« Previous | Main | Next »

End in sight to extraordinary November weather

Paul Hudson | 15:30 UK time, Friday, 18 November 2011

It is turning out to be a remarkable November, with mean temperatures way above what would normally be expected at this time of the year.

If temperatures were to remain at these elevated levels then it would become the mildest November ever recorded on the Central England Temperature (CET) measure, which dates back 350 years.

These very mild conditions come off the back of what was a very mild October, where new records were set quite widely across the country.

This flies in the face of stories in the press earlier this autumn, originating from several small independent weather forecasting companies, which talked of snow and ice as early as October http://tiny.cc/8hmlu and Siberian weather by mid-November http://tiny.cc/nbzb3

This illustrates graphically the danger of reading too much into long range forecasts, which remain extremely difficult to get right.

There are definite signs that the current stationary, or blocked, weather pattern, which has fed mild air from the south for virtually the whole of November, is about to give way to a more traditional weather pattern as we head towards the end of November, and into December.

A mobile westerly weather pattern should become established through next week. This means stronger winds, and some rain, heaviest in the north and west, with lower totals in the south and east.

An example of what lies on store can be seen on the chart from the GFS American model, for Friday 25th November.



The details are unlikely to be correct, but the broad signal of a run of strong westerly winds, with areas of low pressure to the north, and high pressure to the south, is agreed by most computer models.

Towards the end of November, and into December, there is a trend in some models for winds to switch to the Northwest.

This would bring somewhat colder temperatures, with some precipitation falling as snow across northern parts of the UK, more especially over hills - but this is perfectly normal for the time of the year.

Finally I though it was worth highlighting the forecast that was issued by Weather Action a few weeks ago.

They have recently had some notable successes: last winter's severe weather (although February was a notable exception in being much milder than they expected); they correctly highlighted that this summer would be unsettled; and they also forecast a generally mild autumn some months ago.

So it is with interest that Weather Action have forecast that from Nov 27th to Dec 28th the UK and Ireland will be affected by exceptionally cold weather, with the potential for some 'huge snowfalls' because of solar considerations.

The main computer models only forecast as far as the first week in December, and as it stands at the moment, although some are trending colder later in the period, none are signalling anything as dramatic as Weather Action is suggesting.

It will be very interesting to see who comes out on top.

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Paul I had been wondering what Piers Corbyn was predicting for December. He seems to be much more coy about his longer term predictions than he used to be - in the sense that he is protecting the commercial value of his business and I see nothing wrong in that. It will, indeed, be interesting to see how December turns out. If anyone has more detailed information on Piers prediction please let us know

  • Comment number 2.

    There was a school of thought, that anybody could pick as good a portfolio as a fund manager, by just choosing a bunch of companies out of the Financial times. The same goes with the weather forecasting long range, how can anybody take the Global warming forecasters seriously. We have to look at a forty year cycle and currently we are on the downward cycle. We haven't had a good summer for 5 years and the last three winters haven't been very nice.

  • Comment number 3.

    While you are handing out deserved credit to Weather Action it should also be noted that Piers also correctly forecasted the recent snowstorms in NE America - a month ahead.
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8569

  • Comment number 4.

    Maybe Weather Action will be proved right.

    I've been sceptical of long-range forecasts for some time. With the caveat that they may be right by coincidence (cold weather sometimes happens in winter), I'm pleased to see their colours are at least being nailed to the mast.

    But they may need to be fixed a little more firmly. What does Weather Action mean by 'exceptional'?

    Exceptional compared to what?

    This is not pedantic, it's important. Temperature records for UK go back a long time. When Weather Action predict "exceptionally cold weather" do they mean compared to current conditions, or are they talking with reference to the entire historical record?

    It's all about reducing 'wriggle room'.

    I suspect that these characters know as much about long range weather as Mystic Meg knows about lottery numbers - SFA! But we'll see what happens Nov 27th to Dec 28th.

  • Comment number 5.

    Note "SFA" means 'sweet Fanny Adams', of course ;-)

  • Comment number 6.

    "Fool me once - shame on you; fool me twice - shame on me!"

    I have to agree with you (yet again) newdwr54; will people ever give up on believing all this "long range" stuff? No matter how many times it is wrong - the disciples come back for more - and more - until finally the forecast is correct. Then all of a sudden, these people are credited with incredible powers of meteorological foresight. The lucky strikes will be recounted again and again as unassailable proof that the word of the forecaster is as dread as a witch doctor prognosticating death.

    Let's face it - so far this autumn, not only have they been wrong - but about as wrong as it is possible to be. A record arctic forecast has turned out to be one of the mildest on record to date. Please stop making excuses for them, Paul!

    Interestingly, however - going by old weather lore (probably at least as reliable) we could be in for a rough time later. A warm November is traditionally taken to be a bad sign.

    "Ice in November to bear a duck - nothing after but sludge and muck" :

    We've had no frost at all this month, yet, never mind "duck gauge".

    Another:
    "If leaves fall not by Martinmas day, a cruel winter is on its way"

    Actually I think this one must date from the "Little Ice Age" - since tree leaves are almost never gone by Nov.11th. But the sentiment is the same.

    It seems, given that unlike the last 2 years, the Greenland High seems relatively insubstantial as yet, that we are not in for a similar early winter. But later on who can tell? Not I suspect our long range friends. But no doubt, if any of the Donkey's tails turn out to be anywhere near its bum - there will be a resounding chorus of adoration and faintly omniscient "I told you sos".

    Interesting too, how an anticyclone can be a fickle mistress. Sitting over eastern Europe for so long, bathing us in soft southerly winds. How different things might have been if it had settled just a little further to the north or west.

  • Comment number 7.

    It seems unlikely to me that this November will show the highest CET temperature for the month in the 350 year record.
    It is true that the provisional temperature of 10.3c is above the 1994 record of 10.1c, but provisional figures tend to be overstated by up to 0.5c, due to the way they calculate the daily minimum figures.
    Also, even without knowing anything about the forecasted temperatures for the latter half of the month, it is statistically likely that temperatures will be lower than during the first half.
    So my own guess is that this November may not be as warm as the 9.5c measured in 1818, or the 9.3c in 1743, or even the 9.2c in 1730.
    On the other hand, it still looks pretty warm to me, at least in the southern half of Britain, where CET is measured, on the above forecast map.
    Incidentally, why is the initial for high pressure "H", but that for low pressure "T"?

  • Comment number 8.

    #4. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "But they may need to be fixed a little more firmly. What does Weather Action mean by 'exceptional'?"

    And what is meant by a "huge snowfall"?

    Personally I would prefer to see more specific, numeric forecasts, which could be validated against actual data, rather than vague generalisations. That is ultimately the only way that accuracy can be measured in a meaningful manner.

    Figures for the likely range of temperatures and snowfall would be nice.
    Presumably they have such figures, so why don't they tell us what they are?

    Personally I am very sceptical that snowfall amounts can be predicted accurately using "solar considerations".

    Until recently we rarely had much snow before January and I think that's how it's going to be this year.

  • Comment number 9.

    @2 Sheffield_city

    "how can anybody take the Global warming forecasters seriously." Because they are not predicting the weather? They are predicting climate. Every year we have a prediction from people like yourself that the world is cooling or is about to cool. Every year it gets postponed. 2 La Nina events in the year and we are still on track for a top ten global temp year?

    Oh by the way your long range weather forecasts were a bit off... was supposed the be very cold and snow by mid November wasn't it?

  • Comment number 10.

    #9. - john_cogger wrote:
    "Every year we have a prediction from people like yourself that the world is cooling or is about to cool. Every year it gets postponed."

    That's a bit rich. The same could be said about it getting warmer.
    The MO has recently made several predictions that years will be warmer than 1998 and that hasn't happened.
    This year will probably be the 11th warmest according to the simple average of HadCRUT3 monthly anomalies.

  • Comment number 11.

    John_cogger. Global warming by man is going to go bust like the European single currency. A lot of people have a lot to lose by both systems self destructing, both are gravy trains for certain individuals and organisations. I worked inside a Carbon Management company and found out how flawed it was. I can remember a few weeks ago how everything looked rosy for the EU, with bailouts, then in days it had all gone pear shape. If I was you I would make sure you have a big snow shovel ready, you can't rely on algorithms, they are only as good as the information put into them. Garbage in equals garbage out.

  • Comment number 12.

    @11 Sheffield City

    There used to be another poster on these blogs who also worked for a carbon management firm...you haven't changed names have you? Not sure what the EU, bailouts, carbon trading has to do with the science mind you? The political reaction to climate change is not the same thing as the actual science.

    If you are the same poster, then no doubt the fact that its cold in your garden will yet again be cited as proof of a new ice age.

    As for having a snow shovel ready, no doubt it will snow in the winter...because it is winter. I am still wondering how your prediction of -20 degree's and snow in November is going?

  • Comment number 13.

    This backs up my argument, when the snow and cold comes it is going to be very bad. http://www.exactaweather.com/UK_Long_Range_Forecast.html. Because of the blocking that we have been experiencing, weather patterns once set in seem to stay for a while, the cold weather has been delayed a little. Watch out for the next pattern of weather to materialise.

  • Comment number 14.

    13. Sheffield_city:

    Isn't Madden the bloke that runs the blog "Global Cooling & New Ice Age UK"?

    On 31st October he 'forecast' "frequent and widespread heavy snowfalls during November to January across many parts of the UK and Ireland, with below-average temperatures..."

    He didn't even get a month in advance right, yet he's presuming to tell us that we're heading into an Ice Age?

    Do people actually pay for this stuff? Maybe I'm in the wrong business.

  • Comment number 15.

    Yes and James Madden at Exacta weather also said there would be snow and ice in October too, and claimed he was right because there was one day of snow on the scottish highlands when October was one of the mildest on record! Also he said a very cold November with widespread snow. As you say newdwr54 its amazing that anyone still pays any attention to such rubbish.

  • Comment number 16.

    john_cogger. Science only has half of the answers, until it truly becomes intuitive, it will be very false science. At one bit people believed the world was flat rather than round anybody else was ridiculed. Even Einstein is being proofed wrong, it is now becoming apparent that the sub atomic particles can travel faster than the speed of light. There is another dimension that certain individuals are blind to. It is funny that when I had a foot and half of snow in my garden, the worst I can remember in living memory, that my America friend in Iowa was telling me the same story and if I had a German friend dito.

  • Comment number 17.

    I'll have a go at the forecasting lark.

    It will get colder as we move into winter. There will be snow, sometimes heavy in the UK. There we go, lets see how it goes on.

    By the way my garden has had above average temps and below ave. rainfall over the last couple of months. As texas has had the same, I conclude that globally it is hot and dry...fact.... :-)

  • Comment number 18.

    QuaesoVeritas

    Sorry for not getting back re your HadCRUT3/HadSST2 numbers. I have mega computer issues, main spreadsheet with the data has been corrupted tried recover and lost major chunks.

    However I have just come across the following which you may find of interest.

    "17-Year And 30-Year Trends In Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies: The Differences Between Observed And IPCC AR4 Climate Models"

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/17-year-and-30-year-trends-in-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-the-differences-between-observed-and-ipcc-ar4-climate-models/

  • Comment number 19.

    greensand,
    Thanks for that, it looks interesting.
    I will have a look at it in detail asap.

  • Comment number 20.

    I was wondering - those of you who have the data - whether the period from mid September to mid November will rank as the warmest for that period on record?

    Or for that matter - how the whole season of Autumn will eventually turn out.
    Above average temps seem hardly to have faltered in all that time and even recent night time temps have been not far from summer values. And no frost yet - in November.

  • Comment number 21.

    jkiller56,

    Assuming you mean CET, the MO does publish seasonal temperature ranking data here:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
    According to these figures, the warmest S-N on record was in 2006, with a figure of 12.63c, and if my sums are correct, the current simple average for this year is about 12.67c, but this will inevitabley fall by the end of the month. Even so, I suspect that this autumn may be the second warmest after 2006.
    It is interesting that 3 of the previous 4 warmest autumns were 1729 to 1731.
    Obviously we had "global warming" then too.

  • Comment number 22.

    19. QuaesoVeritas:

    If you can find a link to the HADISST data Tisdale mentions I would be most grateful.

    I have checked his analysis in Table 1 against HADSST2 and it doesn't stack up. I'd be interested to know whether you agree or not.

    Thanks.

  • Comment number 23.

    newdwr54

    Check out the comments at Bob Tisdale site, there are others making the same comment about it not stacking up with HadSST2 and asking the same question re HadISST. Bob has posted an "introduction to the KNMI Climate Explorer". I am trying to understand it as well but not there yet.

  • Comment number 24.

    It is strange all the papers have rushed to say we are going to have a record warm November so Pauls discussion is all the more interesting

    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/283512/NOVEMBER-TO-BE-WARMEST-IN-363-YEARS

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/8887016/November-on-course-for-being-warmest-since-records-began.html

    See Thursdays Newsnight?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9642307.stm

    etc etc.,

    Listening to the Newsnight feature above I hope its clear what a poor job the media do. Obviously only half way into the month but any excuse to advocate the popular warming view. Then the question is asked 'How significant is this??'

    a list of warm weather events is then discussed without mention of any cold ones. One rather obvious extreme cold event which may be a more significant record than this year,is the cold this time last year. Some of us were experiencing the coldest conditions ever for November.

    Credit to the Met office for explaining half a months data does not a monthly record make

  • Comment number 25.

    That's actually me again, greensand! Hello.

    I've finally tracked down the data he used and I have to admit he's right: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadisst1_-180-180E_-90-90N_na.txt

    I'm still trying to understand why the difference between HadSST2 and HADISST over the same time scales? Both are endorsed by the Met Office.

    Which one is 'right'? I don't know.

    Also, which set are the IPCC models predicated upon, if either?

  • Comment number 26.

    newdwr54 and QuaesoVeritas

    If you have not seen this before it is worth a read it puts some "flesh" on the bones of SST data sets:-

    "An Overview Of Sea Surface Temperature Datasets Used In Global Temperature Products"

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/an-overview-of-sea-surface-temperature-datasets-used-in-global-temperature-products/

  • Comment number 27.

    Damn, I can be thick at times!

    Hi DW!

  • Comment number 28.

    To Quaeso Veritas # 21

    Many thanks for that - facinating if a little mesmerising. I hadn't realised these figures existed.

    Yes the warm autumns of 1729 & 1731 are indeed notable. But you must learn to be less sensitive! I honestly wasn't fishing for global warming amunition - I was just interested to know - particularly as these seasonal figures (more than extreme months) are really the ones that count regarding plant and animal life which is my main interest.

    The possible second (conceivably even first) ranking of this year's autumn - particularly following spring's equally impressive performance is quite something. Summer put the brakes on it being a really remarkable year biologically speaking however.

    Regards jkiller56

  • Comment number 29.

    26. greensand:

    Many thanks for that. From Bob Tisdale's page you linked to, it seems that SST2 has the highest trend over the period in question (last 30 years) while ISST has the lowest (see fig. 17). Which one we opt for appears to be as much a matter of choice as anything else, from the narrative.

    Tisdale may be pressing the point a little by only using ISST in that case. Even so, as a published data set he is entitled to use it, I guess.

    Tamino has come up with a point similar to the one I raised on the DT blog: where are the 'error bands' in the IPCC models? Tisdale uses the mean of all the runs. Tamino argues that this unfairly eliminates the natural 'noise' that the model runs, when taken individually, naturally create.

    He uses this chart for illustration: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/gisser.jpg

    The whole article is found here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/tisdale-fumbles-pielke-cheers/

    I would like to see a chart of these IPCC model runs against SST2, just for comparison.

  • Comment number 30.

    jkiller56,

    The figures are quite well hidden on the MO website, since the site was "improved", you have to know where they are.

    Actually it was 1729, 1730 and 1731.
    I wasn't really being sensitive, sorry if it cake across like that. I should probably have put a winking emoticon in my post.
    I don't think there is much chance of this being the warmest Autumn on record, although I have noticed that the "normal" temperature for Nov. on the MO site is based on the month to date, so the temp. really is currently 3c above normal.
    Also, I think that the impression that this year has been unusual is being exaggerated. There is a myth about that we have had a warm Spring and Autumn, and a cold Summer. Actually, although Summer was below average, July and August were still the two warmest months of the year, as they should be, September and June were the 3rd and 4th warmest, as they should be and November is currently 8th warmest, as it should be.
    I actually saw a newspaper report yesterday that due to the "warm winter" so far, British Gas revenue was down. Someone should point out that we haven't actually entered winter yet and it doesn't start until at least December 1st (according to the MO), or December 21st, astronomically. The coldest months of the year are usually December, January and February.

  • Comment number 31.

    30. QuaesoVeritas:

    While I agree with most of the points you make, I would say that a recent warming shift in CET is pretty hard to argue against. Even ignoring trends, just looking at monthly, annual and seasonal temperature records makes a pretty compelling case for accelerated warming over the past two decades at least.

    Assuming there isn't a cataclysmic fall in temperatures during this last week or so of November, then at least five, and possibly six, of the 'monthly warmest' records (Jan-Dec) in the CET will have occurred within the past 17 years, with April 2011 being the warmest on record.

    Additionally, the warmest full year, the warmest 'year to date' (Jan-Nov), the warmest spring, and the warmest autumn will also have occurred within the past 17 years, with spring 2011 being the warmest on record, and autumn 2011 probably pushing for a close second (after 2006).

    There are outliers: you have to go back to 1818 to get the warmest November (though, as I say, that could be under threat this month). You also have to go back to the first half of the 19th century to find the warmest May and June.

    The dates of the cold records may be even more indicative of recent warming than the warm records are! The most recent 'monthly coldest' record occurred 18 years ago (November 1994). Before that you have to go back to the first half of the 20th century to find the next monthly coldest record (February 1947); nine of the 12 monthly coldest records occur before the 20th century began.

    The coldest year, the coldest year to date, and the coldest spring, summer, autumn and winter in the CET also all occur before 1840.

    By any standard, I would suggest, things in the CET are hotting up.

  • Comment number 32.

    by any standard? Not according to the wikipedia page which links to the met office.

    "Temperatures in the most recent decade (years 2001-2010) were slightly higher in all seasons than the long-term average.[2]. However, The graph shown on this page stops in 2007 and is now misleading. For a current graph see http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ The more current graph shows annual anomalies relative to the 1961-1990 average and a red line which is equivalent to a 10-year running mean. This running mean has been very clearly declining since 2000."

    We all find evidence to support what we're looking for newdwr54. Whether we're aware of it or not.

  • Comment number 33.

    lateintheday,
    While the red line may be "equivalent" to a 10 year running mean, it is not the same thing. It is a 21-point binomial filter, which means that each point is given a weighting relative to the others. I can't locate any definition of the weightings used in the case of CET, but they may be the same as those used for HadCRUT3 and defined here:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/smoothing.html
    It should noticed that at least in the case of HadCRUT3, if the "central year" is 2011, the values for years 12 to 21 are repeated values for 2011, but given a lower weighting, as are the years before 2011. In effect this means that the smoothed average is heavily weighted towards the latest year. This can produce odd results, as described in the above link, if the current year is unusually warm or cold. The value for 2011 will only be absolutely accurate when actual data is available for 2021.
    Personally I would prefer a simple 10 year average, as it is less confusing (to me at least).

  • Comment number 34.

    Continued:
    I have tried calculating the 21-point binomial filter using annual CET figures and the
    results look very similar to the MO graph, so I guess it is based on the same weightings as HadCRUT3. The strange thing is that the simple 10 year ma is currently increasing, while the 21-point filter is going down, which is not what I would have expected, given the weightings used.
    It is also interesting that the MO graph starts in 1772, which means it excludes a period in the 1730's, when the filter value approached +0.5c.

  • Comment number 35.

    29. newdwr54

    Dw I am still finding out about HasISST and now also the change in HadSST2 in 1998.

    http://i45.tinypic.com/f3e5vo.png

    Thought I was getting a handle on SST, sort of two forward one back.

    I have seen the Tamino post, I left a link to it for you at the DT. I had not had chance to read through then.

    Tamino is right about the Tisdale using the mean, but I understand the reason for this is that the IPCC uses a multi-model mean to forecast forward which would be logical. So if the 30 year mean, as shown in Tamino’s http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/tisfig.jpg does not fit the hind cast then can it be used in a forecast or should the models be revisited so that they show the multidecadal variations in sea surface temperatures?

    That is what I understand to be the whole point of the discussion.

    I can’t answer you on what would happen with a model run against HadSST2, however I would suggest that there will probably be a similar disconnect. This issue is not which data set is showing the highest trend over the last 30 years, because the divergence issue is not just limited to the present one it is also evident in the hindcast.

    I feel that there is more to come with this issue. Time will tell

  • Comment number 36.

    32. lateintheday:

    As QV notes in 32, the 21-point binomial filter is not the same thing as a simple running 10 year mean. The trend in the running 10-year mean in the CET from 2001-2010 is slightly upward, although the 10-year trend in actual temperatures is downward.

    Confusing, I know, which is why I avoided using the trends @ 31.

    The WMO recommends that periods of 30 years be used to identify trends from temperature data. Periods shorter than this tend to be too 'noisy'.

    The thirty year trend in CET (1981-2010) is currently +0.29 C/decade, but will almost certainly rise to over +0.30 C/decade for 1982-2011. This compares to the full CET trend (1659-2010) of +0.03 C/decade. The latest thirty year trend in CET is rising ten times faster per decade than the full trend.

    This is consistent with the record monthly and seasonal data I noted above.

  • Comment number 37.

    HadCRUT3 figures for October:

    Global = 0.35c, down from a revised 0.367c last month.
    N.H. = 0.564c, up from 0.510c last month.
    S.H. = 0.136c, down from 0.224c last month.

    So, while the global anomaly is almost within the range I estimated based on HadSST2, the N.H. figure is much higher than I had expected and the S.H. is
    much lower. However, the global figure is at least in line with my guess which I made after the NCDC/NOAA & NASA/GISS anomalies were published.

    It's too late tonight, but I will try work out why my original estimates based on HadSST2 were so far out this month.

  • Comment number 38.

    The provisional mean CET at November 20th was 10.1c, which was 3c above the normal figure for the same date.
    This means it is now equal to the previous monthly high set in 1994, but since provisional figures are usually over-stated, the actual figure is almost certainly lower than that.

  • Comment number 39.

    And Fairbanks, Alaska has just had its coldest November day at -41F/ -40.5C. The UK is too small to be jumping up and down about a couple of degrees up on the so called 'average'. It's the blocking jet stream plus the high to the east and according to your forecasts it is about to get colder or more seasonal. We are still in autumn, regardless of what the Met. Office thinks. Dec. 21 we go into winter till March21. seasons are decided by solar position not some office wallah looking at the calendar.

  • Comment number 40.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 41.

    John Marshall,
    "We are still in autumn, regardless of what the Met. Office thinks. Dec. 21 we go into winter till March21. seasons are decided by solar position not some office wallah looking at the calendar."
    There was a report in the "Metro" last week about British Gas revenues being down, due to the "warm winter" so far. Unfortunately I don't have a copy or know the journalist involved.

  • Comment number 42.

    Something is developing fast, Tallbloke has posted a README from a file FOIA2011 that was posted at tAV and Climate Audit:-

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived/#more-3471

    The claim is that it is has been scanned and is genuine (time will tell).

    If what is in the README is genuine and "in context" then we are in for some very interesting days. Buy popcorn, sit back and wait. This will move fast and many things will be claimed, when the dust has settled we may gain some actual insight.

  • Comment number 43.

    39. John Marshall,

    I agree with you. CET is a tiny fraction of the globe. As is Fairbanks.

    Climate should be measured globally and over time scales of 30 years in terms of trends.

    It's just that last year, during about 6 weeks of very cold winter weather in the UK, some people were predicting an imminent ice age. The long term global data suggests nothing of the sort.

    The CET data doesn't suggest anything of the sort either.

    Some of the people who were quite hysterical about a cold winter are largely silent about an exceptionally warm spring and autumn.

  • Comment number 44.

    greensand,
    I saw that but as the first 4 lines appeared to have nothing to do with the climate, I didn't read any further.
    Where are these e-mails supposed to be from, the Met. Office?

  • Comment number 45.

    QV and newdwr54 - thanks for pointing out the smoothing. I re read the climate4you summary of this technique and it does seem that the MET (and many others) try to extend the curve beyond the measurable term. I presume the weighting is supposed to act as a dampener so as not to skew the most recent averages too much in any given direction. I would also guess that it helps retain peaks and troughs (albeit suppressed) in their correct place in the time series.

    Greensand - blimey!
    If this is true then here we go again. Strangely, whilst my initial reaction was 'good news day for skeptics' my mood changed quite rapidly to 'I'm being played'. The thing is, I'm not sure I trust the FOIA source as being on my side. That is to say, this has obviously been timed to highlight Durban. If the emails are genuine and have been known about for some time, why wait for such a dramatic release date. They would have been powerful enough had they been released 6 months ago.

    It all feels a little bit like the X files at the moment. Dribs and drabs of information being fed in order to achieve a particular, hidden from plain sight, outcome.

  • Comment number 46.

    QV, they are (claimed) to be from CRU and appear to be a continuation of the Climategate emails downloaded from there and published in 2009.

    lateintheday, I think to some degree we are all, no matter what side of the great divide "being played". I feel sure that you are correct about Durban, but also we do not know what has happened in the 2 years since the initial release.

    Today's release is accompanied with a claim to the "higher moral ground".
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    "// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///

    “Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

    “Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

    “One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

    “Poverty is a death sentence.”

    “Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
    greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

    Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
    hiding the decline.

    This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
    remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

    The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
    to publicly release the passphrase.

    We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such
    as…"
    ---------------------------------------------------

    I just don't know about the true motives, hence my comment "when the dust has settled we may gain some actual insight."

    Just let it play out.

    One last thing, if the claims about the file numbers are correct then somebody has done some work, encrypted the personal and redacted the "no need", but this again can only be cause for concern, because it is the judgement of an unknown source.

  • Comment number 47.

    “Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
    greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

    A suspicious finger points towards a certain Mr P. Hudson as being FOIA. Maybe he's just after getting his solar feed in tariff restored. Never trust the quiet ones!

  • Comment number 48.

    WOW - Climategate 2 !

    Not sure if our Paul has been mentioned in these ones yet

    Have red a few and they are if anything much more damaging than the previous ones

    Jones has been a busy boy

  • Comment number 49.

  • Comment number 50.

    All over the news media now

    Here is hoping the BBC do better reporting the mk2 version

  • Comment number 51.

    Sorry to start a new thread-let here as I'm sure Paul will pick up on last years winter soon but...

    "The latest ONS data compares the number of deaths that occurred from December 2010-March 2011 "

    I'd like to see a week by week review of their findings starting in November 2010 (thats when the snow and cold first hit) to the end of March - lets see if it was just a slightly higher figure month by month or if most people were killed by the cold snap.

    Hopefully Paul or one of you guys have access?

  • Comment number 52.

    An update on 10 year linear trends, taking into account the October anomalies:

    HadCRUT3
    As a result of the global anomaly of 0.35c for October, the 10 year linear trend for this series has gone from -0.0744c/decade, to -0.0885c/decade. This figure is only marginally higher than the trend of -0.0888c/decade in Jan. 1977. If the monthly anomaly remains unchanged for the remainder of the year, the 10 year trend will fall to almost 0.1c/decade, which will make it the fastest rate of temperature fall over a 10 year period since May 1969.
    NASA/GISS
    Despite the rise in the anomaly figure from 0.48c to 0. 0.54c, the 10 year linear trend has fallen from +0.00932c/decade to +0.00275c/decade (almost zero), which is the lowest rate of increase over 10 years, since June 1997. Due to the relatively warm temperatures in late 2001/early 2002, the trend looks set to become negative within the next few months and remain negative during 2012.
    NCDC/NOAA
    Despite the rise in the anomaly from 0.5348c to 0.5767c, the 10 year linear trend has gone from -0.0317c/decade to -0.03766c/decade which is the fastest rate of fall over 10 years since June 1977. Again, this trend is likely to remain negative during 2012.

  • Comment number 53.

    some of this stuff is dynamite

    Jones:

    I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
    and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
    process
    Briffa:

    UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails]
    anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
    task.

  • Comment number 54.

    I have now had a chance to read the the Bob Tisdale article in detail and the responses to it.

    I have never familiarised myself with the HadISST data series, because while the temperature data was available on the MO website, it was in .gz format, which I couldn't use, so I use the more accessible HadSST2 data instead.

    Also, I hadn't come across any IPCC model output for SST, and I was unaware that such figures were available, possibly because I wasn't really looking for it.
    The only data which is readily available from the IPCC Data Distribution centre seems to be for annual temperature and precipitation and I hadn't been able to find a readily available source for monthly figures even for those.

    I notice that Bob Tisdale quotes his source for the data as being the KNMI Climate Explorer, which I have used in the past, but with which I am not very familiar, so maybe I should have a look at that, although I prefer to use data from as near to the original source as possible.

    The article is interesting in that it is the first time I have seen the linear trends presented in this form by anyone else, although in this case it is for SST and IPCC projections, rather than global surface temperatures. I did notice that the period of calculation for the HadISST linear trends start in 1900, in line with the IPCC figures, rather than going back as far as the HadISST figures allow, but I suppose that wasn't the purpose of the excercise.

    While I haven't looked at the 17 year trend, the 30 year trend for HadSST2 does look similar to the graph of the HadISST 30 year trend, except that in the case of HadSST2, the peaks are higher and the troughs are lower in the case of HadSST2. It is interesting that the 17 year trends in global and hemispheric HadISST are showing rapid falls and are at or approaching negativity.

    While I hadn't thought of comparing the linear trends from surface temperature data, e.g. HadCRUT3 with the IPCC model outputs, it may be interesting to do so, if I can obtain the necessary figures. However, I see no reason why they should not also show a similar discrepancy between the observed trends and those projected by the IPCC models. I wonder if Bob Tisdale intends to do this, it seems an obvious next step.

    I don't suppose that anyone has a contact e-mail address for Bob Tisdale?

  • Comment number 55.

    #53. - openside50 wrote:
    "some of this stuff is dynamite"
    I have seen some references somewhere, that there was an intention for the IPCC to use private e-mail accounts for communication, in order that they would not be subject to FOI requests. What have they got to hide?

  • Comment number 56.

    @55 QV

    "What have they got to hide"

    The annoyance of having to respond to 100's of requests, people cherry picking preliminary discussion, having to explain every piece of data, every nuance of words, having to write every email in a way as not gift people a hurrah moment and not being allowed the normal loose use of language or grammar so not to give a story out of context. Appart from that I have no idea.

    As usual it will be a 'meh' from one side 'dynamite destruction of AGW' from the other. The temp data will continue to rise, and the blogs will argue.

  • Comment number 57.

    Hopefully (assuming they are genuine) one step closer to the start of putting these people behind bars.

  • Comment number 58.

    Im looking forward to Richard Black doing a similar type hard hitting article on this just like the one he did for Climategate 1

  • Comment number 59.

    Never a dull moment in climate science!

    QV. 54. Thanks for checking that out. I'm sure if you post on the Tisdale blog comments Bob will reply. He has replied to mine (dwrice). He seems very pro-active on there.

    QV and greensand: The Tamino rebuttal lacks any real explanation for the late variation between SST and the mean model runs. Having said that, Tisdale's graph (in his response) shows that some of the IPCC model runs are pretty close. As you say, the jury is still out. It might be fair to say that ISST is within the models' 'error bands' but currently running well at the lower end.

    Re "climategate II": remains to be seen, but it's looking a bit like a bridge too far, imv. There doesn't really seem to be anything new, even 'out of context'. But too early to say.

    It's all a bit too obvious, is it not? What with the latest climate conference looming.

    Michael Mann has called spoken:

    "...truly pathetic... they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails?newsfeed=true

    But then he would say that....

    I see Delingpole is all over it like a rash. Should be entertaining anyway.

  • Comment number 60.

    59. newdwr54

    Basically agree with your comments on the Tamino/Tisdale debate, though I think there is more to be concerned about with the degree of divergence in the hind cast. But hey ho for the time being it will get swallowed up with the email fever. Eventually it is up to the IPCC to either state their reasons for continuing with using a mean that does not account for the multi-decadal variations, maybe they have a good reason, long term levelling out? Or to change the models, so that they do take in the variations. I don't know anything about the models so whether this is possible? Should be.

    I am trying to leave the email publication until it is less manic. Though I have seen one or two that will need some explanations that are not immediately obvious.

    QV. I can only second what dw says post your comments at Bob Tisdale's blog:-

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/

    Also thanks for posting the HadCRUT3 data, I am still having PC issues and no longer trust this thing with data, No 1 daughter is supposed to be organising a replacement and has been for weeks.

  • Comment number 61.

    The phrase "what have you got to hide?" is widely understood to be a cliche strawman argument made against privacy. Eg:
    Police CCTV in your garden? No? Why? What have you got to hide?
    Council looking though your bins? No? Why? What have you got to hide?
    It's a strawman because in these cases and others the resistance is not because they want to hide something, but because they want to protect their privacy. In fact a person who has nothing to hide realizes the act will have no gain. Seeing no legitimate gain they can only see the act in terms of a loss to their privacy. They may also feel agrieved that their privacy is being taken for granted as if it doesn't matter.
    Very few people would give up their private communications without a fight. Imagine you get to your desk and someone is sitting there rifling through your inbox. Or that your neighbours get access to your work emails and holding some kind of coffee morning to read them all.

    On the logical level though - once you get past the emotional aspect - private communication facilitates communication. If communications become defacto public then communicating becomes a lot harder.

  • Comment number 62.

    [2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
    fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]
    Wilson:

    Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially
    since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models,
    surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
    [...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the
    models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from
    the sun alone.

  • Comment number 63.

    #61. - quake wrote:
    "Very few people would give up their private communications without a fight. Imagine you get to your desk and someone is sitting there rifling through your inbox. Or that your neighbours get access to your work emails and holding some kind of coffee morning to read them all."
    Not the same thing at all. As I understand it, these public bodies have a legal obligation to make information available to the public. They are public institutions, paid for by our taxes. By attempting to circumvent that process, they give the impression that they have something to hide. Public stuff in public e-mails should be available to the public. Private stuff in private e-mails shouldn't. If they don't like those rules, they should get another job.

  • Comment number 64.

    #60. - greensand wrote:
    "QV. I can only second what dw says post your comments at Bob Tisdale's blog:-"

    I didn't really want to put what I had to say into the public domain.

  • Comment number 65.

    #58. - openside50 wrote:
    "Im looking forward to Richard Black doing a similar type hard hitting article on this just like the one he did for Climategate 1"

    No mention on the BBC News Channel that I could detect.
    They are more concerned about the "phone-hacking" scandal, which of course is much more important thant "climate change".

  • Comment number 66.

    "No mention on the BBC News Channel that I could detect.
    They are more concerned about the "phone-hacking" scandal, which of course is much more important thant "climate change"."


    I suspect as you do that once again whilst other media outlets report whats the heart of the matter - yet more evidence of rum do's behind the scenes of climate politics

    The BEEB will once again report this as a disgraceful hacking story

  • Comment number 67.

    64. QuaesoVeritas

    OK QV, understand, if I come across any contact details I will pass them on.

    I notice that Ch5 UAH is on the move again, still got a long way to go to met Spencers expectations for this month.

    Re HadCrut3 I see CRUTEM3 NH Land up again at +1.07c from +0.955c whilst SH down to +0.297c from +0.551c?

  • Comment number 68.

    Regarding the above "climategate".

    At first glance - looks like a repeat (almost a carbon copy) of last time.

    So.. "Fool me once - shame on you . Fool me twice - shame on me" - is a phrase that comes to mind yet again!

    And, for those getting their hopes up for a bloodbath - it is worth bearing in mind - this is a double edged sword. I.e. if the aim is to demonstrate that IPCC and climate change theory is a scurrilous and manipulative distortion of the truth - then if it all proves groundless - then the same accusation must fall upon the sceptic lobby instead, must it not?

    Actually I suspect this may cause less furore than last time - based on the "boy who cried wolf" principle.

    But we will see.

  • Comment number 69.

    Climategate and Climategate 2 show that "Climate Science" is NOT an honest effort to understand weather or climate.

  • Comment number 70.

    @69 Jack Hughes

    And you conclude that from snippets of casual emails with no context?

  • Comment number 71.

    "At first glance - looks like a repeat (almost a carbon copy) of last time."

    Good because the first one did irreparable harm to the warmist 'cause'

    The second one will hopefully kill it off

  • Comment number 72.

    "And you conclude that from snippets of casual emails with no context?"



    Jones:
    I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
    and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
    process



    This man has form too

  • Comment number 73.

    There was a short item on "Newsnight", by the BBC science editor, Susan Watss, which seemed to come to the conclusion that it was too soon to judge the significance of the leaks, without knowing their context. There was a telephone interview with Michael Mann in which Watts asked him whether it was correct for scientists to get involved in the politics as well as the science, and he responded by saying it was necessary to defend the science against "attacks".
    Not yet available to watch on line:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017pg1y
    What really annoyed me was the stock footage of icebergs falling into the sea, which is nothing to do with climate change.

  • Comment number 74.

    #67. - greensand wrote:
    "I notice that Ch5 UAH is on the move again, still got a long way to go to met Spencers expectations for this month."
    I'm not sure, the figure is now quite a way below the average and there isn't far to go to hit a record low, if only going back to 2002. If the temp. were to fall much more, Roy Spencer may well be proven correct.

  • Comment number 75.

    QV, 73 & 74

    Watched Susan Watts, it was about all that could be expected at this time. Needs quite a few days for people to comprehend what if anything there is in there. I found the interview with Micheal Mann a surprising choice, I can only assume that UEA refused. There is a lot of flack kicking about but there is one email from Mann that gives cause for concern:-

    "I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an
    investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his
    thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the
    same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

    I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and
    discrediting them.
    "

    That is an excerpt from an email so there will be an issue of "in context" but having read the whole and having witnessed the acceptance of McIntyres integrity those comments by Mann need a little more than he gave on Newsnight tonight.

    UAH, I think the trend will be set over the next 2 days, the 19th slowed, 20th picked up again it that is confirm on the 21st you and Spencer may well be proved to be right.

  • Comment number 76.

    Hi Paul, I have found a way of forecasting temperature deviations purely from solar factors with fairly precise timing. My Autumn forecast from several months back, indicated generally a very warm Oct/Nov. Detail given at the time for November, was a warm spurt from around Oct 29th lasting about a week, followed by another warm blast from 8/9th Nov for around 10 days, and a drop to moderately below normals from the 22/23rd Nov for around 7 days.
    I am on the Somerset levels, and went out at 1am this morning and found ice on my car window for the first time this season.

  • Comment number 77.

    #75. - greensand wrote:
    "That is an excerpt from an email so there will be an issue of "in context" but having read the whole and having witnessed the acceptance of McIntyres integrity those comments by Mann need a little more than he gave on Newsnight tonight."
    There does seem to be an element of paranoia and/or "bunker mentality" evident in these communications, i.e. if we can't prove them wrong on science, let's assassinate their characters.

    "UAH, I think the trend will be set over the next 2 days, the 19th slowed, 20th picked up again it that is confirm on the 21st you and Spencer may well be proved to be right."

    Actually, I was saying earlier that the temp. wouldn't fall a lot more, so if Spencer is right, I must be wrong!

  • Comment number 78.

    greensand,

    Nothing much more on the Beeb as far as I can tell.
    A test will be if it makes the main news, as opposed to being hidden away on Newsnight.
    There is a predictable article by Richard Black on the BBC Science & Environment site, which takes a similar line to Susan Watts on Newsnight.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562
    For anyone who didn't see it, the Newsnight programme itself is now available on iPLayer.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017pg1y

  • Comment number 79.

    An article in the Telegraph:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8907756/Climategate-2-More-UEA-hacked-emails.html

    With the latest talks about to start in Durban, isn't it about time that the UKMO issued a grossly inflated prediction of next year's global temperature anomaly?

  • Comment number 80.

    Is it any wonder the scientists have a seige mentality? Long before the first email release they were subject to attacks on blogs, character assassination, harassment, co-ordinated information requests and accusations of being in the pocket of certain businesses?

    They have not always been right, but they know any doubt raised will be subjected to a disproportionate response. The bloggers who attack them are not held to as great an account.

  • Comment number 81.

    "Not the same thing at all. As I understand it, these public bodies have a legal obligation to make information available to the public. They are public institutions, paid for by our taxes. By attempting to circumvent that process, they give the impression that they have something to hide."

    Not when the far better motive is they want to protect their privacy. All I am saying is they will fight to protect that privacy just as anyone would.

    The researchers consider at least some of their emails to be private correspondence between each other and that being able to communicate privately is a necessary function. It's one thing to tell them that all their communications must be public and then you could say they knew, but it's another to let them communicate privately and then after the fact tell them actually those messages you sent are actually not private at all. Of course they will resist.

  • Comment number 82.

    #81. - quake wrote:
    "The researchers consider at least some of their emails to be private correspondence between each other and that being able to communicate privately is a necessary function. It's one thing to tell them that all their communications must be public and then you could say they knew, but it's another to let them communicate privately and then after the fact tell them actually those messages you sent are actually not private at all. Of course they will resist."

    Your definition of "private" seems to be different to mine.
    Nothing sent by e-mail is really private, but even more so if you use the e-mail system of your employer, especially if that is a Quango.
    If they wanted to have sem-private correspondence, they should have used their personal e-mail account. But all correspondence done in the course of their work should be available for public scrutiny.

  • Comment number 83.

    John Cogger
    both sides constantly scream 'foul ref'. Problem is, the ref has to large extent, been favouring the 'big green' side. This is clear in terms of government policy and media coverage. Not only that, but many will know that AGW is now an integral part of our education system. Often described by enthusiasts as a sound theory on par with big bang or evolution, so any alternative views are not seriously discussed.

    If it were not for the internet, chances are that the science would have, for all intents and purposes, been 'settled' years ago despite the gaping holes. Of course 'gaping holes' does not in itself, disprove AGW. But covering them up doesn't help the green cause much in the long run, especially if you get caught red handed.

  • Comment number 84.

    Quake and QV - impossibly I find myself agreeing with you both!

  • Comment number 85.

    The ironic thing about this 'climategate 2' business is that the institute coming under closest scrutiny, CRU, is the one with the lowest temperature trend over the past 10 years.

    HadCRUT3 has been the 'sceptic's' data set of choice when it comes to highlighting a reduced warming, or even cooling, trend in the past decade. Now they're inferring that it can't be relied upon!

    So not sure how this 'conspiracy theory' is supposed to operate?

  • Comment number 86.

    People have already started to justify some of the e-mails that have been published
    mr jones for starters who does have ahabit of getting himself into trouble, his......

    Jones:
    I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
    and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
    process


    Has been explained away by him saying, and I kid you not

    "I was probably wrong in believing IPCC was outside FoI rules"

    Hilarious and we are supposed to trust these jokers

  • Comment number 87.

    86. openside50:

    These emails are years old and come from the same batch that were stolen from UEA in 2009. The CRU has already apologised for these FoI breaches. Does it have to apologise all over again, even though there is no evidence of any further breaches?

    More importantly, is there anything in these leaked email fragments (or the previous ones) that would affect our understanding of the science behind man-made climate change? I don't see anything remotely like that yet.

    With regards to trusting the CRU: the ten year trend in HadCRUT3 is currently -0.07 C per decade cooling. The equivalent trend in UAH (which is run by self-confessed 'man-made global warming sceptics') is +0.04 C/decade warming; over 0.1 C/decade 'warmer' than CRU.

    So are you suggesting that the CRU is conspiring to keep it's temperature data artificially low?

    How does that conspiracy theory work again?

  • Comment number 88.

    87

  • Comment number 89.

    87.New

    Come off it, what we have here is yet more proof that the integrity of those behind the science, and its a very small core group too, is at the very least sadly lacking

    Actively trying to avoid FOI - why one asks
    Actively trying to get dissenting views suppressed even though as the e-mails showed they actually knew much of what the dissenters were saying was true
    Subverting the peer review process
    Talk of hiring private investigators to dig up dirt to try and damage opponents

    This isnt science - its politics - shady politics at that - and the £40b a year we now pay here in the UK each year in environmental taxes is a good starting point for trying to work out whats really going on

  • Comment number 90.

    newdwr54 @85
    you're conflating issues here, which is actually a regular tactic used by SkS team.

    The main issue of climategate revolved around the behaviour of the scientists in publicly presenting proxy temp reconstruction as robust, despite their private reservations at the time. Subsequently, consensus climate scientists group defended and supported the unsupportable and still to this day, continue to attack the McIntyre analysis while rewarding Mann for his so called 'achievements.'

  • Comment number 91.

    90.late

    correct, in fact some of the latest e-mails show that they actually knew much of what the 'dissenters' were saying was true! they openly admitted that the people they were trying to denigrate and ostracise were actually correct - you really couldnt make this up!

    I think the latest batch are actually far more damaging than the last in many ways

  • Comment number 92.

    89. openside50:

    Clearly, conspiring to avoid FoI requests was not this group's finest hour. But they have already been tried for this, and found guilty.

    They have also apologised and released every temperature station's data that they used (apart from those of Poland, which didn't give them permission to do so).

    So not their finest hour, but no evidence of subversion of temperature data either.

    Again, if the CRU was determined to try to artificially manipulate data to make warming appear greater than it was, for instance, then why do their last 10 years' data show the lowest trend of all the main global temperature providers, including UAH?

    That doesn't make sense, not to me anyway. Where they conspiring to keep temperatures artificially low? Who benefits from that?

  • Comment number 93.

    #85. - newdwr54 wrote:

    "HadCRUT3 has been the 'sceptic's' data set of choice when it comes to highlighting a reduced warming, or even cooling, trend in the past decade. Now they're inferring that it can't be relied upon!"

    Personally I prefer HadCRUT3 because it goes back further than any of the other series, and it was the "preferred choice" of such advocates of "climate change" as the UKMO (or at least it was until it started to give the wrong results). Having said that, I compare all of the different series, as they help to give a more complete picture.

    I wasn't aware that any sceptics were inferring that HadCRUT3 was not reliable.

    Surely the criticism of the CRU is over other issues and isn't your reference to HadCRUT3 just a "red herring", or should I say a "straw man"?

    I am pleased that you have found a role for the 10 year trends in your arguments. By the way, though the UAH trend is currently about +0.046c/decade,
    it was +0.1c/decade last October, and it too will eventually be negative.

  • Comment number 94.

    90. lateintheday:

    Re these 'climategate 1 'allegations: they have been investigated nine times now, by numerous different bodies, and no evidence of scientific malpractice has been found. You're welcome to disagree with these findings, but that's the position we're in.

    In order not to conflate or confuse this issue, I'll stick to repeating the question I asked Openside50 above:

    Is there anything in any leaked email that affects our understanding of the science behind man-made climate change?

  • Comment number 95.

    Is there anything in any leaked email that affects our understanding of the science behind man-made climate change?


    yes - the e-mails destroy any faith i had in the integrity of these so called scientists

    its now obvious to me that the movements is more political more a cause than a science

  • Comment number 96.

    93. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "Surely the criticism of the CRU is over other issues and isn't your reference to HadCRUT3 just a "red herring", or should I say a "straw man"?"

    Do you honestly believe that the people who released this information are worried about tree ring proxy data that was used in a non-peer reviewed presentation?

    The intention is clear: muddy climate science and thus cast doubt on its findings.

    So the question remains:

    Is there anything in any leaked email that affects our understanding of the science behind man-made climate change?

  • Comment number 97.

    93.new

    we all agree that we had a period of warming from 1980 to 1998

    what you on the warmist side of the argument refuse to accept though is there has been no further warming since

    13 years without further warming while CO2 emmissions continued to rise

  • Comment number 98.

    newdwr54 -
    "Is there anything in any leaked email that affects our understanding of the science behind man-made climate change?"

    Yes there is. We were led to believe that the proxy reconstructions were widely accepted among the science community as solid, robust evidence that the late 20thC warming was unusual. So unusual in fact, that it could not be natural and must therefore be of anthropogenic origin.

    We then find that the scientific establishment had serious doubts about the validity of the proxy reconstructions but pressed ahead anyway with the 'highly unusual' warming meme. Without the 'unusual' warming, there would be no AGW scare, no IPCC, no carbon tax etc etc.

    So yes, our understanding is directly affected. Most notably by the possibility that there is actually no man-made climate change.

    Temps going up - yes. Unusual - not particularly.

  • Comment number 99.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 100.

    openside50 - I'm sure they've got an 'app' for that.

 

Page 1 of 2

More from this blog...

Topical posts on this blog

Categories

These are some of the popular topics this blog covers.

Latest contributors

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.