BBC BLOGS - Richard Black's Earth Watch
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

COP15 Copenhagen climate summit: Day 5

Richard Black | 19:12 UK time, Friday, 11 December 2009

OK, they're a long way short of constituting a final deal... but two draft texts, drawn up by conference chairmen and released to delegates today, demonstrate where compromises may have to be made if this fortnight is to result in the deal that so many governments say they want.

globe_getty226.jpgThe chairmen of the Long-term Co-operative Action (LCA) and Kyoto Protocol (KP) tracks have spent big chunks of the year listening to what various parties want, out in the open and behind the scenes. So these texts are the distillations of people in the know.

(If you don't know your LCA from your KP, see my previous post for something that'll either clarify or further confuse.)

Developing countries have won two battles. Most importantly, the LCA text sets out a level of emission cuts for the developed world that is beyond what countries have so far pledged.

The minimum is a 25% cut from 1990 levels by 2020. According to the European Climate Foundation's number-crunchers, the best that's on offer right now amounts to about 18%.

This isn't developing countries demanding it, remember. This is what an independent chair has assessed as an achievable meeting-point for all sides.

Breaking the numbers down further, it's also clear that when measured against the traditional base year of 1990, the US is being asked to do less than the rest of the developed world - a 15% cut by 2020 - whereas other rich countries would have to find 30%.

The texts include a lot of gaps and a lot of places where the dreaded square brackets exist side by side as alternative suggested outcomes, like this: "...the increase in the global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed [2C][1.5C]".

That one is a really fundamental divide.

1.5_595_ap.jpg

According to a UK Met Office analysis released earlier in the week, 1.5C is barely achievable even with dramatic emissions cuts. But put that argument to the poorer countries that are demanding it, and they say it's not their problem - if the West had got on with cutting emissions 10 years ago when the Kyoto Protocol was signed, and if tougher limits had followed, 1.5C would by now be achievable; so deal with it.

Less fundamental, but with equal potential for controversy, are the alternative versions of text that would either prevent or allow money from the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism from being used on nuclear reactors... a clean technology for some, exactly the opposite for others.

What else is contentious? Developing country emission curbs wouldn't be legally binding, which is an issue for some, and there is very little on international monitoring and verification of emission curbs, which China especially is said to be dead set against. And there is precious little text on finance.

Talking of finance; the other big news around the centre today blew in from Brussels, where EU leaders finally decided how much they would put on the table for the next three years to "quick-start" emissions reduction and climate adaptation in the poorest and most climate-vulnerable countries.

EU leaders exuded satisfaction that they'd produced something that will seal a deal here. But when countries that are supposed to be signing that deal partly on the basis of how much money they'll receive describe it as "woefully inadequate", as the Association of Small Island States (Aosis) leader Dessima Williams did, you have to wonder.

stern595_getty.jpg

There is a strand of opinion here (there are many others too, to be fair) that holds that the EU and the world's major powers approached this summit a little too much like a private deal. If they could agree among themselves, the rest of the world would follow.

And maybe it will. Most countries now are sending heads of government or heads of state for the final day or two, and of course most of them can change tack in an instant if the right incentives are offered.

Or maybe it won't. Maybe this is the occasion when the developing world, or parts of it at any rate, says "no more" - as it has with the Doha Round of trade talks.

During the week ahead when the weather is forecast to be even colder and more gloomy than it has been so far, temperatures inside the centre look set to soar as the climax approaches - a textbook case of localised warming.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 9:42pm on 11 Dec 2009, Louise Johnson wrote:

    It must be very difficult keeping the plates swivelling on all those sticks, staying on top of the story and keeping sane. You're doing a grand job Richard, keep it up. We all need your interpretation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 9:46pm on 11 Dec 2009, Ben Vorlich wrote:

    Hey Richard
    did you catch this

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/ipcc-shut-up-or-go-to-prison/

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 10:03pm on 11 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Yes, Richard, can you explain why they turned an armed guard onto a journalist asking pertinent questions? After all he's asking the questions we all want to know the answers to.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 10:17pm on 11 Dec 2009, Chris wrote:

    The data is real - the temperatures are real - it's the models that are fake!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 10:31pm on 11 Dec 2009, shiveringofforgottenenemies wrote:

    The poorest and most "climate vulnerable" countries also happen to have corrupt governments. One is tempted to say "most corrupt governments" but certainly Obama's regime, Putin's Russia, and China are hideously corrupt, India aspires to hideous corruption but only achieves ineffectual government.

    So, the question is how much money do the TOP world governments want to put in the pockets of the smaller tyrants in order to take part in the NEW TAXATION? Will they go for the smallest possible amount around $1Billion a year?

    The climate conference is merely a venue where the ruling elite will compare notes on fleecing the citizens. It's not going to affect the climate at all and anyone who thinks it will is hopelessly naive!

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 10:53pm on 11 Dec 2009, bandythebane wrote:

    What I don't understand is how Vicky Pope who is the PR lady for the Met Office is managing to do research when she is also doing PR.

    Also how is the Met Office who only started checking its historic data a few days ago able to make a great big statement like the 1.5 degree one so quickly?.

    If there is any genuine research behind this we would love to see it.

    When the Met Office starts managing to produce a credible forecast for something beyond 5 days I may start to believe it can say something worth listening to about the more distant future. Until then it would do better to hold its tongue

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 10:57pm on 11 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Oh, dear, oh, dear. Sounds like some pretty nasty squabbling even in your ever-so-polite British filtering of the proceedings. Understatements galore...

    I feel for all of you, and Mother Earth.

    First thing that's wrong: rewarding Americans for their intransigence. First, the US causes the worst of the problem, then it refuses to help clean up -- and now, like the spoiled little brat who threw a tantrum, it is being allowed off the hook with only nominal efforts being asked.

    I should think the US leadership ought to be told, in no uncertain terms:

    (1) If you aren't going to get serious straight away about sharp reductions in waste & resources mismanagement, you are going to have to make massive financial contributions to the efforts of others. (In other words, the spoiled brat reforms self quickly or is disinherited.)

    (2) If you fail to perform as required, promptly, your business interests will suffer: because the rest of us will make it our business to slow down your economy for you -- by buying less from your companies, and by being much less willing to cooperate with you in other areas -- so that way, if you won't voluntarily reduce your emissions, they will shrink by virtue of how universally unpopular you will have become.

    Are we trying to save the planet, or are we just trying to use up some more of that precious paper, ink & wattage? Not to mention Time?

    Please don't waste the opportunity. Get much much tougher on the US.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 11:06pm on 11 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    "...the increase in the global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed [2C][1.5C]".

    Richard is there anyone in the world that actually believes that mankind has the ability to control global temperatures? This is a serious question. Do the politicians REALLY believe this is possible?

    Surely no-one can be that gullible?

    PS I appreciate that if the guys at CRU are allowed to continue with their work then we can have whatever global temperatures the politicians want. Harry could write the code now!

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 11:13pm on 11 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:


    YET MORE DATA MANIPULATION

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 11:41pm on 11 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Mr Black:

    I have had a thought for a way to somewhat mitigate the appalling damage done to an institution that i have been fond of since childhood. Perhaps you could pass it 'upstream' as they say:

    Blitz all your intermissions on TV and radio for the next week advertising a definitive Climate Change Debate. I'd suggest 4 man panels for each side, an honourable and impartial chairperson (not the QT twonk) and free admission, open to all members of the public in a decent capacity venue. Say a 20 minute general discussion, 10 mins from each speaker with another 20 mins of general debate and half an hour of un vetted audience and viewer questions. Rowdy or hysterical demonstraters with signs and chanting from either side should be politely removed. To be broadcast in a primetime slot across BBC 1, BBC news and the radio and made available on the web.

    Team A:
    Richard Lindzen
    Steve Mcintyre
    Lord C. Monckton
    David Bellamy

    Team B
    Phil Jones
    Mike Mann
    George Monbiot
    Richard Attenborough


    Not sure who to suggest for chairperson and the teams seem to be all old white men so something should probably done to fix that. I leave it in your capable hands.

    I'd suggest Gore instead of Attenborough but i know you'd never convince the Goracle to stop shivering in a corner of which ever waterfront mansion he's cowering in. it might be tricky to organise but you've got a crack team of beaurocrats and i volunteer one licence fee towards the costs.

    Cheers

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 11:54pm on 11 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Bad Timing - or a demostration of Non-Linear Dynamics?

    I just posted #111 on the previous thread (at the library), and by the time I got home, there was this new thread and ten posts!!

    Rather than re-post - I'll just give the title:

    \\\ CO2 Over the Last Twenty Million Year ///

    (COP15 Copenhagen climate summit: Day 4; post #111)

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 00:47am on 12 Dec 2009, Solarping wrote:

    Step in the right direction on having some kind of accord to regulate emissions, but how can agreements be signed without full disclosure on total reasons of climate change, a significant amount is regional to a pertaining country while deforestation and reaping natural resources from other countries may play a larger role on LMF charged winds changing the climate to a particular region than emissions alone, further data should be achieved and especially a true knowledge of the cycle that is being affected.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 01:19am on 12 Dec 2009, ADMac wrote:

    @manysummits

    \\\ CO2 Over the Last Twenty Million Year ///


    So CO2 is the only parameter controlling the climate. It is an indicator of temperature but clearly does not control it.

    To believe that man made CO2 levels control the Earth’s temperature you must also believe in atmospheric homeopathy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 01:59am on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Orwellian Moment of the Day:

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5BA1ME20091211
    "china says population controls help fight climate change"

    Weakest Propaganda of the Day (bar my good host)

    http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/2009/12/09/close-quarters-with-a-cannibal/
    "Close quarters with a cannibal polar bear"

    one of the comments is priceless:

    ok, let’s try this again.
    You say quote”this article is not meant to be in any way a part of the global warming topic”endquote, then why did the photographer say this:
    quote”With the climate change conference being held in Copenhagen, I knew the images I had taken were topical and I had minimal time to publish them for maximum impact. The images were posted to my blog and my website after which, I approached Reuters for global syndication.”endquote?
    And this:
    quote”Before I departed, I knew what I wanted to achieve – images that would help to show the plight of the polar bear in relation to global climate change”endquote.
    Sounds like it is supposed to have a LOT to do with that topic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 02:12am on 12 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To davblo2:

    I think I have another one for your list!

    1) From this thread, post #13:

    "So CO2 is the only parameter controlling the climate. It is an indicator of temperature but clearly does not control it." (ADMac)

    2) From last thread, post #112:

    "Yes, unfortunately since CO2 is mostly a proxy of temperature it would be like claiming thermometers drive climate." (poitsplace)

    Note: New to me anyway !!

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 02:43am on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Manysummits:

    Is Mr Davblo2s list a proscription list or a mockery list? i mean is it a list of forbidden concepts or is it meant to serve as a symbol of denialist tomfoolery to be refered to whenever one has doubts or wants to avoid answering a reasonable point with anything like a reasonable answer?

    such a list (i saw it last time mr Davblo2 feel free to reproduce it if you wish) kind of highlights some of the dirty tactics and unthinking dogma employed by those who are incapable of perceiving this debate in a balanced fashion.

    Lets all play nicely shall we?

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 04:30am on 12 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    I agree with Spanglerboy. Not only do we NOT have the ability to significantly control the climate (with our current activities)...there's not even any evidence that any changes we might cause would be substantial. Even at emission rates increasing higher than expected by the IPCC for its mid to low estimates...temperatures are failing to meet even the low end projection (and even the error bars of the low end projections). The initial values they used were quite literally guesses. After searching for signs of actual feedbacks...it turns out they're extremely low to negative. Without positive feedback a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature change of UNDER 1.5C

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 08:55am on 12 Dec 2009, Gederts Skerstens wrote:

    As cosy as all the percentage debates among the various committees may be, agreeing to meet again to sort new percentages and allocations between whoever for some 'purpose', let's keep in mind that the whole thing is a hoax, like Mad cow, The Millenium Bug and The Ozone Hole, which was meant to fry all the Southern hemisphere.
    There's no point in getting mad at the Warmers. What else can they do? It's the Voters that buy the snake oil who have to be woken up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 09:04am on 12 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    having watched the Schneider video posted by BenVorlich #2 where an accredited journalist asks pertinent questions, could i suggest, Richard, that you just stick to the script?

    We wouldn't want ClimateGate to sully your reputation

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 09:07am on 12 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @sparklet

    how dare you accuse climate scientists of manipulating the data or hiding the decline!

    Go to the back of room, where the UN's security team will have a quiet chat with you

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 09:14am on 12 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @manysummits #11

    I was going to give you another lesson in the temperature / CO2 relationship, but i see others have beaten me to it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_copenhagen_climate_summi_2.html#P89708522

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_copenhagen_climate_summi_3.html#P89708770

    You really need to understand the relationship between temperature and CO2 before you post such drivel

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 09:17am on 12 Dec 2009, JRWoodman wrote:


    #18: "...a hoax, like Mad cow, The Millenium Bug and The Ozone Hole"

    Were they? I think you'll find quite a few people died of Creutzsfeldt Jacob Disease. The Millenium Bug turned out to be a damp squib because a lot of work was done to rewrite software to ensure it didn't crash computers. The ozone hole issue was mitigated by the concerted efforts of all countries to ban the use of CFCs in refrigerants.

    Luckily the politicians at COP15 don't appear to be taking any notice of the uninformed sniping of the denial lobby.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 09:21am on 12 Dec 2009, MrSkipp wrote:

    Has anyone actually defined what they mean by the "pre-industrial temperature"? According to IPCC it is the temperature before 1750. But IPCC also say this was all over the place. What is more, the 3 main temperature anomaly series, as well as differing from each other, only go back to about 1850. So no-one knows what is supposed to be measured - and certainly not to within half a °C.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 09:22am on 12 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    IPCC and The Trick in Context

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

    Essentially it's a pieced together history of how they performed The Trick and hid the decline:

    So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. [Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard] Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder! (Mann Sep 22, 0938018124.txt)

    Shame on the so called climate scientists

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 09:32am on 12 Dec 2009, Beejay wrote:

    How to make money without really trying? Call a summit of most countries, suggest future generations will suffer unless we cut a gas that has only a small part to play in how this planet's weather behaves. Scare tactic pronouncements via gullible/greedy media outlets [anything for a story in this blighted "24 Hour Breaking News" obsessed society] and worse than Nazi propaganda videos to scare our kids, with not one item that stands scrutiny in a scientific light. The Plane Stupid's utterly stupid 9/11 Polar Bear avalanche video as a prime example. Then try and tax everyone to the maximum via draconian laws.
    The BBC is incapable of broadcasting a neutral point of view, allowing both sides, Warmist and Realist equal air time.

    Anyway CO2 is neither poison nor pollutant in global quantities and even when it was 10+ times the present level we had warm and cold periods with dramatic changes and not an SUV/Coal Power Station/Aeroplane in sight!
    I should have mentioned the USA and its EPA travesty of making CO2 a poison! Tell that to the trees!

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 09:36am on 12 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/would-you-like-your-temperature-data-homogenized-or-pasteurized/

    Cherry picked weather station Nashville, which shows declining temperature over 120 years recorded by HadCRUT3, but turned into a temperature increase by adjustments to the raw data by GISTemp

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/would-you-like-your-temperature-data-homogenized-or-pasteurized/

    Is this fraud?

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 09:43am on 12 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    oops, clicked post before finishing

    Is this fraud?

    Probably not, read the conclusion by the author

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 09:51am on 12 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @davblo2

    Seems JoNova likes lists too:

    1 Real deniers claim something needs to be peer reviewed in order to be discussed. (Bad luck for Galileo and Einstein eh?) At the very least this slows down debate for up to a year, instead of discussing results that are right in front of us now.

    2 Real deniers claim it only “counts” if it comes from a certified climate scientist. (A flaw is a flaw, it doesn’t matter who points it out.)

    3 If it is peer reviewed, then real deniers claim it only counts if it comes from certain journals. (The climate IS what it IS, regardless of anything printed in any journal.)

    4 They claim something can’t be right because it would disagree with thousands of papers. They mock and laugh, but provide no evidence. Not a single paper. (Then they claim that it’s not a single paper but a “body of work”. Which disagrees with point 1.)

    5 Real deniers assert it must be wrong because there is a “consensus”. Notice how they won’t talk about evidence? Scientists don’t vote for natural laws. Science is not a democracy.

    6 If all else fails, they call people names like … “Denier!” Other variations include, Delayer, Inactivist, Conspiracy Theorist, or Do-Nothing! Since they can’t back it up, this is baseless namecalling.

    7 When they can’t find a real flaw, they look at “funding” and imagine one. (Real scientists research nature. Fake scientists google for dirt.)

    8 Real Deniers deny that instruments are right. No! The simulations are more real than reality. Trust the models!

    9 They threaten dissenters with jail (for fictitious crimes). Climate Criminals!

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 10:05am on 12 Dec 2009, TVGgirl wrote:

    The underlying assumption that data has been manipulated appears to be driving arguments that all of the science is fraudulent. In particular, it is being argued that a temperature "decline" was being "hidden" by using a “trick”. I have asked a number of colleagues to explain this, and they all concur that the perception is that simply wrong.

    For a start there is no decline in temperatures to hide. The WMO has just released the stats for the last decade:
    - 2000s are hottest decade on record (0.44 degrees above 1961-1990 average)
    - 9 of 10 warmest years on record were in this decade
    - 2009 ranks 5th hottest year on record
    - 2009 extreme warm events were more frequent and intense in southern South America, Australia and southern Asia, in particular
    - The 2009 summer Arctic sea ice ranked the third lowest, after the lowest and second-lowest records set in 2007 and 2008, respectively.
    (Or are NASA and WMO in on the great conspiracy?)

    The ‘trick’ referred to was simply a technique to rectify an anomaly in a graph. And the term ‘trick’ is commonly used in peer-reviewed articles across a number of scientific fields for this purpose. Google it up.

    Other graphs examining the same issue – the recent significant and unprecedented rise in temperatures - have been produced by NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – and they match the CRU’s figures so closely that they are statistically identical.

    The ‘decline’ they were talking about wasn’t in global temperatures but in local temperatures in one region, which the scientists had elicited by looking at tree rings. The problem was that what the tree rings were saying didn’t match up with what thermometers were saying – and they couldn’t work out why.

    Climate scientists look for temperature records dating back centuries by using ‘proxy’ measures, such as the width of tree rings, corals, or ice cores. Climate scientists use about 1200 such proxy measures and, oddly, one of them showed a temperature decline after 1960 while we know that actual temperatures, measured with thermometers, increased. It made no sense to mark the false indication of a decline on the graph because the scientists knew the sign from the tree ring was wrong. The ‘trick’ was simply to plot temperature using the best available measure for the time period - proxies where necessary and measured temperatures otherwise.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 10:12am on 12 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    Rare earth minerals = materials that are required to produce wind turbines/hybrid cars, China produces 95% of the worlds supply, unfortunately it requires open mining and processing with acids. sulphurs and amonia. Air missions include harmful elements such as flourine and sulphur, waste water that contains acid and radioactive materials too.

    You buy a Prius Hybrid car and think you're saving the planet, but each motor contains a Kilo of Neodymium and each battery more than 10 Kilos of Lanthanum.

    Green campaigners love wind turbines, but the permanent magnets used to manufature a single 3 megawatt turbine contains 2 tonnes of rare earth minerals.

    The other irony is China wants to meet its own needs for the materials and is now restricting export supply to the rest of the world, so the rest of the world will have to mine its own supply for low carbon technologies to produce it turbines and hybrid cars.

    A lack of rare earth materials means promissed legislated clean air technology changes are not going to be possible.


    Merry Winterville

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 10:21am on 12 Dec 2009, Beejay wrote:

    TV Girl assumed...
    "For a start there is no decline in temperatures to hide. The WMO has just released the stats for the last decade:
    - 2000s are hottest decade on record (0.44 degrees above 1961-1990 average)
    - 9 of 10 warmest years on record were in this decade
    - 2009 ranks 5th hottest year on record
    - 2009 extreme warm events were more frequent and intense in southern South America, Australia and southern Asia, in particular
    - The 2009 summer Arctic sea ice ranked the third lowest, after the lowest and second-lowest records set in 2007 and 2008, respectively.
    (Or are NASA and WMO in on the great conspiracy?)"

    So how did the Vikings colonize Greenland, planting crops, burying their dead in ground that is now permafrost but wasn't then.
    What would we say about the USA if they now had the dust bowls of the 1930's?
    Arctic ice varies enough to allow sailing boats from long ago to find the North West Passage.
    Arctic records are satellite based so only go back a few years - not really setting records are they?

    When you can hand out the original data, unmassaged by warmist hands, then you might make sense but for now you are talking propaganda not reality.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 10:31am on 12 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @TVGgirl
    In particular, it is being argued that a temperature "decline" was being "hidden" by using a “trick”. I have asked a number of colleagues to explain this, and they all concur that the perception is that simply wrong
    Actually the "trick" involves sticking an entirely different dataset on (that shows what you want it to show) and saying "SEE! Proof positive!" The "trick" is only effective because the graphs converge on about the 1900-1950 era. Do you by chance know why they converge? They converge because that's when they were calibrated...locking them to the conditions of the 1900-1950 (rougly) period. Immediately before and after...everything goes haywire because tree ring proxies are not very good at determining temperature. The "trick" is an attempt to remove the medieval warm period so they can claim this is unusual warming. Its not.

    As I keep saying, there are two concepts being put forth as if they were one...because only one has support. The one that's supported says that CO2 may cause some warming (up to about 1.2C for a doubling). The other concept is that feedbacks are powerful and will amplify any warming greatly. The second is entirely unsupported. In fact, all the evidence points to feedbacks being extremely weak to negative.

    As much as it bugs the AGW camp...the fact is most of the warming of the 80s and 90s was completely natural. That's why you only need to go back to the previous warm period to see warming at the same rate (only without significant CO2 emissions). If we do absolutely nothing...temperature MIGHT rise to a total anomaly of about 1.2C. Remember, 70% of the CO2 increase was since the end of WWII and yet we've only warmed about .4C since then.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 10:32am on 12 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @TVGgirl

    Follow the links, read the articles and then comment, please

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 10:34am on 12 Dec 2009, MatCh wrote:

    Thanks for these concise pieces Richard.

    I agree with Spanglerboy that temperature targets aren't much use - we'll only know whether we have achieved them or not too late. That's why we need emissions reduction and forestry targets instead - which we can take clear action now to achieve.

    The projected temperature rises come from modelling the future which is always going to be a bit uncertain, even if there is lots of similarity between the different models which do exist, at least at the global level.

    Of course so far the sceptics have not come up with a model or projection of their own. They would be a lot more credible if they stated clearly how they thought the climate was going to change and the methodology they used to reach this conclusion, rather than just criticising others. I'm not sure whether they think that the climate isn't changing, or that it is but only affected by solar activity, or that it is affected by greenhouse gases but not to the degree everyone else thinks. But if they have come out with their own figures which I have missed, then I'm sorry I've missed it and please could someone post a link?

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 10:40am on 12 Dec 2009, Andrew Gillett wrote:

    "So how did the Vikings colonize Greenland"
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 10:45am on 12 Dec 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Thanks to everyone who helped answer the questions raised by a small group of young people.
    Al Gore @ 30
    Are you really Al Gore or just using the name?
    Anyway, I am really glad you have brought up the issue of raw materials used to make 'eco friendly' artifacts.

    Can we have more on this please.

    It is all very well moving over to a low carbon future but what is replacing the old technology? What are the long term impacts of mining new minerals for these new technologies? As far as I was aware, poisonous chemicals are used in some solar panels, is this still true? Where are all of the resources coming from to make batteries for electric cars? Are we going to produce batteries which do not rely on lead? Is there a site you can direct us to that gives a break down of the cost and use of raw materials of each of the new technology ideas? Before we blindly blunder into making all of this new 'stuff', has it all been properly risk assessed? These have been the questions that I have been longing to ask but could not properly frame until you gave a lead.

    Christmas greetings everyone

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 11:19am on 12 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @MatthewChell #34

    Of course so far the sceptics have not come up with a model or projection of their own. They would be a lot more credible if they stated clearly how they thought the climate was going to change and the methodology they used to reach this conclusion, rather than just criticising others. I'm not sure whether they think that the climate isn't changing, or that it is but only affected by solar activity, or that it is affected by greenhouse gases but not to the degree everyone else thinks.

    Matt,

    Sceptics know climate changes naturally, so there is no need to try to model anything or make any projections, if, indeed, it is possible to model such a complex, chaotic system like the climate with any degree of confidence.

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 11:24am on 12 Dec 2009, Arthur Putey wrote:

    At 08:55am on 12 Dec 2009, Gederts Skerstens asserted that "The Ozone Hole" "was meant to fry all the Southern hemisphere".

    It's certainly a revealing claim in that it tells us quite a bit about its author. Now I wonder if frying saucers might be involved...

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 11:27am on 12 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    MrSkipp #23

    One of the many inpondrables in all this is that someone has taken it upon themselves to tell the rest of the world what the optimal mean global temperature is. I know I was not consulted. If I had been I would have voted for a little bit warmer for my part of the world.

    And of course all this pre-supposes that man is capable of measuring the temperature of the earth with any degree of accuracy which to date he hasn't been.

    Daft x daft = daft squared

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 11:31am on 12 Dec 2009, ADMac wrote:

    @29 TVGgirl

    " are NASA and WMO in on the great conspiracy?"

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17641

    “British CRU staff work closely with US counterparts, those who compile the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies)/NCDC dataset. For two years the GISS data-keepers have been ‘hiding’ data by dragging its feet on a request under the Freedom of Information Act from Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). This is data that has already seen significant amendments forced on GISS staff.

    Horner has lately informed the NASA’s GISS that it has until the end of the year to comply or else he will sue to compel release.”

    “But here’s the thing in all this - the NASA and CRU data collectively are the backbone of the consensus science behind the extremely alarmist IPCC reports.”

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 11:37am on 12 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    TVgirl #29

    If the tree rings were not good proxies for 1960 onwards why were they good proxies for the period prior to 1960?

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 11:49am on 12 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Mango @37:

    so you just "know" - that's settled that then!

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 12:18pm on 12 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @selfevidenttruths #42

    so you are saying climate doesn't change or we don't know that climate changes?

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 12:46pm on 12 Dec 2009, SokraTease wrote:

    Re
    #30 Al Gore (? Really)
    #10 tears of our forefathers

    A Case for Concentrated Solar Power

    Photovoltaic systems use these precious minerals (that you say come from China). I would like to refer you all to Concentrated Solar Power systems.

    I can’t find the site now, but I read that if the State of Arizona were covered in reflectors of the CSP type it could provide for the entire world’s energy needs. The basic heat pump that drives the generator is, or can be, the Stirling Engine which was invented in 1816 and has been produced in various forms since then. The materials used would obviously not be too rare or precious. It goes without saying that in order to live, we have to take some things from the earth, and if that can be iron and the more common elements I don’t see it as a problem. I believe high voltage lines are now able to transport electricity generated by this method. Yes, (to forestall negging types) there are some problems with HVT, (if you live under them, health issues) but it’s a question of balance against worse scenarios.

    You can start your research on Wiki:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power_plant
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

    I would be interested to see the debate as proposed in #10. I think journalists of the calibre of Richard Black could instigate good ideas as well as reporting on them.

    I find a lot of negativity on the blogs I visit. It seems to me to be a sign of inner despair and negativity. The BBC is not perfect, but it’s there. Use it or loose it. I don’t see how sniping back and forth helps.

    I’m sceptical about some things but not climate change. Apart from the fact it’s too risky a gamble to get wrong it seems plain common sense. I don’t smoke and when I walk into a room of smokers I feel sick. It is not unreasonable to suggest the world is going through two packets of fags a day in pollution. How can this continue? Cancer of the earth? It’s not rocket science. I live in a country area and when I go to any big city there is a marked deterioration in air quality. (Dirty nose at the end of the day etc.) It’s not rocket science: we need to clean up the earth. For this reason I hope C0P15 succeeds. Yes, carbon trading is dodgy, but please agree on something.

    To my mind I can’t help thinking that Concentrated Solar Power, via heat engines, is the solution, or a big part of it.

    Therefore, in the spirit of #10, I would further invite Richard Black to look into the idea, research it and report back. Likewise other readers of this blog. If you think it seems viable (half an hour of netsurf, starting with Wiki, see above) then post back and ask Richard to take the matter up. I know many of you seem not to like BBC, politicians, Al Gore etc but try and be positive. If the earth is important try and find a solution that might work, such as CSP, and report back. Richard seems a decent bloke, so get him take up the matter up. Think positive, research, act.

    Last point. A lot of political turmoil, especially in the Middle East, is to do with oil. If USA could generate all its electricity from 20% area of Arizona and did a Kennedy Moon project to make it happen, wouldn’t there be less war in the Middle East.

    I dread what the naggers say to this. Despair seems built into blogging. Why not be positive? It doesn’t stop you from be a realist.

    In hope…

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 1:04pm on 12 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    I have gotten enough flak over my post #111 on the last thread to warrant re-posting it here, at the risk of angering the moderators.

    Here's hoping:

    \\\ CO2 over the last 20 Million Years ///

    I finally have a complete copy of the following 'Science' report (first published online in 'Science Express'):

    "Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years"
    Aradhna K. Tripati,1,2,* Christopher D. Roberts,2 Robert A. Eagle3

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5958/1394
    ---------------

    I thought to excerpt a few lines from the main body of the text and comment:

    "The highest estimates of pCO2 occur during the Mid-Miocene Climatic Optimum (MMCO), ~ 16 to 14 Ma, the only interval in our record with levels higher than the 2009 value of 387 ppmv." [p. 1395 - bolding by manysummits]

    "When pCO2 levels were last similar to modern values (that is, greater than 350 to 400 ppmv), there was little glacial ice on land or sea ice in the Arctic, and a marine-based ice mass on Antarctica [West Antarctic Ice Sheet] was not viable."(p. 1396)
    [ie., "globally higher sea level (25 to 40 m)" (p. 1395)

    Note: Square brackets mine, [manysummits].
    ----------------

    Comment:

    The Mid-Miocene is an interesting time, and not only from the point of view of climate science.

    It is often referred to as the Age of Apes - our direct ancestors:

    "Approximately 100 species of apes lived during this time. They occupied much of the Old World and ranged in size, diet, and anatomy. Due to scanty fossil evidence it is unclear which ape or apes contributed to the modern hominid clade, but molecular evidence indicates this ape lived from between 15 to 12 million years ago."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miocene#Fauna
    -------------

    According to the anthropologist Richard Leakey, it was during the Miocene that the East African highlands formed, and the former jungle of East Africa was transformed into the fragmented savanna where it is thought mankind first developed and walked upright.

    ("People of the Lake", by Richard leakey, (1979)

    It is most interesting to note that the authors of this paper find that:

    "During the Mid-Miocene, when pCO2 was apparently grossly similar to modern levels, global surface temperatures were, on average, 3 to 6 [deg] C warmer than in the present." [p. 1396]


    This just happens to be the range of climate sensitivity currently in favor (IPCC; James Hansen believes it to be six degrees C)

    While this new addition to the scientific literature does not prove what climate sensitivity is, it is worth noting that it is consistent with the numbers in modern usage. Further, it is alarming to note the drastically higher sea levels indicated for the Mid-Miocene (25 to 40 meters), and the contemporaneous indications of the Mid-Miocene loss of both the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

    For those who favor discretion over valor, this report is worth obtaining, and reading carefully.

    - Manysummits -
    ------------------

    PS:

    If this passes muster, I'll comment further, using the Ngorongoro Crater in East Africa.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 1:15pm on 12 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #16 tears of our forefathers asks:

    "Is Mr Davblo2s list a proscription list or a mockery list?"

    It's a conceptually confused list. On the one hand, it's supposed to be a list various possible alternatives to AGW. One the other hand, inconsistency in the various alternatives is supposed to undermine them somehow.

    By analogy, consider the following reactions to the "spiral UFO" seen in Norway a few days ago:

    1. It's extraterrestrials.

    Now for some (inconsistent) alternatives:

    2. It's a Russian rocket gone wrong.
    3. It's an American rocket gone wrong.
    4. It's a Chinese rocket gone wrong.

    davblo2 seems to think that because 2-4 are inconsistent with each another, it must be extraterrestrials!

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 1:20pm on 12 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #28 TVG wrote:

    "The underlying assumption that data has been manipulated appears to be driving arguments that all of the science is fraudulent."

    Not in my case. I'm saying the it's fraudulent because it doesn't use scientific methods of testing. It just attempts to extrapolate from "data", and mere extrapolation doesn't count as science at all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 1:23pm on 12 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @manysummits #45

    instead of reposting all the time, why don't you try answering your critics?

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 1:25pm on 12 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    to add to #47

    not all science is fraudulent and not all climate science is fraudulent. They are, however, a lot of questions that need to be investigated with regards to ClimateGate

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 1:26pm on 12 Dec 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #29. TVGgirl wrote:

    “Climate scientists look for temperature records dating back centuries by using ‘proxy’ measures, such as the width of tree rings, corals, or ice cores. Climate scientists use about 1200 such proxy measures and, oddly, one of them showed a temperature decline after 1960 while we know that actual temperatures, measured with thermometers, increased.”

    From the 1200 proxies approximately 99% are already hidden by the mathematics before the 'trick' is brought into use for the remaining 14 to give the global temperature. The trick is brought into use because not even this 1% carefully chosen subset follows recent temperatures.

    Also TVGirl wrote:
    “It made no sense to mark the false indication of a decline on the graph because the scientists knew the sign from the tree ring was wrong.”

    As anyone who has followed hockey team temperature reconstructions already knows they have no problem with using data upside-down if it gives the 'correct' answer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 1:27pm on 12 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Ngorongoro Crater - East Africa

    Here is an example of the results of tectonic movements on a global scale, referred to earlier in my post #45.

    Following this, I have posted a link to a National Geographic feature article which highlights the interconnectedness of all that we have been talking of on this environmental website, here at the BBC.

    I particularly like the Vocanic Caldera to illustrate these concerns, as it is one of the most spectacular of geologic features, and it is the scene of human conflict, at both the colonial scale and the aboriginal - i.e., it is a window into our soul.
    --------------


    "The main feature of the NCA [Ngorongoro Conservation Area] is the Ngorongoro Crater, which is the world's largest unbroken, unflooded volcanic caldera. The Crater, which formed when a giant volcano exploded and collapsed on itself some two to three million years ago, is 610 m (2,001 ft) deep and its floor covers 260 km² (102 square miles).[5] Estimates of the height of the original volcano range from fifteen to nineteen thousand feet (4500 to 5800 metres) high."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngorongoro_crater#Ngorongoro_Crater


    \\\ Heartbreak on the Serengeti ///
    (National Geographic, FEBRUARY 2006)
    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0602/feature1/index.html
    ------------

    If you can find the time, this five page article by National Geographic is well worth the effort.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 1:39pm on 12 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Mango@43

    Neither, climate changes and we know that it does. The question is whether there is an anthropogenic component, whether it is significant and whether we can do anything about it. There are a range of opinions (to put it mildly) about this. My point was that (and maybe you did'n't quite mean it this way) your statement

    "Sceptics know climate changes naturally, so there is no need to try to model anything or make any projections, if, indeed, it is possible to model such a complex, chaotic system like the climate with any degree of confidence."

    seemed to imply a degree of certainty that skeptics have accused the "alarmists" of; ie, we are right and and we know we are. A more extreme reading of what you wrote would imply that there is absolutely no point in investigating the climate because it will always be too complex to understand by its very nature. Which seems to me rather defeatist don't you think. There are many things we now understand that to previous generations would have been incomprehensible. As I said, maybe you did'n't mean it like that, I am sure you are not suggesting that we give trying to understand anything that seems complex.

    For what it is worth I hold a middling position on AGW/climate change. I am not a scientist, just an educated layperson. The extreme positions of both sides seem to me unhelpful. Even though he is somewhat inconsistent I tend to think that what Roger Pielke Sr calls hypothesis B

    "Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and involve a diverse range of first- order climate forcings, including, but not limited to, the human input of carbon dioxide (CO2). Most, if not all, of these human influences on regional and global climate will continue to be of concern during the coming decades."

    is a reasonable one. In an ideal world we would reanalyze all the data, collect another 10 year's worth, and in the meantime take serious measures to increase our energy efficiency, our use of renewable resources (both worthwhile in their own right) and reduce population growth ( one of the factors sorely missing from Copenhhagen). Maybe then we might be in a position to take some informed measures.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 1:46pm on 12 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    It's interesting to listen to "Any Questions?" on Radio 4, with every panel member prefacing their remarks with the phrase "I'm not a scientist, but..." then adding "the evidence is overwhelming"!

    If they're scientifically illiterate by their own admission, how would they have a clue about how good the science is or how overwhelming the evidence is? -- None of them is well enough educated to make a judgement, surely?

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 1:47pm on 12 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    44. At 12:46pm on 12 Dec 2009, SokraTease wrote:

    "Re
    #30 Al Gore (? Really) "

    Yes really

    World faces hi-tech crunch as China eyes ban on rare metal exports

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6082464/World-faces-hi-tech-crunch-as-China-eyes-ban-on-rare-metal-exports.html

    China corners rare earths market

    http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/Story/A1Story20091115-179999.html



    Merry Winterville

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 1:50pm on 12 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Btw, one source of power I hav'n't seen mentioned anywhere recently is fusion, now that would solve a few problems!
    Re population: I thought David Attenborough's Horizon programme "How Many People Can Live On Planet Earth" was very good. Still available on i player for anyone who has not seen it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 1:55pm on 12 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Apologies for some clumsy sentence constructions in my post at 52. A missing word or two as well. Will try harder!

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 2:34pm on 12 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    See this from John Stewart’s Daily show, talking about Glenn Beck from Fox News. Click on the most recent show (Friday 11th December 2009) and scroll forward to 4mins 20 seconds. If you think the BBC is biased imagine a world where only commercial interests are running the news networks. George Orwell’s terrifying vision is alive and well:-

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/4od#3018222

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 3:09pm on 12 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Hope Bellamy would be better in the debate than he is here, post #10.

    Click on ‘Watch the report’:-

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/are%20the%20glaciers%20melting/107930

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 3:18pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    The US House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming has just released a statement [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] on "Climate Gate", which puts it into proper context.

    Some folk have also re-tried to make the claim that because the Vikings planted crops on Greenland, the climate warming now is normal. This was a local warm period, the current warm period is global, a completely different thing.

    In addition, some have questioned the use of models by saying "they are just projections of data into the future". This is not so. Models are tested (not just climate models but financial, engineering etc.) by starting them at points in history and checking that they correctly predict what really happened. Climate models do correctly make this prediction.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 3:23pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    Further... #37 claimed that the "climate is chaotic" and therefore impossible/difficult to model accurately. This is to misunderstand the term "chaos", which in fact is often very easy to model (just look at the fractal pictures so popular in the 90's). You can understand the structure and "attractors" within a chaotic system and so tell how it changes on the large scale - you just can't predict the details.

    For me, this makes the climate change issue more concerning - if we can model it but it has the capacity for sudden change...

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 3:23pm on 12 Dec 2009, MatCh wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK #37

    So the climate is changing - we agree about this. And you propose to deal with this by, what, looking at the weather forecast from day to day?

    You may not like the current collection of models of climate change, and you are right that the system is complex. We certainly need to keep the models and their projections of the future under critical review, and there is always a tendency for models to behave in smooth linear ways when the real world doesn't always. But rather than propose improvements you say two separate and different things about models
    a) they aren't needed - which suggests that planning for the future is not something you think we should do
    b) it is not possible to produce a useful model - well, what we have is certainly not perfect, but they are getting better over time. If we were able to switch the IT resources of just one major bank into climate modelling, we'd make a lot more progress.

    I hope my government, spending my taxes, doesn't, for example, decide to build a nuclear power station or a new ecotown or indeed any significant infrastructure right next to the coast where the coastline is changing. I hope it does try to plan ahead and invest where the investment will last. I hope it plans flood defences that deal with the risks of tomorrow as well as today. The estimates of future climate change are going to be wrong, but the answer is not to stop making estimates. The point is to have estimates which are as good as you can make them now, and to understand the potential range of estimates as well as possible, because you have to make decisions now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 3:25pm on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    22. At 09:17am on 12 Dec 2009, JRWoodman wrote:
    'Were they? I think you'll find quite a few people died of Creutzsfeldt Jacob Disease. The Millenium Bug turned out to be a damp squib because a lot of work was done to rewrite software to ensure it didn't crash computers. The ozone hole issue was mitigated by the concerted efforts of all countries to ban the use of CFCs in refrigerants.'

    They do however have several similarities:

    1) All based a around 'predictions' of catastrophic (luridly portrayed by the media, google swine flu sometime today) future events. take CJD: the line was 'millions could be infected and not know it for 20 years, we must act'.
    2) All required new legislation be enacted.
    3) All required vast sums to be spent in various ways.
    4) None of the terribe predictions happened.
    5) All damaged or forced new operating procedures some form of business.
    6) You don't hear about them in the media very much these days do you?

    How much has been spent this year on fasttracking and mass producing swineflu vaccine?

    44. At 12:46pm on 12 Dec 2009, SokraTease wrote: some stuff.

    I'll have a look at what you posted if you'll do me the courtesy of reading Delingpole of the Telegraphs first 3 Climategate blogs with an open mind (and the comments bwahaha). My primary problem with solar power (without having read up on your specific proposal) is that this is north western europe. we get a nice balance of cloudy and not raining and cloudy and raining days and not that many with a clear sky. Solar power is not a good idea for the UK because of the weather in my opinion.

    Other than the debate i proposed (it can't happen because the science is settled, the debate over and its time to act, do you see? the beebs picked its side of the fence) the only thing i want mr Black to report on is what the noble delegates and his 'insider' friends have to say about the data and correspondence released in the CRU hack. his vague, worried reports of hiccups and leaks and poor countries asking for more cash are quite reassuring in their way, but not what i want to see my BBC doing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 4:19pm on 12 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #58 watched the link and it did appear somewhat strange the way Bellamy acted he let Moonbat walk all over him. I then watched without any sound, to see what happens try it and see what you think.

    Belamy is actually correct most of the way, in that there are more advancing glaciers than those retreating, Mount Blanc is an example of growing. People see ice falling into the sea and think they are melting when the opposite is the case they are growing.

    The observation idiots in Switzerland only look at 88 glaciers worldwide and we recently had the loss of the 500m Chataltaya glacier fraud reported. Of their figures 17 are growing. Of the 625 glaciers around the world that have some sort of reporting it is safe to say the majority are growing.

    In addition we have the IPCC typo about the Himalayas who the IPCC say the glaciers will melt by 2035 when the UN report pointed out 2350 with alot of ifs and buts.

    By the way the Science and Environment BBC page was brought to you today by Chevron Oil

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 4:32pm on 12 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Hang it up, deniers! The work is getting done...

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 4:41pm on 12 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #60 John Kazar wrote:

    "This is to misunderstand the term "chaos", which in fact is often very easy to model (just look at the fractal pictures so popular in the 90's)."

    I think you are the one who misunderstands the term 'chaos' as it is used in the present context. ("Recursion" is something different.)

    A "chaotic" phenomenon is one whose states have a very critical dependence on initial conditions. Very small differences in initial conditions lead to very different subsequent states.

    Chaotic phenomena can be fully "deterministic" -- in other words subsequent states are wholly dependent on the earlier states rather than partially dependent on "random" influences -- yet they are practically impossible to predict because the differences in initial conditions are too small to measure, or the dependence would require computing powers many times larger than the universe.

    Unlike a chaotic phenomenon, a fractal-type phenomenon is easy to predict because its macroscopic states resemble its microscopic states. For example, the frond of a fern has the same shape as its sub-fronds.

    A number of "non-sceptics" have remarked that one of the reasons climate change science has met with little success so far is that the climate is hard to predict. In effect, that is to concede the point to the sceptic. If it's so hard to predict, any model that purports to be able to predict it should not be believed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 4:45pm on 12 Dec 2009, MrSkipp wrote:

    Anyway whether the science is right or wrong is irrelevant because the UN framework convention says so:

    Article 3
    3. The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost. To achieve this, such policies and measures should take into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change may be carried out cooperatively by interested Parties.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 5:05pm on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Sleep with your bedroom door locked my fellow flat-earthing denialists, and fit some solid bars to your windows:

    http://climatedepot.com/a/1174/Update-Romm-defends-remarks-as-not-a-threat-but-a-prediction--Strangle-Skeptics-in-Bed-An-entire-generation-will-soon-be-ready-to-strangle-you-and-your-kind-while-you-sleep-in-your-beds

    '[Update: Joe Romm deleted the 'strangling' skeptics in bed remark on June 6, but now defends the comments as "clearly not a threat but a prediction" and claimed "some people misread it." Romm wrote: "The original was clearly not a threat but a prediction -- albeit one that I certainly do not agree with. Since some people misread it, I am editing it." ]'

    regarding bellamy: his recent interviews down under show despite getting somewhat frailer he is still an excellent example of a passionately pro-environment skeptic (regular skeptics hate nature is the popular meme alas). he is also well used to being called a denier and can speak to personal experience of being persecuted for his beliefs (or lack thereof). its irrelevant anyhoo: Bellamy is verboten on the beeb.

    i was trying to balance the teams to 2 scientist, 1 activist and 1 'natural history personality' each. i'd also like to see Delingpole or McAleer on the rational team.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 5:07pm on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Maria:

    i mention a funny line from a tv show and you imply i have difficulty discerning reality from fiction and yet:

    1) you believe the world is ending, very soon.
    2) you believe 'work' is being done at hoaxenhagen. not one of them has ever worked a proper job.

    Wake UP!

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 5:20pm on 12 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @selfevidenttruths #52

    Neither, climate changes and we know that it does. The question is whether there is an anthropogenic component, whether it is significant and whether we can do anything about it.

    Agreed, and my understanding is CO2 is unable to raise the temperature significantly.

    your statement ...seemed to imply a degree of certainty that skeptics have accused the "alarmists" of;

    I am certain that climate changes or else the earth would not experience times of cold or warmth. I guess you are reading my certainty as something other than "climate is always changing". We do know that climate can change abruptly as well as over longer period of times.

    A more extreme reading of what you wrote would imply that there is absolutely no point in investigating the climate because it will always be too complex to understand by its very nature.

    No, I think it's a fascinating subject

    Even though he is somewhat inconsistent I tend to think that what Roger Pielke Sr calls hypothesis B

    I like Pielke and have already aligned myself to most of his ideas that you quote. I do strongly believe man is partially responsible for climate change due to deforestation, land change use etc. Where I differ is the CO2 driver of climate change, which is not borne out by the evidence.

    @John Kazer #60

    Further... #37 claimed that the "climate is chaotic" and therefore impossible/difficult to model accurately. This is to misunderstand the term "chaos", which in fact is often very easy to model (just look at the fractal pictures so popular in the 90's). You can understand the structure and "attractors" within a chaotic system and so tell how it changes on the large scale - you just can't predict the details.

    Accepted, although i would add we are nowhere near modelling this complex system, because there are too many unknowns, including cloud behaviour etc. I would refer you to The Butterfly Effect, when you think about modelling the climate though

    The current models predict a signature of AGW warming over the tropics (refer to IPCC AR4 Chapter 9, page 675), which, despite searching for over 2 decades, has not been found. Find the signature and you have proof the models work and of AGW. Until then, we should all be a little sceptical of the science, especially with the appearance of ClimateGate

    @MatthewChell #61

    So the climate is changing - we agree about this. And you propose to deal with this by, what, looking at the weather forecast from day to day?

    Deal with it?

    Is it ours to deal with? Who says we should deal with it? What if we deal with it and then head into cooling, either caused by trying to deal with it or because the earth cooled naturally?


    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 5:22pm on 12 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Delingpole, rational?

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 5:29pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    When talking about chaos, you need to be careful to deal with things at the right level. Chaos is indeed unpredictable from starting conditions (at the micro level, e.g. weather) but highly predictable at the macro level (e.g. climate). My point about attractors was that chaotic systems tend to have stable patterns or boundaries to their unpredictable behaviour. If you push them too hard (e.g. too much debt in a financial system or too much energy in an atmosphere, the *risk* is that they jump to a new set of behaviours.

    Therefore the second aspect of the climate change debate is one of risk analysis and valuing the future. This is what Lord Stern talks about and what financial folk talk about all the time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 5:31pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    I tried to post a link to a very recent report from the US Senate committee on climate change which provides some useful (and clear) explanation of "climategate". They make it clear that it's a storm in a tea cup - none of the issues that Phil Jones wrote were new to published work and very little of the data he deals with is non-public domain.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 5:34pm on 12 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Tears: I like your idea of a debate, however I would replace Jones with Gavin Schmidt ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 5:41pm on 12 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ What I, Manysummits, want from Copenhagen 15 ///

    Recorded on video and in print, for every one of the ~ 110 world leaders coming to Copenhagen:

    1) Their stand on the world climate-science concensus as regards Anthropogenic Global Warming, in clear and simple language.

    2) Their stand on the idea that global average temperature should be kept from rising more than two degrees C (or 1.5 deg C), above 14.0 degrees C.

    3) Their committment to deliver results (or not), whatever the cost.
    ---------------

    The rest is detail.

    While it is perhaps true that genius is attention to detail, right now I would prefer to know who is prepared to both speak and act responsibly for future generations of the world community, and to sacrifice, if necessary, the seals of office, rather than kow-tow to powerful 'business as usual' interests and to the short and medium-term political horizon.

    My expectations are high - why should they not be?

    These people sought and achieved world office - \\\ Stand & Deliver! ///

    Regardless of the outcome, some of us, hopefully more and more of us, will act unilaterally to reduce all unnecessary spending and blatant waste, taking into consideration the idea that what is truly right and good for the individual is also likely to be right and good for all of humanity.

    In short, whether or not our leaders speak and act responsibly, we the people need to do so, in increasing numbers, until such time as global climate is stabilized, and the World Health Organization's founding statement is fulfilled:

    "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

    The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the
    fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race,
    religion, political belief, economic or social condition.

    The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and
    security and is dependent upon the fullest co-operation of individuals
    and States."


    Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19-22 June, 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948.

    The Definition has not been amended since 1948.
    --------------

    \\\ Manysummits, Calgary, Canada, Saturday, December 12, 2009 - Minus 26 degrees Celcius, overcast white-out in light snow and ice-crystals ///

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 5:48pm on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    'Delingpole, rational?'

    lol the only fellow in the 'meeja' (at least nominally) who had the cojones to run with the CRU hack info? ok he's in the 'they're evil and wrong' brigade but a rematch between Delingpole and Monbiot would be a hoot!

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 5:59pm on 12 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Press release from Spanglerboy Research Unit (SRU)

    Over the last few days, we here at SRU have been inputting all the latest data into our super Spectrum ZX81 state of the art computing machine and we are starting to get some very interesting outputs.

    Now we must stress that we do not make predictions here at SRU. We make projections. We look at possible ‘scenarios’ as produced by our super computer. Here are the results of our latest research.

    The political BS content of the atmosphere has risen sharply over the last 7 days with an unnaturally high concentration centred over Denmark. Dr Voicepiece of SRU told journalists. “It is always important to base decisions on sound science. In 1995 our model correctly predicted the outcome of World War II and this same model now shows the BS index will continue to rise sharply over the next few weeks with catastrophic consequences for places as far apart as Westminster and Capitol Hill where we forecast major storms as an enormous quantity of hot air collides with a considerable mass of flat-earth. The recent rise in BS is completely unprecedented in the history of the earth. If we can’t significantly reduce the BS now, the world is lost. We only have minutes to act.”

    Dr Spangler of SRU added “It is notoriously difficult to model a chaotic non-linear system as complex as political climate, where the BS content is so enormous that it overpowers every other part of the system, but our models are much improved and we are 92.365% confident of receiving our next research grant.”

    A spokesperson for Friends of a Green Planet like Earth said “This is dangerous BS. This is why we have been urging governments to act. This is dangerous BS. Whilst most people would not miss Westminster or Capitol Hill, we need to think of the children and the polar bears. We must protect them from dangerous BS. The science is settled. The debate is over. It’s time to act. This is dangerous BS.”

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 6:04pm on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Selfevidenttruth:

    The problem is that the debate would kind of put the lie to the entire 'debate is over' proAGW meme. it would contradict almost all the coverage of copenhagen occuring on all the major news outlets at the moment. it won't happen.

    Also Phil Jones is in hiding (like Gore) and won't be making any public appearances for a while yet! Delingpole is a bit of a twonk, but he deserves some respect for taking a stand on this issue.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 6:12pm on 12 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #71 John Kazer wrote:

    "the second aspect of the climate change debate is one of risk analysis and valuing the future. This is what Lord Stern talks about and what financial folk talk about all the time."

    Given the events of the past year in the world of finance, I wouldn't take the judgement of financial folk as an exemplar of good judgement!

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 6:13pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    Re #37: In the comment #59 I made that's still with the moderators, I pointed out that models of many sorts are typically tested by starting them at an earlier point in time and running them to see if their behaviour matches what actually happened.

    This is a standard method, has been done with the climate models and they perform very well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 6:19pm on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    manysummits:

    1) 'until such time as global climate is stabilized' that is never going to happen whatever we do or don't do short of extinguishing the sun.

    2) something i've noticed is that any group who accuse other people of being selfish because they won't do WHAT THE GROUP WANTS THEM TO DO is a little confused.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 6:21pm on 12 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #74 manysummits wrote:

    "In short, whether or not our leaders speak and act responsibly, we the people need to do so, in increasing numbers, until such time as global climate is stabilized, and the World Health Organization's founding statement is fulfilled:

    'Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

    'The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the
    fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race,
    religion, political belief, economic or social condition.'"

    If you keep dwelling on this sort of sentimantal twaddle and your own bid for sainthood, you'll never learn that health depends on having enough money to feed yourself and your family more than the climate. You and your scientifically illiterate chums at Copenhagen have the power to do great damage to the former, at the same time as having no effect at all on the latter.

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 6:26pm on 12 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #79 John Kazer wrote:

    "models of many sorts are typically tested by starting them at an earlier point in time and running them to see if their behaviour matches what actually happened.

    This is a standard method, has been done with the climate models and they perform very well."

    I agree that testing is absolutely essential for any decent computer model, but can you point me to where climate models performed "very well" in tests?

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 6:30pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    An interesting fact is that Venus's typical temperature is 740 Kelvin, compared to Earth at about 280. Venus's atmosphere is about 97% CO2 compared to ours at 0.04%. It is also clear that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing and the biggest reason is human action - tree felling, soil disturbance, fuel burning etc.

    So there is a clear link between temperature and CO2 concentration. The tricky bit is understanding what the relationship is... I would say that the climate scientists think they have a good understanding - the deniers have not provided evidence to the contrary.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 6:34pm on 12 Dec 2009, richard krooth wrote:

    Richard,

    So long as the technical sphere of western societies is extended to the so-called developing countries, the biosphere will continue to suffer degradation -- leading to converging entropies and a final global collapse of the natural cycles of species life.

    COP15 is but one step of many that reveals the unwillingness of the great powers to deal with this underlying, irresolvable dilemma.

    Your reporting effectively pinpoints how any treaty agreement will not adequately focus on such a fundamental question.

    Respectfully,

    Richard Krooth, Berkeley,l CA

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 6:35pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #78, it depends on which financial folk you look at - insurance pricing and business planning is full of long-term risk analysis. You never have perfect information, what you do have is %ages and impacts - you balance the likelyhoods and impacts off against each other and determine the least or most risky outcomes. Applying a discount factor to reflect reducing value of the future is important too, but as Stern has shown rather controversial in practise.

    Given climate change is a) huge in impact if true, b) has a probability of occurring and c) may be quite cheap to prevent (depending on discount rate used), it's actually quite good risk management practise to deal with it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 6:46pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    For #82 a quick Google search for "testing climate model predictions" will find quite a bit (not all in favour of modelling). I found the following a useful summary:

    http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/climate_models_accuracy.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 6:54pm on 12 Dec 2009, MrSkipp wrote:

    #82 Bowlegsthebard

    Why do you say "computer"? Shows you know nothing. The computer is just a means. It's like saying you live in a "cement mixer house" although from your remarks about health perhaps you live in a mud hut

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 6:55pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    US Senate Committee debunks "climategate":

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/12/select-committee-staff-analysis-debunks-stolen-climate-email-myths/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 7:05pm on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

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

  • 90. At 7:08pm on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    john kazer:

    if you watch the footage of that meeting you'll notice the republican ranking member requested that the witnesses testify under oath. the democrat chairman refused.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 7:22pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #90 hahah, interesting! did the whole cmte sign-up to the statement though? Is it normal to testify under oath for something like this? (not a US political expert...).

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 7:26pm on 12 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #87 MrSkipp asks:

    'Why do you say "computer"?'

    I normally use the word 'computer' to refer to computers, and don't use it to refer to non-computers. For example, an Airfix model is not a computer model, but it is a model.

    'Shows you know nothing.'

    Like Socrates, I'd like to think that the only thing I know is the limited extent of my own knowledge.

    What is your point, MrSkipp?

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 7:38pm on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    i'm no expert either. either way, if the testimonies only purpose was to dismiss the 'climategate' 'manufactured scandal by the fossil fuel paid for doubt machines' would it not have been appropriate for there to be consequences if either of the witnesses turned out to be lying? interesting website you linked to.

    please compare:

    http://sppiblog.org/news/hitler-youth-in-denmark-again

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/12/tvmob-hate-speech-lord-monckton-hitler-youth-fascist-climate-activists/

    if you'll forgive the Godwins violation, i'm with the bard: calling skeptics denier was definitely the first widespread violation of that law.

    those 2 articles can be described as one regretting the level of debate and the tactics used to silence them (monckton) versus your site that is saying that monckton should be silenced because he was outraged at being silenced. pretty Orwellian neh?

    manysummits:

    i find wisdom in music:

    Band: Fishbone. Album: Give a Monkey a Brain and He'll Swear He's the Centre of the Universe. song: Servitude:
    http://www.lyricstime.com/fishbone-servitude-lyrics.html

    an excerpt: (please don't moderate, it is relevant)

    To whom, whom do you pray?
    Do dollars wash your sins away?
    Does God love cold hard cash?
    Do you say...If we all just continue to pay
    All our ailments will go away
    And our souls will be saved

    God's not with you
    "Holy Roller"
    Your heart dwells in Hell

    Why, Why do you run?
    Our awareness has spoiled your fun
    Our eyes see you too clear
    Will you hide
    From the joy of expressing our pride
    For the leaders and people who've died
    While combating your genocide

    Chains are breaking
    Minds are waking
    Soon we'll serve no more...

    i highly recommend them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 7:48pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #93 - appreciate the words. on the hitler youth issue an ClimateProgress, I've never been a great fan of American political debate - too instantly polarised. So whilst I agree with much of the ClimateProgress sentiment, I wouldn't always...

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 7:54pm on 12 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #86 John Kazer wrote:

    "I found the following a useful summary"

    I would urge you not to take that as a useful summary. The first few sentences are quite unrepresentative of the usual understanding of the words 'hypothesis' and 'theory':

    "A hypothesis is an informal idea that has not been thoroughly tested by the scientific community. Most are discarded. A hypothesis becomes a theory when it can explain and predict observations and it also has been thoroughly tested by the scientific community."

    For what it's worth, a "hypothesis" is usually understood as an individual claim or formula, such as "planets sweep out equal areas in equal times", while a "theory" is usually understood as a larger collection of hypotheses, or an entire "way of looking at things", if you prefer.

    A good example of a hypothesis would be Newton's law of gravity, which says that gravitational force between two bodies diminishes or increases in a very exact way that depends on how far apart they are, and how big they are.

    A good example of a theory would be the above hypothesis PLUS Newton's three basic laws of mechanics. These all work together.

    The third sentence in the above quotation is completely wrong: "A hypothesis becomes a theory when it can explain and predict observations and it also has been thoroughly tested by the scientific community."

    Anyway, I await with interest your reference to some actual computer climate models that have performed well in tests. (But don't worry: I'm not holding my breath!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 8:05pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    Hmm, well, leaving aside the symantic definition of the words, did you look at the second diagram? It shows how models track actual data then only when the model human factors do they subsequently track the final years of the data.

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 8:09pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    oops "symantic definition of the words" should read "symantics of the words" ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 8:45pm on 12 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    People should watch the closing statement of the US select committee under Republican Senator Edward J. Markey on December 2nd 2009, here:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9hxVmA1SUg

    See what you think.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 9:11pm on 12 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "did you look at the second diagram? It shows how models track actual data then only when the model human factors do they subsequently track the final years of the data."

    Sorry, not good enough. I want a single example of a single climate model that has come anywhere even remotely close to actually tracking what actually happened.

    Is there one, anyone?

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 9:12pm on 12 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "symantic definition of the words" should read "symantics of the words"

    Is 'semantic' the word you are trying to impress us with?

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 9:27pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #99 - I'm confused, what is it about the diagram that doesn't answer your question? It shows models in comparison with real data...

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 9:36pm on 12 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Arctic sea ice still 1,129,000 square kilometres below average!

    That’s almost twice the area of Texas.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/iphone.anom.series.html

    Any ideas anyone?

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 9:40pm on 12 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #101 John Kazer wrote:

    "I'm confused, what is it about the diagram that doesn't answer your question? It shows models in comparison with real data..."

    Oh no it doesn't -- it shows us how someone who interprets the data their way would like us to think the data should be interpreted.

    To be clear, I want to see A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF A MODEL THAT DID INDEED PREDICT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

    I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any -- but we'll see.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 10:00pm on 12 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    bowman@103

    are you saying the data can't be trusted and therefore any comparisons with the models is pointless or that the models are useless? I do think that John Kazer is trying to answer your question?

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 10:00pm on 12 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Kamboshigh at post 63 says –

    ‘Mount Blanc is an example of growing’

    I counted five out of 86 glaciers being monitored that were advancing on this map from Switzerland:-

    http://glaciology.ethz.ch/swiss-glaciers/glaciermapCH-2008.html

    The rest were either stationary (2) or retreating (79).

    http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glacierlist.html

    Any other commenters have an opinion of what’s going on in Switzerland?

    Other information on the speed of glacier retreat here:-

    http://www.planetark.com/enviro-news/item/53470


    http://www.takepart.com/news/tag/jungfrau-melting-glaciers

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 10:04pm on 12 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "Given climate change is a) huge in impact if true, b) has a probability of occurring and c) may be quite cheap to prevent (depending on discount rate used), it's actually quite good risk management practise to deal with it."

    If I may say so, your phrase 'has a probability of occurring' is a fancy, turgid way of simply saying 'I believe it will happen'. Some of us don't.

    For my part, given that the growth-cramping things "gullibles" intend to do are a) huge in impact if they are actually done, b) has a probability of killing the poor and c) may be avoided by making political types realize they are simply rehearsing the silly, hysterical , cruel things that generations of religious humans have done over and over again, it's actually quite good risk management practise to deal with it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 10:06pm on 12 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    In other words if you don't trust the data (think it has been manipulated etc) then indeed it will be very hard to predict what happened, because you won't trust what has happened!

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 10:08pm on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Some quotes from a couple of literary heroes of mine that i think apply to the climate change debate:

    Frank Herbert:

    Religion often partakes of the myth of progress that shields us from the terrors of an uncertain future.

    If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.

    The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action.

    Bertrand Russell:

    A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

    I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine.

    If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

    It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.

    Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so.

    Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most boys and girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favour of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position.

    The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others.

    To be honest, Mr Russell has LOADS of relevant quotes!

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 10:29pm on 12 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    I'm just relaxing here at my local library, watching the Youtube video "Home."

    With striking imagery and music, it is ~ an hour and a half long. I am 22 minutes into it, and my time is nearly up here, so I thought to post a link:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU
    ------------------

    As can be seen by this video, people are doing what they can to dispel ignorance and overcome the 'business as usual' campaign.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 10:32pm on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    thinkforyourself, no. 98:

    you're aware that the graph he points to in the first seconds of that youtube clip is a hockeystick right?

    is the rest to your nom de plume: thinkforyourselfanddoaswetellyou or something?


    To the Beeb: any chance of you springing some of our licence fees on a spelling and grammar checker on your blog comments please? i don't think i'm the only one who'd appreciate that!

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 10:32pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #106 - no, "has a probability of happening" means just that - a probability. It says nothing about "belief" or likelyhood. The way you approach the risk depends on the assumptions you make in regard to the size of the probability and the size of the effect should it occur.

    Risk management has nothing to say about whether you "belive", understand or otherwise think something will happen - just that it might.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 10:39pm on 12 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Post 108. I’m also a fan of Frank Herbert but obviously from a different perspective to you.
    His career as a novelist began with the publication of The Dragon in the Sea in 1955, where he used the environment of a 21st century submarine as a means to explore sanity and madness. The book predicted worldwide conflicts over oil consumption and production.
    Shouldn’t we at least switch to other fuels for that reason alone, foreseen clearly by Herbert?
    Gerald Jonas explains in the New York Times Book Review: "So completely did Mr. Herbert work out the interactions of man and beast and geography and climate that Dune became the standard for a new sub-genre of 'ecological' science fiction."

    A great man indeed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 11:02pm on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @ 112

    i concur Mr Herbert was a truely great man. other fuels are fine, that isn't my problem, being forced to switch to them at a an 'unnatural' speed before the technology is reliable is my problem. also being lied to about co2 to motivate such noble changes causes me some disquiet. reread liet-kynes discussion of planetology (i would have picked that title as opposed to 'climatologist') in Dune. Mankind is part of nature. we are not an aberration. negative feedback dominates nature.

    regarding the eco-spirituality side of the climate debate: in Dune Mr Herbert observes that jihad, holy war is the most powerful motivating force in humanity. such a force is what the proAGW peeps have been trying to stir up.

    if you enjoyed Dune and haven't read it yet check out the Helliconia Trilogy by Brian Aldiss. also very a great 'ecological scifi' read.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 11:31pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #113 There is no evidence of lying about co2. The models work (quite well) and it's clear that co2 impacts on the atmosphere by warming it. There is no new significant source of co2 other than us. Notes above provide the rationale for these points.

    It concerns me that you seem to believe several thousand scientists are lying...

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 11:59pm on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    historically Co2 levels lag behind temperature increases by 200-1000 years. CO2 has been released in insanely vast amounts by a warming ocean on several occasions in the past and we haven't had to survive 'runaway global warming/climate change'.

    regarding your comments on the precautionary principle:

    BS! the precautionary principle when employed by politician should be translated as: there is a chance (according to these venerable greybeards who we've paid to find these results) that something really really bad could happen so we must do what we wantred to do before we had any 'proof' at all.

    i don't think thousands of scientist are (but thanks for the sly ad hominem) all lying, i think a few are lying and are responsible for creating an environment of necessary conformism that has forced those with legitimate doubts not to mention them for fear of losing their funding. It has happened before and is not as far fetched as it might seem.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 00:16am on 13 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    No. 68, tears of our forefathers:

    I do not fault you for your enthusiasm, nor for your choice of programming. Reread what I wrote, please: I Liked the "Yes, Minister!" series and its successor, "Yes, Prime Minister!" very much.

    However, I do in fact know, having worked with political professionals, that a considerable amount of work is involved. Yes, Work. Yes, it is a Proper Job. It is grueling, fraught, intense, relentless and not the least bit enjoyable.

    I stand by my earlier comments. Some political figures, and some of their staff, are corrupt, vain, deceitful and self-serving. Many are not.

    Few human beings are as bad as the press reports about them. Well, Josef Fritzl probably is worse -- but I suspect even Bush & Cheney, whom I despise, are not quite the blood-sucking vampires I myself paint them out to be: just corrupt, dishonest & greedy men with no sense of moral purpose that precludes getting rich, first, from any policy decision.

    Which brings us to the Copenhagen conference their rapacious greed and insufferable insouciance about others' interests have made inevitable, and of critical urgency to us all.

    And, by the way, Bill Clinton was only a shade better than W & his Veep.

    You wrongly accuse me of believing "the world is ending, very soon." That is a false charge.

    First, define what you mean by "world," by "ending," by "soon," by "very": since you imagine yourself capable of interpreting my thoughts. On the basis of what, you don't say -- beyond repeating that you understand the difference between a TV show & reality.

    Well, I suppose that's a start, but you still don't know the first thing about me or about my history studying this subject matter, Mr or Ms Forefathers!

    Let me clue you in a bit on what I think would happen in the absence of an agreement to be signed in Copenhagen:

    1. America would continue to rely chiefly on coal for its energy needs. Demented strategies such as shearing off entire mountains for the last traces of coal contained beneath their pulverised bases will continue and probably accelerate. As oil prices continue to rise due to supply & infrastructure stress, not to mention the damage from extreme weather events or political upheavals in Nigeria or Mexico or elsewhere in the ME, North American interests will step up extraction from difficult sources, such as the shales/sands of Canada, or the Alaskan and Arctic and Antarctic fields. This will increase environmental stress at a rapid rate; furthermore, the costs of all these activities, plus the naturally elevated price for petroleum products, will inevitably drive up the price of energy & fuel -- that might have been kept within manageable limits by investment in alternative energy sources, such as the ones that Copenhagen should succeed in stimulating.

    2. Electric cars will be mass-produced by several populous nations, increasing the coal burden on the environment, since most electrical power to charge those cars will be generated by coal-fired power plants. Alternative fuel & energy sources will, as in item 1, not be developed, since there will be no pressure to divorce ourselves from the dependence on coal sources -- as well as petroleum.

    3. Rising energy prices will increase the proportion of households struggling just to make ends meet.

    4. Increasing environmental stress, not to mention the cost of transportation & distribution (rising steeply because of Item 3) will lead to increasing food stress.

    5. Societies with generous or even merely adequate social safety nets will become inundated with climate refugees -- or, if you prefer to call them something else, with the starving & despairing masses from everywhere where such social safety nets are lacking. Employment & education & health functionalities will not be able to cope with the large numbers requiring recourse to resources.

    6. Crime will rise as will social disharmony & even outright strife between groups competing for resources.

    7. Governments will be forced to impose increasing controls on populations or to accept growing levels of anarchy & potentially social breakdown. More nations will become pressure cookers as institutions struggle to define the "appropriate" degree of control, inevitably veering into errors towards both extremes (too much control in some places, not nearly enough in others).

    8. A new wave of migrations will begin, taking families with resources & skills to new areas where they will attempt to create isolationist settlements oriented around "survivalism" principles. Vigilantism and militancy may be promoted by self-serving, self-proclaimed leaders. Asset-rich urban areas will be abandoned to police forces and the aggressively self-serving gangs & mobs they will seek to keep under control. Social breakdown will accelerate as this polarisation intensifies. (Some of this has already begun, in the US, in Russia, in parts of South America & Africa, and elsewhere...)

    9. Competition for paying work will become fierce. It will be harder to get work if you are not prepared to be ruthless about beating any rivals & keeping any job you can. Keeping a job will involve being willing to work for an unreasonable number of hours for a less-than-adequate wage.

    10. More and more people will find life insupportable, literally impossible to endure. Depression, psychosis, sociopathic illnesses and all mental disorders will rise.

    11. Cancers, as well as other diseases, will become more widespread and more lethal even while some medical advances seem to offer hope of improved therapies. Medical expenditures will rise steeply, exacerbating all other forms of stress. Alcoholism and addictions will rise.

    12. A few people will live much longer, healthier lives; most will see their health deteriorate rapidly, and life expectancy will begin to contract at an alarming rate.

    Is this "the end of the world?" No, but it is not any kind of scenario anyone should simply take lying down.

    What is the timeline, Ms or Mr Forefathers? For what I have described above: the coming decade.

    Unless an agreement is signed in Copenhagen, binding or not -- unless some Commitment is Unanimously Achieved, leading to Considerable Effort (even without attaining all the hoped-for targets) -- what I have described above becomes operative for the second decade of the 21st century.

    How do we know this? Because it is Already Under Way. We already have all these phenomena on the scene. Most people just fail to connect the dots, because they are too focused on a few areas of specialisation, or on just one strategic region or another... You have to stop watching TV and start looking at the Big Picture, Planet-wide.

    This is not any kind of private fantasy of mine. This is the real truth about what is happening, right now, on Planet Earth. And the main reason this is happening is because the leaders of the world have been more preoccupied with raking in mountains of money than enforcing basic, sane, clean principles of good, efficient management of all resources.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 00:19am on 13 Dec 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

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

  • 118. At 00:23am on 13 Dec 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    Your Nickname 'coldplay' has been changed back to
    '13253228', since it contravenes the House Rules –

    I have asked twice now for a response why my screen name is unacceprable to Richard Black?

    Will you favour me with a response.

    Richard glad to see you are having a jolly good time campaigning in Copenhagen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 00:52am on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @114

    Co2 lags behind major temperature increases by 200-1000 years. hence anthropogenic co2 is unlikely to be climate driver we have been told it is. hence we are being misled, willfully or through trust of the authoritahs by our wise journalistic truth-warriors. i do not suggest thousands (or even dozens which more accurately describes the IPCCs core researchers) are involved in a conspiracy. a handful set an agenda and create an environment where others who have doubts cannot express them without risking funding. also most scientist are total specialists; they focus on a small part of the climate and their results publiction can become dependent on their usefulness to whomever sets the agenda. its not as far fetched as it sounds and has happened several times before. guess the last 2 most famous example: Nazi Eugenics and Soviet Agronomists.

    the precautionary principle should be very cautiously employed and in light the endless shrill, hysterical news coverage of 'climate change' we should be extra cautious about the precautionary principle!

    @116

    wow you love the wall of text!

    you raise some good points about me not knowing you. all i can go on are the vast tracts of texts you've posted here and they seemed to me to be of the opinion that we are facing the 'climate apocalypse'. a lot of your points are fair but very one sided and you ignore a few worthy points of information:

    1) climate change being caused by increased co2 levels is now a dubious proposition made even more so by the CRU deletion of all the primary data in defiance of FOI requests. it cannot be proven just as surely as it cannot be disproven because all the funds allocated to its study have been focused on finding a connection and they have now deleted the primary, non-value-added data. so we have no proof that reducing co2 will be the solution to solve the 'climate problem' one way or the other. on the otherhand the geological record suggests everything thats happening is pretty normal and not worth destroying and rebuilding the global economy over.

    2) the kind of terrible events that even the IPCC says we should be very cautious about connecting to climate change have always happened. we are far more aware of them now because we have global 24 hours news channels desperate for disasters to tell us about. is the increase due to our increased awareness or a genuine rise in ferocity and frequency of these 'freak' weather events?

    3) you seem to be absolutely certain of almost all your beliefs (i use that word deliberately). can you claim that your certitude is based on science, or your personal faith?

    4) for someone who got a bit upset that i made assumptions about you you make some assumptions about me i don't like! i haven't watched TV (except when i visit my mum or nan) for years. its almost all mindrotting dross. i'd recommend you follow you're own advice, i get news in written form for preference, its easier to not be swept up into the more extreme elements of the 'climate catastrophy' whhen they don't have flashy CG visuals showing polar bears eating each other (which all bear species do sometimes anyway).

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 01:11am on 13 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #111 John Kazer wrote:
    '"has a probability of happening" means just that - a probability. It says nothing about "belief" or likelyhood. '

    You obviously haven't given probability much thought. I'm not sure why you continue on the subject.

    Do you think "a fiddledeedee means just that -- a fiddlededee" explains a fiddlededee?

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 01:17am on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #119 - Tears, the CO2 lagging issue is well known and is fully compatible with climate dynamics as understood today:

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


    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 01:26am on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    the IPCC reports are collaborative efforts covering a huge range of subjects. Do you think the scientific community isn't able to read this and understand the areas of work in which they don't specialise?

    One of the most basic tenets of science is to pick the theory which most simply explains what's going on. To say that there is a cabal of extreme scientists able to control the agenda is over-complex, far fetched and mis-understands how the profession works. The simpler theory is that they each know full well how their reserch fits into the bigger picture.

    The CRU emails you are refering to in terms of deleted data a) do not indicate what you claim and b) over 90% of the CRU data is public - it's still there and is comparable to several other public data sets...

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 01:26am on 13 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Can I ask:

    If pro-AGW believers think the whole world turns on this issue, and that the very future of humankind is at stake and all that, can someone -- please, just ONE intelligent, engaged thinker -- give this a bit of serious thought instead of appealing to the authorities, or the weepy sentimentality of "what we owe our children" or just getting it completely wrong? Has anyone gripped by hysteria given this any real thought at all?

    I'm bored stiff with talking to people who wouldn't know their **se from their **bow about science, yet who are quite ready to pontificate about what the word 'chaos' means, or what the word 'probability' means, and all that.

    (So far, I am authoritatively given to believe that 'chaotic' means "recursive", and 'probability' means "probability".)

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 01:31am on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #120 bowman, you're avoiding the subject. If I need to be clearer on that specific point, probability is a property of a future event. "belief" that it will happen or assumptions about the scale of the probability are differnt things.

    My claim, based on much evidence that you're now avoiding dealing with, is that the probability of climate change occuring is greater than zero. Also, that the impact of this risk occurring is very large. Hence risk management states it would be sensible to do something about mitigating the risk.

    No "belief" needed and no requirement for perfect knowledge about the size of the probability.

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 01:41am on 13 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #124 John Kazer wrote:

    "#120 bowman, you're avoiding the subject. If I need to be clearer on that specific point, probability is a property of a future event."

    "A property of a future event". I'm off to bed now, but I think you need to give this a bit more thought. What sort of property do you have in mind?

    '"belief" that it will happen or assumptions about the scale of the probability are differnt things.'

    I look forward to your explanation -- in the morning.

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 01:41am on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    Chaos and recursion are completely different things, although they can be used together mathmatically. Recursion is used as a standard software engineering technique for repetive action. Chaos equations to build (for example) fractals) may be applied recursively.

    But chaos as a property of complex systems is better described as unpredictable, systematic and bounded behaviour.

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 02:01am on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @ 121

    don't tell me to check links on 'skepticscience'.com (insidiously named) and i won't direct you towards wattsupwiththat.com or the dread climate audit website.

    can i ask what do you think? and i mean that specifically, no appeal to authority or ignorantum or ad hominem, what is your individual opinion!?! do you think that we should simply trust people who we now have credible reasons to doubt?

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 02:07am on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Mr kazer:

    in replying to that one tiny part of my post with a ProAGW cunningly/blatantly misnamed website you ignore this whole chunk of my post:

    'i do not suggest thousands (or even dozens which more accurately describes the IPCCs core researchers) are involved in a conspiracy. a handful set an agenda and create an environment where others who have doubts cannot express them without risking funding. also most scientist are total specialists; they focus on a small part of the climate and their results publiction can become dependent on their usefulness to whomever sets the agenda. its not as far fetched as it sounds and has happened several times before. guess the last 2 most famous example: Nazi Eugenics and Soviet Agronomists.'

    Any thoughts?

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 04:47am on 13 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @John Kazer

    Ah the beautify of a grossly oversimplified hypothesis. Noticed a few things that you've kind of glossed over

    #83 RE:Atmosphere of Venus
    The atmosphere of venus is so thick...probes don't need parachutes to land there. They just sort of sink slowly as they would in the oceans. This despite the atmosphere being 450C (roughly). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere of venus is 500000 and due to the pressures, the spectrum of the gas is GREATLY increased (fattening of the bands) likely pushing it up to being effectively greater than a million times the concentration.

    #79 RE:Models
    The problem is modeling the past tells you nothing about the future. You can see an example of something similar with the proxy reconstruction of temperature. The convergence in the 1900's is an anomaly caused by calibrating the proxies to the conditions we had at the time. The "decline" they had to hide was simply the proxies continuing their fairly chaotic behavior afterward. The convergence is simply the "calibration" forcing a direct correlation to observed temperatures of the calibration period.

    The models, however are cobbled together from LOTS of different unknowns with only one assumption...that CO2 causes warming. After that little concern is given to aerosol forcing and other factors. If you were to require that all models use the same forcings...all but a few would be proven wrong instantly. They use wildly different values for each of their basic parameters. One model might use an aerosol cooling of 50% that of CO2 and thermal inertia is low but assume feedbacks are causing 50% more warming. Another might assume aerosol cooling is weaker and feedbacks are even stronger but that thermal inertia is incredibly high. These models both fit the same curves but describe RADICALLY different worlds. Also, according to the current models MOST of the temperatures and behaviors of the early Holocene optimum are physically impossible.

    CO2 is NOT a significant driver of climate on earth...certainly not during this "recent" (millions of years) ice age. Temperatures soar while CO2 lags behind... then temperatures plunge while CO2 lags even longer. You appear to have TRIED to apply Occam's Razor to CO2 but Occam's razor really applies to something that is largely solved by the simpler model. The climate system doesn't show behaviors that are adequately explained by CO2. If you'll do some checking however, you'll find that most of the big fluctuations (as well as the hair-trigger nature of the glacial period) are better explained by surface albedo...with the tiny fluctuations we experience now simply being...well, noise.

    Looking at surface albedo during the last glacial maximum http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png and then look at this comparison of albedo for various things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albedo-e_hg.svg you will find that there's WAY more albedo available than you probably though. Those HUGE deserts reflect 2-3 times the amount of sunlight that forest and grassland do. The ice obviously reflects huge amounts of sunlight. The HUGE increases in sea ice increase albedo (extending to within less than 50 degrees of the equator). Also, the oceans recede giving a higher percentage of land (also an albedo feedback)

    All these albedo changes work out (very roughly) to something over 10%. Apparently the earth is incredibly insensitive, warming/cooling less than 1C for every 1% percent change in the energy budget. Of cousre that was with extremely high albedo feedback that isn't possible now...and this explains the relative stability of the interglacial periods. The spike of the interglacials is probably the short burst of activity across africa followed by a slow (and perfectly natural) resuming of desert conditions.

    So anyway, believe what you will, but the actual temperature record (fudged that it is) and overall behavior of the climate system do not in any way support high sensitivity. The interglacials appear to be locked down pretty well in a temperature range in which almost all of the feedbacks turn negative. That's of course how all high feedback systems work...they spend their time either fluctuating wildly...or locked at the high/low ends of their spectrum of behavior where feedbacks fall to low enough levels to allow stability.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 05:37am on 13 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    Oh! I say! What?

    Is this CLIMATEGATE FINALLY come to bite auntie beeb where it hurts?

    You could go and check out the comments on this site about CARBON CRETIT/TAX SCAM THINGS ARE UNFOLDING BEFORE OUR EYES!

    http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-credit-trading-fraud.html#socialcomments

    Also, may I advise that instead of watching algores inconven...blahblah, WATCH SOUTH PARK! MANBEARPIG!- here is a hint of what you are missing!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udASi1qTqaQ

    MORE TRUTH in there than the beeb have been blowing out for a while.

    Welcome to PerkWorld.CON.YUK and our FREE WINTER BASH AT Ho'pe2GainKen Cop 14.5℃ Here to con you that 'breathing is Bad M'K?' 'Carbon Tax is Good M'K?'
    Carbon Credits are the Banksters 'New' Derivatives and will crash and burn.

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 06:06am on 13 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re poitsplace:

    Climate models have been written for decades. They have all found high climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2. The important question is this:

    How is it that climate models show high climate sensitivity?

    I can only think of three possible answers, but two are implausible.

    1. The scientists have violated physics in their models to achieve high climate sensitivity

    The conspiracy of fraud required is implausible. As mentioned above climate models have been written for decades and by different teams from around the world.

    2. High climate sensitivity is just due to the assumptions of the scientists

    Physics constrains climate models, but not precisely. There's a range of wriggle room in some areas where uncertainty is high. Different scientists can justifiably pick different values from the ranges. Perhaps they've only picked values that result in high climate sensitivity? This is implausible. There's no way to prevent someone from choosing other values. This also applies to #1. Someone could demonstrate low climate sensitivity in both cases if it were possible.

    3. High climate sensitivity is caused by physical constraints

    There are a lot of things that cannot be shown with a climate model without violating physics. For example no amount of fudging and fiddling within the constraints of physics is going to show Earth's average surface temperature as hotter than the Sun. To get such a result out of a climate model one would have to violate physics.

    This is the only plausible explaination for why all models consistently show high climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2. It is simply that physics constrains the model in a way that leads to this. In other words there is no leeway within physics as we know it to achieve low climate sensitivity.

    And so this is where the main thrust of AGW comes from. The evidence from current physics is that climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2 is high.

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 06:13am on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Mr Black:

    Are you aware that you are what is known as an 'informational bottleneck'?

    Information channeled to a select few (yourself included) is then spread to many thousands or even (if you're lucky or scary enough) millions.

    A lot of those people depend upon the impartiality of yourself and the institution that supports you because they simply do not have time to investigate the facts themselves.

    They trust you.

    I believe you can redeem yourself and the institution of the BBC which i've loved since i was a kid.

    Night night, sleep tight,

    TOOF

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 07:56am on 13 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @infinity

    Yep, your implausible explanation is actually the only plausible answer. The reason it's actually the most plausible is simple, models cannot predict climate. You simply cannot model a system you do not understand. Again, this is why they IMMEDIATELY failed. You remember that prediction that hurricanes would become more powerful and more frequent??? That's a major component of the climate and instead of rising sharply, the numbers of hurricanes CRASHED to near record lows.

    Did you know that the models you're so attached to don't even show that Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or North Atlantic Oscillation? That's right, they were only discovered as the models were being made or after. Your precious models actually ASSUME that all of the changes caused by the CYCLIC PDO, AMO and NAO are caused by mankind! God knows what horribly flawed values they had to plug into the models to fit the temperature curves caused MOSTLY by those systems.

    Now there is LOTS of wiggle room in the models' parameters and numerous imagined "forcings" from all kinds of development, desertification, plant growth, etc...but every natural parameter they get wrong results in more and more being dumped on mankind. Models can only be validated through an interactive process. If you don't get to model LOTS of different conditions of your own choosing, you have no idea what parts you got right.

    Hindcasting is of little help...sort of like giving someone the exact same multiple choice test over and over again. You can't tell if they're learning more or just memorizing the answers. I mean look a what happened with tree-ring proxies. They force-fit the proxies to the early 1900's temperature range correlations and the proxies immediately diverged (both before and after the calibration period).

    Now, funny thing (after all this rambling) if you'll actually go LOOKING for papers you'll find that the bulk actually say forcings are low to negative. Of course, even most of those aren't conclusive. In reality there is only ONE way to determine the changes to earth's radiation balance...from space. Don't you think its odd that they didn't launch a satellite for spectral analysis FIRST rather than invest even more money in all this other garbage? We FINALLY have one but of course it shows negative feedback as should have been expected.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 08:30am on 13 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @infinity #131

    Climate models have been written for decades. They have all found high climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2.

    But real world observation science shows climate sensitivity to be low

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 08:37am on 13 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Gavin Schmidt, NASA Climate Modeller

    For all you people who think computer models can predict the climate, here is a quote from Gavin Schmidt:

    You take all the climate models, which give you numbers between three and five, and you get a result that is very close to four. Obviously, it's not pure mathematics. It's physics, it's approximations, it involves empirical estimates.. But it's very odd that the average of all the models is better than any one individual model.

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 09:03am on 13 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    On the hypocracy of Trevor Davis, VC of University of East Anglia, who complained about the use of leaked CRU emails and documents:

    In email 0925823304.txt , Trevor Davies wrote to Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Mike Hulme, Jean Palutikoff and Mick Kelly.....

    I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the research councils’ thinking. I will get a copy over to CRU today. Please keep this document within the CRU5, since it may compromise the source. NERC and EPSRC are signed up. ESRC are not yet. Given the EPSRC stake, it will certainly be be useful to get RAL etc involved. The funding might be 2million per year. That might imply that the Councils favour multi-site, clusters, etc, but they stress they have no preconceptions.


    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/12/trevor-davies-uea-on-leaked-documents-then-and-now/

    So it's ok for the VC of UEA to use leaked documents, but not sceptics? Double standards?


    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 09:09am on 13 Dec 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    The most interesting observation made in this latest batch of blogs is about raw materials. I did not realise that certain countries were no longer exporting particular raw materials needed for the development of new technologies.

    We have always tended to take it for granted that a new technology can be developed easily once the prototypes have been tested and the money invested. It changes everything when raw materials are no longer traded as freely as before. I believe it is a genuine cause for concern, as is massive imports of scrap metal by some countries. What is the purpose of the massive imports of what we ignorantly throw away?

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 09:38am on 13 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    120. At 01:11am on 13 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    '-- a fiddlededee" explains a fiddlededee?'

    Sir, -- a fiddlededee is the name of the 'Climate Study Course' at the CRU!

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 09:45am on 13 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    It is good to hear Clive James once again using his eminence to bring the public's attention to the failures of the mainstream media (in his current "A Point of View", BBC Radio 4.)

    It is really quite shocking that the Daily Telegraph is so willing to toe the Guardian's line, that the Conservatives are so willing to toe the Labour Party line, and so on. As far as I'm concerned, Cameron's a zero!

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 09:47am on 13 Dec 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Once a Copenhagen deal has been made are carbon trading becomes normal business, gamesmanship rules will also change. The game will be, how do we get ourselves as many carbon credits as possible? How can we prevent others from getting more carbon credits? Once carbon becomes money, all of the nasty games played with money will transfer to carbon trading to become carbon bubbles, carbon inflation, carbon tax, carbon monopoly, carbon crash etc etc.

    PS. these are just my thoughts as I have absolutely no authority in this matter at all so don't take any notice if you want peer reviewed info.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 09:48am on 13 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Have you read the Daily Mails report on ClimateGate?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 09:50am on 13 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #124 JohnKazer wrote:

    "probability is a property of a future event."

    OK, I'm waiting for some explanation of this. What sort of property? Do you really mean to say a "future" event (i.e. one that will actually happen), or a merely potential event (i.e. one we are wondering about, whether it will or will not actually happen)?

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 09:51am on 13 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    116. At 00:16am on 13 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    ''Let me clue you in a bit on what I think would happen in the absence of an agreement to be signed in Copenhagen:''

    Erm, no, let me CLUE YOU UP!

    This is what will happen if no 'DEAL' made in Ho'pe2GainKen™

    1) Al Gore (He of ManBearPig and Blood and Gore INFAMY - Blood & Gore is the nickname of HIS CARBON TAX/CREDIDT COMPANY NO LESS!) Will NOT MAKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

    2) China will NOT have their 'One Child' Policy introduced Worldwide.

    3) The Sun will keep Shining.

    4) Everyone will go about their day.

    WAKE UP TO SEE WHAT'S TRANSPIRING IN Ho'pe2GainKen™ PerkWorld.CON.YUK™ by those corrupt political leaders that 'SO CARE FOR YOUR BENEFIT' as the man said 'Ever felt like you've been had'?

    You may wish to ponder over what a REAL weatherman has to say on the subject?
    http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

    n.b. No Children were abused nor any Polar Bears killed in preparation of this work

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 09:59am on 13 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    108. At 10:08pm on 12 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Yip, and one of his finest works was 'In Praise of Idleness'

    You'll find it here
    http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 11:00am on 13 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @ bowmanthebard #53
    It’s interesting to read the posts of deniers as well. Not only do they not pay attention to the programme to which they claimed to have listened, they can’t make reasoned assessments either.

    Every panel member? On the panel of four on “Any Questions” on R.4 was Dr. Ben Goldacre, research fellow at the Institute of Psychiatry, researcher at the University of Milan, medical doctor and writer of the weekly ‘Bad Science’ column in The Guardian. Of course, psychiatry and neuroscience is not climatology, but it says a lot about deniers listening skills (and no doubt their reading skills) showing they block out what they don’t want to hear, the inconvenient truth.

    None of them is well enough educated to make a judgement? You don’t need to be a scientist to judge that the sheer volume of evidence endorsed by so many of the world’s national scientific academies and backed by tens of thousands of scientists, is overwhelming compared to the few denier claims that exist. A Grade C in GCSE Maths would suffice. Hence the term, overwhelming. However, in addition to Dr Ben Goldacre’s qualifications as above, I think you’ll find David Laws (LibDem) has a double first in Economics, Shaun Woodward (Lab) studied English at Cambridge and Harvard, and Theresa May (Con) obtained an MA in Geography at Oxford.

    ”If they're scientifically illiterate by their own admission, how would they have a clue about how good the science is or how overwhelming the evidence is? -- None of them is well enough educated to make a judgement, surely?”

    How do you think politics within a democracy works then?

    Three major failings contained in one short comment. Well done!

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 11:16am on 13 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @John Kazer #59
    The problem with the US is that they don't have a great record when it comes to international treaties and conventions: The Cluster Bomb Treaty,
    The Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court Treaty, UN Law of the Sea Convention, the Convention on Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, The Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the Land Mine Treaty. These conventions are OK to bash other countries over the head with, but US (and Somalia) can manage without them.


    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 11:27am on 13 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    Maybe warmists could share their obvious Omniscient Narrative on this?

    1) We Are Change Colorado @ Al Gore Book Signing – Activist Rips Up Al’s Book in Front of His Face – BECAUSE OF THE VAST SUMS HE WILL EARN FROM CARBON CREDIT.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXHDkcy9Wdo

    here is the article he is talking about at the end in the New York Times.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXHDkcy9Wdo

    2) European fraudsters steal $7B in carbon credit scam – n.b. LOOK AT THE COMMENTS
    http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-credit-trading-fraud.html#socialcomments

    3) John Coleman Founder of the Weather Channel with 55 years in the industry.
    http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

    4)The real inconvenient truth – The whole world needs to adopt China’s one-child policy – n.b. LOOK AT THE COMMENTS
    http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

    5) How the ‘ipcc’ deals with debate (!?) – Stephen Schneider snaps at Journalist for asking about the Leaked Emails
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myI7Pj9FLFc

    6) How Al Gore deals with dissent on his ManBearPig ‘Theory’, you know? A question about whether he has cleared up the NINE (9) BLATANT UNTRUTHS ( FOUND BY A HIGH COURT JUDGE!) In his wee movie ?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjFTieRouUk

    7) With the EPA Making CO2 a DANGER TO HUMAN HEALTH, will we all now have to wear Aqua Lungs with one canister of Oxygen (Provided by MONSANTO of course!) and one to measure the CO2 WE BREATHE OUT in order to TAX US ACCORDINGLY?

    As a Trooper said ‘There’s a Mann up Penn State, waiting to see if he’s going to the State Pen after throwing his Colleague Prof Jones ‘Under the Bus’! – and I believe there are more on the way!

    n.b. No Children were abused nor any Polar Bears Killed preparing this piece

    Pray tell?

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 11:38am on 13 Dec 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/12/bbc_news_coverage_of_copenhage.html

    I liked this bit:

    Our job in the BBC newsroom has been to report on the build-up to the summit and to prepare our audiences to make sense of whatever happens. Now we aim to interpret the various negotiating positions and - if a treaty is agreed - to judge what it means for all of us.

    I await, with interest how I am... 'prepared'. I am sure in the 'correct' manner.

    But judging what the detail of where all this dosh is going, to do what and to what measureable enviROI as opposed to any old thing painted green that ticks a box... will be welcome.

    Interesting discussion on relative values of some wInd projects refers:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/12/why_micro_wind_turbines_dont.html

    I've moved on a bit you see. The money is going to be sourced, and spent. I just hope it will be wisely and well. And that we will be kept abreast of this with skill, honesty and objectivity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 11:39am on 13 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

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

  • 150. At 12:06pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #136 - there's quite a difference between a "leak", which politicians and journo's deal in all the time, and potentially stolen information.

    #129 - so why is it that Venus is hotter than Mercury, despite being further from the sun? What you're saying is that this is the case even tho CO2 is less than 97% of the atmosphere?

    #142 - bowman, you're getting off topic - what did you think about the data and the model results? And in any case, you're deliberately misunderstanding what I'm trying to say - yes, clearly probablility is linked to a potential future event. Unless you prove the future event is impossible, it will always have some measure of probability of occurring.

    #137 - yes absolutely, there are at least 2 other reasons for wanting to change our energy system - security of supply and making sure stuff doesn't run out. Anyone considered the reliability (and lack of public availability) of national oil reserve data?

    #135 - why is it odd that an average is better than an individual model? surely that's what you'd expect?! Just normal statistics...

    #134 - it does? Is it just conincidence that we have just had the warmest decade on record at the same time as the highest co2 levels for quite a while? Might be... but it's certainly a starting point in gathering data on sensitivity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 12:10pm on 13 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    WHAT WHAT WHAT!!!???

    NEW CARBON TRADING COMPANY SET UP IN LONDON

    ”The Carbon Ratings Agency, run by the IdeaCarbon group of which Lord Stern is vice-chairman, said it would offer investors a guide to the quality of credits and the likelihood that they would be delivered. Sellers of carbon credits would have to pay to have their products rated, while buyers would also pay to gain access to the ratings.”
    http://www.domain-b.com/environment/20080626_carbon_credits.html

    IS IT THEN ANY WONDER HE IS ON THE SIDE OF THE OF ‘CLIMATE COOLING/WARMING/CHANGE’?

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 12:26pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #146 - Yes, there is a risk that international treaties are used as a power tool. However, I think that in this case it's quite different - witness the role that China, Brazil and several others are playing.

    Also, there is a large body of NGO and academic work on the social justice aspect of climate change. Not least at UEA...

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 12:30pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #151 - but he did the research then joined a company - isn't that how business works?!

    The quality of the carbon trading system is a separate issue from the problem it's trying to address.

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 12:49pm on 13 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @John Kazer #150

    #135 - why is it odd that an average is better than an individual model? surely that's what you'd expect?! Just normal statistics...

    Exactly - it's statistics that are making predictions about future climate not science

    #134 - it does? Is it just conincidence that we have just had the warmest decade on record at the same time as the highest co2 levels for quite a while? Might be... but it's certainly a starting point in gathering data on sensitivity.

    But recent observational science tells us that climate sensitivity is low not high, even though CO2 is high, so how does your statement sit with observational science?


    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 1:04pm on 13 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #150 John Kazer wrote:

    "bowman, you're getting off topic - what did you think about the data and the model results?"

    Which model, where? I remind you I'm looking for a single example of a climate computer model that successfully predicted something.

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 1:09pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #154 - But statistics is just a way of understanding the relative likelihood of some science being true/correct. You make a false distinction between statistics and science and misunderstand scientific certainty.

    As I posted earlier, this process is much the same as regular risk analysis. So the fundamental thing we disagree on is the level of risk we attribute to climate change happening (leaving aside the question about scientific absolutism and certainty).

    Therefore, it seems to me that what you need to do is demonstrate to at least the same degree of certainty as per previous IPCC report that actually climate change is not likely to happen?

    What is your "recent observational science"? Is this observations of polar freezing, glacial formation, increased ocean alkalinity?

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 1:18pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #155 - yes, that's what the diagram I referred to in #86 is showing... they start a model at 1000 AD or somesuch, using data leading up to that point then run it until today. The graph shows the results compared to the real data between then and now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 1:23pm on 13 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    153. At 12:30pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    This man is an economist! Nae mare, nae less... The only research he will have done is 'Can 'WE' make a Buck'? and it is NOT the Royal We he's on about.

    See my 147 entry and follow the money sonny.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 1:24pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #140 - sensiblegrannie, yes, the quality and reliability of carbon credits is a tricky area. it's one reason why some prefer the idea of a carbon tax (e.g. on fuel) - but of course that's hard to do internationally (some countries would have lower taxes and be more competitive).

    the main way to tackle the issue is third-party (independent) validation of the credits generated and of your allowances. but it's a bit like the early days of currency trading and financial accounting - you only work out how to do it properly by trying...

    which is also why the price of carbon credits is much lower than the equivalent price of oil - carbon credits won't have a bigger impact on the price of energy than oil until the system is more robust.

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 1:27pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #158 - Follow the money? Hmm, size of oil industry vs size of renewable energy and carbon trading industry... If I or Lord Stern wanted to make cash, we would be investing in oil companies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 1:33pm on 13 Dec 2009, D_H_Wilko wrote:

    I recommend a youtube search for 'climategate'. Look out for Glenn Beck from the spoof news channel Fox news. He's hilarious. A cross between Alan partridge and Rick from 'The Young ones'. There's also a sketch where a fox news presenter takes the University of east anglia takes the emails completely out of context. Its so obvious.

    When is a trick not a trick? When its a technique. I think they were using tree ring data to fill in gaps in historical data. Perhaps the Hacker isn't a Hero. Just a criminal.

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 1:33pm on 13 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Listened to Clive James on ‘A point of view’ on Radio 4 this morning. I think all the hedonism has gone to his head. Could be all that romping in swimming pools at the Playboy mansion.

    He attacked an ‘unspecified’ ‘Guru’ (We know he meant George Monbiot). He admits he has no idea about maths or science and yet he is firmly in the ‘sceptic’ camp and is using his slot on Radio 4 to argue the case.

    I, therefore, respectfully suggest that the BBC give a ten minute slot to George Monbiot to put the scientific AGW case. This will ensure balance.

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 1:46pm on 13 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @John Kazer #156

    Sorry John, i don't think taking 20 models, all of which give the wrong answer, and then averaging them can possibly give the "right answer"

    Recent observational evidence id the Lindzen and Choi 2009 paper, but Idso has also empirical evidence published to show low cliamte sensitivity. To my knowledge, there is no empirical evidence to show high sensitivity


    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 1:47pm on 13 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Unbrainwashed says, among other things-

    ‘.....See my 147 entry and follow the money sonny.....’

    Please try to write with more gravitas, otherwise you only sound ridiculous and unconvincing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 1:54pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Morning all,

    Richard Black:

    are we to take it that nothing of note occured yesterday or something? post some stuff man, its what we pay you for!

    ' price of carbon credits is much lower than the equivalent price of oil - ' and based on nothing except the imaginations of some kindly industrialists.

    @160

    you jest surely? Big Fossil Fuel were publicly humiliated (and persecuted the poor oilmen) for spending a few hundred grand on the 'denialist' agenda whereas around 50 billion has been spent on the proAGW lot since the 80's. have you noticed how shell, BP exxon are all constantly pimping their green credentials?

    if you thought the money spent thus far on 'Big Green' was a lot check out the projected earnings of the chicago climate exchanges stakeholders. carbon credits=tax on life.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 1:57pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

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

  • 167. At 1:58pm on 13 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #162 thinkforyourself wrote:

    "I, therefore, respectfully suggest that the BBC give a ten minute slot to George Monbiot to put the scientific AGW case. This will ensure balance."

    I for one would love to hear Monbiot trying to put a "scientific" case. Unlike Clive James, he tries to give the impression that he has a training in science, but he clearly doesn't.

    There is a significant difference in temperament between the two men that may reflect a wider difference between AGWs and sceptics. I don't remember Monbiot ever saying anything self-effacing or anything that threatens to undermine his image as an "educated" man. In fact like many academics he wears his learning like a leaden suit, and tends to announce his own credentials rather than playing them down.

    Clive James may not have a formal training in science, but he does have an unusual familiarity with recent philosophy for a broadcaster, and seems to have read bits of Wittgensetein's later writings -- which requires stamina, if not a training in science!

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 2:01pm on 13 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #157 John Kazer wrote:

    "they start a model at 1000 AD or somesuch, using data leading up to that point then run it until today. The graph shows the results compared to the real data between then and now."

    Where's the prediction?

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 2:03pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #163 - Mango, I chose those 3 counter-examples deliberately, because there is plenty of evidence that polar ice is melting like it hasn't for a very long time, glaciers are retreating ditto and ocean acidification is killing coral reefs that have existed for 10's of thousands of years.

    So the climate, oceans and atmosphere are reacting with high sensitivity to something... if not CO2 then what?!

    #165 - 50 billion in 25 years? Wow, on an annual basis that's less than one year BP profits...

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 2:13pm on 13 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    164. At 1:47pm on 13 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    That's right! Just you criticise the 'vehicle' and forget about the 'Passengers'

    SO. I'll try again! WOULD YOU like to share your obvious Omniscient Narrative on these very important matters?

    I'd say that you cannot and are running away just like ManBearPig (Al Blood &Gore!) does when confronted.

    n.b. No Children were abused nor any Polar Bears Killed preparing this piece

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 2:21pm on 13 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Post 166 says:-

    ‘.....monbiot is a tool who will hopefully suffer a massive breakdown when...’

    BBC moderators: I respectfully ask that you prevent this bully from posting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 2:37pm on 13 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    164. At 1:47pm on 13 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Still waiting...... tick tock

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 2:42pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    did i mean tool as in 'device' or 'mouthpiece' or did i mean it the slang definition you seem to have assumed? i'm no bully sir. i will not be silenced on this forum again as i have been previously, shouted down or insulted by ++good proAGW peeps.

    How much of all the oil companies annual profits are then taken by the government as tax? You ignore my point: 'denialists' don't and never have gotten vast government/ngo support to 'communicate' their side of the debate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 2:45pm on 13 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #164 thinkforyourself wrote:

    "Please try to write with more gravitas, otherwise you only sound ridiculous and unconvincing."

    Please try to write with more frivolity, if you want to sound less pompous and hand-wringing!

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 3:02pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @ 171

    thinking about it: is it fair to say you've just called for me to be censored despite the fact that evidently the pre-emptive moderators had no problem with my post?

    its always the same with you proAGW folks.

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 3:16pm on 13 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Seem to have missed something whilst away. Looks like peeps are trying to force the rubbish again. So thinkforyourself and the others a little extract from that close knit group of scientists having friendly falling outs.

    The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a
    lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of
    his own work, where that work is the critical core of the
    chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core
    assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger
    work - in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying
    technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility
    of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship
    of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta's work, which is,
    of course, the majority of such analyses.

    Got a lot more from the group, I found that whilst firming up who the leaker of said emails are. The mods are not going to let me post it, so:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/13/was-briffa-the-mole.html

    Possibly?

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 3:16pm on 13 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    175. At 3:02pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Yip! Scurried of to be in a comfort zone with 'Beeg Al' 'I INVENTED THE INTERNET' Gore

    174. I thank you Sir!

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 3:33pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @ 161

    I'll ignore your strawman ad hominem (i'm not a fan of mr beck either, however if i was to try and post my opinion of maddow it would be modded) and focus on this:

    'When is a trick not a trick? When its a technique. I think they were using tree ring data to fill in gaps in historical data. Perhaps the Hacker isn't a Hero. Just a criminal.'

    Actually they used instrumental temperatures after 1960 in one line and after 1980 on another to conceal the fact that the proxie (not instrumental) temperatures differed quite considerably from observed (instrumental) temperatures. this simple fact throws into question the entire usefulness of the treering proxie data.

    a good explanation of the 'trick', which was initially misunderstood by the skeptics (they are not specifially hiding a decline in temperatures but a divergence between the modeled data and reality, they are hiding the fact that their models don't work:

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 3:38pm on 13 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #154
    “Exactly - it's statistics that are making predictions about future climate not science.”

    Unfortunately, you’re wrong. The strongest evidence for global warming comes from the science of physics and chemistry, and not from the statistical records of past temperatures. I can understand why you make that claim if you’re unfamiliar with the subject; mainstream media prefer to show temperature graphs and projections because it’s easily understood by the audience they serve: the layman (not to mention the journalists themselves). The physics and chemistry is quite complex, as well as dull; graphs can be understood by everyone. Not a criticism, just an explanation of the limitations of the media.

    Laboratory experiments identified the heat-trapping properties of gases such as carbon dioxide way back. Many scientists made the connection that clouds of carbon dioxide going up into the atmosphere might influence earth temperatures. Before WWII, physicists were experimenting with the absorption properties of gases high up in the atmosphere. Previously, experiments had been conducted at ground level. Research into the chemistry of oceans had showed the role they played with carbon dioxide. The basic science was fairly clear at that stage, it was the classic ‘to what extent’ issue that was not known, but WWII and its aftermath interrupted, redirected and spoiled the possibility of further experimentations. None of this science relied on the climate statistics of the past or on predictions for the future. It was just chemistry and physics. Oceanic Chemistry and Atmospheric Physics, to be precise. The climate statistics and subsequent modelling came much later, so you can put your myth that the whole thing is based on statistical predictions to bed. But I’m sure if you don’t keep repeating it, others will.

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 3:40pm on 13 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    bowmanthebard
    As I pointed out in #145, you displayed an inability to listen to a simple radio programme. What hope do you have of comprehending anything more?

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 3:44pm on 13 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #164 John Kazer:

    1) Please show your source for ocean acidification please, and how it could possibly happen.

    2) Please show that ice sheets and glaciers are melting 2like it hasn't for a very long time".

    Please consider some science when you respond, it will speak volumes

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 3:46pm on 13 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re Poitsplace:

    "Yep, your implausible explanation is actually the only plausible answer. The reason it's actually the most plausible is simple, models cannot predict climate."

    So models all show high climate sensitivity because models cannot predict climate? Me thinks you need a lesson in logic.

    Can you please answer the question: Why do all models show high climate sensitivity?

    Don't dodge it again please. The answer has nothing to do with what models show and don't show or whether they are wrong or right, so don't even try to divert the subject this way.

    "if you'll actually go LOOKING for papers you'll find that the bulk actually say forcings are low to negative"

    Nonsense. Why do you even bother making stuff like this up? You can't possibly think you'll trick me with such an elementary falsehood.

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 3:50pm on 13 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #145 GeeDeeSea wrote:

    "research fellow at the Institute of Psychiatry, researcher at the University of Milan, medical doctor and writer of the weekly ‘Bad Science’ column in The Guardian."

    Nope -- that doesn't cut it for me. Medical doctors, psychiatrists and psychology seem just like climatology to me. Appeals to authority, inductivism, no decent theories and no testing.

    That "Bad Scince" column is hopeless, in my view.

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 3:52pm on 13 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    Clive James provides an amusing take on current affairs. He's lambasted everything over the years in order to entertain. Fun, but not to be taken seriously, as facts and contexts rarely get in his way when he sees the opportunity to induce a smile. That's what he gets paid for. The issues surrounding global warming have been covered in the media for years. I remember reading pieces in the early 90's, as well as during the years preceding Kyoto. Its just that some people preferred to skip over it, presumably in the belief it didn't or wouldn't affect them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 4:02pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    ' The answer has nothing to do with what models show and don't show or whether they are wrong or right, so don't even try to divert the subject this way.'

    So you don't care whether the models are right or wrong? But if they are wrong then any conclusions drawn from them are liable to be less that reliable. Is it possible to discuss elements of the models without your permission?

    Mr Infinity, you remind me of an old phrase: An open mind is a fortress with gates unbarred.

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 4:10pm on 13 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    bowmanthebard
    It doesn't need to "cut it for you." Not surprisingly, I notice you avoided the question: How do you think politics within a democracy works then? An inconvenient question, no doubt.

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 4:13pm on 13 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    On the subject of Glaciers..... have any of you seen this bbc report regarding the 'Mistake'?

    Quote
    'J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

    He is astonished they "misread 2350 as 2035". The authors deny the claims.

    Leading glaciologists say the report has caused confusion and "a catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology". '

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8387737.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 4:24pm on 13 Dec 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    "The minimum is a 25% cut from 1990 levels by 2020."

    They can make any demand they like, agree to any concessions they like, it won't matter. Nothing of the sort could be done. Not by any stretch of the imagination of what is possible or likely to be possible in such a short time. To reduce CO2 output to 25% below 1990 levels, the population of the world would have to be reduced by 25% of 1990 levels and we'd have to all go back to living at the same standard of living as in 1990. That means China and India too. They'll never do it. Gains from improvements in efficiency of machines and so called green energy sources will be more than offset by losses of non CO2 energy sources, namely the shutdown and decommissioning of nuclear power plants in the US that will be reaching the end of their useful lives. What's more, as China continues to bring on two coal fired power plants a week as it has for the longest time, the rest of the world would have to shut two down just to stay even with where we are now. That won't happen either. Already there are projected severe power shortages in some areas such as in Southern California. Political pressure to increase, not decrease electrical energy output will be far stronger when people don't have the use of their air conditioners when the temperature is over 95 degees Farenheit or the use of their computers due to planned and unplanned outages. They won't take kindly to factories being shut down and jobs being lost because there isn't enough power available from utilities to power them. Even hydroelectric power is becoming unreliable as rainfall to refill lakes that supply the turbines in dams is often in short supply now. Whatever they promise in Copenhagen, it will be as big a pipe dream as Kyoto was. It won't happen and there will be political hell to pay at home for anyone who tries to make it happen once the impact starts to hit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 4:24pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    the glacier 'mistake' was almost as discreetly reported as this:

    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383

    'NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events. '

    Any thoughts Mr Black?

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 4:30pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #174 - Lol bowman ;-)

    #168 - but let yourself down with this one. This graph is the core of the issue - it is the prediction. As the hockey-stick shows, AGW is evident in the last few years, the models follow it and therefore the prediction is future warming...

    #181 - Kim, have at look here for ocean acidification:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

    In terms of ice-cap and glacier melting, the news is all over the place...

    #127 - Tears, you're asking for my opinion. I've given it - it's based on the scientific evidence so I can't give the opinion without showing you why I hold it. If I had no evidence for the opinion, it would be a belief and therefore I could say anything...

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 4:33pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #187, yes there may have been a mistake but that's not to say the shrinkage isn't happening...

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 4:45pm on 13 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Survival of Tibetan Glaciers
    By James Hansen — December 2009

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_14/
    --------------------

    "...coal emissions must be phased out over the next 20 years, and unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands and oil shale, must remain undeveloped. Combined with improved agricultural and forestry practices and reduction of methane and black soot emissions, these actions would avoid demise of the Tibetan glaciers.

    Not coincidentally, these policy actions are the same as those required to stabilize Earth's energy balance and keep the climate near the Holocene climate range in which civilization developed. The question is whether the global community can exercise the free will to limit fossil fuel emissions and move to clean energies of the future — or is it inevitable that all fossil fuels will be burned?"
    - James Hansen
    --------------

    The excerpt above sums up the situation on climate change and at Copenhagen nicely I think.

    Here also is a link to an article relating to the melting of the world's high altitude low latitude mountain glaciers (with excerpt):

    "Recent changes in freezing level heights in the Tropics with implications for the deglacierization of high mountain regions"

    "The height of the freezing level in the tropical atmosphere (the free air 0°C isotherm) has increased across most of the region, particularly in the outer Tropics. In the tropical Andes, south of the Equator, high elevation surface temperatures and upper air data show a similar trend in temperature, of ∼0.1°C/decade over the last 50 years."

    http://europa.agu.org:8005/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl0917/2009GL037712/2009GL037712.xml&t=10.1029/2009GL037712#similar
    ------------------------

    - Manysummits -


    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 4:46pm on 13 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @John Kazer #169

    there is plenty of evidence that polar ice is melting like it hasn't for a very long time, glaciers are retreating ditto and ocean acidification is killing coral reefs that have existed for 10's of thousands of years.

    John, I totally agree there is plenty of evidence to show ice is melting, but there is not one single shred of evidence to show CO2 caused the melting

    @GeeDeeSea #179

    MangoChutneyUKOK #154
    “Exactly - it's statistics that are making predictions about future climate not science.”

    Unfortunately, you’re wrong. The strongest evidence for global warming comes from the science of physics and chemistry, and not from the statistical records of past temperatures.


    You're taking my comment out of context, which was in reply to John's comment on computer modeling. Now we all know the computer models are based on physics and chemistry, but the IPCC confidently predict (based on computer climate models) that AGW will have a unique signature. It's right there in AR4 and has been since the original report, but after 2 decades of searching for the unique AGW signature, they have still found it. Not even close. What does that tell you about computer climate models?

    Laboratory experiments identified the heat-trapping properties of gases such as carbon dioxide way back.

    Again, we all know about the lab experiments, but the atmosphere is not a lab and the lab experiment contains 100% CO2 not 0.038% CO2. If you took a container with the correct mix of gases as the pre-industrial atmosphere and added an additional 0.010% CO2, do you think the rise in temperature would be significant in the "oh, feel the warmth" effect rather than a "define significant" posture? If you have real evidence to show that CO2 is capable of raising temperature significantly, please post links

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 5:10pm on 13 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @tears of our fathers #189
    (@Richard Black)

    I am a little disappointed in your lack of reference to America. Your source article makes it quite clear that the 1934 maximum applies to United States temperatures.

    "My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling."

    and

    "The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge."

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 5:11pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #189 - Well, I saw this comment on the Watts discussion:

    Posted by: brian kelly | August 27, 2007 11:32 PM

    You are deeply confused here. The data you are citing is temperature CHANGE data - not temperature data. If you see a large positive number, that means that that year was warmer than the previous year. You need to integrate the data to see relative temperature. (For each data point, create a running total and plot that.) Do this and you will see that the 30s were some of the coldest years in the data set. You will also see that since around 1990, every successive year is warmer than any other year in this data set. You are misrepresenting the data and spreading misinformation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 5:11pm on 13 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @tears of our forefathers #189

    I expect you were trembling with excitement over your discovery. Unfortunately, the source you cite is the dataset for the USA only, not the world. Furthermore, it is only a dataset for surface air temperatures. You deniers and your sources really are quite desperate. The deniers error was pointed out to the DailyTech when this 'revelation' was made a couple of years back. I wonder why they still haven't corrected their website after more than two years.

    Sorry to disappoint you. I expect you feel quite foolish now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 5:22pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #193 - Mango, we know that CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming because the physics and chemistry say it does. To claim otherwise is to deny basic scientific knowledge. There are many places that describe what's going on, why not start here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

    As I said in #190, the models match the data and make a prediction of future warming due to AGW.

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 5:26pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    trembled?

    foolish?

    nope?

    wow that post earned me a buch of ad hominems though didn't it?

    thanks for the correction though. still, did they ever announce it publicly or did they alter the data 'discreetly'? what other data has had to be 'discreetly' altered?

    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 5:33pm on 13 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    191. At 4:33pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #187, yes there may have been a mistake but that's not to say the shrinkage isn't happening...

    Ho ho ho! I love how you say 'there MAY' Ho ho ho!

    Didn't you read the rest?
    'Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and "misread 2350 as 2035".

    "I do suggest that the glaciological community might consider advising the IPCC about ways to avoid such egregious errors as the 2035 versus 2350 confusion in the future," says Mr Cogley.

    He said the error might also have its origins in a 1999 news report on retreating glaciers in the New Scientist magazine.

    The article quoted Syed I Hasnain, the then chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working group on Himalayan glaciology, as saying that most glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming".

    'But in a joint statement some the world's leading glaciologists who are also participants to the IPCC have said: "This catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology... has caused much confusion that could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected....."

    ....'Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich also said the IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers had caused "some major confusion in the media".

    "Under strict consideration of the IPCC rules, it should actually not have been published as it is not based on a sound scientific reference.

    "From a present state of knowledge it is not plausible that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing completely within the next few decades. I do not know of any scientific study that does support a complete vanishing of glaciers in the Himalayas within this century." '

    SO MORE UNTRUTHS.... Ho Ho Ho!

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 5:47pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    ahh of course:

    any suggestion that we aren't living in freakishly, terrifyingly warm times is a direct affront to one of the primary tenets of the Faith. sorry i won't tread on such thin ice again i promise.


    GeeDeeSea:

    see how many more times you can break Godwins law by accusing people of being 'deniers'. considering the methods of the proAGW peeps the irony is delicious!

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 5:51pm on 13 Dec 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    The Copenhagen summit is meaningless now that we know that the temperature data has been manipulated.

    When is the BBC going to practice what it preaches and stop journalists jetting off round the world to report we are all doomed?

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 5:59pm on 13 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @John Kazer #197

    we know that CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming because the physics and chemistry say it does. To claim otherwise is to deny basic scientific knowledge.

    Nobody is denying this fact - of course CO2 is a green house gas. It all depends on how much and there is no evidence to show CO2 raises the temperature significantly. Climate sensitivity is empirically low, not calculated high

    As I said in #190, the models match the data and make a prediction of future warming due to AGW.

    If the models match the data, where is the predicted AGW signature? why didn't the models predict the flattening of temperatures (before you answer, bear in mind that I accept the overall trend is still up)? And which individual model are you referring to - after all, it's just a simple question of feeding in the correct physics and chemistry, isn't it? So they should all be correct



    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 6:01pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @194:

    the only words i typed in post 189 were:

    'the glacier 'mistake' was almost as discreetly reported as this:'

    thats all i wrote. the rest is a link and excerpt from the text of the website. i didn't say it was a global dataset or say anything at all infact.
    i'm glad so many of you seem to have read it though, if only so you could quickly post refutations.

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 6:04pm on 13 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re "tears of our forefathers"

    I ask why the models all show high climate sensitivity. This is a very important question. As far as I can gather there only 2 possible answers:

    1) They could be made to show low climate sensitivity, but only high climate sensitivity results are reported.

    2) They can't be made to show low climate sensitivity because such an answer is not compatible with modern physics.

    #1 is implausible. Decades of climate modelling and not one person has demonstrated a obtainable result? This not only requires a conspiracy to prevent people from showing it, but also an amazing constraint by other modellers not to become famous by showing such a groundbreaking result.

    #2 is plausible. If current physics cannot obtain a low climate sensitivity answer this explains why climate models all show high sensitivity. When our very understanding of physics consistently leads to an answer of high climate sensitivity, this is very powerful evidence that it is so.

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 6:05pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #199 - I give up, like many more before me.

    The mistake was to claim that the glaciers would disappear in the next 100 years - that doesn't say anything about them not shrinking, which they patently are.

    Climate denier: "AGW is a belief and believers view the data in such a way as to confirm their belief".

    Climate denier: "One weather station looks a bit dodgy in the US, therefore all the data is wrong world-wide. The glaciers aren't going melt in 100 years therefore they aren't melting at all. I'm going to ignore all the other information."

    pot, kettle?

    I've enjoyed finding out that I know enough to counter the arguments but there's only so far you can go. Read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science from yesterdays Guardian. I don't consider myself a sap, was a useful exercise, but now it's over.

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 6:06pm on 13 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    "Now we all know the computer models are based on physics and chemistry, but the IPCC confidently predict (based on computer climate models) that AGW will have a unique signature. It's right there in AR4 and has been since the original report, but after 2 decades of searching for the unique AGW signature, they have still found it. Not even close. What does that tell you about computer climate models?"

    The unique signature of enhanced greenhouse warming is stratospheric cooling, and it has been detected.

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 6:23pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    not my words but worthy of your consideration:

    “Because the climate is complex, and c02 is not the only variable, of course. This has been patiently explained over and over again, by climatologists”

    This statement (along with the inability to observe any actual forcings) demonstrates why ‘CO2 forcing will cause CAGW” is not falsifiable

    If the model predicts a temperature increase and it happens, that proves the model is correct
    If the model predicts a temperature increase and it doesn’t happen, this is because “the climate is complex, and c02 is not the only variable, of course.”

    Whoever these climatologists are they’re clearly not scientists if they’re investigating non-falsifiable hypotheses

    Mike Hulme, one of Phil Jones’ colleague at UEA, provides the intellectual manure for this anti-science. In his view, objectivity is overrated, the process needs to be respectful and the arbiters of whether or not his criterion if fulfilled includes citizens’ juries. Whatever the hell it is he’s describing, it’s not science

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 6:25pm on 13 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    John Kazer wrote:

    As I said in #190, the models match the data and make a prediction of future warming due to AGW.

    I don't think the penny has dropped yet. A theory has to make a prediction that comes true before it can be said to pass a test. If it makes a prediction that does not come true, it fails the test. If it makes a prediction that hasn't yet been observed to be either true or false, then it hasn't been tested yet.

    The observational evidence for a theory consist of its passing tests, not its being constructed ad hoc to fit "data" that already exist. That's called "inductivism", and it was discredited in the seventeenth century. Admittedly, the word hasn't reached the "sciences" of psychology and medicine yet -- which is one of the reasons why we are told different things about fat in the diet, alcohol, etc., on successive weeks.

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 6:48pm on 13 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    205. At 6:05pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    'The mistake was to claim that the glaciers would disappear in the next 100 years'

    See!? Here we go again with MISINFORMING what is written!

    Which was...
    "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming".
    I forgive YOUR mistake!

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 7:13pm on 13 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @John Kazer #195
    (@tears of our fathers)

    The temperatures given are anomalies. They are the difference between temperature in a given year and a temperature baseline. (Or temperature in a given month of a year and a temperature baseline.) They are not the difference between temperature in a given year and the temperature in the previous year. They are not the rate of change in temperature. Applying "integration" to temperature anomalies will produce a nonsense result.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#baselines

    So your quoted brian kelly is wrong. And given the tone of your post you owe tears of our fathers an apology. I would hate a pro-AGW visitor to this site to believe your misinformation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 7:15pm on 13 Dec 2009, HARRY README wrote:

    Carbon footprint of Copenhagen: 50,000 tonnes
    Irony in this story: priceless

    Climate activists condemn Copenhagen police tactics

    Global Warming protestors have complained about police tactics after they detained 968 people at a rally near the Copenhagen summit.

    Mel Evans from Climate Justice Action told the BBC protesters were held for hours in freezing conditions without medical attention, water or toilets.

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 7:19pm on 13 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    No. 119, Mr or Ms Forefathers:

    Each and every time you use the word "hence" the two parts do not actually align. Seriously: go back and revisit your statements.

    Example: You claim we are being lied to because "carbon dioxide could not possibly be the climate driver": yet you fail to even consider the possibility that Carbon Dioxide is far from the whole story. There is the role of ozone depletion in the atmosphere to consider (and by the way it gets worse every time we send up a satellite, the space shuttle, any rocket -- not to mention your garden variety jet flights); there are the other compounds, metal particulates, nitrogen derivatives and a significant effect from all kinds of industries no one has any intention of giving up, for good reason) -- there are all kind of factors, all originating in Human Activity, that come into play in influencing the composition & state of our atmosphere, and its ability to perform its vital functions -- including that of nourishing us with Oxygen.

    The Oxygen Crisis (title of a forthcoming book by an expert, written up in The Guardian) is not a matter of my "beliefs." None of the details I elaborate upon are. They are nothing more than distillations of information -- facts -- I have been privileged to learn from unimpeachable authorities & experts, with the occasional interpolation of observations made from direct personal experience.

    We don't own a television set. Haven't for years.

    Glad to hear you are good with walls of words, because you are bound to get more from me.

    Anyone who imagines there is some kind of "conspiracy" unfolding in Copenhagen deserves a very stern talking to: and will get one, from me, if from no one else.

    Mango, dear, would you mind please doing me a favour and looking up the correct spelling of Hypocrisy? Because you keep typing "hypocracy" -- and at the very least that makes you guilty of same.

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 7:31pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Ms Basingstoke:

    Thank you. I'm not holding my breath for any apologies (geedeesea). I now where the badge of 'denial' with a fierce pride much like Mr Bellamy (bring that chap back beeb). while i disagree with your stance on this issue, i respect the way you make your arguments. cheers

    to everyone:

    Is anyone else a little worried about Richard? he's not posted anything for 2 days now... still if i was in copenhagen i'd want to check out some museums, sample the night life a bit (on the taxpayer to boot). i'm also a notorious slug-a-bed so can't really say anything about someone having a lie in and all the free prostitutes fro delegates must be tiring.

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 7:33pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    maria:

    tldr

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 7:42pm on 13 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    No. 123, Bowman:

    Ask away, but actually what you have written in this post is incoherent.

    Anyone with offspring will take offence at having it imputed that concern for the future of the children they are bringing into the world is some kind of "weepy sentimentality" -- by the way.

    It is, actually, responsible, thoughtful parenting.

    Maybe time you took a break to recharge?

    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 7:48pm on 13 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Post 173 and 175

    So clearly no apology then, for wishing ill on a fellow human being.

    (See Post 171 on post 166 – now removed)

    And super brain at post 177 revelling in it!

    What charming folk.

    Look forward to their dystopian world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 7:55pm on 13 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    You can just imagine it can’t you.

    The Treasury, Friday afternoon, waiting for flexi time to kick in, one bright spark says ‘there nothing surer than death and taxes’ ……….. another equally smart Alex pipes up ‘let’s tax ‘em on breathing’. A third thinks, mm, not as daft as it sounds, we could call it CO2 emissions, and hence the whole climate change thing was born.

    If you were the Government and wanted to substantially reduce CO2 emissions in this country, then why not do the following:

    1 Ban private vehicles that were not capable of say 45mpg
    2 Ban the production of toys, jet ski’s, ordinary ski’s, golf clubs, tennis rackets….etc.
    3 Pass a law saying you had to live within three miles of where you worked.
    4 Ban tobacco, alcohol, sweets and all other non essential food.
    5 Ban the sale of TVs, DVD players, personal computers, barbeques etc.

    But then what happens, your tax revenue drops through floor, ten million from the private sector are out of work, closely followed by five million from the public sector.

    But then Government wants growth in the economy, so they invent things like the car scrappage scheme to encourage building more cars, they want us to make more jet skis, more golf clubs, consume more, and thus generate more revenue.

    CO2 emissions are inevitable,
    and
    if you want the economy to grow, then a growth in CO2 emissions is inevitable,
    and
    if you want more revenue, then taxing CO2 emissions is inevitable,
    and
    if you want to get the general public to pay the tax, it will help if you convince them it’s in a good cause.

    CO2 emissions tax, is no different to a TV licence, a rod licence, tipping tax, income tax, national insurance, road fund duty, v.a.t., fuel duty, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, share transfer tax, ……etc…etc.

    If they simply just stuffed it to us on all the other taxes, we’d reduce our carbon footprint, simply because we couldn’t afford a lot of things, although we’d hate them for it.

    Hence CO2 emissions lets have a ‘save the planet tax’, maybe the over burdened tax payer won’t mind that too much, all we (the Government) have to do, is make the poor fools think that it’s in their own best interest.


    Hoorah for Climate Change, Hoorah for Carbon emissions tax.

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 8:01pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #208 - bowman, I can't let that go uncommented.

    You miss the point of the model results - they use data pre-1000 AD to start the model, it then runs and lo, it's version of the climate for the next 1000 years matches the actual data. If you don't believe that this has been done in a truthful way, then you are suggesting a thousand scientist conspiracy.

    In terms of proving a hypothesis, should I only stop eating red meat when I get colon cancer, because until that time it's not been proven that the hypothesis "eating red meat increases the risk of colon cancer" is true?

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 8:01pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Thinkforyourselfanddoaswetellyou: Character Assassin for hire with a crafty name just like mr. selfevidenttruth.

    I'm entitled to whatever opinion i want regarding the moonbat. i know he's a world leading eco-journalist/activist/mouthpiece and can take care of himself. the beebs moderation rules passed it until someone complained (which is their right and thats fine). you apocalypto's seem to be very highly strung though try to find some time to relax peeps.

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 8:04pm on 13 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @tears of our forefathers #213

    Er, your post could be read that you think GeeDeeSea needs to apologise for John Kazer's mistake.

    @GeeDeeSea #196
    (@tears of our forefathers #213)

    tears of our fathers isn't pulling a straw man argument here. Most pro-AGW debaters using the term "denier" clearly renounce any linkage between holocaust deniers and climate change deniers. "Denial" is after all a common pop-psychological term, and before David Irving the normal term for people who denied the holocaust was rather stronger than "holocaust denier".

    However there are some pro-AGW people that really do mean to make a link between holocaust deniers and "climate change deniers". Hence the reference to Godwin's Law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    Perhaps you could clarify your position.

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 8:04pm on 13 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Post 189 says-

    ‘...Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form,....’

    Anthony Watts! There’s a laugh. Put his name into Wikipedia and find out what makes him tick.

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 8:06pm on 13 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    No. 216, Climate change deniers are wishing ill on their fellow human beings. Notice any of them apologising?

    They claim we are all part of a conspiracy. Apologies?

    Some of the people posting here have obsessions with Al Gore and Polar Bears. Are we supposed to take them seriously?

    To the people behind my side's adversaries: couldn't you at least find someone more credible or coherent to argue for your positions?

    Oh, I guess you have no one left.

    Marcus Aurelius, No. 188: Yes, for once I do agree with you. (Actually, I do on occasion agree with you, as you well know.)

    Because we have waited far too long it will be a struggle, especially in the USA, to revise lifestyles in the necessary ways. And there will be grumbling.

    On the other hand, jobs will be created in the Efficiency Engineering, Innovation & Quality Control areas.

    People with jobs will have to actually have to account for results.

    And no, it does not have to be impossible. It certainly won't call for what some here have imagined is coming -- a global implementation of China's "one child per couple" policy.

    But it will call, for example, for disincentives to owning too many of certain types of creature comforts: gas guzzlers, plasma TV sets, microwaves...

    Did you know since the days I attended California's public schools every classroom in every school has been equipped with a microwave, TV set and often also a small fridge -- for the teacher's use? Now, maybe these are not always at public expense -- but are they really necessary?

    Why is it that my brilliant 4th grade teacher, the beauteous and superb instructor, Miss Barnum -- or my legendary algebra teacher, Donald Baker -- could get through a work day without once using a microwave, TV or fridge -- but my colleagues from a few years ago feel deprived if they can't watch the soaps on their personal TV during their lunch or prep periods?

    Why do kids need their own cars, ATVs, jet skis, snowmobiles?

    How hard would it be to really scale it back a teensy bit on the overproduction & overconsumption culture in America? Why is it Trader Joe's sells more food, of a higher quality & at a better price than Whole Foods in a much smaller space, and has a better employee benefits programme?

    You can read about Whole Foods on the New York Times and learn a lot about what might easily be done differently in America... And what about Smithfield Foods and those CAFOs in Vera Cruz, Mexico, that started this whole swine flu pandemic?

    Don't you think, really, we could do things better than we have been doing them for decades? And even have slightly less spoiled offspring, as an added benefit?

    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 8:11pm on 13 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Dempster #217

    Slight problem with your tax theory.

    Governments have never had a problem coming up with new taxes or finding existing taxes they can increase. And they do like their taxes sneaky. One thing you can't describe Copenhagen as is sneaky. Even people that don't know how to spell "tax" know about Copenhagen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 8:31pm on 13 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Jane is right, if the government wanted an excuse to increase taxes they could just do it. They've managed to put down new taxes for decades without any resort to co2. Today they could just cite Iraq and Afghanistan as an excuse to raise taxes, or the financial crisis and public debt. Or they could just continue to stealth tax.

    The idea that the science behind manmade global warming built up over decades is part of an elaborate plot to increase taxes is possibly the stupidest widely believed conspiracy theory in the world today.

    Just how is that supposed to work? Are we supposed to believe politicians in the 1980s were playing a long game so their replacements in 2010 could raise taxes? plain ridiculous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 8:36pm on 13 Dec 2009, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    The good people of 'Associated Press' have done an analysis of the stolen/leaked emails from UEA and have concluded that they don't show anything that undermines the cannon of science in this field. Will that make the skeptics of internetland reign in their conspiracies? Well, i'm afraid not. Having read said news story in my sunday paper, I then googled it and came up with a sea of far-righwing blogs denouncing AP as being communists etc.

    There have been some great posts in the past couple of days on this thread - my favourite is the one saying that we should give James Deingpole credit for sticking his kneck out by writing about 'cimategate' on his Daily Telegraph blog! What a brave chap, it's about as courageous a piece of writing as someone writing in the Morning Star that unions are a wonderful thing...

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 8:42pm on 13 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Tears 219: Hope your not suggesting I am a character assassin! Btw my name choice came about because I first started commenting on Justin Webb's blog during the recent US election. It in no way implies any sense of righteousness or superior knowledge ... although of course ... ; )

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 8:44pm on 13 Dec 2009, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    219: Tearsof...: You accuse those who are not of a skeptical disposition of being highy strung and needing to relax. Given that most of the skeptical posts on this blog woud fit into the 'angry rant' school of writing, then I think your concerns may be directed at the wrong target...

    Complain about this comment

  • 228. At 8:50pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    220:

    indeed i was refering to geedeesea apologising to me, not mr kazer.

    it is convenient though that the term 'denier' has such an unpleasant association.

    can i ask your opinions on these pieces please:

    http://climatedepot.com/a/1174/Update-Romm-defends-remarks-as-not-a-threat-but-a-prediction--Strangle-Skeptics-in-Bed-An-entire-generation-will-soon-be-ready-to-strangle-you-and-your-kind-while-you-sleep-in-your-beds

    this first is why mr thinkforyourelfs accusations of villanous wishes towards monbiot seem pretty weak to me.

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454&c=2

    in particular i'd like any proAGW folks to offer some opinions on the second. i think it is an important piece of journalism. hint hint beeb.

    cheers

    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 8:54pm on 13 Dec 2009, HARRY README wrote:

    Top climate experts on the case now...

    Global average temperature may hit record level in 2010

    We read this crucial analysis:

    They say the combination of climate change and a moderate warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean are set to drive up temperatures next year.

    So why do they think next year will be so warm ? Let's listen again:

    They say the combination of climate change and a moderate warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean are set to drive up temperatures next year.

    Ah. Now we know. Its going to be warmer because of... .... ... climate change and warming.

    Good to know these people have got into the control tower....

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 8:56pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    226,

    didn't mean to imply that at all sir, sorry if thats how you took it. will you second me in asking we all stop with the ad hominems please (even the sly ones) and get back to playing nicely?

    Mr tree:

    i am angry about this. i think a lot of people are. however i've tried to offer at least one genuinely constructive post a day, for instance the debate i proposed. would you be averse to that idea?

    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 9:02pm on 13 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-111. At 10:32pm on 12 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    Welcome aboard, John.

    Not many on this blog recognise the term "Risk Management" or "probability".
    I've been trying (unsuccessfully I night add) to inform them but they keep demanding PROOF, PROOF ABSOLUTE PROOF. So I gave up a while ago.

    Of course, if the World carries on like we are, we'll get that ABSLUTE PROOF.

    The fact that none of us will be around when it's obviously too late is of little concern to them.

    Best of luck, John

    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 9:11pm on 13 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Tears 230: I did'n't really think you meant that, and seconded!

    Complain about this comment

  • 233. At 9:13pm on 13 Dec 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @225

    Ah the unbiased reporting of AP !! The AP view as promulgated by "Seth" , he who is mentioned in the emails in almost as reverential terms from the "Team" as aunties very own RB !!

    TWADDLE !

    Complain about this comment

  • 234. At 9:15pm on 13 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    220:

    the strawman was geedeesea's minor rant against mr beck which he used to imply all skeptics are glen beck fans (name calling towards a right wing journo is fine but one idle joke about a lefty ecowarrior and suddenly i'm a villain; nice and balanced).

    your point about poop-psychology is fair but it doesn't stand if you examine some of the shrillest (and most heavily broadcast) proAGW people. they outright connect it to holocaust denial and worse. i posted a link earlier to an article about a US politician saying that a whole generation will soon to be ready to strangle skeptics in their bed! no skeptic has done anything like that, not even monckton and even i find he's a bit full on.

    This side of the debate has had to fight just to be allowed an even footing (which has never been given) and the other side uses a knowledge of human nature and advertising and marketing tricks to make people change their behaviour. it has never been a fair debate because of the appalling tactics employed because proAGW peeps have decided the ends justify the means.

    id recommend this link if you haven't read it already:

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454&c=2

    can i ask your thoughts on that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 9:16pm on 13 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #218 John Kazer wrote:

    "You miss the point of the model results - they use data pre-1000 AD to start the model, it then runs and lo, it's version of the climate for the next 1000 years matches the actual data."

    But the model was constructed ad hoc so that it would match the data -- the data were used to shape the model so it would fit them in the first place. A real test would be for it to "stick its neck out" (apologies for using this analogy too often) and seeing whether it survives.

    "If you don't believe that this has been done in a truthful way, then you are suggesting a thousand scientist conspiracy."

    Unlike many other sceptics, I am not saying there has been significant dishonesty or bad motives on the part of pro-AGW people. I'm on record, repeatedly, saying the opposite. The last thing I said on Richard's Black's blog before it was shut down was that the word 'trick' is perfectly OK. (Please check this out!) My main point has always been that models/hypotheses need to be tested -- genuinely tested, not simply tailor-made to fit some "data". I don't think for a minute that pro-AGW people have dishonestly manipulated anything, just that they're honestly ignorant of what science needs to do. (Of course, naivete is as bad as dishonesty as far as how good the theory is.)

    "In terms of proving a hypothesis, should I only stop eating red meat when I get colon cancer, because until that time it's not been proven that the hypothesis "eating red meat increases the risk of colon cancer" is true?"

    Forget "proving" anything (apart from theorems in maths). I'm interested in testing things, because in science that is what gives us a decent reason to think we can trust them. If a model cannot deliver the goods in terms of shorter-term predictions, we must not allow its longer-term predictions to guide public policy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 236. At 9:17pm on 13 Dec 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @231

    The industry I work in demands absolute proof , and risk assesment , and complete reproduceability. That is very fortunate for you, and all the attendees at CON15 who , travelled on a plane.

    Complain about this comment

  • 237. At 9:37pm on 13 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    One of things that I find interesting: If our present government was so decided about the case for AGW, why did'n't they come up with a comprehensive energy strategy back in 1997/98. This could have included a nuclear building program (I'm not a fan but ...), significant investment in wind and tidal power, improvements in public transport, micro-generation, energy efficiency etc. Strange that they have waited so long, could they lack the courage to take any long term decisions in the interest of the British public?

    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 9:48pm on 13 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    I don't agree with the basic premise (that Briffa leaked the e-mails and code) but this is one of the more sober skeptical takes on 'climategate', and somewhat unsettling. Would be interested to hear what people think.

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11861#more-11861

    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 10:35pm on 13 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #231 xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    'Not many on this blog recognise the term "Risk Management" or "probability".'

    I see -- you're an expert on probability because you use the word 'probability'. I think not.

    'I've been trying (unsuccessfully I night add) to inform them but they keep demanding PROOF, PROOF ABSOLUTE PROOF. So I gave up a while ago.'

    Try again. First of all, please direct us to a single message on this blog that asks for "absolute proof".

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 10:47pm on 13 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    First, a reminder that the natural world has its own thermometer - the world's glaciers. The 'lobby' is welcome to hack into these. Better do it soon, while they still exist: (scroll down slightly to see graphs on link below)

    "The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term mass balance series around the world continues to decrease, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 1.4 m w.e. during the hydrological year 2006. This continues the trend in accelerated ice loss during the past two and a half decades and brings the total loss since 1980 at more than 10.5 m w.e."

    http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb9/sum06.html
    ------------------------------------------------


    Second, I am increasingly drawn to audio-visual media for connecting with the non-scientific segment of humanity. I am on minute forty of the following Youtube video, and I am entranced!

    Please watch, as time permits, and send to a friend:

    "Home" (Resources are scarcer than we had thought)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU
    ------------------------------------------

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 10:47pm on 13 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    the strata-sphere analysis is a heaving pile of crud, best summed up by this snippet of pure unwarranted and bizzare assumption:

    "I can also tell some at CRU were getting tired with the melodrama of their US cohorts. Having worked in the international arena myself I can safely say Mann is not one of those lovable Americans Europeans admire. He is to boorish and vindictive."



    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 11:00pm on 13 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    The Instrumental Temperature Record - UK & USA Comparison

    Graphs:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temp-anom-larg.jpg

    Graphs & Text:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 11:10pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #238 - selfevident, it sounds to me like one of the (very) many conversations these scientists have had answering very specific questions about small areas of the data made by skeptics.

    The same skeptics that also claim the data isn't available... (although not all is, as shown by the emails - there can be good reasons for this).

    Without knowing the full context of the conversation and the data involved it's impossible to understand what is actually going on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 11:17pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #235 nope, the models are created using physics and chemistry. These are somewhat different from ad hoc data. They can be calibrated with an understanding (through data) of the conditions of the climate at a particular point in time, but this is not the same as building the model in the first place.

    By not accepting statistical information you are requesting absolute proof, similar to what Neil Hyde talked about in #236. I've working 8 years as a software engineer in the automotive industry. Software is essentially a large algorithm and so is theoretically solvable/provable. This is not the same as modelling.

    The models provide many predictions - warming of the polar regions (yep, get that), acidification of the ocean (yep get that).

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 11:20pm on 13 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Quite a few posts ago (a few days), I posted some information on the reduction in areal extent of the glaciers atop Mount Kilimanjaro, Africa's highest point. They were reported by the world renowned glaciologist and 'dust-man' Lonnie Thompson earlier this year. Lonnie is a member of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, and the article I cited and linked to was passed after inspection by another memmber of the National Academy os Sciences, James Hansen, beloved of the 'lobby.'

    The post copied and pasted from Lonnie Thompson's 'Proceedings of the National Academiey of Sciences' article, and stated quite clearly that the ice-core record atop Kiliminjaro went back some 11,700 years, etc..., and that the only evidence of surface melting in the cores was from the last few decades.

    The point I wish to make is this:

    The 'lobby', who often portray themselves as scientifically literate, and almost always decry and demean the scientific concensus, and by imlication, the scientists who write the scientific literature, they failed to notice, and to point out, that approximately 11,700 years ago is the termination of the "Younger Dryas" cold period, which lasted for ~ 1300 years prior to that date, and isn't it curious that the ice-core record doesn't go back to at least 12,800 years ago, the beginning of the glacial "Younger Dryas"?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

    I know this all sounds a little too technical, but for those with an open mind, I suggest that the reason this point was not immediately picked up by our denialist 'lobby' is that they are in fact scientifically challenged - I believe that is the politically correct way of putting it?

    Strange - isn't it??

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 246. At 00:38am on 14 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #234 - the THE article is heavily reliant upon a paper by Lindzen and Choi. For an alternative analysis of this paper try here:

    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/08/quick-comment-on-lindzen-and-choi.html

    It's not very positive, particularly the points which state the models compared to are old and no longer used plus the data used for the comparison was "cherry picked" and not representative of all available information.

    Complain about this comment

  • 247. At 00:52am on 14 Dec 2009, John OSullivan wrote:

    @ 225. yorkurbantree writes: "I then googled it and came up with a sea of far-righwing blogs denouncing AP as being communists etc. "
    Sorry to burst your bubble on this but you're evidently referring to the statement issued yesterday by AP and written by Seth Borenstein who headed the AP 'investigation'. If you had bothered to read the leaked 'Climategate' emails you would discover exactly what affiliations Mr Borenstein has with those allegedly unethical(possibly criminal?) climatologists. The story is best read at WUWT.
    This is because Seth Borenstein is none other than the same Seth Borenstein who is good mates with the climatologists at the University of East Anglia’s CRU. Here is what Seth Borenstein had to say to his buddies in one of the leaked emails:
    On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
    Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
    It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
    Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
    Seth
    Seth Borenstein
    Associated Press Science Writer
    [7]sborensteinxxxxxxx.xxx
    The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
    Washington, DC
    20005-4076
    202-641-9454
    Seth makes no bones about his zealous loyalty to the green cause. Other journalists say he is well known for it. As such AP is clearly allowing itself to become a propaganda mouthpiece for Ecofascism.
    This is nothing short of a public scandal and it’s time for pressure to be put on the government to end this outright conspiracy perpetrated on every tax-paying member of the public. Borenstein has clearly breached the code of conduct for journalists. How can the public trust such an “exhaustive inquiry” when he is part of the whole cover up?
    Above all I won't have apologists like you trying to smear anyone who objects to unethical/criminal activity by calling them 'right-wing' which I,sir, am most certainly not!

    Complain about this comment

  • 248. At 01:02am on 14 Dec 2009, John OSullivan wrote:

    In the 1970’s the world’s scientists were convinced the planet was enduring global cooling. The CIA even wrote a 30-page report on this subject despite what I've seen posted on several warmist web sites that this is all an ‘urban legend.’
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
    Then things changed and the Earth warmed from 1975-1998. I am a sceptic and even I do not dispute this fact. Nor will any serious scientist dispute that the planet has also shown a warming trend for the past 300 years. I and other sceptics argue that around 280 of those 300 years of warming cannot possibly be due to man - they have been natural. Even on the UN’s exaggerated estimate of CO2’s warming effect, CO2 cannot – repeat cannot – have been to blame for any other than the 23 years of warming that occurred up to 1998. While in secret, their own climatologists admit that there has been no warming this century as shockingly exposed in those leaked Climategate emails as shown by this one example from climatologist, Kevin Trenberth:
    “ From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
    Hi all
    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?….The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. “
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt
    Publicly Trenberth, the CRU and NASA GISS tell the world the last decade has seen the warmest five years ever recorded, but in private Trenberth’s leaked email shows they know that is a lie. The world has only warmed if you believe the ground station data wasn’t ‘fudged’ which these liars admit they did in other emails.
    The public now has the absolute proof that what ‘scientists’ admit to in private is opposed to what they say to the public. The actual facts about global temperatures can be found in the more trustworthy ERBE satellite data, which measures the long wave solar radiation exiting the atmosphere. The data from ERBE shows a rate inconsistent with the positive feedback forcing used in the CRU / NOAA / GISS computer models- essentially it proves the models are rigged and thus useless.
    If the Climategate conspirators had been less politicized and less dishonest, they wouldn’t have been having conversations of the kind illustrated in the Trenberth email above. It proves they have spent $50 billion of UN (and our) money doing nothing more than working out ways of bending the data so as to blame more than half of the warming from 1975-1998 on CO2.

    Complain about this comment

  • 249. At 03:14am on 14 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @232:

    thank you. i appreciate that i am a strongly opinionated and belligerent individual. my only excuse is that it has been in an attempt to give my side of this discussion a chance against the voices that automatically try to shut down any 'opposition'. Skeptics are far better represented by the likes of bowmanthebard and poitsplace and mr. Mango and many many others, here and elsewhere, than i can manage. i've been trying to unconvert some folks and help reclaim an institution i've loved since i was a kid: the beeb.

    @238

    The information was certainly compiled by someone very familiar with the debate who knew what was relevant, whether it was data compiled for the foi request that was not released or a selection of the data 'swiped' i cannot say.

    i believe paul hudson received copies of some of the emails a month before nov 19th which to my mind supports a frustrated whistleblower theory. we're all aware where my loyalties lie. all i would say in response to no. 243 is that anyone who wants to can find the foia2009.zip on various torrent sites and view the emails and infamous code (harry_readme.txt) themselves. more detailed analysis of the contents are not available on the BBC or most major news networks. are we witnessing the eclipsing of an outdated public information system by newer technology? teh pwr of teh internets?


    @246:

    i found the passages like this very compelling:

    'Alas, in the climate-change debate, there is a worrying amount of irrationality, incomplete science and skewed presentation. The scientists apparently "cherry-picking" and hiding their data revealed recently in the University of East Anglia email scandal are only following in a long tradition that includes even Galileo "cheating" by saying that the Earth must orbit round the Sun - in a perfect circle. Yet, surely most objectionable of all is the use of gullibility and fear as tactics in campaigns. And if fear requires a world of zero risk, that certainly won't include those mercury-filled light bulbs and nuclear power stations.'

    i don't agree with everything he says, but i can't just ignore it based on what sorry?

    Complain about this comment

  • 250. At 03:17am on 14 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @246:

    lol peer reviewed scientific papers are not invalidated by an independent blog post. where have i heard that (over and over again) before?

    Complain about this comment

  • 251. At 03:30am on 14 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

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

  • 252. At 03:41am on 14 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

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

  • 253. At 03:51am on 14 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

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

  • 254. At 04:21am on 14 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    mods: shame on you, nothing i said was in anyway offensive or off topic.

    @238

    i cannot reply to your post because the moderators have taken a dislike to some part of my opinion. i suggest seeking information and conversation elsewhere because free speech doesn't live here no more.

    i'd also recommend this link:

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Richard:

    Yo how much taxpayer cash has been spent sending you over there? post a new
    article already! we're all on the edge of our seats...

    Complain about this comment

  • 255. At 05:02am on 14 Dec 2009, FergalR wrote:

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

  • 256. At 05:27am on 14 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    'i'd also recommend this link:

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]'

    lol

    Execlsior! I'm super serial about manbearpig!

    Complain about this comment

  • 257. At 08:04am on 14 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #244 John Kazar wrote:

    "By not accepting statistical information you are requesting absolute proof,"

    The word 'information' here is ambiguous. I don't accept statistical extrapolation in science, because it's just a disguised form of induction. For example, suppose you extrapolate from a sample of 10 swans at your local pond two of which are black to "20% of all swans are black", you will be following bad methodology because you don't know how representatibve your local pond swans are of swans in general.

    But that is not to reject statistics altogether. I'm happy enough with the starting off with the hypothesis that "20% of swans are black" and predicting that about 20% of swans at your local pond will be black. That is a test of your hypothesis, albeit an unreliable one.

    That illustrates two things: (a) I don't reject statistics altogether, and (b) the tests I say are essential for genuine science can be very unreliable -- so they're obviously not "absolute proof".

    "the models are created using physics and chemistry. These are somewhat different from ad hoc data."

    I don't think you follow me. I didn't say the data were ad hoc but that the model or hypothesis supposedly "based" on them is ad hoc. This idea that you and many others have that models/hypotheses are "based on data" rather than tested by observation is really a yearning for certainty, or something very like it: you want the model/hypothesis to be much more rigidly constrained than can ever happen in real science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 258. At 08:12am on 14 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @infinity #206

    The unique signature of enhanced greenhouse warming is stratospheric cooling, and it has been detected.

    No it's not.

    The unique signature of AGW is warming of the upper troposphere in the tropics. Refer to AR4 P675 diagram c & f. You seem to know what i am talking about, so why post #206, we both know it's not true? Are you trying to fool people?

    @manysummits #240

    First, a reminder that the natural world has its own thermometer - the world's glaciers.

    No. Glaciers can retreat or expand for a number of reasons including temperature, wind etc. Kilimanjaro is the perfect point, glacier retreating because of land clearance not temperature.

    I know this all sounds a little too technical, but for those with an open mind, I suggest that the reason this point was not immediately picked up by our denialist 'lobby' is that they are in fact scientifically challenged - I believe that is the politically correct way of putting it?

    LMAO!

    @John Kazar & Bowman

    There is a test for the models.

    The models have identified the unique signature of AGW and has been presented in the IPCC reports since day one. Despite over 2 decades of searching, this unique signature has not been detected.

    Test failed


    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 259. At 08:13am on 14 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "they keep demanding PROOF, PROOF ABSOLUTE PROOF. So I gave up a while ago."

    Who, where?

    Complain about this comment

  • 260. At 08:16am on 14 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    me, guilty as charged

    Complain about this comment

  • 261. At 08:27am on 14 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Antarctica Warming? Apparently not

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/ghcn-antarctic-warming-eight-times-actual/#more-6926

    Complain about this comment

  • 262. At 09:29am on 14 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html

    not my favourite newspaper. But at least they're covering it. hey bbc? whats that? no? ah well.

    It goes into detail on the 'trick' that was used to 'normalise' the data. I.E. they mixed two datasets to give the trend they wanted...

    Complain about this comment

  • 263. At 09:43am on 14 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @GeeDeeSea #182 RE:models high vs low sensitivity
    @Infinity #179 RE:strongest support for AGW from physics
    @xtragrumpymike2 #231 RE:demanding absolute proof


    Indeed, the strongest support for anthropogenic global warming is based on physics. But the problem is not so much that some warming is supported but what type of warming is supported. Once again, the "mountains of evidence" are really just reduced to that one bit of support from physics (CO2 absorption producing up to 1.2C worth of forcing) and the barely statistically significant amount of warming we've had.

    Fortunately for everyone on the planet, CLAIM A (as I'll be calling it), that CO2 can cause up to 1.2C of forcing on its own...is the ONLY thing supported by observational data. In fact, the climate comes up a little short...with most of the atmospheric CO2 increases coming after the 1940s and only 4C of warming since then.

    CLAIM B on the other hand is the one the models deal with. For some stupid reason the models assumed that the warming of the 80s and 90s was the minimum rate of warming due to a combination of CO2 and feedbacks. This has now been demonstrated to be wrong by the models own error bars. The models diverged almost immediately because they COMPLETELY ignored a fairly regular cyclic component within the climate system. Only the lowest of the projections are remotely close to being valid (ie, lower feedbacks).

    You people need to understand that IMMEDIATE divergence of a model means there's something fundamentally wrong with the understandings in the models. Instead of warming an ADDITIONAL .2C to .4C temperatures have remained flat. For some unfathomable reason xtragrumpymike2 seems to feel that demanding ANY proof of something that has never been shown to exist (a highly sensitive climate) is the same as demanding "absolute proof".

    Xtragrumpymike2, Infinity, GeeDeeSea, John Kazer and others (I'm only mentioning names because this is more or less a reply) need to come to terms with the fact that observations are ALWAYS taken over model data. Models do not prove reality. As difficult as this may be for you to understand it is actually pretty easy to shoehorn models into compliance with known temperature record. What you can't do...is get them to explain the other 98% of the holocene interglacial. You DO realize it was significantly warmer for MOST of the Holocene and with no discernible forcing sufficient to cause it EVEN at the highest sensitivities used by the IPCC's models.

    So again, in answer to all your questions about the reason the models all show high sensitivity...it's because they are simply programmed to and then tweaked into a VERY short term correlation with temperatures. They have no predictive capabilities. I'm sure if you'd consult a university maths professor about the ability to fit such a simple temperature profile (the instrument record) using forcing, feedback, a pre-existing warming trend and thermal inertia variables...most of which are only "known" to within +/- 50%...he'd agree it's actually pretty easy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 264. At 09:45am on 14 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    From the opening line of LabMunkey's reference above: "The claim was both simple and terrifying: that temperatures on planet Earth are now ‘likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years’."

    A separate question: Why would anyone find that claim "terrifying" even if we had the slightest reason to think it was true? Was there some sort of cataclysm caused by excessive heat 1300 years ago?

    Complain about this comment

  • 265. At 09:47am on 14 Dec 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    Golly, a lot of moderation here, if you get what I mean:)

    As there are some who know (or claim to, and often are not shy in sharing) stuff, a quick question...

    Because I was just watching the BBC Breakfast news this morning. With a nice young man from one of those proliferating agencies/quangos/think tanks/advocacy groups being 'interviewed' (as much as a teleprompter can) to confirm pretty much everything I 'learned', as has the BBC, Hilary Benn will be sharing later today on ocean acidification and how this will spoil coral reefs.

    We wouldn't want any old press release masquerading as news. So as it was the only one put forward, exclusively, with one 'expert' 'guest'* in support, purely down to the activities of man, and curiously mirroring exactly what a senior government minister will be saying later today, is this really just another piece of settled science?

    *It was funny, if ironic, when this champion of doom and demanded restraint shared that he had garnered much of his insights on the state of coral reefs when... flying to visit all the country offices around the world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 266. At 10:28am on 14 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Here is an analysis of adjustments made to station data, and an interesting debate, although the statistical work is beyond me!

    http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/

    Re Briffa, proxies and the truncated data series: I don't understand why he/they did'n't just discard that particular proxy. Surely the point is that a proxy has to be convincing. If it fails to reproduce temperatures in the latter half of the century then it casts doubt on its validity for the entire period. Some of the e-mails surrounding this issue are hardly edifying.
    Btw, I know proxies are only a small part of climate science, which makes it all the more bizarre that they should go to such lengths to include a flawed series.

    Complain about this comment

  • 267. At 11:02am on 14 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    re- 266.

    you see he (that link) looses and credability in the first sentance with the term 'denialists'.

    As a response though,
    raw data adjustment is allowed, but has to be fully documentated AND kept with the original data. It also has to be publised WITH the original, untouched data.
    The Vienna case study shows that the adjustments they made were wholly inaccurate, arbitrary and designed to give higher temp trends where none were warranted.

    The biggest issue is the reliance on tree ring data to show the historic trend, that is then abandoned in the 60's when it refuses to play ball and is then replace by the weather station based readings (which are wholly inaccurate). You cannot mix data sets like that, if one contradicts the other you find out which is right, you don't take the beast of one and stick the best of another on the end to give the trend we all recognise daily, on the BBC....

    that, frankly, is scientific fraud.

    Complain about this comment

  • 268. At 11:22am on 14 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    I really didn't have my typing hat on for that last post. Apologies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 269. At 11:25am on 14 Dec 2009, John OSullivan wrote:


    In the 1970’s the world’s scientists were convinced the planet was enduring global cooling. The CIA even wrote a 30-page report on this subject despite the warmists claiming this is all an ‘urban legend.’
    The BBC's extremist censorship policy prohibits me from posting the web link, but if you search for ‘CIA 1974 30-page report global cooling’ you will find it.
    Then things changed and the Earth warmed from 1975-1998. I am a sceptic and even I do not dispute this fact. Nor will any serious scientist dispute that the planet has also shown a warming trend for the past 300 years. I and other sceptics argue that around 280 of those 300 years of warming cannot possibly be due to man - they have been natural. Even on the UN’s exaggerated estimate of CO2’s warming effect, CO2 cannot – repeat cannot – have been to blame for any other than the 23 years of warming that occurred up to 1998. While in secret, their own climatologists admit that there has been no warming this century as shockingly exposed in those leaked Climategate emails as shown by this one example from climatologist, Kevin Trenberth:
    (Again, the BBC’s draconian censorship policy will not permit to post a copy of the email or a link to the website that contains it). However, if anyone wishes to view it the email is dated Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 and reads as follows:
    "Hi all
    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?….The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.“
    Publicly Trenberth, the CRU and NASA GISS tell the world the last decade has seen the warmest five years ever recorded, but in private Trenberth’s leaked email shows they know that is a lie. The world has only warmed if you believe the ground station data wasn’t ‘fudged’ which these liars admit they did in other emails.
    The public now has the absolute proof that what ‘scientists’ admit to in private is opposed to what they say to the public. The actual facts about global temperatures can be found in the more trustworthy ERBE satellite data, which measures the long wave solar radiation exiting the atmosphere. The data from ERBE shows a rate inconsistent with the positive feedback forcing used in the CRU / NOAA / GISS computer models- essentially it proves the models are rigged and thus useless.
    If the Climategate conspirators had been less politicized and less dishonest, they wouldn’t have been having conversations of the kind illustrated in the Trenberth email above. It proves they have spent $50 billion of UN (and our) money doing nothing more than working out ways of bending the data so as to blame more than half of the warming from 1975-1998 on CO2.

    Complain about this comment

  • 270. At 11:27am on 14 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019671/climategate-the-video-everyone-should-see/

    Complain about this comment

  • 271. At 11:30am on 14 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

    genius

    Complain about this comment

  • 272. At 11:39am on 14 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Re 267: I don't think he loses all credibility just because he uses the term 'denialists' although I don't like it myself. I would also say that just because some sceptic sites use similarly unhelpful terms about the other side does not mean they have something genuine to add. I thought the discussion was interesting and by no means one sided. I agree with you about the data. If you can provide a link to that study I would be happy to read it.
    Your statement that weather station readings are 'wholly inaccurate' seems a little extreme. In that case nobody could prove anything, including the sceptics!

    Complain about this comment

  • 273. At 11:44am on 14 Dec 2009, Gederts Skerstens wrote:

    Complain about this comment

  • 274. At 11:55am on 14 Dec 2009, Gederts Skerstens wrote:

    38. At 11:24am on 12 Dec 2009, Arthur Putey wrote:
    At 08:55am on 12 Dec 2009, Gederts Skerstens asserted that "The Ozone Hole" "was meant to fry all the Southern hemisphere".

    'It's certainly a revealing claim in that it tells us quite a bit about its author. Now I wonder if frying saucers might be involved...'

    The author and his qualifications don't matter. Check the assertion for yourself. If the Archbishop of Worcestershire says the World Is Flat, even if he's a Divinity Doctor Emeritus, go to the top of a tower and watch an approaching ship, with the mast appearing first. Done.
    Do the same with this junk. Check the physical properties of Carbon Dioxide, for yourself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 275. At 12:03pm on 14 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 272

    linky- http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/27/4/597

    Yeah, there are 'undesirables' on both sides of the argument. I was meerly trying to higlight a possible reason for bias. I do however think he understates the effect of the 'adjustments'.

    When i said wholly inaccurate i think i mislead you- i'm sorry.

    I was more reffering to the interpretation (and adjustments) of that data. The raw data is of course what it is- raw data.



    Complain about this comment

  • 276. At 12:24pm on 14 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 258: "No it's not.

    The unique signature of AGW is warming of the upper troposphere in the tropics. Refer to AR4 P675 diagram c & f. You seem to know what i am talking about, so why post #206, we both know it's not true? Are you trying to fool people?"

    This is not a fingerprint of AGW, even under natural solar warming you would get the upper troposphere in the tropics warming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 277. At 12:24pm on 14 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @tears of our fathers #234
    (@GeeDeeSea)

    More than one straw man on this thread.

    You have to understand, those of us on the pro-AGW side rarely see the deliberate "climate change denier" / holocaust denier comparison being made deliberately by pro-AGW debaters. Our first exposure to the problem is normally a sceptic complaining about the use of the term "denier" on a thread where there has been no overt comparison. I therefore felt GeeDeeSea might need to be told that some people on the pro-AGW side did in fact stoop to this technique.

    I would link to what I believe is the most notorious example but I am not sure whether it would survive the House Rules.

    Complain about this comment

  • 278. At 12:25pm on 14 Dec 2009, Gederts Skerstens wrote:

    22. At 09:17am on 12 Dec 2009, JRWoodman wrote:

    #18: "...a hoax, like Mad cow, The Millenium Bug and The Ozone Hole"

    'Were they? I think you'll find quite a few people died of Creutzsfeldt Jacob Disease. The Millenium Bug turned out to be a damp squib because a lot of work was done to rewrite software to ensure it didn't crash computers. The ozone hole issue was mitigated by the concerted efforts of all countries to ban the use of CFCs in refrigerants.'

    Well, no. The only guys that died from the Mad Cow madness were farmers who suicided when their herds were destroyed.
    Companies that did nothing about the Millenium Bug continued just as well as those that hired debuggers, for millions.
    The Ozone Hole is exactly the same as when the craze started.
    But I understand the reason for this stuff. About 35% of our Western Population have nothing useful to produce, but still want to feel important.

    Complain about this comment

  • 279. At 12:25pm on 14 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @tears of our forefathers #213
    (@John Kazer)

    1. As a pro-AGW debater I have a responsibility to make the AGW case correctly, particularly in a very public forum like this. (@John Kazer, I have corrected my own posts too.)

    2. I am disappointed that none of the sceptics spotted the brian kelly mistake. You in particular had a strong motivation to debunk it. But you didn't. And don't tell me that you were trying to spare John Kazer's feelings.

    Complain about this comment

  • 280. At 12:26pm on 14 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Maria Ashot #222

    Not all of the sceptics here are motivated by Big Oil. In particular they have at least three concerns that many environmentalists, including me and probably you, agree with them.

    1. Biofuels.

    The pro-AGW environmentalist and pro-AGW scientist line on this has always been that sustainable biofuels can contribute to fixing the problem.

    Politicians have seen biofuels as a free lunch. In particular they have taken the following unsustainable approaches to biofuels.

    a. Clearing forest to plant biofuel crops
    b. Draining peat to plant biofuel crops
    c. Replacing food crops with crops for biofuel
    d. Diverting food crops such as maize for biofuel

    In Britain we have made a little headway in persuading some politicians that this is not what environmentalists and scientists mean by sustainable.

    2. Carbon trading.

    This was never particularly popular with the grass roots pro-AGW side. It has recently had a good kicking by both Jim Hansen and Friends Of the Earth. As far as I am concerned it is a completely inefficient approach to both restricting carbon use and promoting investment in a low carbon economy.

    Unfortunately the City have latched on to carbon trading. This is more than just band-wagoning. The City are very good at putting their case, viz deregulation, bankers bonuses, etc. Politicians now believe that carbon trading is good for the economy.

    My biggest fear with Copenhagen is that it just produces more carbon trading.

    3. Geo-engineering.

    There are two types of geo-engineering, the completely daft and the reasonably possible. Here are RealClimate and their allies, giving the completely daft forms a good kicking

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/geoengineering/

    (Note to sceptics, this is not intended to be a full list.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 281. At 12:31pm on 14 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    Whoa, lots of stuff awaiting moderation and a comment about a moderator broken link.

    Reminder to all posters. Due to technical restrictions with moderation you cannot post links to PDF files on the BBC comments boards. As a workaround you can normally post links to pages with links to PDFs, particularly if the PDFs are clearly peer reviewed scientific papers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 282. At 12:39pm on 14 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 263:
    "So again, in answer to all your questions about the reason the models all show high sensitivity...it's because they are simply programmed to and then tweaked into a VERY short term correlation with temperatures."

    That's an implausible answer as I have already explained. For decades noone has tried to model climate honestly is what you are saying.

    You are understandably very keen to ignore the likeliest possibility which is that current physics leads to high climate sensitivity and no amount of fiddling can obtain low.

    Complain about this comment

  • 283. At 12:48pm on 14 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 278:

    Uh the ozone hole isn't expected to recover for decades. CFC levels take a long time to fall even when we cut emissions. All our cut has done so far is stop the growth of the hole any further. The long lifetime of CFC molecules in the stratopshere was part of the problem in the first place.

    Complain about this comment

  • 284. At 12:58pm on 14 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @infinity #282

    What "physics" are you talking about man? Stop babbling. The only "physics" you can find will say CO2 might theoretically increase temperatures by as much as 1.2C

    You're the one claiming models MUST be true because they agree with each othe...yet they all disagree with 98% of the span of the interglacial and have utterly failed to predict. The onus of proof is on you since YOU are making the outrageous claim. Your claims require powerful, positive feedbacks evidence seems to indicate that they are at most weakly positive but are more likely strongly negative.

    I will obviously not accept evidence that has nothing to do with actual forcings of the feedbacks ...like proxies like melting ice or slowly rising sea level (Which are ambiguous with respect to the amount of forcing/feedbacks)

    Complain about this comment

  • 285. At 1:08pm on 14 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @infinity #276

    This is not a fingerprint of AGW, even under natural solar warming you would get the upper troposphere in the tropics warming.

    Yes you would, but the IPCC confidently predict a unique pattern of warming for AGW. This pattern or fingerprint is illustrated (a) the sun getting hotter, (b) volcanoes, (c) an increase in non-water-vapor greenhouse gases, (d) ozone depletion, (e) aerosol emissions, and (f) the sum of all these five factors in the proportions the IPCC believe those causes contributed to global temperature changes. (From the IPCC 2007, Figure 9.1, in Section 9.2.2.1 on page 675.)

    Only one of these diagrams is the unique fingerprint and that does not agree with the observed warming.

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 286. At 1:13pm on 14 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 284:
    The physics of climate. Textbook stuff.

    Scientists have always produced high climate sensitivity from it. Never low. In my opinion that is because low climate sensitivity cannot be derived from the physics of climate as they are currently understood.

    Don't you agree this could be the case?

    Complain about this comment

  • 287. At 1:21pm on 14 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    285: It's not unique if solar warming shows it too. If you can't use it to distinguish between causes then it cannot be described as a fingerprint. The IPCC diagram shows contribution of causes to 20th century warming, not a comparison of causes in general. If you made all the 20th century warming solar caused, you'd get a large hotspot in that diagram instead.

    The pattern of stratospheric cooling is a true fingerprint of AGW - doesn't happen with solar warming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 288. At 1:46pm on 14 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @infinity #287

    OK, let’s break down the diagrams one by one.

    a) Shows the distinctive pattern of warming by solar forcing. Whilst there is general minor warming, there is no hotspot. The warming is as you would expect, throughout the globe.
    b) Shows the distinctive pattern of warming by volcanoes. Whilst there is general minor warming, there is no hotspot. The warming is mostly confined to 16-24km
    c) Shows the distinctive pattern of warming by non-water vapour greenhouse gases i.e. CO2, CH4 etc. This diagram show a distinctive hotspot around the tropics between 4-16 km
    d) Shows the distinctive pattern of warming by ozone depletion and we see cooling over the tropics and more cooling over the poles
    e) Shows the distinctive pattern of warming by aerosol emissions and we see general cooling throughout the globe
    f) Shows the combination of all the above and we see a hotspot around the tropics between 4-16 km. If greenhouse gases were the cause of global warming, observational evidence would show up in the tropics according to the IPCC’s models, but the observed evidence, witnessed by sending up thousands of radiosondes reveals a general warming with no hotspot.

    This is very important. If there is no hotspot, there is no AGW – simple!


    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 289. At 1:54pm on 14 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @infinity #287

    The pattern of stratospheric cooling is a true fingerprint of AGW - doesn't happen with solar warming.

    The true fingerprint of AGW is stratospheric cooling and the tropical hotspot - look at diagrams c & f again


    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 290. At 2:12pm on 14 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    time to jump ship bouys and guls. new thread open

    Complain about this comment

  • 291. At 2:14pm on 14 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 288:
    Diagram a) shows the model response to solar forcing *over the 20th century*, which was significantly less than the greenhouse gas forcing, which is why you can't see the solar caused hotspot at the same scale.

    For a proper comparison of responses we need to compare the model response to a 1wm-2 solar forcing with the model response to a 1wm-2 co2 forcing. Such a comparison is available here:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/

    A 4wm-2 solar forcing causes a tropospheric hotspot as does a 4wm-2 co2 forcing. Even an increase in aerosols causes a tropospheric cold spot. This is a general response the models find - when the Earth warms or cools it is expressed mostly in the tropical troposphere. Has nothing specific to do with ghgs or AGW.

    Complain about this comment

  • 292. At 2:40pm on 14 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @infinity #291

    Diagram a) shows the model response to solar forcing *over the 20th century*, which was significantly less than the greenhouse gas forcing, which is why you can't see the solar caused hotspot at the same scale.

    But the hotspot predicted by the IPCC models showing the effect of AGW gases is still missing according to the observational evidence. There is no hotspot, therefore the cause of any warming cannot be the additional green house gases, due to the unique signature.

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 293. At 3:16pm on 14 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 192:

    It would be more accurate to say that if there is no hotspot then nothing caused recent warming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 294. At 3:21pm on 14 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    280. At 12:26pm on 14 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke

    Incomplete as you said Jane, but nonetheless a fair assessment of some of the major concerns of sceptics.
    However I would like to point out, in case of doubt, that many of us who are sceptic are keen environmentalists perhaps David Bellamy being the most famous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 295. At 3:53pm on 14 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @infinity #293

    It would be more accurate to say that if there is no hotspot then nothing caused recent warming.

    OK, i will go with that

    Nothing caused the warming, which means it must be natural

    >;-)~

    Complain about this comment

  • 296. At 6:45pm on 14 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @infinity #
    "The physics of climate. Textbook stuff. Scientists have always produced high climate sensitivity from it. Never low."

    WHAT "physics of climate"??? We have a terribly bad understanding of teh climate system. What universe do you live in? Anyway, they never even CARED about the climate's sensitivity to CO2 until the late 80s. Then suddenly they decided to panic "What if feedbacks are high" and built models that tested what that would be like...and they all failed. Honestly, has it NEVER occurred to you that the reason you don't see anyone here quoting actual studies that show high feedbacks is that the vast majority show low to negative forcing?

    Complain about this comment

  • 297. At 7:07pm on 14 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @poitsplace #296

    i think the vast number of studies based on calculation shows sensitivity to be high (there are a few that show low, Shaviv etc), but studies based on observation show low sensitivity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 298. At 7:19pm on 14 Dec 2009, rossglory wrote:

    #287 infinity

    i'd save your breath. mango knows best. i'm guessing he's either a truly brilliant climatologist and has spotted something virtually all the others have missed, a true contrarian parrotting stuff from climateaudit etc or thinks he's gonna be the boy that points out the emperor has no clothes despite having no real knowledge of the subject.

    whichever it is one thing is for sure, you will not get him to change his 'there is no evidence' mantra unless his beloved hotspot is revealed to him (and probably not even then).

    Complain about this comment

  • 299. At 7:21pm on 14 Dec 2009, rossglory wrote:

    296 poitsplace

    "We have a terribly bad understanding of teh climate system."

    nope, YOU have a terribly bad understanding of the climate system......and climate science.....and climate scientists.

    but don't let my opinion stop you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 300. At 7:44pm on 14 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @rossglory #298

    Quite wrong Ross, discovery of the AGW signature blows my argument right out of the water and if it is ever discovered, i will clearly and unequivocally renounce my scepticism

    will you and others do the same in light of the complete lack of evidence for AGW?

    Complain about this comment

  • 301. At 8:15pm on 14 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #270

    Nice graph. Shame it stops at about the year 1900. Shame mainstream climate scientists already acknowledge the Mediaeval Warm Period included Greenland. But yes, nice graph.

    Complain about this comment

  • 302. At 8:20pm on 14 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    195. At 5:11pm on 13 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:
    #189 - Well, I saw this comment on the Watts discussion:

    Posted by: brian kelly | August 27, 2007 11:32 PM

    You are deeply confused here. The data you are citing is temperature CHANGE data - not temperature data. If you see a large positive number, that means that that year was warmer than the previous year. You need to integrate the data to see relative temperature. (For each data point, create a running total and plot that.) Do this and you will see that the 30s were some of the coldest years in the data set. You will also see that since around 1990, every successive year is warmer than any other year in this data set. You are misrepresenting the data and spreading misinformation.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sorry, John, but I couldn't leave poor Mr Kelly to be maligned in this way. The comment you quoted was not his but a later comment by someone called Shannon. As for it's veracity, Jane has already pointed out its shortcomings, however I'm surprised you didn't check this yourself before you posted it or was this "misrepresenting the data and spreading misinformation" a simple lapse on your part.

    THE SOURCE - GOOD ARTICLE WORTH READING (PAGE TO THE BOTTOM FOR THE COMMENT)

    And interesting to note how AGW proponents just hate to reference wattsupwiththat, voted best science blog in 2008. If you'd read the excellent articles contained therein before posting your comment #59 you'd realise that the Medieval Warm Period is far from a local phenomenon but was indeed global and it was during this period that the Vikings settled in Greenland.

    LOOKS GLOBAL TO ME

    READ THE ARTICLE

    and shows just how inaccurate the models you like to refer to are!

    Complain about this comment

  • 303. At 8:41pm on 14 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    301. At 8:15pm on 14 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke

    Can you reference those 'mainstream climate scientists' that acknowledge the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than temperatures today, Jane? And the graph covers rather more than the Medieval Warm Period - interesting just how massive Natural temperature changes are yet our politicians tell us they can 'manage climate' !!!

    HOCKEY STICK IN PERSPECTIVE

    Complain about this comment

  • 304. At 11:45pm on 14 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Sparklet #303

    Actually my line was that "mainstream climate scientists already acknowledge the Mediaeval Warm Period included Greenland". (Note, Greenland is at the extreme North of the Northern Atlantic.)

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/070.htm
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
    http://www.grist.org/article/greenland-used-to-be-green/

    I could be very naughty and point you at some very recent work by Michael Mann

    from abstract

    The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally.

    from text (MCA = Mediaeval Climate Anomaly)

    The reconstructed MCA pattern is characterized by warmth over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America, which appears to substantially exceed that of the modern late– 20th century (1961-1990) baseline and is comparable to or exceeds that of the past one-to-two decades in some regions.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5957/1256
    (sorry, can't link to full text as it is in PDF)

    And as a bonus, here's some modern vineyards as far North as Yorkshire

    http://www.englishwineproducers.com/midsvineyard.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 305. At 00:15am on 15 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    304. At 11:45pm on 14 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke

    But what I asked for was "Can you reference those 'mainstream climate scientists' that acknowledge the Medieval Warm Period was WARMER [emphasis added] than temperatures today, Jane? - you see acknowledging the Medieval Warm Period rather spoils their "unprecedented" description of current temperatures hence my request (and no doubt your evasion!!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 306. At 00:25am on 15 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #304

    Oh and I meant to add, I see you're following the AGW trick of truncation Jane

    "Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally."

    Yes, that is indeed 'very naughty' !!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 307. At 01:27am on 15 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Sparklet #305

    Actually sparklet, I misunderstood the point of your question. I thought you were paraphrasing me, and had misunderstood me. Hence my reposting of my initial quote, and my examples to illustrate my initial quote.

    I cannot see why you have problems with my truncations. Temperatures from the Mediaeval era are going to be proxies. Temperatures are known to have varied over time. The temperature proxies are only present for some locations.

    Which of these did you think I was trying to hide? And why?

    OK, now trying to answer your question.

    Sparklet the current mainstream understanding of the Mediaeval Warm Period is that it was real, but it wasn't global. That's the official mainstream position. There may be mainstream climate scientists that believe the Mediaeval Warm Period was global, but I am not aware of them.

    I cannot reference people if I have no reason to believe they exist.

    Now much of the work on the Mediaeval Warm Period is at the heart of the email scandal. But the graphs at your wattsupwiththat link don't settle the matter one way or the other.

    Complain about this comment

  • 308. At 01:28am on 15 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Sparklet #303

    And the graph covers rather more than the Medieval Warm Period

    The IPCC acknowledge some very warm temperatures in some locations in the earlier Holocene.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/073.htm

    You may be interested in comparing other ice cores with the Greenland one.

    Blue - Vostok
    Light blue - Greenland (GISP2)
    Green (turquoise green) - Kilimanjaro
    Red - Central Antarctica (EPICA)

    (please ignore thick black "global average" line, it has not been peer reviewed, there is a comparative lack of proxies, and is there for interest only)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

    Complain about this comment

  • 309. At 01:35am on 15 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Sparklet #303
    (@myself #308)

    (reposting with colon in link fixed)

    And the graph covers rather more than the Medieval Warm Period

    The IPCC acknowledge some very warm temperatures in some locations in the earlier Holocene.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/073.htm

    You may be interested in comparing other ice cores with the Greenland one.

    Blue - Vostok
    Light blue - Greenland (GISP2)
    Green (turquoise green) - Kilimanjaro
    Red - Central Antarctica (EPICA)

    (please ignore thick black "global average" line, it has not been peer reviewed, there is a comparative lack of proxies, and is there for interest only)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AHolocene_Temperature_Variations.png

    Complain about this comment

  • 310. At 07:16am on 15 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @rossglory #299
    "nope, YOU have a terribly bad understanding of the climate system......and climate science.....and climate scientists."

    LOL, so we're to just take your word on this? Never mind that according to the climate models it's physically impossible for MOST of the temperatures of the interglacial to be as high as they are. Forget that the ONLY thing they managed to do was force-fit the models into compliance with the known temperatures and that they diverged from reality IMMEDIATELY when it came to predictions. Yes, it's just me and existence that are wrong...the climate scientists have it bang on (for whatever the heck planet it is they're modeling...it sure as heck can't be this planet)

    @MangoChutneyUKOK
    "i think the vast number of studies based on calculation shows sensitivity to be high (there are a few that show low, Shaviv etc), but studies based on observation show low sensitivity."

    Yep, that's because when you do calculations you only include the bits you think you understand to be true. Its sort of like the way they count ice as having no negative feedback components...only albedo feedback. In the real world the albedo impact is far lower than most suggest and the insulating effect of ice actually slows the loss of energy through the much warmer ocean (negative feedback). Its AMAZING the things you can SAY are possible with "settled science" if you ignore all the bits that say otherwise or are unknown.

    Complain about this comment

  • 311. At 07:40am on 15 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    agreed

    Complain about this comment

  • 312. At 11:00am on 15 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    ...and seconded.
    It seems there is a marked preference among AGW proponents for models rather than reality.

    Complain about this comment

  • 313. At 1:21pm on 15 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    Y'all should forget the 'Forged' 'Science' (It's the Precautionary Principle! I'm Super Serial! Awsome!)

    AND see just how much YOU will pay to Blood & Gore et al.

    EPA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqQ4xR-3J8c&feature=related
    This heats up in no3.. a bit of a trudge but well worth it!

    “We Choose Liberty, Or….?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJmef3sWBdY

    Trillion-Dollar Spending Bill
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3085DErFpoY&feature=related

    in their own words
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

    http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/

    Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.
    Have a look here and see exactly who will 'love' the Environment for you in their own special way...
    https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Programmes/Pages/Sig-Investor-List.aspx

    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.