head in the sand” movement – they’d much rather make noise than actually work out what is happening. It would be nice if this demonstration of intellectual bankruptcy got some media attention itself. “

    What Gavin described as the 'poor level of response' was actually the correct mathematics.

    When Steig found that the bloggers were correct and his peer reviewed paper was wrong he disappeared.

    It was this arrogance, and ignorance, that in part led to bloggers writing their own paper. Although the errors in Steig's paper were well known, the Hockey Team under the guise of a single reviewer spent nearly a year trying to prevent publication.

    I will repeat. Every novel claim made by Steig 09 has been shown to be the result of flawed mathematics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 6:11pm on 02 Jan 2011, David Evershed wrote:

    I too would like to thank Paul Briscoe for his calm, measured and rational explanations and justifications.

    Personally, I can accept that the globe is "warming" - after all it has warmed and cooled over many historic periods.

    I am agnostic as to whether the current warming is primarily due to greenhouse gases produced by man (AGW). Even a strong statistical correlation does not mean there is a cause and effect, although there seems to be evidence that in isolation an increase in CO2 would lead to warming.

    So it seems to me that it is hard for either side to be 99.9% sure that global warming is or is not caused by greenhouse gases specifically caused by man.

    So I make a plea for more uncertainty in the counter claims and more humility by posters.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 6:52pm on 02 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Feetinthesnow @ #80

    "Your reply to me at #78 is just laughable. The guy is well adrift and we all know it. The real world is not following any of the model predictions."

    It strikes me that you missed the main point of my post @ #78!

    Hansen's projection, based on data available at that time, did indeed overplay the warming....... but it would not have done with modern estimates of climate sensitivity. Science progesses, Feetinthesnow, but your arguments do not.

    However, the MAIN point of #78 was to draw attention to the blatant misrepresentation of the facts by the GWPF. They presented a graphic from Hansen's paper in such a way as to give the impression it was relevant to 2010 when it wasn't at all. They then CHERRY-PICKED a graphic from a single day right in the middle of the Nothern Hemisphere winter to compare with Hansen's decadal average - such a comparison isn't remotely valid.

    Believe me, I can point to many more examples of the above from GWPF, WUWT, Bishophill, Jo Nova....... and even Climateaudit makes assertions which go way beyond what the evidence supports.

    If the scientists at the centre of the Climategate enquiries had been caught doing the above they would rightly have been dismissed for professional misconduct! Yet apparently it's just fine for your sources to do this..... and you still present their claims as having equal merit to peer-reviewed scientific literature! Utter nonsense!

    Why would GWPF need to resort to these types of tactics if they had any real evidence? Perhaps you can answer me that?

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 6:54pm on 02 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Feetinthesnow @ #81

    "I have an open mind."

    No! That's one thing you definitely DON'T have - as proved by my previous post!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 7:15pm on 02 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    brossen99 @ #82

    I am familiar with Piers Corbyn and his claims. I would take him slightly more seriously if he didn't use the propaganda terms such as "warmists" and "Cold means Warm".

    I would be interested to know where he thinks the peer-reviewed literature claims that "cold means warm"....... because to my knowledge it doesn't.

    I have posted this link before, but just by way of a comparison I will do so again. It shows the more measured and science-based approach used by the scientists (who don't claim to have all the answers):

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/cold-winter-in-a-world-of-warming/

    Incidentally, there appears to be little evidence in the scientific literature to support what Corbyn claims. I'm not saying that he has no point at all, but he has never published the details of his methods.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 8:11pm on 02 Jan 2011, brossen99 wrote:

    Paul #88

    " Incidentally, there appears to be little evidence in the scientific literature to support what Corbyn claims. I'm not saying that he has no point at all, but he has never published the details of his methods."

    If Piers Corbyn published his full methods he would be out of a job, but its not exactly rocket science to understand the relationship between the position of the moon and the interaction of the respective magnetic fields of the earth and moon, most half educated ordinary people I inform about it tend to grasp the basic principle fairly easy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 8:27pm on 02 Jan 2011, Gadgetfiend wrote:

    Piers Corbyn said there would be a white xmas with snow falling which did not occur across most of the country. He also said there would be severe snow and blizzards between christmas and new year 'that traditional meteorology will underplay because of solar effects' in the UK which did not happen either. I find it strange that when Piers Corbyn is right then he is hailed as some kind of magician, and yet when he's wrong it's quietly forgotton.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 8:46pm on 02 Jan 2011, brossen99 wrote:

    #90

    Piers did admit he failed to forecast the snow at the end of November, in his broad statement he said that there would be less cold intervals, and in any case he has never claimed to be 100% certain.

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 10:39pm on 02 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    oldgifford @ #83

    "Did the MWP exist?"

    The available data does show that there was an extended period in Medieval times over which all of the proxies showed higher temperatures than the period following, where solar activity went into decline. However, different regions appear to have seen their warmest temperatures at different times. Is this a MWP? I suppose it depends on how one defines the term. Was the Earth as a whole warmer than today? Probably not. Does it matter? Probably not!

    "Sorry Paul, this paper shows it’s not the greenhouse effect"

    Sorry oldgifford, but I'm not absolutely clear about which paper you're referring to here (too many links).

    Do you mean the Soares paper? I've already commented that I'm not very impressed by it........ and quite a few bad papers do get through peer review (eg Soon and Baliunas). This is why a single paper which appears to contradict every other piece of literature out there does not in itself disprove the consensus view. If it stands the test of time then it may have a point, but it certainly doesn't seem to be getting discussed by the scientific community as yet.

    The following statement from the Journal on submitting papers also caught my eye:

    "Please provide the names of three to five scientists knowledgeable in the area discussed in your manuscript along with their e-mail addresses and the institutions to which they are affiliated."

    In other words, it appears that the author is afforded the liberty of nominating the scientists to review the paper........ that certainly wouldn't be normal practice at Nature! Generally, the author does not get to know who is reviewing the paper.

    So I think it may be quite dubious..... but leave it with me and I'll do a bit more digging!

    "Well if the proxies differed so much from the measurements one or the other is incorrect."

    It was actually just the high latitude North American trees which showed a divergence after a particular point in time. Obviously, the instrumental record rather than the tree-rings gives the reliable temperature data and this was why the proxy data which diverged from it were discarded. I have seen other instances in other research fields where similar decisions have been made - there is nothing unusual in what Mann did in this case.

    "Interestingly one of the replies shows a 30 year temperature cycle, and if that is driving the arctic temperatures then it is indicative of natural causes not CO2."

    That surely all depends on whether it is a cycle without a positive trend, as if it is it clearly cannot explain the warming trend.

    "Who decided 30 years?"

    I honestly don't know the answer to that. However, the point of 30 years WRT AGW is that it looks beyond all of the natural cycles which clearly have a major influence in the short term.

    "Some would have us believe that the current increase in CO2 levels is the lag between the MWP and the build up of CO2 as shown my Mr. Gore. "

    Then they would be ignoring the work which conclusively shows that present CO2 rises are anthropogenic!

    "We can see from the recent peer reviewed papers that we had similar global temperatures in the Roman and MWP periods so what is new about the warming/cooling we have now? We do not have evidence that it is CO2 causing it, we have a theory and as I said earlier the results don’t back up the theory."

    You've not been reading my other posts. Scientists have shown that prior to the middle of the 20th century, for at least 1150 years, global temperature correlated closely with solar activity. This relationship has broken down over the past 40 years. Only AGW has the capacity to explain the present warming. I find this article quite informative on the subject:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-advanced.htm


    "Global warming does cause cooling, the postings from this site say so and as it slates the “deniers” it must be true:)"

    That's not up to your usual standard of argument, oldgifford! Does the scientific literature confirm this?

    "‘Upper’ atmosphere here is the stratosphere up to the ionosphere (~20 to 300 km)."

    Ah, right!! So you're actually talking about STRATOSPHERIC cooling, which is totally different matter....... and entirely consistent with AGW.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 11:10pm on 02 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #84

    Having read Gavin Schmidt's remarks at Realclimate it is clear that what he was really objecting to was the insinuation that Steig's paper was dishonest.......... sadly this is a common tactic at Climateaudit.

    Sure, they had a point regarding the data handling in this case, but it ALWAYS seems to be accompanied by some type of suggestion of fraud on the part of the scientists.

    "Steig learnt of his errors by reading blogs."

    He claims that it was other scientists who first alerted him to the problem. Do you have proof to the contrary?

    "....the Hockey Team under the guise of a single reviewer spent nearly a year trying to prevent publication."

    McIntyre certainly claimed this (as expected), but he has no evidence to support the claim. The identity of the reviewers is not revealed to the authors. The reason for the delay could very easily have been something totally unrelated - such things frequently happen in peer-review. I quote again from O'Donnell:

    "I am quite satisfied that the review process was fair and equitable, although I do believe excessive deference was paid to this one particular reviewer at the beginning of the process."

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 11:21pm on 02 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    brossen99 @ #89

    "If Piers Corbyn published his full methods he would be out of a job, but its not exactly rocket science to understand the relationship between the position of the moon and the interaction of the respective magnetic fields of the earth and moon, most half educated ordinary people I inform about it tend to grasp the basic principle fairly easy."

    I don't doubt the effect of lunar phase on magnetic fields. The problem is that there is no proven mechanism by which magnetic fields can influence global climate. Oldgifford may tell you otherwise, but a lot more work needs to be done to establish this.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 11:28pm on 02 Jan 2011, Brent Hargreaves wrote:

    Paul Biscoe (#47):

    You wrote that your 'falsifiability criteria' for the AGW theory would be:

    (a) Evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

    (b) Another process sufficient to explain the present warming.

    (c) An extended period of cooling (or lack of warming) without an assignable reason.

    Well, for (a) I think that even the most sceptical sceptic accepts the radiative physics, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You won't be declaring AGW a dead duck on this criterion!

    For (b)I don't quite get you. Yes, I understand that if CO2's effect turns out to be dwarfed by some other driver than you'll write it off. But do you actually need a "prime suspect"? Isn't it feasible that "natural variation" just happens in complex systems. My hope is that solar variation will be the smoking gun, but if this hypothesis is a flop we may have to accept that variation just happens. It's fruitless to ask for every gust of wind: "who did that?!".

    I like your (c): an extended period of cooling. Here's my offer. The CET (Central England Temperature)has come out at 8.83C for last year. If it falls below 8C in eight of the next ten years will you consider AGW refuted?

    In return, here's my offer: if it goes above 10C in eight of the next ten years I'll become a Warmist. (It has been above 10 in recent decades, so I'm not setting the bar impossibly high.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 01:19am on 03 Jan 2011, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #93, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    “ ….. Having read Gavin Schmidt's remarks at Realclimate it is clear that what he was really objecting to was the insinuation that Steig's paper was dishonest.......... sadly this is a common tactic at Climateaudit. …... “

    I disagree but anyway why didn't Gavin make his readers aware of the errors in Steig's work?

    Quoting me saying "Steig learnt of his errors by reading blogs", Paul goes on to say:

    “ ….. He [Steig] claims that it was other scientists who first alerted him to the problem. Do you have proof to the contrary? ….. “

    If other 'scientists' had alerted him to the problem why was he posting on blogs suggesting that bloggers who actually understood the errors take his Matlab course?

    Were these 'other scientists' the same people who allowed the paper through peer review in the first place?

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 01:57am on 03 Jan 2011, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #94, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    “ …. The problem is that there is no proven mechanism by which magnetic fields can influence global climate. …. “

    A perfectly valid point.

    However, there is no proven mechanism, or any mechanism at all, by which strip-bark bristlecone pines can record hemispheric temperatures but that doesn't stop climate scientists claiming that they do.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 09:21am on 03 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Brent Hargreaves @ #95

    "For (b)I don't quite get you. Yes, I understand that if CO2's effect turns out to be dwarfed by some other driver than you'll write it off. But do you actually need a "prime suspect"? Isn't it feasible that "natural variation" just happens in complex systems. My hope is that solar variation will be the smoking gun, but if this hypothesis is a flop we may have to accept that variation just happens. It's fruitless to ask for every gust of wind: "who did that?!"."

    Once you take out the effect of short term natural variations (mainly ENSO and solar cycles), there's no question that there has been a significant warming trend for the Earth in recent decades. Empirical physics dictates that this can only occur as a consequence of a radiative imbalance. This in turn can only occur if either:

    (a) Solar intensity is increasing
    (b) Something else is retaining more heat in the atmosphere.

    We know it isn't (a) because solar activity has if anything been falling since the end of the 1970's. Therefore it must be (b). Scientists have excluded all other options besides Anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

    However, there is far more evidence which only increases the scientists' confidence. Much of it comes from paleoclimate studies. The following article discusses some of this evidence, which caused Bryan Lovell (president of the Gelological Society and an oil executive) to change his mind about AGW:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Geological-Society-discuss-climate-change-evidence-from-the-geological-record.html

    "I like your (c): an extended period of cooling. Here's my offer. The CET (Central England Temperature)has come out at 8.83C for last year. If it falls below 8C in eight of the next ten years will you consider AGW refuted?"

    No I wouldn't, because AGW is not about the temperature in the UK. It is about global temperature. There are other factors which can affect climate at a local level (and many of them have been discussed above).

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 09:41am on 03 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #96

    ".....but anyway why didn't Gavin make his readers aware of the errors in Steig's work?"

    Perhaps he wasn't aware of them and was simply infuriated by the usual claims of "dishonesty" which accompanied the claims that Steig's work was flawed. Scientists are human too!

    Having said that, if Steig's data handling had been as seriously bad as Climateaudit suggested, he certainly wouldn't have managed to get his paper published in Nature in the first place. After all, O'Donnell was of the view that they had simply found a better way of doing the same thing.

    Perhaps if Climateaudit went about its work without resorting to claims of malfeasance from the outset, problems of this type could be avoided.

    "If other 'scientists' had alerted him to the problem why was he posting on blogs suggesting that bloggers who actually understood the errors take his Matlab course?"

    Fair point........ although I would have to look at individual posts to confirm exactly what was said and by whom (I'm not inclined to do that because this story simply doesn't justify that much effort). Also, the above point also applies to this, doesn't it?! You can hardly be surprised if someone gets angry and defensive when they are accused of dishonesty!

    "Were these 'other scientists' the same people who allowed the paper through peer review in the first place?"

    Nobody can say, but unlikely.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 09:50am on 03 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #97

    "However, there is no proven mechanism, or any mechanism at all, by which strip-bark bristlecone pines can record hemispheric temperatures but that doesn't stop climate scientists claiming that they do."

    That's not true. Although proxies can obviously never give an exact measure of temperature, trees could not have been used as a proxy if scientists had not first established a relationship between tree-ring density and temperature - it is well established that trees tend to grow faster when temperatures rise. In the case of high latitude North American trees, this relationship broke down for other reasons.

    Again, I point you to major independent reviews which upheld Mann's work apart from his original statistical analysis - the USNAS would not have done so if the above had been a serious issue.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 10:28am on 03 Jan 2011, brossen99 wrote:

    It would appear that its the " warmists " who are the " deniers " now, especially when it comes down to the medieval warm period !

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 11:36am on 03 Jan 2011, SteveBerry wrote:

    Paul, as a very keen gardener, let me tell you that trees are a rotten proxy for temperature. They rely on a number of different factors for their growth, temp being just one. In my experience they are a proxy for available water, and that's about it! Fussy things, trees. Buy a bonsai one and see what I mean. Water is THE crucial factor - in the wild and in bonsais.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 12:10pm on 03 Jan 2011, PingoSan wrote:

    You're just not trying hard enough SteveBerry. You have to take the data from your bonsai, contort and distort it badly enough, and it will then confess that temperature is the key variable in determining growth. Do learn something from these climate scientologists!

    As for Paul Briscoe, he yet again makes the error of not realising solar output was at millennium-highs towards the 2nd half of the 20th century, instead using the denialist misinformation of claiming that it wasn#t rising any further. No - it was stuck at its very high peak. And just as a pan of water can keep warming while the temperature of the hob is left constant but high, so too can the earth.

    The real question is why we didn't see more warming than we did. It's a travesty, you could describe it as!

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 1:20pm on 03 Jan 2011, Gareth wrote:

    MatthewDalby said: "it may be worth remembering that last winter while we had record cold parts of Eastern Canada were 20 degrees warmer than average and the organisers of the winter olypics in Vancouver faced serious problems due to mild temperatures and lack of snow."

    Until a few days in when events were inundated by snowstorms. It's swings and roundabouts. Weather isn't climate, whether you're an alarmist ascribing high summer temps and mild winters to AGW or a sceptic ascribing low winter temps and cool summers to a lack of AGW. An average 1 degree C on global temperatures will change our *weather* how? The climatologists haven't a clue given their projections say so many different things and the Met Office has conceded that even a seasonal forecast is difficult unless we give them more money. The likelihood is our weather will remain temperate and variable and most other places will see little or no change to their natural variability either.

    We deal with a large range of temperatures through the seasons as do most places and do it without much fuss. An extra degree or two *on average* (which IIRC is mostly ocurring through higher night time temps) is a pifflingly small issue. We will still have extreme and variable weather. Seas will continue to rise by a few mm a year as they have for hundreds of years. Land will continue to be made and eroded in different places. Coral atols will continue to move upwards as sea levels rise and land that is subsiding will continue to sink. The oceans will become slightly less alkaline *on average* but the wildlife will make their shells thicker. Glaciers will continue to recede and advance in different places due to changes in land use such as deforestation, coming out of the little ice age and atmospheric dust amongst other things.

    Average temperatures (and subsequent projections of them) are useless for policy making decisions but they have been put on a pedestal by politicians who see the taxation and control possibilities and by 'scientists' whose careers depend on getting attention and funding.

    We prepare for weather - heat waves, blizzards, hurricanes, that sort of thing. We don't prepare for average temperatures on a decadeal scale, yearly or even seasonal basis. For practical purposes it is an irrelevant and crude measure which also keeps getting adjusted. Farmers don't want averages they want to know if the week ahead will bring a frost, heat wave or thunderstorm. Are water resources being managed properly?(The UK really has no need for water meters and a lack of water running through sewerage causes blockages) Are roads up to the job? Do we have enough grit and are rivers being dredged? Public services and utilities companies are being distracted from their quaint duties to provide adequate services to the public by this mania for warmism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 3:11pm on 03 Jan 2011, ScudLewis wrote:

    I am pretty amazed that we have managed to get into the top 100 coldest years since 1659, due to 2010 annual CET coming in at 8.83°C.

    I know this isn't statistically significant, but I would have thought you mad if you'd said we would get this and during an El Nino year!

    So, if we get another year sub 9°C or around 9°C, as Paul put's it "This could be yet more anecdotal evidence that the prolonged solar minima which started around 2007 continues to influence the UK's climate."

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 6:36pm on 03 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    brossen99 @ #101

    "It would appear that its the " warmists " who are the " deniers " now, especially when it comes down to the medieval warm period !"

    Just to quote from my post at #92:

    "Is this a MWP? I suppose it depends on how one defines the term."

    No denial there! The problem lies in the fact that some believe there was a GLOBAL MWP.

    Nobody denies that there was a period in the Middle Ages when temperatures in SOME parts of the World were close to today's values. However, MWP is a somewhat misleading name because proxies show that other parts of the World were not especially warm. For this reason, the more technically correct title is "Medieval Climate Anomaly". However, this doesn't exactly roll off the tongue that easily! So most scientists don't seem to have a problem using the term "Medieval Warm Period":

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 6:50pm on 03 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    SteveBerry @ #102

    "Paul, as a very keen gardener, let me tell you that trees are a rotten proxy for temperature. They rely on a number of different factors for their growth, temp being just one. In my experience they are a proxy for available water, and that's about it! Fussy things, trees. Buy a bonsai one and see what I mean. Water is THE crucial factor - in the wild and in bonsais."

    There's no doubt that water CAN limit growth and the consensus appears to be that drought stress caused the "decline" which led to some North American tree proxies being discarded.

    However, the US National Academies of Science review does not agree with you overall:

    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=45

    It's important to remember that ALL proxies have some type of weakness, so proxy temperature reconstruction can never be an exact science. Indeed, Michael Mann never claimed that it was. The problem was rather that his graph became something of a symbol in Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth". I'm sure this is why sceptics have put so much energy into trying to rubbish it!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 7:56pm on 03 Jan 2011, Brent Hargreaves wrote:

    Paul Briscoe (#98):

    Thanks for the link showing Bryan Lovell's change of position towards warmism. If his reasoning makes sense to me then I'll have to join with him.

    I've been banging on about the CET because of its 350-year length, reasoning that it's DEPARTURES from the historic range that are of interest, rather than absolute level. Maybe you're right to object to this dataset as being parochial. Feel free to name some other numerical series: I am pressing you (courteously, I hope) for an unambiguous threshold beyond which you would concede that AGW is incorrect or tiny.

    Einstein said words to the effect that "if at the forthcoming 1919 eclipse we don't observe stars' position near the limb shifted by X seconds of arc I'll rip up this General Relativity theory of mine."

    My question is: Is the AGW theory subject to any quantifiable falsifiability criteria?

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 8:50pm on 03 Jan 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    The UAH global anomaly figures for December have been published but the situation is confused by the fact that the base comparison period has been changed from 1979-98 to 1979-2010. On that basis, the global figure for December was 0.18c, compared to a revised figure of 0.273c for November (0.38c based on 1979-98). The final figure for 2010 is stated to be 0.411c, compared to a figure of 0.424c for 1998, on the same basis. While on this basis 2010 is not as hot as 1998, the difference is said to be not statistically significant.
    The NH anomaly figure is down from 0.372c to 0.213c and the SH is down from 0.173c to 0.147c.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 8:56pm on 03 Jan 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    Sorry, the new UAH base period is 1979-2008, i.e. 30 years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 9:51pm on 03 Jan 2011, jkiller56 wrote:

    Re #68 way above!
    The comments re: Pliocene epoch warm climate were revealing in many ways. There seemed to be some ambiguity in the two links re: CO2 levels; one claiming levels were "similar to today" the other infering levels were higher: does this mean the same thing?

    Whatever the CO2 levels, the main drive of the article in one case was that life in the Barents and other arctic seas of the time was thriving in the warm (+/- 5c above today) ice free waters. Also there seemed little evidence of stratification / oxygen shortage in the sea examined - a common prediction for oceanic warming today.


    If CO2 levels were higher than today - whatever happened to ocean acidification?- is another question which leaps to mind.

    My conclusion having read the piece was that we have a great deal to learn yet about warmer climate, its interaction with the biosphere and our future predictions about it and that things could turn out to be quite different from what seems generally to be expected.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 10:47pm on 03 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Brent Hargreaves @ #108

    "I've been banging on about the CET because of its 350-year length, reasoning that it's DEPARTURES from the historic range that are of interest, rather than absolute level. Maybe you're right to object to this dataset as being parochial. Feel free to name some other numerical series: I am pressing you (courteously, I hope) for an unambiguous threshold beyond which you would concede that AGW is incorrect or tiny."

    I certainly don't "object" to the CET and it is obviously of considerable significance to most people who post here. The only problem is that it alone can't tell us much about global temperature trends.

    "My question is: Is the AGW theory subject to any quantifiable falsifiability criteria?"

    In attempting to answer your question, I would point out that it is the temperature TREND that counts in this case:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    CO2 levels continue to rise by around 2 ppm per year. If the scientists are correct, global temperature should also continue to rise (with a few peaks and troughs along the way due to ENSO, volcanoes and solar cycles).

    Realistically, all I can say is that if the warming trend were to stop or reverse over a period of several years, without an assignable reason, then you would have to say that the scientists have probably got things wrong.

    What might constitute an "assignable reason"? For example, if solar activity were to go into steep decline (as some have forecast).

    I hope you don't consider the above a fudge. It's just not easy to put a specific figure on a trend when the rate of warming varies so much in the short term due to other factors.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 11:25pm on 03 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    oldgifford @ #83

    Just to come back on the paper by Soares.......

    It seems the International Journal of Geosciences and a whole raft of sister journals may have a lot of question marks over them:

    http://improbable.com/2009/12/22/strangest-academic-journals/

    Also, as I said above, if there is any peer review, it does not appear to follow the normal pattern. Having read the paper myself, I would say there has been no peer review, as it hasn't even been proof read for grammar!

    The paper appears to be looking at correlation between CO2 and temperature over short time periods. Such an approach can never prove or disprove AGW because of all the other variables involved. To be honest, I'm not sure that he has proved anything at all.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 11:26pm on 03 Jan 2011, brossen99 wrote:

    #106 Paul

    Typical warmist deception, move the goal posts to suit your argument in which case it could be said that the slow growing arctic ice at present after two years of consistent increases is also a local temperature anomaly. I get the general feeling the people who went to university are very good at making up excuses for the scams they pedal on the wider population, and perhaps the higher the qualification ( PhD for example ) the greater the potential to try and mislead the general public for spurious financial gain. Thus to promote false economic growth in the economy which increases the financial apartheid between rich and poor.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 11:55pm on 03 Jan 2011, mailmannz wrote:

    Paul,

    >Not necessarily! Heat is not evenly distributed across the planet, so a lack of >significant warming in one location is not proof that there is no warming globally.

    Again, we have been over this a number of times...where EXACTLY is this heating occurring?
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/NOAA_JanJun2010.htm

    As for your answer of how Mann Made Global Warming (tm) can be falsified;

    >Evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
    Its interesting that you have framed your response like this...one would have thought a more reasonable and open minded scientist would have said something like "evidence that shows the impact of Co2 isnt as alarmingly, catastrophic, 6m sea level rise unprecidented as first thought".

    >Another process sufficient to explain the present warming.
    Ah, so if a scientist cant work out why something is happening then it MUST be Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

    >An extended period of cooling (or lack of warming) without an assignable reason.
    So we have had 12 years of statistically insignificant warming...even with the gate keepers continually modifying the temperature records by reducing older years and increasing newer years so they look warmer. How many more years do you need?

    I think you really should just have said that there is NOTHING that can falsify the religion of Mann Made Global Warming. Given that pretty much every man and their dog agrees that Co2 is a GHG, that its going to be another 18 years of no warming before you will say "warming just hasnt been that statistically significant" and that it would require levels of never before seen humility for climate scientists like Jones, Schmidt, Hansen etc to admit that they dont know everything before you will even consider thinking about other possibilities other than the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

    We see alarmists using the cold as proof of Mann Made Global Warming (tm), just as they use one off events like the Russian heat wave as proof of Mann Made Global Warming (tm). Its a never ending battle with deniers who believe everything is proof of Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

    Mailman

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 01:26am on 04 Jan 2011, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #99, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    “ ….. if Steig's data handling had been as seriously bad as Climateaudit suggested, he certainly wouldn't have managed to get his paper published in Nature in the first place. After all, O'Donnell was of the view that they had simply found a better way of doing the same thing. ….. “

    It was that bad and it was not only published in Nature but placed on the front cover complete with a red-hot picture. And, it was not only CA that found errors but a large number of numerate readers on several blogs.

    Steig's claim that led to the glowing picture was:

    “ Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. “

    This claim was simply wrong. The fact that Ryan O'Donnell, a frequent CA poster, attempted to use non-confrontational language should not be seen as evidence of anything else. The method was wrong. The result was wrong. The claim was wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 09:17am on 04 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    brossen99 @ #114

    Where exactly did I move the goalposts? Could it not simply be that my point is valid - the available scientific evidence says that it is.

    Now you mention sea ice. Here too, I fear that you may have been misled:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea_WTUgaOq4

    I don't claim to be an expert on climate science - that was not my area ox expertise. However, I have far more confidence in the views of people with relevant scientific qualifications and research experience than I do in the opinions of bloggers with no scientific qualifications at all!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 09:53am on 04 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Mailman @ #115

    I confess that I am growing very tired of your endless rhetoric and propaganda, Mailman. Perhaps you too would like to go and answer the question I posed back at #86 regarding a recent article by GWPF?

    Whilst you appear to be attacking my precise and considered responses to a reasonable question, I note that over on the other thread you STILL haven't answered the questions I posed you:

    What WOULD cause you to change your mind and accept that the scientists have got things right?

    Why would the sources you quote need to grossly misrepresent the facts on a regular basis if they had any REAL evidence to back up what they are claiming?

    Yet again, you post a link to an article which ignores diligent scientific research and completely misses the real point. It misses the point because it fails to point out that the NOAA dataset is NOT aimed at giving an accurate representation of temperature at any single point on the planet on a particular date. Rather it is aimed at constructing a GLOBAL MEAN.

    It has been shown that it is possible to accurately measure mean global temperature with as few as 61 stations:

    http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/05/just-60-stations.html

    "Its interesting that you have framed your response like this...one would have thought a more reasonable and open minded scientist would have said something like "evidence that shows the impact of Co2 isnt as alarmingly, catastrophic, 6m sea level rise unprecidented as first thought".

    No Mailman, I have been more specific than that...... and for good reason. There is good empirical evidence that CO2 causes greenhouse warming. Clearly, if some evidence emerged that mitigated against this, it would pretty well end the argument!

    "Ah, so if a scientist cant work out why something is happening then it MUST be Mann Made Global Warming (tm)."

    Again, No! Perhaps you should go and read up on physics a little. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its radiative forcing can be calculated by a number of different methods, it clearly has the capacity to account for the present warming trend. None of the other potential "forcings" can account for the present warming.

    "So we have had 12 years of statistically insignificant warming...even with the gate keepers continually modifying the temperature records by reducing older years and increasing newer years so they look warmer. How many more years do you need?"

    Yet another misrepresentation! If you were to look at ANY 12 year period during the recent warming trend you would not achieve statistically significant warming:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23iGJbkbzzE

    Also, as you well know, the reviews into Climategate PROVED that there has been no fiddling of the temperature data. So please stop making spurious and libelous allegations. Here's some more information:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Assessing-global-surface-temperature-reconstructions.html

    "......just as they use one off events like the Russian heat wave as proof of Mann Made Global Warming (tm)."

    Utter nonsense, Mailman! I think this particular instance may have finally convinced the Russians that AGW is a real threat...... but not the scientific community. Please point me to anywhere in the scientific literature where it is claimed that a single weather event proves AGW.

    Now please answer the questions above.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 10:11am on 04 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #116

    "It was that bad and it was not only published in Nature but placed on the front cover complete with a red-hot picture. And, it was not only CA that found errors but a large number of numerate readers on several blogs."

    Are you quite sure that wasn't simply the "gloss" painted on this over at Climateaudit? What you decribe doesn't exactly fit in with O'Donnell's own remarks:

    "In my opinion, the Steig reconstruction was quite clever, and the general concept was sound. A few of the choices made during implementation were incorrect; a few were suboptimal. Importantly, if those are corrected, some of the results change. Also importantly, some do not. Hopefully some of the cautions outlined in our paper are incorporated into other, future work."

    Things such as this happen all of the time in science and it is only a few indivduals determined to score points who are making such a big deal of this particular example.

    If you're in the business of furthering science and you spot a potential problem with a particular paper, the appropriate response in the first instanced is surely to contact the author to discuss it. The normal course of events would then be for either the author to issue a corrigendum (which Steig did) or for the challenger to write a reply to the journal.

    In this case, though, the criticisms were posted straight on a public blog, with all the associated claims of malfeasance. In my humble opinion, this is unprofessional, it engenders an "us and them" mentality in bloggers and it stirs up distrust of the scientific process. Sadly, this appears to be the normal modus operandi for Climateaudit. Could it part of an agenda?

    I can certainly understand why it angers the scientists so much!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 12:15pm on 04 Jan 2011, mailmannz wrote:

    Paul,

    >Perhaps you too would like to go and answer the question I posed back at #86 >regarding a recent article by GWPF?
    And how many hundreds of millions of dollers has the GWPW received to investigate Mann Made Global warming (tm)? Does the GWPW infect Government departments and influence the policies of those deparments?

    No, of course not. Again, you believe big oil is corrupting science YET you have absolutely no come back around the fact that we are talking about mere tens of millions of dollars spread over a DECADE vs the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars being pumped in to Mann Made Global Warming (tm). You also conveniently ignore the fact that Green Peace itself spent more in 2008 than big oil spent on skeptics in a decade.

    Now, I wonder why you ignore the obvious disparity in funding?

    >What WOULD cause you to change your mind and accept that the scientists have >got things right?


    I have answered this already, what I want is the existing evidence to be thoroughly reviewed by honest, open, transparent scientists, statisticians, meteorologists, geologists etc who arent followers of the church of Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

    Once that open, honest and transparent review has taken place, then Ill let you know whether Im still skeptical that man is the sole cause of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) or whether my views that Mann IS the sole cause of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) have been further reinforced.

    Whereas yourself, you have given a list of items that can never be falsified. And you have the gaul to call anyone who defies your religion a denier :)

    That is one of the major differences between skeptics and deniers Paul, skeptics have retained an open mind where as the deniers will hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil against the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

    >It has been shown that it is possible to accurately measure mean global temperature >with as few as 61 stations:
    So Steig reckons they can determine the PLANETS average temp by using fewer than 61 stations aye? Well, given his challenges with getting something accurate on a MUCH smaller scale in antarctica, Im surprised you are accepting his word at face value Paul.

    AND, lets not forget that their data included NO stations from America!

    I can see whats going to happen, these guys at Real Climate are going to exclude all inconvenient stations, like any from the UK, America, Mother Russia, Northern Europe, Japan, China, Australia, that shows any cooling and instead select 61 stations from Central Africa and the Arctic and use that as their proof of Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

    Perhaps Slingo is right, perhaps they do need an extra 30mil so they can buy a much more powerful computer. Because then at least they can come to the wrong conclusion much faster than now! :)

    >Please point me to anywhere in the scientific literature where it is claimed that a >single weather event proves AGW.

    Ask and ye shall receive :)

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/14/climate-experts-agree-global-warming-caused-russian-heat-wave/

    >None of the other potential "forcings" can account for the present warming.

    And yet, you cannot with 100% certainty make the claim that it is Co2 that is the sole driver of the planets climate and weather. The simple fact is, it is not settled science that Co2 is the sole cause of Mann Made Global Warming (tm), no matter how much you want it to be.

    And as Ive said before, the fact that you have chosen something that can never be falsified (ie. Co2 being shown NOT to be a GHG) just shows how closed your mind is to alternatives.

    Speaking of which, here is a very good article on assumptions driving conclusions in Mann Made Global Warming (tm);
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/10/does-co2-drive-the-earths-climate-system-comments-on-the-latest-nasa-giss-paper/

    >Now please answer the questions above.

    Paul, I have been answering your questions since we kicked this off before the new year. The problem for you is that you want me to answer your questions with your answers instead of highlighting the corruption of the peer review process, highlighting the white washes organised and paid for by CRU, shining a light on the games being played by a small, select band of climate scientists. The fact that you refuse to accept anything that goes against your religious belief in Mann Made Global Warming (tm) says more about you than it does about me not answering your questions (according to you).

    Regards

    Mailman

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 12:19pm on 04 Jan 2011, mailmannz wrote:

    Paul,

    This is from another thead, which you might not be aware of;

    >Please can you point me to any statement where O'Donnell said the reviewer's >behaviour was inappropriate? As far as I am aware O'Donnell merely said he felt >undue deference was given to this one reviewer. This is NOT evidence of a corrupt >peer review process...... and you know it!

    O'Donnell has already commented on the undue influence of Reviwer A, 88 pages of criticism and rejoinders on an 8 page paper, seems rather odd dont you think, almost as if someone is trying "to go to town" on the paper, perhaps on purpose?

    Here is what one of the other authors has to say about the peer review process;

    "As I see it, one of the most important points to come out of all this is that Nature’s peer review process completely failed to prevent a mathematically badly flawed paper being published. And it took a bunch of amateur researchers to publish a paper that brought these flaws to light and corrected them – no mathematically competent professional climate scientist did so, perhaps because of fear it would do their careers no good. One has to wonder how many other papers with incorrect results have been published by scientists who go along with ‘consensus’ views, and have never been corrected. Papers such as ours that question the status quo, on the other hand, are subject to a stringent peer review process, in our case involving one reviewer who from some of his extensive critical comments (the major ones of which were mostly invalid) clearly had a personal interest in avoiding a paper contradicting S09 being published."
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/on-warming-antarctica-clouds-and-peer-review/

    Oh, but what is this? :)

    "Anyway, the biggest issue I had with the reviews was that one particular reviewer insisted on making claims – which we had to rebut – yet rarely provided evidence that these claims were true. In my mind, that is not how the process is supposed to work."
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/t/

    You know, its funny how you claim McIntyre is unprofessional...yet you have absolutely no comment on WHY he shined a light on the games being played to keep their destruction of Steigs et al paper out of scientific literature.

    Its also baffling that you continue to use O'Donnell as some kind of proof that the peer review process isnt corrupted, especially when he hasnt been as kind as you need to think he has.

    Mailman

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 12:50pm on 04 Jan 2011, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe

    Where to start? First we'll go with peer review and publishing in journals. Whilst I’m a big supporter and subscriber to the peer review process, it should not be seen as being proof that anyone’s work is correct, it only means that your peers accept that the work potentially has some merit and is of publishable quality. In other words, it just means that your work is not very obviously stupid.

    If you then add, co-opted peer reviews into the mix then it doesn’t even mean that. A pal review, for instance, is a very dangerous thing as it adds the thin veneer of orthodox science to work that might otherwise not merit that heady accolade. Steigs paper might be considered an example of this.

    Then we get on to journals, so all journals are not created equal, I guess that might be true, but who elected you and your ilk as the arbitrators of what’s a decent journal?

    Those that subscribe to values of the “team” are okay, but those that don’t are not?

    Sorry, but science does not work that way.

    Work is published, it may be right, it may be wrong. But it’s the work that should be addressed, not the means by which it was published, that’s just a variant of the ever so popular pro-AGW ad hominem attack.

    Again, science simply does not work that way.

    Personally, I think you should look to your own scientific education, before you start suggesting that others might benefit from reading up on physics a little, as you seem overly reliant on a certain “skeptical” web site.

    The heart of science, apart from the scientific method itself, is sceptical enquiry and I would humbly suggest that you seem to be missing out on this element.

    As to the medieval warm period being a local event, I think you’ll find that there’s plenty of evidence that it wasn’t, here’s some for you, but there’s plenty more if you take the time to go and look for it:

    You'll need to search for some of them because of the rules about links to pdf files(please note the geographic spreads):

    The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503

    New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool

    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=39136&tid=282&cid=59106&ct=162

    The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa

    http://home.arcor.de/gheiss/Personal/Abstracts/SAJS2000_Abstr.html

    Then we have Canada

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-lake-6195.html

    Plus you can also search for "Summer temperatures in the Canadian Rockies during the last millennium: a revised record"

    South America

    Search for "A quantitative high-resolution summer temperature reconstruction based on sedimentary pigments from Laguna Aculeo, central Chile, back to AD 850"

    China

    "Alkenone-based reconstruction of late-Holocene surface temperature and salinity changes in Lake Qinghai, China"

    and

    "Climate variability in central China over the last 1270 years revealed
    by high-resolution stalagmite records"

    and finally the ever popular Greenland

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/82002932/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

    I did have a link for a similar paper about New Zealand, but there seems to be something wrong with the Nature server at the moment, so I’ve omitted it for the minute.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 2:31pm on 04 Jan 2011, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #119, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    “ …. Are you quite sure that [referring to criticism of Steig 09] wasn't simply the "gloss" painted on this over at Climateaudit? …. “

    Yes, remember that these errors have been known for almost 2 years now and that O'Donnell et al 10 had to comply with journal word count restrictions and is by no means the full story.

    The problem is that a tightly-knit group of climate scientists keep inventing their own novel statistical methods but fail to present these novel methods to statistics journals where more experienced reviewers could notify the authors of errors before publication.

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 3:12pm on 04 Jan 2011, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #86, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    “ ….. However, the MAIN point of #78 was to draw attention to the blatant misrepresentation of the facts by the GWPF. ….. “

    The defence of Hansen linked to criticizes Pat Michaels for only showing Scenario A:

    “ Michaels only showed the projection which was based on the emissions scenario which was furthest from reality. “

    Here is Hansen's Scenario A:

    “ Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely. “

    As we now know CO2 emission rates have increased even faster than Scenario A making this scenario the closest to reality but still too conservative.

    The fact that actual atmospheric forcings have fallen short of even Scenario B demonstrates an error in the model and this error should not be used in an attempt to justify the model.

    Then again, in climate science it seems that two wrongs make a right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 5:47pm on 04 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    blunderbunny @ #122

    I totally agree that peer review is not an absolute guarantee that a particular paper is sound. Here, for example, Mann and Schmidt make precisely that point:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/

    Ultimately it is WEIGHT of scientific evidence through multiple studies which provides confidence in the consensus - the sheer volume of papers all pointing to the same thing is the reason why the consensus backing AGW is so strong....... and forgive me for not taking you seriously if you try to suggest that every paper in every journal that has backed up this consensus (over 100 years or more) is flawed by "pal review".

    So where exactly is your evidence of "pal review"? Certainly, the independent reviews into Climategate didn't find any:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm

    You mention the Steig et al paper as an example, yet this so called "evidence" is based on the fact that an imperfect paper got through peer review (which often happens in any scientific discipline) and an anonymous reviewer holding up publication of the O'Donnell paper. Of course McIntyre claims that this reviewer was part of "the team" (as always), but HE HAS NO EVIDENCE OF THIS. Is it not conceivable that the reviewer in question was trying to ensure that the paper was sufficiently different from Steig's to justify it being published as a new paper rather than simply a reply?

    "Then we get on to journals, so all journals are not created equal, I guess that might be true, but who elected you and your ilk as the arbitrators of what’s a decent journal?"

    I think Mann and Schmidt (above) deal with that point admirably.

    "Work is published, it may be right, it may be wrong. But it’s the work that should be addressed, not the means by which it was published......

    Again, science simply does not work that way."

    That's actually just another way of saying that peer review is not infallible. However, if a scientific article has NOT been peer reviewed, its methods have not been independently assessed and its conclusions have not been independently verified. Of course this doesn't mean that every non-peer-reviewed article is wrong, but if individuals are not prepared to submit their work and their conclusions for scrutiny by others working in the field then it is difficult to have real confidence in that work.

    However, the key point is that anyone, with or without relevant qualifications, can claim pretty well whatever they like in a non-peer-reviewed article. Add to this the fact that most of the individuals reading scientific articles online do not have the expertise to spot when an article is fundamentally wrong and you have a very dangerous situation indeed...... a situation which is ripe for exploitation by pressure groups with vested interests. I'm sure you can understand where I'm coming from here!

    So forgive me, Blunderbunny, if I beg to differ with you. Science does indeed operate through peer review........ and for a very good reason!

    This is why I tend to rely on the Skeptical Science website. Maybe it doesn't tell you what you want to hear, but each argument is backed up with links to the peer-reviewed literature. Given what you say above, feel free to go and follow the links (that's what they're there for) and check their validity.

    Now, turning to your points regarding proxies, I did follow the various links. I don't have particular issues with any of the studies, even though some at least appear not to be peer-reviewed. However, as far as I can see, they don't tell us anything we don't already know.

    I'm not sure if you followed the links in the Skeptical Science article. In fact, the most recent papers by Mann et al (including at least one author from a paper you linked to) use 9 different types of proxies from locations all over the World, including the areas your papers studied. The bottom line is that none of the new papers you have produced contradict the finding that SOME parts of the World were actually quite cold during the MWP, so it cannot be claimed that it was global in scale.

    "The heart of science, apart from the scientific method itself, is sceptical enquiry and I would humbly suggest that you seem to be missing out on this element."

    You couldn't be more wrong, Blunderbunny. I assessed the science for myself before reaching my own objective view.... and my confidence in the science has only been strengthening as time has gone on. The problem is that, having a background in science, I can generally spot bad science quite quickly...... sadly there is an awful lot of it around on the sceptic blogs:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/2010-Climate-BS-of-the-Year-Award.html

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 6:01pm on 04 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #123

    I think we may just have to agree to differ on this, Rob.

    The fact that Steig realised his own error quickly and issued a corrigendum suggests to me that he DOES understand statistics and was happy to admit he got it wrong in this case.

    Also, it is pretty well inconceivable that every reviewer appointed by Nature would be part of "the Team" - it is likely that specialists in various aspects of the work would have been appointed.

    I have also pointed out above that statisticians themselves can make mistakes in complex areas of science which are not their particular area of expertise. So the fact that people over at Climateaudit say that a particular paper is flawed does not actually prove that it is!

    In any case, I come back again to the fact that O'Donnell himself felt the peer-review process was fair and that his paper was merely an improvement on Steig's.

    I think the following article puts it in its proper perspective:

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/on-warming-antarctica-clouds-and-peer-review/

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 6:19pm on 04 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #124

    I have to say that I can't see what you're getting at there, Rob. The article doesn't support what you're saying.

    Hansen's prediction for 2010 for CO2 in scenario B was 389 ppm. The actual figure was 392 ppm, so he was very close indeed.

    "The fact that actual atmospheric forcings have fallen short of even Scenario B demonstrates an error in the model and this error should not be used in an attempt to justify the model."

    As stated above, Hansen based his model on a climate sensitivity figure which has since been shown to be too high.... as I said, science progresses! If Hansen had drawn up the same model with the climate sensitivity figure used in IPCC AR4, his predictions would have been very close indeed to reality. This is the main conclusion of the article I linked to.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 8:42pm on 04 Jan 2011, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #126, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    “ … I think the following article puts it in its proper perspective:

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/on-warming-antarctica-clouds-and-peer-review/

    … ”

    You should read the full article including the input from Ryan O'Donnell and Nicholas Lewis.

    From Nicholas Lewis:
    “ As I see it, one of the most important points to come out of all this is that Nature’s peer review process completely failed to prevent a mathematically badly flawed paper being published. And it took a bunch of amateur researchers to publish a paper that brought these flaws to light and corrected them – no mathematically competent professional climate scientist did so, perhaps because of fear it would do their careers no good. One has to wonder how many other papers with incorrect results have been published by scientists who go along with ‘consensus’ views, and have never been corrected. “

    And Ryan O'Donnell:
    “ Finally, the “digging” we had to do was not in finding something wrong with the S09 method (it was rather easy to verify the S09 method improperly spreads Peninsula warming throughout the continent) but in designing a method that avoided many of the deficiencies of the S09 method. “

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 9:27pm on 04 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Rob,

    I DID see that part as well..... and I posted it because I was trying to be balanced. However, you seem to have homed straight in on the comments that suit your argument! Sadly, you failed to report the equally telling comments by Eric Steig. Some significant extracts are as follows:

    "At first reading, I agree with the authors that many of the changes to the methodology are indeed improvements to the simpler approach we took."

    "The results appear to confirm all of the key results in our 2009 Nature paper......."

    "There is a lot of emphasis placed in the paper on the differences with our paper in the Antarctic Peninsula region. This emphasis seems rather misplaced, since we were very clear in our paper that the Peninsula was not the focus....."

    "The only other major difference in the findings, compared with our paper, is that we show significant warming over the eastern Ross sea region, while O’Donnell et al. show cooling, particularly in winter. I’m very skeptical of this result, because it is distinctly at odds with other assessments of trends in that region."

    I would also draw your attention to Steig's final comment (#6) where he points out that "specious criticism" of him regarding errors not of his own making, made on the Climateaudit blog, were thankfully not repeated in the O'Donnell paper.

    In other words, this is NOT a simple case of Steig being wrong and O'Donnell being right and the latter paper has some question marks over it too! In my experience, that is par for the course in science.

    Thankfully, the 2 lead authors retained a sense of balance - it's just a shame that this was not reflected over at Climateaudit.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 00:41am on 05 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Mailman,

    Somehow I missed your new posts earlier.

    My question regarding the GWPF post had nothing to do with funding. I merely asked you to comment on why the GWPF would so blatantly misrepresent the facts with cherry picked (and totally incompatible) data if the organisation had genuine sound arguments to fall back on.

    This is quite unlike your claims of cherry picking by scientists, which you have never substantiated. The proof of what the GWPF have done is there for all to see....... and we both know this isn't the first time! I can also provide links to similar misrepresentations from WUWT, Bishophill....... the list goes on! In fact, many of the worst cases are detailed in links from this article:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/2010-Climate-BS-of-the-Year-Award.html

    This is hugely significant, because you have based your entire argument on assertions from the above sources and there is clear proof that their testament is not reliable at all.

    I'm sorry Mailman, but I'm not going to let you duck this issue any longer. Either you denounce what the GWPF, Monckton and co. did (as you would any similar activity by scientists) or any claims you may have to credibility are utterly shambolic.

    I'm not going to answer all of your other points in any detail because they are, as always, full of distasteful rhetoric and propaganda. I will, however, address the following:

    "You know, its funny how you claim McIntyre is unprofessional...yet you have absolutely no comment on WHY he shined a light on the games being played to keep their destruction of Steigs et al paper out of scientific literature."

    You will notice that I had no problem linking Rob Wansbeck to an article covering the Steig et al paper. I have not seen anything in any of your links which provides the evidence you claim that "the Team" corrupted the peer review process. O'Donnell expressed an OPINION that one reviewer was unreasonable. However, that is just an opinion and it is also entirely possible that this one reviewer happened to be a stickler whilst the others were lax. These things happen all the time in peer review. There is certainly no evidence that the anonymous reviewer in question was part of the "Team". You know that and McIntyre knows that..... so why do you continue to make the same baseless allegations?

    As we've also discussed elsewhere, it is also not accurate to claim that Steig's paper was "destroyed", especially when O'Donnell himself was at pains to make it clear that wasn't the case. Frankly Mailman, it is only your own credibility you damage by using such language - anyone with an ounce of objectivity can spot a mile away that it is just baseless propaganda...... and possibly a petty attempt at point scoring.

    Now if you start being a bit more balanced and objective and actually address the key point I raised above, maybe we might find something we can agree on!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 08:53am on 05 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Mailman,

    Now that I have a little more time, I would like to come back on a few more points.

    "So Steig reckons they can determine the PLANETS average temp by using fewer than 61 stations aye? Well, given his challenges with getting something accurate on a MUCH smaller scale in antarctica, Im surprised you are accepting his word at face value Paul.

    AND, lets not forget that their data included NO stations from America!"

    The original excercise may have been performed by Steig, but his efforts have been confirmed by the work I linked to........ and there WERE stations in America here! So this clearly shows that Steig's work IS reproducible.

    In fact, this was merely a paper excercise to show that the gridded approach, which uses far more than 60 sites (and which your link above attempted to rubbish), CAN in fact accurately measure global temperature. Of course, further confidence is given by the fact that satellite data also confirm the result.

    "Please point me to anywhere in the scientific literature where it is claimed that a single weather event proves AGW.

    Ask and ye shall receive :)"

    Well no! If you read a little more carefully you will see that I was actually asking about the SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. If a scientist is asked whether there might be a link between a particular extreme event and AGW, they pretty well HAVE to say there could be one. This is because empirical science dictates that AGW will lead to more extreme weather. However, this is very different from saying that a particular event PROVES AGW. It is the latter that you are constantly accusing scientists of. The article you linked to demonstrates perfectly how the media can inadvertently misrepresent science.

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/14/climate-experts-agree-global-warming-caused-russian-heat-wave/

    "And yet, you cannot with 100% certainty make the claim that it is Co2 that is the sole driver of the planets climate and weather. The simple fact is, it is not settled science that Co2 is the sole cause of Mann Made Global Warming (tm), no matter how much you want it to be."

    What the scientists are actually saying is that CO2 is the only forcing which is large enough to account for the present warming. That is NOT to say that it is the ONLY forcing.

    "Whereas yourself, you have given a list of items that can never be falsified. And you have the gaul to call anyone who defies your religion a denier :)

    That is one of the major differences between skeptics and deniers Paul, skeptics have retained an open mind where as the deniers will hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil against the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm)."

    Sorry Mailman, but my "list" is based on science rather than baseless accusations. Quite a number of REAL sceptics, including some who post here, claim that we will see cooling over the next few years because they believe that the recent warming trend is due to natural cycles. I am perfectly happy to be proved wrong by them. That is science in action.

    Any theory, including a conspiracy theory, only becomes credible if there is genuine evidence to support it. You have not supplied real evidence in support of yours, Mailman...... just lots of assertions, rhetoric and propaganda!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 1:29pm on 05 Jan 2011, mailmannz wrote:

    Paul,

    We have already covered Monktons demolition of Abrahams, but you can review this for yourself here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/condensed-monckton/

    or

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/

    "you write to a few select scientists distorting what your opponent said, and then collect the infuriated responses. Abraham went on to assemble a list of things Christopher Monckton didn’t say, complained about things he didn’t cite (even if he did and it’s printed on his slides), pretended he couldn’t find sources (but didn’t take ten minutes to ask), and created a litany of communication pollution in an effort to denigrate Monckton’s character.

    The untruths and fabrications have come back to bite him.

    We’ve seen these tactics before. Tim Lambert (aka Deltoid) did a similar thing when he ambushed Monckton with quotes from Pinker that he arranged with emails he still hasn’t revealed. And when it comes to attacking things, graphs and arguments that weren’t made"

    I know alarmists just have to deligitimise anyone who dares speak against thier religion, hence why they go after Monkton, complaining he isnt a lord rah rah rah...as if that makes on jot of difference. It doesnt in the real world BUT because it fits in to the deligitimisation of anyone who speaks against the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) its all ok.

    Same with your continued attempts to deligitimise the GWPF claiming they cherry pick data etc. I guess when you speak about balance, you only mean balance in respects to only ever talking about Mann Made Global Warming (tm). Funny how you have not ONCE commented at length about the very real cherry picking that goes in to Mann Made Global Warming (tm), which has a very real impact on Government policy.

    >I'm not going to answer all of your other points in any detail because they are, as >always, full of distasteful rhetoric and propaganda. I will, however, address the >following

    And who appointed you as the gatekeeper of what is acceptable for comment on Mann Made Global Warming (tm)? The simple fact is you pick and choose what you want to comment on and ignoring anything that doesnt fit your religious dogma, hence why you have purposely avoided commenting on the link I sent about the lack of weather stations in africa and the arctic forcing temperatures up.

    >However, that is just an opinion and it is also entirely possible that this one reviewer >happened to be a stickler whilst the others were lax. These things happen all the >time in peer review.

    Its funny how these things only seem to happen to skeptical papers isnt it? And how its the same names that keep popping up when skeptical papers somehow find themselves on the receiving end of such stickler type reviews.

    Its also entirely possible that what McIntyre, Nicholas, O'Donnel are claiming inregards to their paper, and only reinforced when you take in to consideration the behaviour other skeptics have received when attempting to publish, that reviwer a, with his over developed stickler gland was going to town on the paper.

    Its also telling that you have utterly ignored the most damning of all evidence of the corruption of the peer review process, the words of the people at the centre of this corruption!

    "From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann"
    Subject: Re: have you seen this?
    Date: Wed Mar 31 09:09:04 2004

    Mike,
    Yes, but not had a chance to read it yet. Too much else going on. Ed has a paper
    reworking Esper et al. as you'll know. If you're going to Tucson, I suggest you talk to
    Keith about it then - don't email him as he's too busy preparing to go and marking essays.
    Jan is in one of our EU projects. Seems that Keith thinks Jan is reinventing a lot of
    Keith's work, renamed the RCS method and much more. Jan doesn't always take in what is in the literature even though he purports to read it. He's now looking at homogenization
    techniques for temperature to check the Siberian temperature data. We keep telling him the decline is also in N. Europe, N. America (where we use all the recently homogenized Canadian data). The decline may be slightly larger in Siberia, but it is elsewhere as well. Also Siberia is one of the worst places to look at homogeneity, as the stations aren't that close together (as they are in Fennoscandia and most of Canada) and also the temperature varies an awful lot from year to year.
    Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

    Cheers
    Phil"


    Whats also telling is your condemnation of McIntyre for going public about reviewer A going to town on their paper...yet when you read this;
    http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/04/crowleys-belated-apology/

    You can understand why he has no or VERY little faith in the pal review process!

    >In fact, this was merely a paper excercise to show that the gridded approach, which >uses far more than 60 sites (and which your link above attempted to rubbish), CAN in >fact accurately measure global temperature. Of course, further confidence is given >by the fact that satellite data also confirm the result.

    Really Paul, satalites have confirmed the results? Perhaps you will point to where these so called satalites have confirmed the results in regards to artic or antartic temperatures?

    We have already seen how you CANNOT use few stations to determine the planets temperature, again here is the link you have studiously failed to comment on;
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/NOAA_JanJun2010.htm

    Also, what was the selection method used to determine what stations should be used? Given how poor stations appear to be AROUND the world, they must have one hell of a robust process to remove poorly sited, poorly maintained weather stations from being used?

    At the end of the day, all you have linked to is someones opinion that they reckon they can determine with accuracy the planets temperature using only 61 stations. If that isnt setting off alarms in your head, given Steigs challenges with determining the temperature of Antarctica then I dont know what will (actually, it appears to be very little given your continued faith in the pal review process:).

    >This is because empirical science dictates that AGW will lead to more extreme >weather.

    Oh no you didnt...oh yes you did :)

    It seems that there is no emperical evidence that Mann Made Global Warming (tm) is increasing the levels of hurricans and other wiffy winds;
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/signals-of-anthropogenic-climate-change.html

    "Based on the results from our emergence time scale analysis we urge extreme caution in attributing short term trends (i.e., over many decades and longer) in normalized US tropical cyclone losses to anthropogenic climate change. The same conclusion applies to global weather-related natural disaster losses at least in the near future. Not only is short term variability not ‘climate change’ (which the IPCC defines on time scales of 30 to 50 years or longer), but anthropogenic climate change signals are very unlikely to emerge in US tropical cyclone losses at time scales of less than a century under the projections examined here."

    Damn inconvenient isnt it :)

    >This is hugely significant, because you have based your entire argument on >assertions from the above sources and there is clear proof that their testament is not >reliable at all.

    Hang on, yet the first place in your link is a shot at Fox News...and what was Fox News's crime against humanity that made them number 1? They had the temerity to inform viewers that the science for Mann Made Global Warming (tm) wasnt settled and that there are some very strong differences of opinion out there is to cause and effect.

    Yet for that crime, informing viewers that the science isnt settled, they are being targetted for blasphemy!

    >What the scientists are actually saying is that CO2 is the only forcing which is large >enough to account for the present warming. That is NOT to say that it is the ONLY >forcing.

    SOME scientists are claiming that...and as its not settled science as you would like to believe it is, there are other scientific opinions. Again, your assertion that Co2 has to be proven NOT to be a GHG cant be falsified, therefore, to you, your belief in the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) also can be falsified.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/10/does-co2-drive-the-earths-climate-system-comments-on-the-latest-nasa-giss-paper/

    "The paper implies that it presents new understanding, but all it does is get more explicit about the conceptual hoops one must jump through in order to claim that CO2 is the main driver of the climate system. From that standpoint alone, I find the paper quite revealing."

    >Sorry Mailman, but my "list" is based on science rather than baseless accusations.

    Your list is based in faith Paul...religious faith in the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

    >Quite a number of REAL sceptics

    Who made you the king of who decide who is and isnt a sceptic?

    Show me the so called climate scientists who have tempered their alarmism with uncertainties? As has previously been stated, it seems the only time we hear about uncertainties is when a climate scientists alarmist claim doest come true.

    >You have not supplied real evidence in support of yours, Mailman...... just lots of >assertions, rhetoric and propaganda!

    The evidence IS right in front of you, all it requires is the ability for one to open their eyes and accept that their beloved religion isnt as pearly white as one wants it to be.

    Mailman




    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 1:30pm on 05 Jan 2011, mailmannz wrote:

    BTW Paul, you arent in real life, by chance of course, the Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Institute are you?

    Mailman

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 2:28pm on 05 Jan 2011, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #129, Paul Briscoe quoting Steig wrote:

    "The results appear to confirm all of the key results in our 2009 Nature paper......."

    If this is the case then you should have no problem in naming these key results.

    Please note that not one but all of the novel results claimed by Steig 09 have been shown to be artefacts of the methods used. If by key you are referring to parts of Steig 09 that agreed with prior knowledge then you may have a point albeit a straw-clutching one. Yes, the results of O'Donnell 10 that agreed with prior knowledge do confirm the results of Steig 09 that agreed with prior knowledge but we knew that anyway; it was, after all, prior knowledge.
    However any normal understanding of the phrase key results would refer to new knowledge brought about by a paper.
    All novel results of Steig 09 have been shown to be artefacts.

    If you don't believe that then check for yourself. Do not quote Steig or anyone else. Quote the novel results in Steig 09 that are confirmed by O'Donnell 10.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 3:21pm on 05 Jan 2011, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #127, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    “ Hansen's prediction for 2010 for CO2 in scenario B was 389 ppm. The actual figure was 392 ppm, so he was very close indeed. “

    It is not CO2 levels that make the difference between Scenarios A and B, at least not in the short term.

    Sorry I don't have the time at present to give a fuller explanation but the major difference is in how Hansen treats CFCs and other trace gasses. It looks as though Scenario B could be a valid choice so to show that I am open-minded I will withdraw my earlier comments.

    In defence of Pat Michaels, although he should have shown all scenarios, Hansen had described Scenario A as business as usual which appeared to be the case at least as far as CO2 was concerned.

    I will try to get back when I have more time and a fuller understanding ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 6:18pm on 05 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Mailman,

    Now you’re just obfuscating again!

    Of course WUWT and Jo Nova have to misrepresent the facts to support Monckton - they have to because they rely so much on his nonsense. However, it’s clear on close inspection that you are just allowing yourself to be misled over this one, Mailman, perhaps because the truth would be too difficult for you to contemplate. You have everything the wrong way around.

    Here’s an article which describes how Monckton asked bloggers to bombard Prof. Abrahams’ university with emails calling for him to silenced and disciplined:

    http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/07/15/monckton-attempts-intimidation/

    You’ll note that the university flatly refused, because they, like every objective person, could see that scientist Abrahams and not Monckton (with a degree in journalism) was actually correct! A few more details here:

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/07/gold-amongst-dross.html

    Never fear, though, because there’s plenty more! Having clearly rattled Monckton, Abrahams then dissected the good “lord’s” testimony to the US Congress. He enlisted the help of the top scientists in their respective fields. This document actually quotes directly from Monckton’s written testimony, so it’s far more difficult for you to claim that the scientists are misquoting him. You’ll find the link to the comprehensive rebuttal here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/moncktons_testimony_to_congres_1.php

    …….. and there’s more:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/rachel_pinker_on_moncktons_tes.php#more

    Of course, we also need to add the following:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea_WTUgaOq4

    I don’t for one moment expect you to admit that Monckton’s claims are ridiculous, but others will hopefully have a sufficiently open mind to go and take a proper look.

    “…….they go after Monkton, complaining he isnt a lord rah rah rah...as if that makes on jot of difference.”

    Have you never stopped to ask yourself why Monckton claims to be a member of the House of Lords when he isn’t, why he claims to have been a “scientific advisor” when he wasn’t and why he uses a logo which is almost a dead ringer for the official emblem of the upper house (which may even be against the law)?:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/11/lords-climate-christopher-monckton

    “Same with your continued attempts to deligitimise the GWPF claiming they cherry pick data etc. I guess when you speak about balance, you only mean balance in respects to only ever talking about Mann Made Global Warming (tm). Funny how you have not ONCE commented at length about the very real cherry picking that goes in to Mann Made Global Warming (tm), which has a very real impact on Government policy.”

    Yet again, you turn to your rhetoric and propaganda to deflect attention from reality!

    I have no NEED to “delegitimise” the GWPF. They have done so themselves by choosing data from a single day which suits their argument and then illegitimately comparing it to data from Hansen which is a decadal mean from a different period. I would also point out that you have yet to produce ANY evidence of “cherry picking” in the science of AGW……. and please spare me your endless assertions, it is actual examples in black and white (or colour!) that matter.

    Finally, regarding your statement above, I would point out that the GWPF, Monckton and co. are making very real attempts to influence policy…… eg. misrepresenting the science in testimonies to Congress!

    “………..hence why you have purposely avoided commenting on the link I sent about the lack of weather stations in africa and the arctic forcing temperatures up.”

    Not so, Mailman! The link is just one of a number on this same topic which have cropped up over the years on sceptic blogs. I pointed out that this data is not about local variations. It does not matter if adjacent stations are quite a long way apart just as long as the main aim – an accurate calculation of temperature on a macro scale – is achieved. The point is that areas of hot and cold weather tend to extend over quite large areas, so having quite large gaps between stations does not impact on the results.

    It has been clearly shown that reducing the number of stations used to calculate global temperature has NOT exaggerated the warming. In fact, if anything reducing the number of stations has REDUCED the warming trend:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/global-update/

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/all-that-data/

    However, there is a far bigger problem with your link to the Appinsys site. On closer inspection I’ve noticed a serious flaw in the first few lines. The article states that it’s looking at data from Jan-June 2010, yet the temperature anomaly graphic is the one for June alone…….. well that’s a good start isn’t it! So, just like the GWPF, the article isn’t even comparing like with like – NO WONDER THE HADCRUT TEMPERATURE DATA FOR JAN-JUNE DIDN’T TIE IN WITH IT!

    This, sadly, is the problem with letting yourself be led by amateurs who claim to know what they are doing! Will WUWT and company, who also posted the nonsense, take it down, I wonder?

    Now what about satellites? They do calculate global temperature in a totally different way, but the point is that they do produce the same global temperature trend, which, as Muir Russell et al pointed out, provides confirmation that the instrumental record is correct.


    “Its funny how these things only seem to happen to skeptical papers isnt it?”

    No! Specifically, we only get to HEAR about such things when they happen to sceptical papers – as I said above, they happen all the time, right across science!

    You then reproduce an email message from Phil Jones to Mike Mann. I’m sorry Mailman, but what Jones is actually saying here is that the papers in question were seriously flawed. His reviews will have reflected this……. as they should. I would imagine Jones said they were unlikely to appear because he was confident that other reviewers would spot the flaws too. So yet again, this is a non-story – it is just an example of how science works in practice.

    Regarding Crowley, he made an apology…….. end of story. Have your McExperts ever apologised for their unwarranted criticisms of scientists, I wonder?

    “It seems that there is no emperical evidence that Mann Made Global Warming (tm) is increasing the levels of hurricans ……”

    Indeed, that is the case. It was Al Gore (a non-scientist) who made the exaggerated claim. The consensus view appears to be that there may even be FEWER hurricanes with AGW, but that the ones which do occur are likely to more powerful. The consensus view is also that drought/heat wave and flooding events are likely to become more intense with AGW…….. which is what the Russians saw…….. and what Pakistan saw……..and what Queensland is currently seeing. There is no PROOF that any single one of these events was CAUSED by AGW, but there is very likely to be a link. So no, it’s not “inconvenient” at all. Sorry!

    “...and what was Fox News's crime against humanity that made them number 1?”

    Again, you’re not reading – they were at No. 5. Did you not follow the links which showed why they had been singled out for this honour?!

    “The evidence IS right in front of you, all it requires is the ability for one to open their eyes and accept that their beloved religion isnt as pearly white as one wants it to be”

    No Mailman. You have produced NO evidence – just lots of assertions which have taken me no time to disprove. You have also failed to address the serious issues with your sources.

    Finally, I would like to return to a point you raised at #120:

    “….what I want is the existing evidence to be thoroughly reviewed by honest, open, transparent scientists, statisticians, meteorologists, geologists etc….”

    Well, we have seen several independent reviews. You have branded them as “whitewashes” simply because they didn’t uphold your views. However, the one thing which has been conspicuously lacking from the review process thus far is any scrutiny of the claims and activities of the sceptics.

    I am certainly not opposed to the principle of yet another review into AGW, just as long as it is wide-ranging enough to also review the work of Michaels, Monckton, McIntyre, Watts, Nova, the GWPF etc.. Assuming that they have done nothing wrong they clearly have nothing to hide……. and as you claim to want to get to the truth about the science I’m assuming that you too would support such a review. Am I correct?

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 10:35pm on 05 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #134

    I think we've all seen the comparison of the 2 pictorial figures. However, you can see the actual data here:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/doing-it-ourselves/

    In fact, more correctly, O'Donnell et al should probably be compared with the corrigendum of Steig et al here:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7256/fig_tab/nature08286_T1.html

    You'll note that for both papers, all figures are at least slightly positive, although means and variances are different. I haven't sat down and figured out if the differences are statistically significant...... perhaps you know the answer to that?

    As you are probably well aware, I drew attention to the comments of Steig because you had studiously ignored them!

    In my experience, science is very rarely black and white and Eric Steig's interpretation and opinion is every bit as valid as those of two authors of the O'Donnell paper.

    "Please note that not one but all of the novel results claimed by Steig 09 have been shown to be artefacts of the methods used."

    If you've read any of Steig's comments over at Realclimate, you'll see that he disagrees with you.

    "However any normal understanding of the phrase key results would refer to new knowledge brought about by a paper."

    I don't agree with that statement at all - it is quite common for different papers to have the same key results - this is an affirmation of a previous paper's findings.

    As I have said several times, this has been blown up out of all proportion - in my opinion, some have been far too keen to score points!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 00:10am on 06 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Mailman,

    I've taken yet another look at the article you linked to from Appinsys.

    There is something very strange going on, as the article is reproduced exactly over on WUWT but with a different NOAA temperature anomaly shown at the top! Clearly, only one of these can be correct.

    However, I think I can now see where the author went wrong. He seems to have used the NOAA temperature anomaly graphic but the HADCRUT temperature data. This might seem like a minor thing, but given that the 2 datasets use different baseline figures and use different adjustment procedures, the actual anomaly figures for particular areas will be very different.

    Of course, regardless of all this, the author missed the key points I made in my post above.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 01:07am on 06 Jan 2011, mailmannz wrote:

    Paul,

    >Now you’re just obfuscating again!

    And your refusing to acknowledge anything that goes against your religious faith in Mann Made Global Warming (tm) :)

    >Of course WUWT and Jo Nova have to misrepresent the facts to support Monckton

    Ah, of course...anything that doesnt agree with your religious dogma is merely a misrepresentation of facts. Right, got it.

    >You’ll note that the university flatly refused, because they, like every objective >person, could see that scientist Abrahams and not Monckton (with a degree in >journalism) was actually correct!

    What did you expect the university to do? Admit its man for Mann Made Global Warming (tm) got it wrong? Will never happen, and if CRU can protect Jones after all the games he got up to, then I hardly think these guys are going to do anything to Abrahams.

    >I don’t for one moment expect you to admit that Monckton’s claims are ridiculous, >but others will hopefully have a sufficiently open mind to go and take a proper look.

    And whats common to all of the links you posted? The venom, hatred and ad homs thrown at the man for his blasphemy. Face it Paul, your belief in Mann Made Global Warming (tm) is a religion. Anyone who dares question the faith is excommunicated and attacked unremittingly.

    You keep on talking about scientists...no, these guys arent scientists, they are pack animals desperate to protect their turf from the infidels!

    >Have you never stopped to ask yourself why Monckton claims to be a member of the >House of Lords

    Again, this is neither here nor there and has absolutely no relevance to Mann Made Global Warming (tm), unless that is of course you are attempting to deligitimise the man, which is all you are doing.

    We see this same pattern of delegitimisation happening time and time again when anyone threatens the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

    >Finally, regarding your statement above, I would point out that the GWPF, Monckton >and co. are making very real attempts to influence policy…… eg. misrepresenting the >science in testimonies to Congress!

    Obviously the operative word here is TRYING. And why are they trying? Because Government policy has been hijacked by religious adherents to religion of Mann Made Global Warming.

    And lets be honest here Paul, when you see the damage being wrought upon this country by the followers of your religion in the Met Office, is it any wonder these guys are attempting to undo the damage being done because of the Met Office's utter faith in the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

    >It does not matter if adjacent stations are quite a long way apart just as long as the >main aim – an accurate calculation of temperature on a macro scale – is achieved.

    The way you have worded this is really interesting. Please do explain how you can achieve an accurate calculation of temperatures if you are not accurately measuring temperatures?

    And it DOES matter if you are smoothing temperatures over large areas, for example;

    "Spot Check - Greenland

    It is apparently much hotter than usual in Greenland. But where is the data? Most of the 5x5 degree grids have zero stations (as indicated by the black arrows). Most of the grids with data have one station. The two hottest spots on the NOAA Greenland area show 5 degrees warming and have no data. How could such an interpolation occur?
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/NOAA_JanJun2010.htm "

    >The point is that areas of hot and cold weather tend to extend over quite large areas

    Hang on, havent you been explaining at length that the cold we are seeing today is nothing more than a localised event? Suddenly, when it fits, you now claim that warming and cooling can happen over quite large areas...but of course you only say that now because you need to get yourself out of a corner to justify the use of little data to create Mann Made Global Warming (tm) where there is little evidence of said religion occuring in real life.

    >so having quite large gaps between stations does not impact on the results.

    I will disagree, simply because the parts of the planet showing warming are, strangely, the parts of the planet with little to no temperature data.

    >The article states that it’s looking at data from Jan-June 2010, yet the temperature >anomaly graphic is the one for June alone…….. well that’s a good start isn’t it! So, >just like the GWPF, the article isn’t even comparing like with like – NO WONDER THE >HADCRUT TEMPERATURE DATA FOR JAN-JUNE DIDN’T TIE IN WITH IT!

    Thats funny...because the Jan-Jun graphic from NOAA looks like;
    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/map-blended-mntp-201001-201006.gif

    Which you will note is EXACTLY the same as the first image being used that you are complaining about (in fact, its the ONLY world map used on the entire page).

    >This, sadly, is the problem with letting yourself be led by amateurs who claim to >know what they are doing! Will WUWT and company, who also posted the nonsense, >take it down, I wonder?

    Well, you can with draw your comment in your next post :)

    >Now what about satellites? They do calculate global temperature in a totally different >way, but the point is that they do produce the same global temperature trend.

    again Paul, I will ask you, where are the temperature readings satalites have taken for the Arctic and Antarctic reagions?

    >which, as Muir Russell et al pointed out, provides confirmation that the instrumental record is correct.

    Funny, considering Muir didnt look in to the science conducted at CRU, it would be impossible for him to deliver judgement on the correctness of that science.

    >No! Specifically, we only get to HEAR about such things when they happen to >sceptical papers – as I said above, they happen all the time, right across science!
    Show me a paper from Jones, Schmidt, Hansen, Biffa, Tamino, Mann, Salinger, Wang, Trenberth et al that have received the same "going to town" treatment as meted out to skeptics?

    I mean, this should be easy because according to you this kind of thing happens all the time. Right?

    >I would imagine Jones said they were unlikely to appear because he was confident >that other reviewers would spot the flaws too. So yet again, this is a non-story – it is >just an example of how science works in practice.

    Of course that is only your opinion. Pity then that Jones is also on record as saying;

    "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"

    Read the last part of that quote Paul...EVEN IF WE HAVE TO REDEFINE WHAT THE PEER REVIEW LITERATURE IS.

    >Regarding Crowley, he made an apology…….. end of story. Have your McExperts >ever apologised for their unwarranted criticisms of scientists, I wonder?

    Actually no, its not the end as Crowley is yet to retract his statements in EOS, who by the way refused to take action against Crowley BECAUSE they took so long to review McIntyres complaints! And you want me to just accept the pal review process is the best thing since Mann invented Global Warming (tm)? :)

    Further more, you want skeptics to apologise...for what exactly? Let me remind you that it was skeptics that destroyed the hockey stick, it was skeptics that exposed the farce that has become climate science it was skeptics, no worse than that, amateur part timers, who destroyed Steig et al, skeptics that forced CRU to adhere to the FOI law (for which CRU is now under an ASBO).

    No mate, the only people who should be apologising are those climate scientists who are attempting to circle their wagons and keep the skeptics out of the scientific peer reviewed literature.

    >The consensus view appears to be that there may even be FEWER hurricanes with >AGW, but that the ones which do occur are likely to more powerful.

    Again, there is NO evidence that this is the case. Although, this merely looks like nothing more than Alarmists attempting to get themselves out of a tight corner (like they did with the doomsmongering over the loss of snow for kiddies post 2000).

    >which is what the Russians saw…….. and what Pakistan saw

    Which again, there is NO evidence what so ever that links these two events to Mann Made Global Warming. Then again, did you not claim previously that one cannot take any single event and claim it as proof the planet isnt warming up?

    Taking that logic to its logical conclusion, you therefore CANNOT claim any single weather event is proof of Mann Made Global Warming (tm). Unless of course we are playing under the guardian new rules, where the looser actually becomes the winner?

    >There is no PROOF that any single one of these events was CAUSED by AGW, but >there is very likely to be a link.

    That is your theory, which isnt backed up by the evidence. So in fact, as I said before, there is NO proof that weather events are being created by Mann Made Global Warming.

    In fact, all you really are doing is saying that because YOU dont know what caused an event, this is good enough proof for YOU that Mann Made Global Warming (tm) is true.

    That is poor science in anyones book Paul.

    >Again, you’re not reading – they were at No. 5. Did you not follow the links which >showed why they had been singled out for this honour?!

    The point Im making Paul, which you have conveniently ignored, is that their crime against humanity is to point out that the science ISNT settled and that there are other scientific opinions out there.

    That to me seems to be a very common sense approach to take, yet for that Blasphemy, Fox News is branded as traitors to the faith.

    BTW, I was at work and the link you posted was blocked so I was going by memory in regards to the ordering.

    I hereby formally apologise to you in person if this has caused you any distress or momentary loss of bodily control :)

    >No Mailman. You have produced NO evidence

    No Paul, you just refuse to accept anything that doesnt agree with your religious belief in Mann Made Global Warming (tm). Even the scientists own words isnt enough for you. I mean, Id ask you what you would need as proof to falsify your belief in Mann Made Global Warming, but we have seen your list of unfalsifiables havent we :)

    >Well, we have seen several independent reviews.

    Which one of the reviews looked and seriously reviewed what was going on openly, honestly and transparently Paul? Which one?

    >I am certainly not opposed to the principle of yet another review into AGW

    Funny how the followers of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) ARENT so keen on Mann's science being investigated. Suddenly its lawyers at noon in an attempt to protect their little cash cow.

    >just as long as it is wide-ranging enough to also review the work of Michaels, >Monckton, McIntyre, Watts, Nova, the GWPF etc...and as you claim to want to get to the truth about the science I’m assuming that you too would support such a review. Am I correct?

    Sure, review it all, especially all the Mann Made Global Warming (tm) alarmism that goes in to influencing and controlling Government policy and how the country has been so utterly let down by the Met Office BECAUSE of its religious devotion to the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

    You can harp all you want about reviewing McIntyre et al, but the simple fact is that nothing they say or do influences Government policy. And whether you like it or not, that is the important thing here. As you say, anything else is a diversion. Otherwise, stick to your strawmen, you never know, if you get enough of them together you could make a straw house :)

    Regards

    Mailman

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 01:08am on 06 Jan 2011, mailmannz wrote:

    BTW Paul, you never answered my question...you arent in real life, by chance of course, the Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Institute are you?

    Mailman

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 01:46am on 06 Jan 2011, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #137, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    “ ….. I haven't sat down and figured out if the differences are statistically significant...... perhaps you know the answer to that?

    As you are probably well aware, I drew attention to the comments of Steig because you had studiously ignored them! ….. “

    I hadn't ignored Steig's comments. I had seen these comments and similar ones before you brought them to my attention but fail to see how they can be reconciled with the figures.

    Look at the data in your link:
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/doing-it-ourselves/
    then read the comment by Nicholas Lewis in your link:
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/on-warming-antarctica-clouds-and-peer-review/

    I am not trying to avoid anything or twist anything. I thought I had shown in my post #135 that I am prepared to revise my thinking when necessary. BTW, that will take some thinking, Hansen's scenarios appear to interchange emissions and concentrations, and strange things happen to minor trace gasses :-\

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 08:02am on 06 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Mailman,

    I may come back later to address your further unsubstantiated assertions and propaganda in your latest posts.

    However, whilst you blustered in detail about every other point I'd covered, there is one question which you studiously ignored:

    "I am certainly not opposed to the principle of yet another review into AGW, just as long as it is wide-ranging enough to also review the work of Michaels, Monckton, McIntyre, Watts, Nova, the GWPF etc.. Assuming that they have done nothing wrong they clearly have nothing to hide……. and as you claim to want to get to the truth about the science I’m assuming that you too would support such a review. Am I correct?"

    In other words, I don't fear a detailed review of the science and scientists. Do you fear a similar review of your sources? Is this why you didn't answer? If so it speaks volumes, doesn't it!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 12:58pm on 06 Jan 2011, mailmannz wrote:

    Paul,

    >In other words, I don't fear a detailed review of the science and scientists. Do you >fear a similar review of your sources? Is this why you didn't answer? If so it speaks >volumes, doesn't it!

    As I said before, you are clutching at straws simply because it is not McIntyre or Monkton or the GWPF etc who are corrupting Government policy and undermining the pal review process etc. It is the likes of Mann, Jones, Schmidt, Hansen et al who continually pop up time and time again, in the most unusual places, almost as if they are attempting to keep the infidels out of the scientific literature.

    As you say, anything else is a mere diversion.

    But I can see why you are attempting to project here, because when the GWPF starts asking questions like this;
    http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/2162-did-uk-government-keep-cold-winter-warning-secret-in-run-up-to-un-climate-conference.html

    Things start getting a little too hot for alarmists to handle, hence the need to deligitimise such organisations and individuals.

    BTW, this is going to be the third time I've had to ask this...you arent in real life, by chance of course, the Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Institute are you?

    Mailman

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 1:30pm on 06 Jan 2011, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Paul Briscoe #125

    Sorry, been busy. Thanks for the response.

    Glad you agree that peer review is not a guarantee of veracity.

    I have a problem with this though:

    “Ultimately it is WEIGHT of scientific evidence through multiple studies which provides confidence in the consensus”

    Firstly, many of the studies are either circular in their references/citations or based on re-analysis of the same sets of controversial/dodgy data or indeed dodgy models and much of the rest of the body of evidence is grey in nature i.e. not peer reviewed at all.

    Secondly, there is definitely evidence in the climategate emails that there was intent to subvert the peer review process and to influence journal publication.

    Most scientists, were appalled at these revelations.

    With regard to the Stieg and O’Donnell papers, our opinions differ and unsurprisingly, I side with Mcintyre.

    Back to your comments on the peer review process:

    “That's actually just another way of saying that peer review is not infallible. However, if a scientific article has NOT been peer reviewed, its methods have not been independently assessed and its conclusions have not been independently verified.”

    The key bit of that sentence is “and its conclusions have not been independently verified” – As, we’ve just established the peer review process does not “independently verify” anything.

    One can think of it as basic quality control: If what you are telling me is true, do I think that you can validly draw the conclusions you’ve made or make the assertions that you’ve made and do I think that you’ve made any glaringly obvious mistakes. But it’s not independently verified, that would require me to attempt to reproduce your work, there is a difference…… and all of this is subjective and easily clouded by “palyness” (okay, I know I’m making up words, but hopefully you get my point)

    Then, there was this

    “However, the key point is that anyone, with or without relevant qualifications, can claim pretty well whatever they like in a non-peer-reviewed article”

    Yep, agreed. But this goes both ways, the IPCC need to stop using grey literature.

    And,

    “Add to this the fact that most of the individuals reading scientific articles online do not have the expertise to spot when an article is fundamentally wrong and you have a very dangerous situation indeed...... a situation which is ripe for exploitation by pressure groups with vested interests.”

    Again, very true and this also cuts both ways…. I think you’ll find that most of the ill-informed people and groups fall into the pro-AGW camp, but obviously I would say that, I’m one of the lobby ;-)

    Tsch, tsch… then you start putting words into my mouth:

    “So forgive me, Blunderbunny, if I beg to differ with you. Science does indeed operate through peer review........”

    I refer you to my opening remarks:

    “First we'll go with peer review and publishing in journals. Whilst I’m a big supporter and subscriber to the peer review process, it should not be seen as being proof that anyone’s work is correct, it only means that your peers accept that the work potentially has some merit and is of publishable quality. In other words, it just means that your work is not very obviously stupid.”

    I think you’ve confused:

    "Work is published, it may be right, it may be wrong. But it’s the work that should be addressed, not the means by which it was published......

    Again, science simply does not work that way."

    My criticism of your community’s Journal bashing, with a criticism of the normal peer review process, which it was not.

    Next, we had:

    “This is why I tend to rely on the Skeptical Science website. Maybe it doesn't tell you what you want to hear, but each argument is backed up with links to the peer-reviewed literature. Given what you say above, feel free to go and follow the links (that's what they're there for) and check their validity.”

    Well that’s good to hear, as I’ve just shown you with some peer reviewed literature, regards the non-local nature of the MWP, that things may not always be as presented on your favourite site… You can now happily stop using it ;-)

    Not that you will, but the point that I’m trying to make is that this particular site is telling you what you want to hear, so you happily accept it… There can be no doubt that the site in question has a particular viewpoint… If it was truly only science based then it would equally include the science that it does not “like” and there’s the rub isn’t it?

    Finally, we get to:

    “I did follow the various links. I don't have particular issues with any of the studies, even though some at least appear not to be peer-reviewed. However, as far as I can see, they don't tell us anything we don't already know.”

    Nice to know, you’ve no real issues with the information provided and yes, some are peer reviewed papers and some aren’t, but there is plenty of other work out there if you care to look… All of it indicating that the MWP was a global not a local event.

    So, there’s a lie(maybe omission is a better word) for you. Yes if you choose to believe the team and don’t look elsewhere then there is no evidence that the MWP was a global event, but that’s not quite the same as saying that there is no evidence, now is it?

    The word “Denial” springs to mind for some unknown reason……

    You may be happy with this very limited take on these the subject, but myself and others are most definitely not.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 1:41pm on 06 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Mailman,

    "BTW, this is going to be the third time I've had to ask this...you arent in real life, by chance of course, the Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Institute are you?"

    I was simply treating the comment with the contempt it deserves! I don't hide behind a pseudonym, Mailman and I don't have links to any organisations with interests in this area. I have reached my present view as a result of a detailed and objective review of the science.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 2:00pm on 06 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Mailman,

    "As I said before, you are clutching at straws simply because it is not McIntyre or Monkton or the GWPF etc who are corrupting Government policy......... "

    How did I know you were going to attempt to play the "policy" card?! However, it is you who are clutching at straws.

    Here's the final paragraph from Christopher Monckton's written testimony to the US Congress:

    "There are many urgent priorities that need the attention of Congress, and it is not for me as an invited guest in your country to say what they are. Yet I can say this much: on any view, “global warming” is not one of them."

    If that is not an attempt to influence US policy on climate change, I don't know what is! This, taken with Monckton's blatant misrepresentations of the science in the rest of the document, are all the justification needed to call for a proper review of his activities. In fact, I'm sure some would argue that there is a strong case for a CRIMINAL investigation!!

    Of course, Patrick Michaels didn't cover himself with glory in his testimony to the same hearings........ again, it cannot be argued that his claims did not influence policy.

    Then we have all of the blogs. They have clearly clouded the public view of the science. I'm sure you would argue that they have simply "lifted the lid", but they have, nevertheless changed public perceptions, with the obvious knock-on effect on policy. So why should they be excluded from any review? After all, their claims are in dispute every bit as much as the scientists!

    Finally, I come back to the same question - if your sources have done nothing wrong, what do you have to fear from a proper wide-ranging review of ALL the players in this debate?

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 9:42pm on 06 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Blunderbunny @ #144

    I'm afraid I missed your new post amongst the huge volume around it!

    I can see that we're not going to agree here, especially as you admit to being one of "the lobby"!

    Personally, I have never seen myself as having an alliegiance to any dogma. I have drawn my conclusions based on a personal assessment of the scientific evidence (which, incidentally, doesn't rely at all on whether the MWP was global). This is the reason why the overwhelming majority of scientists have reached the same conclusion.

    For instance, I don't agree with the following at all:

    "Firstly, many of the studies are either circular in their references/citations or based on re-analysis of the same sets of controversial/dodgy data or indeed dodgy models and much of the rest of the body of evidence is grey in nature i.e. not peer reviewed at all."

    In my opinion this is just propaganda put about by groups wishing to undermine the science. There is no evidence that the peer review process for AGW is any different to any other branch of science. It has also been proven that the data is not "dodgy" or fiddled and the models are every bit as good as the science allows - you'll find an excellent discussion of the importance of models to science in the body of this article:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-it-safe-to-double-atmospheric-Carbon-Dioxide-over-200-year-period.html

    For me, the other big "problem" with what you are claiming regarding peer-review in AGW science is that when I looked at the "Climategate" email "evidence" in more detail, it became clear that the scientists had no case to answer - it was all hysteria, propaganda, lack of understanding of how science operates and especially the way the emails were being presented. I was actually making exactly that point on this blog long before the independent reviews (which included plenty of scientists from outside AGW) confirmed my views.

    I would also remind you that you could probably draw the same conclusions of malfeasance against pretty well ANY scientist if you were to look at their private emails....... just as you could leading sceptics! People say all sorts of things in private discussions with friends and colleagues that they would never follow through.

    "But this goes both ways, the IPCC need to stop using grey literature."

    I counter by saying that they do not!

    "I think you’ll find that most of the ill-informed people and groups fall into the pro-AGW camp".

    Well I certainly challenge that assertion! My own experience of the various blogs tells me that the opposite is the case....... and by a considerable margin!

    "Tsch, tsch… then you start putting words into my mouth"

    My comment related specifically to these comments from you:

    "Work is published, it may be right, it may be wrong. But it’s the work that should be addressed, not the means by which it was published......

    Again, science simply does not work that way."

    The point I was making was that every scientist who is serious about contributing to the scientific process HAS to go through the peer review process first. Then the work is further assessed by the rest of the scientific community and it attains acceptance as part of the consensus if it is sound - this is how science works in real life...... just as it did when I was involved in research. This is why I felt your description of the scientific process was incorrect.

    If, as you claim, there are lots of papers which are not being considered by the IPCC, it is either because they haven't been published in the peer reviewed literature or their authors have chosen to publish in such an obscure journal that the rest of the community hasn't come across them. The latter then introduces a further question........ were the papers in question not good enough to meet the peer review standards of the mainstream journals?

    So no, Blunderbunny, I don't agree with you at all. Sorry!

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 11:25pm on 06 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Blunderbunny

    You might actually find this article interesting:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/science-is-self-correcting-lessons-from-the-arsenic-controversy/

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 11:43pm on 06 Jan 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #141

    Yes, I had read that but clearly hadn't taken in the part about statistical significance!

    I'm afraid I was probably turned off by a comment Lewis made at the bottom, which sounded far more like what I would expect from McIntyre!

    Anyway, nothing's broken and scientific knowledge will hopefully carry on progressing!

    Regarding Hansen's study, did you check out the trace gas concentrations provided by Schmidt for the various scenarios (link in the article)?

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.