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

Arctic roots of 'upside-down' weather

Richard Black | 14:01 UK time, Tuesday, 5 January 2010

It's cold in Kirkcaldy, freezing in Frankfurt and brass monkeys in Bryn Mawr... a winter spell with weather that's unusually - well - wintry.

But not everywhere; in fact, other places in the Northern Hemisphere are seeing weather that's unseasonably warm.

In Goose Bay in Newfoundland, it's barely getting below 0C - bikini weather, relatively speaking, given that the average minimum for January is -23C.

The cause of what one weather service refers to as these "upside down" conditions is an extreme of the Arctic Oscillation (AO).

Essentially, air pressure is measured at various places across the Arctic and at the middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere - about 45 degrees north, roughly the latitude of Milan, Montreal or Vladivostok.

The difference between the average readings for the two latitudes gives the state of the Arctic Oscillation index.

A "positive" state is defined as relatively high pressure in mid-latitudes and relatively low pressure over the polar region. "Negative" conditions are the reverse.

And what we have at the moment is an unusually extreme negative state.

The graph below comes from the US government's Climate Prediction Center and shows the variability of the index from 1950 to 2009.

Arctic_Oscillation_indexThe text on the graph is a little unclear as I've had to shrink it a bit, but you can see at the bottom right the current negative conditions developing during December - and here's the original.

Over at the New York Times, they've compiled a different graph that shows how extreme these few weeks are turning out to be - unmatched since the early 1960s, a period that saw several winters in the UK featuring extended spells of cold, snowy weather.

What the negative AO conditions mean is that cold air spills out of the Arctic down to mid-latitudes, which this time round includes much of Europe, tracts of the US and China.

For the UK, this implies a higher chance of cold northerly or easterly winds.

But if you live in places that are usually cold at this time of year - such as Goose Bay - you'll see a concomitant rise in temperatures compared with what happens during "positive" AO conditions, when the cold air is confined to more northerly latitudes.

Ball_game_played_in_snow_in_ChinaA little more than a decade ago, I visited Yakutsk in Siberia which lies close to one of the candidates for the title of "coldest place on the planet" - the village of Oymyakon, which has seen the mercury plummet as low as -71C.

I don't know how balmy it is in Oymyakon right now but in Yakutsk itself, the daily minimum is a mere -35C - that's 10C warmer than the January average.

Despite the name "Arctic Oscillation", there's little discernible pattern to how the pressure difference varies, or what causes it - perhaps "Arctic Random Fluctuation" would be a better name.

Some researchers have linked an apparent increase in the average state of the index from the 1960s to the 1990s to man-made global warming, but you would have to say the jury is definitely still out.

(The AO is linked to another naturally varying phenomenon, by the way - the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the variability in the pressure difference between Iceland and the Azores - in fact, some hold that the NAO is just a sub-set of the AO.)

So the question of how long the unusually wintry UK conditions will last is really a question of how long the Arctic Oscillation will remain in its extreme negative state - and a week to 10 days seems to be the favoured timescale.

Why the cold weather?

Map showing winds from the north and north east bringing cold weather to northern Europe
The current big chill is a result of high pressure over the polar region, which has pushed cold air out of the Arctic towards much of northern Europe, parts of Asia and the US. Winds from the north and north east, rather than the south and south west, have brought freezing temperatures to the UK.
Map showing the unusually cold temperatures across the UK
Provisional Met Office figures for December show temperatures for much of the UK were 1.5C and 2.5C below the mean temperatures for the last 30 years. Scotland saw temperatures dip still lower - from 2.5C to 3.5C. On Tuesday, temperatures in Scotland plunged to -15C in places.
Satellite image showing snow across China
Winds from the north also brought cold weather to parts of Asia, with Beijing receiving its heaviest snowfall for nearly 60 years. At the weekend, up to 30cm (12in) of snow fell in China's capital and its neighbouring port city of Tianjin. Dozens of people have also died in a cold snap in northern India.
Map showing how some parts of the world are colder than normal, while others are hotter
However, while parts of the world suffer freezing temperatures, the seesaw patterns mean other areas are warmer than usual, including Alaska, northern Canada and the Mediterranean. Met Office figures for the end of 2009 show some places dropped 10C below the average, while others were 10C above.
BACK {current} of {total} NEXT

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 2:41pm on 05 Jan 2010, David Blake wrote:

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

  • 2. At 3:00pm on 05 Jan 2010, David Blake wrote:

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

  • 3. At 3:11pm on 05 Jan 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Will the gas supplies hold out until the end of this cold snap?

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 3:16pm on 05 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    The London Times seems to think the cold is a bit more "global" than you think, but perhaps they spent less time searching for the "hot" spots!

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6975867.ece

    "Guo Hu, the head of the Beijing Meteorological Bureau, linked this week’s conditions to unusual atmospheric patterns caused by global warming."

    -- Ah yes -- we must never forget that "war is peace"!

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 3:18pm on 05 Jan 2010, David Blake wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 6. At 3:24pm on 05 Jan 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    Richard,

    May I refer you to the seminar that you and I attended at Imperial College on the causes of Climate Change (not being CO2) last October.

    Was it not at this seminar that this bad spell of weather was forecast? - I expect you too are bombarded with email from the organiser of the seminar containing forecast updates.

    Can you please tell us how this recent cold spell fits in with the climate modellers predictions of ever warming temperatures?

    In summary cold till the end of February!

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 3:27pm on 05 Jan 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    Sorry Richard you just don't get it. It does not matter how much you an the BBC campaign on the hypothesis that man made CO2 emissions will caues danfgerous global warmin, people are not stupid. Even if this winter had been mild we know the global temperature, if there is such a thing, has been fiddled as demonstrated by the Climategate emails.

    It is about time the BBC started to employ professional scientists and engineers.

    Your last post allowed someone to traduce Steve McIntyre and you are happy to let it stand? trick or cheat

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 3:27pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "The London Times seems to think the cold is a bit more "global" than you think, but perhaps they spent less time searching for the "hot" spots!"

    Yup, if you refuse to look for warming and only look for cold, then you'll conclude it's getting cold.

    I'm surprised you'd out the times in such a way, mind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 3:29pm on 05 Jan 2010, Toraborata wrote:

    What needs to happen before there is an official review of AGW. Temperatures have been falling slightly over the last 10 years and now we get this. (PS BBC Weather, thanks for the warning about the 4 inches of snow in Lancs - yesterdays forecast for today was sunny). Changing global warming to climate change and then saying that any extreme weather is explainable as a consequence of CC is becoming increasingly laughable. There's 30,000 scientists signed a petion saying they dont agree with the AGW theory, so where is this consensus we keep getting rammed down our throats.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 3:30pm on 05 Jan 2010, David Blake wrote:

    @3 SensibleGrannie.

    Don't worry, we've got wind-power. We'll be fine. Honest.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 3:34pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

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

  • 12. At 3:39pm on 05 Jan 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Richard Black seems to be suggesting global cooling by god. Artic Ice is going to grow massive on this one. Now lets see what the AGW crowd come up with to suggest this is all caused by warming???????????????

    Piers states the cold in the UK will continue until February with some short warm periods.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 3:42pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

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

  • 14. At 3:47pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

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

  • 15. At 3:48pm on 05 Jan 2010, Neil Hyde wrote:

    As reported by RB Oct 30 2009

    "The UK winter, he forecasts, is likely to be cold with some very cold spells. His bete noire, the Met Office, says in an "early indication" that temperatures are likely to be near or above the recent average (3.7C for December), though there is a one in seven chance of a cold one. "


    So who got it right Richard ? The bete noir at the Mysterious Office , or Piers Corbyn ? Still waiting for an answer , or are the mods taking over the "Gatekeeper" role you formerly held , as they seem to be deleting inconvenient posts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 3:50pm on 05 Jan 2010, FrankFisher wrote:

    "Arctic roots of 'upside-down' weather"

    umm. it's winter?

    This is normal. Snow is normal in winter...

    Only AGW has a problem with it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 3:51pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "There's 30,000 scientists signed a petion saying they dont agree with the AGW theory,"

    Really?

    Checked in to that?

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Faked.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 3:53pm on 05 Jan 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Artic sea ice extent for yesterday getting pretty cold everywhere it seems

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 3:55pm on 05 Jan 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    This is why the identification was changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change." We have historic records for climate change and the current questions relate to causes, acceleration and mitigation. A complex system of a global scale does not lend itself to simple solutions and long term impacts might involve long term solutions. As with a tsumani, by the time you realize what is happening, it is usually too late.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 4:02pm on 05 Jan 2010, Ashani wrote:

    My only concern now in this awful weather, is that if it continues more than another week I am going to lose my job. I have not been able to drive my car since the Saturday before Christmas due to our rural roads being abandoned by the council. I am sick of struggling into town on foot, a 7 mile round trip, slipping and tripping on lumpy ice and snow and frozen melt, laden down with provisions I had no chance to stock up on because the bad weather set in before I got paid. I work 35 miles away and there is only one bus I can catch home. If I miss it or it does not come due to the weather I am stranded. I have had a miserable Christmas because all I could think of is how the heck do I get to work? Plus when I do get the car started - after all this ice it may well be damaged because we have no garage. I have done my level best to keep the wild birds fed, they are desperately hungry, but cannot carry large quantities of bird food on my back up the slippery, dangerous hills. Winter belongs further north where the poor polar bears are starving. They need it, we don't.. Hurry up and go away snow and ice, I have really had enough!

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 4:06pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Richard Black seems to be suggesting global cooling by god."

    Only to those who have to make things up to be right.

    Where does that get suggested?

    Maybe from the same place this comes from:

    "as they seem to be deleting inconvenient posts."

    How would you know what those posts say?

    Ah, it must be true because the ONLY WAY AGW can be true is if there's a conspiracy to prove it.

    Sigh.

    Seems like reality has a liberal bias.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 4:10pm on 05 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    I like the way Richard Black calls cold weather in winter "upside-down" weather.

    Cold weather in winter? -- What a crazy, upside-down, mixed-up world!



    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 4:11pm on 05 Jan 2010, jacothenorth wrote:

    I was getting really worried by the totalitarianism that is AGW; the nonsense of wind turbines; being taken for a complete idiot. Thank God this nightmare is lifting and truth at long last prevailing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 4:12pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    @18.

    And it's winter.

    What happens in winter?

    How about the thickness of the ice?

    How about the fact that 2.6million square kilometers has been lost?

    How can the world be warming if we're missing so much ice at the poles?

    Do you think the colder it gets, the less sea ice we have???

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 4:14pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    " This is why the identification was changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change." "

    Please explain what

    I
    P
    C
    C

    means.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 4:18pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Oh, and on the name change, it was the denialists who pushed that through the media:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming

    "it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Public_sector

    Which also turns up a snipped on faking reports:

    "Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon an oil lobbyist sent him a fax saying "You are doing a great job."[9] Cooney announced his resignation two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke,[29] but a few days later it was announced that Cooney would take up a position with ExxonMobil.[30]"

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 4:19pm on 05 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    Mr Black,

    On Oct 29 last year rather sneeringly critiqued Piers Corbyn's predictions ref: this winter

    'The UK winter, he forecasts, is likely to be cold with some very cold spells. His bete noire, the Met Office, says in an "early indication" that temperatures are likely to be near or above the recent average (3.7C for December), though there is a one in seven chance of a cold one.
    So there you are. The forecasts are out; let battle commence.'

    In the light of the current weather and what was the coldest December for 12 years and now looking at potentially one of the coldest winters since the war can you have the grace to admit that in this one incidence Mr Corbyn got it right.

    Further to the above as the Met office have got their sums wrong over 3 of the last four winter forecasts would it not be reasonable to postulate that the met are being deliberately 'warmist'.

    Your article above does seem to cherry pick Newfoundand whereas the majority of the continent of North America is going through a very serious cold period with for example record cold temperatures in the Dakotas.

    You are a member of some AGW campaign groups. Does this infuence any of your journalism?

    To quote Mr Mann

    'climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job)'


    Who do you do a great job for?

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 4:20pm on 05 Jan 2010, David Blake wrote:

    Richard Black and Team,

    That's now 3 posts of mine you've taken down - 1,2 and 5. At least 5 made it onto the screen for a couple of mins. What is the problem you have with letting it be known that Piers Corbyn was right in predicting the November floods and the cold winter? Surely there's something for Richard to investigate there, especially considering Richard was there at the October seminar when the predictions were made? The arogant tone of Richards article about Piers seems a little out of place now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 4:20pm on 05 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    Kamboshigh wrote:

    "Piers states the cold in the UK will continue until February with some short warm periods."

    Piers also predicted that the end of December would be warmer and we would be knee-deep in floods from the meltwater. See here: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] - a 'red letters' warning of "Severe storms & Floods coming 28 - 30 Dec – Special Trial forecast".

    Toroborata, AGW is constantly under review. That's why they have meetings and summits. To review the latest evidence.

    Bowmanthebard wrote

    ""Guo Hu, the head of the Beijing Meteorological Bureau, linked this week’s conditions to unusual atmospheric patterns caused by global warming."

    -- Ah yes -- we must never forget that "war is peace"!"

    I don't have Guo Hu's speech in the original Mandarin so cannot speak for the accuracy of the quote.

    However - one of the points continually made about global warming is that it will give rise to more extremes of weather (weather is local and specific; climate is broader, more general and about trends. We, eg, live in a 'temperate maritime' climate but our weather is not the same as mid-Norway, which is also in the temperate maritime region. Nor even the same as Ireland, come to that. And the Lake District has weather markedly different from, say, East Anglia - and that's all in a relatively small area).

    Changes in long-established balances will give rise to wide variations and severe departures from the norm - e.g, the 80 - 90F temperatures we had in February a few years ago; the above-average temperatures we had last summer BUT accompanied by higher-than-average rainfall. As the global temperature rises (which it has done over the decade since 1998 but not by much) the balance of high pressure and low pressure areas will shift.

    One of the potential anomalies is that the global temperature may get warmer while we in the UK could see colder winters. That's to do with the temperature of the Arctic Ocean; as it rises, its differential with the Tropics is narrowed, which takes power out of the Atlantic Conveyor - in particular, the Gulf Stream, the warm surface current that keepss NW Europe warmer than other areas in the upper 40s - lower 60s latitudes. Such as Vladivostok, Hudson Bay, etc.

    What we are seeing now - right now - is temperatures in Arctic and sub-Arctic areas that are 20C HIGHER than long-term average; in the UK, we're seeing temperatures about 6-8 degrees lower. Do the sums: the average is higher than normal.

    Snowfall in Beijing is unusual for this time of the year - very unusual.

    Before foaming at the mouth about conspiracies (discussions on how to reconcile data from different sources and atmospheric conditions) and 'suppression' (which were actually playground spats), take the time to read the raw data - if you have either the patience or the brainpower to go through it all and understand it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 4:21pm on 05 Jan 2010, mikewarsaw wrote:

    I'm a British expat living currently in Warsaw,Poland. The cold weather doesn't seem to phase anyone here! Its been as low as-16C and down to well below -20C at night. Some snow falling but roads are kept clear, all the buses run, kids go to school and all the shops are open. Serious snow is when at least 30cm falls.
    People fall about laughing when they hear about the weather related emergency crisis in the UK. But then they have properly built houses, flats and other buildings such as schools here with internal drainpipes, decent insulation and proper heating, winter snow/mud tyres on their cars and other vehicles.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 4:21pm on 05 Jan 2010, davblo wrote:

    Kamboshigh #18: "Artic sea ice extent for yesterday getting pretty cold everywhere it seems"

    I think this one is more telling... "Arctic Sea Ice Extent"

    Please let us know if you have any serious thoughts on it.

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 4:23pm on 05 Jan 2010, minuend wrote:

    Against all predictions the Northern Hemisphere is suffering one of its coldest winters on record - record snow falls, record cold temperatures and record periods of cold.

    This shows that Global Warming is faith-based nonsense.

    Take note this planet does not give a damn what humans think and do. Natural climate change makes all the warmists look completely stupid.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 4:24pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Can you please tell us how this recent cold spell fits in with the climate modellers predictions of ever warming temperatures?"

    There were no such predictions. You've made up a strawman.

    "In summary cold till the end of February!"

    In summary: it's winter.

    Sheesh, you have to keep clutching at straws so you can build your strawman arguments, don't you.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 4:26pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "This is normal. Snow is normal in winter...

    Only AGW has a problem with it."

    Thereby proving you don't know what AGW means or says.

    Read a book.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 4:30pm on 05 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    Toroborata wrote:

    "There's 30,000 scientists signed a petion saying they dont agree with the AGW theory..."

    A claimed 30,000 people signed a petition (the numbers and confirmed identities are open to debate) but to describe them all as scientists is stretching the definition, somewhat, as the number includes TV weather forecasters - that's Ulrike-type presenters, not meterologists - and various coves in all sorts of (no doubt) interesting disciplines.

    On the other hand, Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organisations that study climate science support the position that human activity is contributing to global warming. More specifically, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

    A survey of 3146 earth scientists were asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively published research on climate change responded yes.

    So: who do you go with? Ulrike and her colleagues, nice as they are to look at? Or the boring guy with glasses, a beard and elbow patches who has actually been doing the work?

    Oh - don't tell me: the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are fully paid-up members of a worldwide conspiracy. Surprised the word 'Jewish' isn't inserted there somewhere: isn't that the tradition for conspiracy-seekers' claims?

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 4:31pm on 05 Jan 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #U142 at post 21 how can you explain this cold within the realms of your belief system. Surely, with global warming with AO going strongly negative plus the NAO you must have a reason and cause so as to support your theory. It cannot be CO2 as this only causes warming, perhaps you can enlighten us?

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 4:32pm on 05 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    U14260427

    Your basic argument seems to be

    'the emperor is wearing clothes' we're just not looking hard enough.

    'Pop'

    Thats the sound of Al Gores bubble bursting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 4:33pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "the nonsense of wind turbines; "

    What nonsense?

    You think the wind doesn't blow???

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 4:36pm on 05 Jan 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #U142 @ 24 see that orange line thats the median of the AGW theory, with every adjustment and fudge possible. There are at least 14 weeks of growth to go. How is your belief system going to possible content with the fact that 2010 will see Artic Sea pass this point.

    By the way the sea around the UK is going to start freezing as well so say the BBC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 4:42pm on 05 Jan 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #U142 @ 25

    Tell me what this means

    I invent
    P profit
    C Corruption
    C Construct lies

    Keep going will you the kids love the jokes

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 4:51pm on 05 Jan 2010, Jack Frost wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 42. At 4:52pm on 05 Jan 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Davblo come on lets not cherry pick, your graph is how many months out of date. This is a US government agency they are showing the ice extent and even admit that there in accurancies in their projections on the negative side. You guys have to take it into account you have rammed it down our throats for years.

    By the way Happy New Year and a successful 2010 to you and family

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 4:53pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "In the light of the current weather and what was the coldest December for 12 years and now looking at potentially one of the coldest winters since the war"

    So this is warmer than 12 years ago, maybe even 50 years.

    Therefore global warming is true.

    Thanks for proving it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 4:53pm on 05 Jan 2010, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @35

    Boring guy with beard and glasses who also happens to be Chairman of the IPCC ?

    ...........and a railway engineer !!!!

    Hmmm

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 4:56pm on 05 Jan 2010, Nicolas Travers wrote:

    Mr. Black appears to have forgotten the December 2009 forecast made by the Meteorological Office at the end of November 2009, which predicted - inter alia:

    The final ten days then will probably begin unsettled start with further deep lows running across or close to the UK especially the south west and Wales giving a wet and windy Xmas for most with gales in places but a chiilier spell post Xmas for a few days bringing wintry showers though settling down from the west with night frosts inland but more wet and windy weather seems quite likely to sweep into all parts again by New Years Eve.

    Temperatures during the month overall staying rather above average, especially by night when they'll be a good 2-3C above, though near average at times in the north and NE. Well below average frosts generally. Rainfall well above average for most parts but some eastern & north eastern areas may be a bit closer to average & sunshine below average generally especially in the west but the NE and east coasts may be nearer average. Sea temperatures remaining about a degree or more above average and soil temperatures also starting & staying rather above average for most parts, but decreasing to nearer average in the NE later; less so in the west though with soil moisture near average in the east but remaining well above average for most other areas, especially in Wales and the SW and NW of England and very possibly N Ireland & W /SW Scotland too.

    What happened to our warmer December - or were the Met's forecasters wholly misguided?

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 4:58pm on 05 Jan 2010, Rob wrote:

    Pedantic point of information re:
    "..... - the village of Oymyakon, which has seen the mercury plummet as low as -71C."

    mercury freezes at -40C

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 5:05pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Thereby proving kimosabe has nothing going on.

    International
    Panel on
    Climate
    Change

    Trying so hard to be a wit, and fails.

    "Kamboshigh wrote:

    #U142 @ 24 see that orange line thats the median of the AGW theory, with every adjustment and fudge possible. "

    Adjustment. You call it fudge because you want it to be wrong.

    And what orange line are you talking about?

    " going to possible content with the fact that 2010 will see Artic Sea pass this point."

    Can you try again in english.

    going to possible content???

    Arctic Sea pass what??

    Truly your mind knows no bounds. Among other things.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 5:07pm on 05 Jan 2010, David Jack Smith wrote:

    You may be a crazy non-science Warm Monger if you believe...

    Not only can "scientists" determine the mean temperature of a whole planet today to a tenth of a degree, but that they can do so for the year 1010 AD.

    That carbon dioxide is a "pollutant," and not a vital component of all life on Earth, without which there could be no crops, trees or vegetation.

    That carbon dioxide is the most prolific so-called "greenhouse" gas, and not water vapour, which is, by a massive factor the most prolific greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

    That humans can affect the weather, just like so many primitive societies of the past before science.

    That YOU know the correct temperature for a planet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 5:09pm on 05 Jan 2010, Nicolas Travers wrote:

    I provided details earlier of Meterological forecasts for December 2009, made at the end of November 2009. Mr. Black, in a blog about climate scepticism ('Magnetic attraction of climate 'scepticism''), kindly posted a link to a Meteorological Office long distance forecast issued on 29 September 2009. Here it is:

    'Preliminary indications continue to suggest that winter temperatures are likely to be near or above average over much of Europe including the UK. Winter 2009/10 is likely to be milder than last year for the UK, but there is still a 1 in 7 chance of a cold winter.

    ' What do we mean by average temperature? As you would expect, temperatures can vary quite widely over the winter. So we take an average for the whole season and measure against that. The UK average for December to February from 1971-2000 is 3.7 °C.'

    The Met seems to be badly askew, and puts me in mind of a famous quip about the Victorian scientist who predicted the growth of the transport industry. I omit the punchline because of my respect for the sensibilities of other readers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 5:11pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    As opposed to McIntyre who gets money for fossil fuel production, Neil?

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 5:12pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "The final ten days then will probably begin unsettled start with further deep lows running across or close to the UK especially the south west and Wales giving a wet and windy Xmas for most with gales in places but a chiilier spell post Xmas for a few days bringing wintry showers though settling down from the west with night frosts inland but more wet and windy weather seems quite likely to sweep into all parts again by New Years Eve."

    Which is what happened.

    It just got the temps wrong.

    Therefore it became SNOWY and windy.

    And we have had wintry showers too.

    Funny how anything they get right is ignored.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 5:14pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Paddy, you're argument seems to be "I see no ships" whilst closing your eyes.

    "Blurt"

    The sound of your head decompressing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 5:15pm on 05 Jan 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. It may serve everyone well to grasp the timeframes that are being dealt with. I am sure everyone would like all of this sorted out in their own lifetime but the planet may not cooperate as your specific importance in the scheme of things is of no significance. Much more of history (99.9%) is pre-human and it seems hard for some to understand how the planet survived without them all that time. Those with an Eastern view of life may be returning to find out what happens next. Apparently, the plan is for the "deniers" to be in a chilly heaven while the "extremist" will be in a warmer hell, or is it the other way around.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 5:17pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "36. At 4:31pm on 05 Jan 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #U142 at post 21 how can you explain this cold within the realms of your belief system."

    1) It isn't a belief system. It's science.

    2) It's weather, not climate.

    Easy peasy.

    Got any more softballs for me?

    "It cannot be CO2 as this only causes warming, perhaps you can enlighten us? "

    Yes. It's weather. An an oscillation has no long term effect on climate.

    But if your eyes are closed, you will see no light.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 5:19pm on 05 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    RauriJM wrote:
    'So: who do you go with? Ulrike and her colleagues, nice as they are to look at? Or the boring guy with glasses, a beard and elbow patches who has actually been doing the work?@


    I am a scientist. Well at least I have a Bsc from St Andrews and I dont agree with AGW. I have a beard but no glasses.

    So is the Chair of Meteorology at MIT (Probably one of the top 5 science universities in the world). He's a scientist probably quite a good one considering his position and all. He also doesnt believe in AGW.

    There are a very a large minority of scientists who dont believe in AGW but as many have said before

    Follow the Money,

    Contrary to common belief there is alot more money in being a scaremongering warmer than there is in being a realist. Just ask Saint Alan of Gore.

    Scepticism is a natural part of science. Scientists must continuously be challenged and questioned. When science delves into absolutism it fails.AGW is a theory not a fact. It may be a widely accepted theory but so was the theory that the world was flat. It took a brave man to stand up and question the establishment but luckily some did.

    You and your ranty friend U2 seem to think the only way to argue is to belittle and sneer. Thats why people with opposite views to yours use the same tactics in reverse.

    It is the warmers who shout down the realists.
    It is the warmers who accept massive government funding while the realists are left out in the cold,literally.
    There has to be some balance. There has to be some independant checking.
    The deniers, as you call them should serve a positive function if your theory of AGW is correct. That function is to test and challenge. If you are wrong the function that the deniers are fulfilling is doubly important.

    Have you ever been wrong and then thought I wish I'd checked for myself?

    I'm happy to be wrong ( I dont believe I am) but I am not arrogant enough to believe I have all the right answers, are you?

    Science is and should always be about challenge and testing because only through this can the real truth be established.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 5:27pm on 05 Jan 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    ashani at post 20
    The snow has just started falling here. Do you have any near elderly neighbours who might need help? You are lucky at least to be able to communicate as the power has not gone down yet. I recommend that everyone in a snow dump area keeps a flask of hot drink at the ready...just in case. ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 5:27pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

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

  • 58. At 5:29pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. It may serve everyone well to grasp the timeframes that are being dealt with. "

    Nope. It doesn't.

    Knowing that doesn't change the fact that coal is mostly carbon. It doesn't change where London is built knowing that the earth is billions of years old.

    In what way is that factoid relevant?

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 5:30pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "and it seems hard for some to understand how the planet survived without them all that time"

    Nope. No problem there.

    Working out how that has any relevance to how humans survived is the problem.

    Maybe you can clear that up.

    Is it that if the world were 4.1Bn years old, we wouldn't be here?

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 5:35pm on 05 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    U2 wrote

    'So this is warmer than 12 years ago, maybe even 50 years.

    Therefore global warming is true.

    Thanks for proving it.'


    Warmers seem to believe we are on a continuous upward trend and yet the last few years have contradicted the models.

    What happened to 2 weeks to save the world etc.

    The US average last year dipped to just slightly above the average from when records began. You could say this shows warming buts its all about perspective and trends (Apparently) as we are forever told that the trend is we will be all 4 meters underwater if trends continue blah blah blah. Or we will see deserts in East Anglia and Bedouin in Bedford if trends continue Blah blah blah.

    But temps are dropping. Even with the creative accounting of the warmers average temps are dropping.

    As these were the main corner stone of the Panic then the whole premise has to be questioned.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 5:40pm on 05 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    U2 wrote
    'Paddy, you're argument seems to be "I see no ships" whilst closing your eyes.

    "Blurt"

    The sound of your head decompressing.'

    I see no ships because they are all stuck in the ice trying to get through the northwest passage.

    BTW finally a witty coment from a warmer. Fair play to you, you're not all just a bunch of humourless hippies.

    Some of you hippies have a sense of humour.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 5:40pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "but as many have said before

    Follow the Money,"

    Yup, but you never do:


    http://www.offshore-environment.com/facts.html

    * Saudi Arabia* - 8.1 million barrels per day;
    *Including share of production from the Neutral Zone
    * Former Soviet Union - 6.9 million barrels per day;
    * United States - 6.5 million barrels per day;
    * I.R. Iran - 3.6 million barrels per day;
    * China - 3.2 million barrels per day.

    How much does a barrel go for? $100-ish

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 5:42pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Scientists must continuously be challenged and questioned. "

    As long as you don't question the unscientific "it's all a scam".

    As long as you don't question McIntyre or Seiss or the OISM petition or the 101 different theories of denialists.

    Yeah, just question and challenge (and NEVER listen to the answers) the IPCC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 5:45pm on 05 Jan 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    Still Completely Fed Up are we?

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 5:45pm on 05 Jan 2010, HolbornMoleStrangler wrote:

    As far as I can tell this article is about trying to explain why we're having this current cold snap and the writer made an interesting stab at it using this Artic Oscillation thingmabob. Virtually no mention of Global Warming at all yet it's descended into a slanging match most it seems aimed at the writer by denialists.
    What did you do in an earlier life Mr Black?
    Anyhow before I finish I just want to wish Ashani15 good luck and maybe ask whether Russian's annual gas threat is about to happen again considering what I read about the situation in Belarus in this mornings papers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 5:54pm on 05 Jan 2010, David Jack Smith wrote:

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

  • 67. At 5:55pm on 05 Jan 2010, Gordon wrote:

    What a joke, the BBC in full climate change spin mode. There is no man made climate change, only man made idiots like Al bore and his camp followers.

    Can't wait for the Tories to get elected, seeing you lot at the BBC walk out of TV centre with your little cardboard box will be the day I dance in the streets.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 5:55pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Warmers seem to believe we are on a continuous upward trend and yet the last few years have contradicted the models."

    Actually it was you and kimosabe who said that this prove AGW wrong because AGW is a continuous upward trend.

    The IPCC reports have never said it.

    Just you and kimosabe.

    You're contradicting yourselves.

    And again many denialists like yourself point out when it's a "150 year record temperature" "HAH! SEE! It was WARMER in the past!!!!oneoneoneeleventyone!1!".

    Seems you like it both ways, as long as it's in your favour.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 5:56pm on 05 Jan 2010, John wrote:

    U14260427 - Do you believe that you are somehow appointed to act as umpire, or judge and jury on this blog?
    I only ask, because it appears you have taken it upon yourself to provide self righteous and pompous responses to many people posting here.
    Are you perhaps employed by the BBC to attempt to belittle the comments of others?
    This is an open forum where people are free to make whatever comments they see fit. Why do you feel that it is reasonable for you to pass scorn and sarcastic comment on almost every one?
    Be so kind as to allow others to make comments without feeling the need to have the last word on every one that doesn't fit within you narrow frame of view.
    We will decide whether we like them or not.
    Your "assistance" is really not necessary.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 5:58pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

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

  • 71. At 6:00pm on 05 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    U2 dont fret. Go outside build a snow man in the 'mild' winter air
    and dream about girls in Bikinis in inverness.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 6:03pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Virtually no mention of Global Warming at all yet it's descended into a slanging match most it seems aimed at the writer by denialists."

    Always does.

    Gotta keep the debate alive so purchased politicians can point to them and say "we're only doing what The Public demands!" and avoid any real change(tm).

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 6:15pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    I have yet to see a comment by U14260427 that is actually backed by any factual information or attempt to use logic to back up his arguments. Perhaps he will try harder in the future.

    As to global warming, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/05/december-uah-global-temperature-anomaly-down-by-almost-half/#more-14851 clearly shows that yes, there has been warming since 1979 (when satellite data started being collected, and this warming has, globally averaged, been around 0.16 C/decade.

    Considering that 1850 is acknowledged by anyone with a brain who has done any research whatsoever to have been the end of the "Little Ice Age", one would thing that "warming" from 1850 to present would be not only a natural thing, but a good thing as well. People were not particularly comfortable during the "Little Ice Age".

    Also, if you look carefully at the graph of globally-averaged satellite temperature data, you can clearly see that from about 2002-2006 no additional warming occurred whatsoever, and from 2007-present it has been cooling significantly, although we are still at +0.28 C temperature anomoly, so if you believe folks when they tell you what the temperature "should be", then we are theoretically 0.28 C above that point.

    If anyone is seriously worried about being +0.28 C "above normal", and if anyone seriously believes that the activities of man have had anything whatsoever to do with that "anomoly", I would strongly suggest you study the available geological time-scale climate data. There have been MANY times in the history of the earth when it was quite a bit warmer globally than it is now. Geologists call these warm eras "climate optima".

    Why would they call the warm periods "climate optima"? Perhaps because a warm earth is extremely pleasant and prosperous for its inhabitants?

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 6:16pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Go and have a Paddy somewhere else, huh?

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 6:18pm on 05 Jan 2010, climateheretic wrote:

    It is clear to all people I speak to that MMGW is a massive con.The Met office is a branch of the Ministry of Defence. They "predict" what they are told to predict.

    "Barbecue summer... 50% chance of a mild winter....blah blah blah ...."

    The only people who think the climate modelling computer programmes are valid is big government in the UK and US, the BBC, the EU , china , india and the various 3rd world countries who want to milk this lunacy for all it is worth.

    MMGW is about engineering a world government, panicking us like little sheep, increasing taxes and causing food shortages in the 3rd world.

    Wake up BBC !

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 6:18pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "What a joke, the BBC in full climate change spin mode. There is no man made climate change"

    There's nothing like a well reasoned argument. And this was nothing like a well reasoned argument.

    Most people would call it circular logic.

    But to this clown, it's just a thought train with no loose ends.

    Please prove that CO2 cannot cause global warming.

    There's plenty of proof for it to do so, so prove them wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 6:18pm on 05 Jan 2010, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @50

    That old chestnut !!!!!!!!!!!

    One commission , so what about the sponsorship of Hadley , by Shell BP and the Sultanate of Oman ( A beautiful country where I used to work)? Each individually far exceeds Steve M's total take forom the single job he did .

    On the same tack , how can an impartial BBC , state funded journalist , have a vested interest in the AGW scaremongereing ? Ask Mr. Harribin that question, he will give you an answer when he has cleared it with Jo Abess.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 6:19pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    ""but as many have said before

    Follow the Money,"

    Yup, but you never do:


    http://www.offshore-environment.com/facts.html

    * Saudi Arabia* - 8.1 million barrels per day;
    *Including share of production from the Neutral Zone
    * Former Soviet Union - 6.9 million barrels per day;
    * United States - 6.5 million barrels per day;
    * I.R. Iran - 3.6 million barrels per day;
    * China - 3.2 million barrels per day.

    How much does a barrel go for? $100-ish"

    First of all, a barrel is $80-ish currently. Secondly, the amount of money spent by "big oil" for climate research was on the order of $70 million (yes that is million with an M) last year, while the amount spent by "big government" on climate research was on the order of $22 billion (yes, that is billion with a B).

    I think these so-called scientists know which side their bread is buttered on, don't you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 6:20pm on 05 Jan 2010, James wrote:

    How things have altered. The talk is not about a rational and tested theory of global warming. Nobody talks about a theory, as it would have to have supporting evidence. It has become “does CO2 released by human activity affect climate”. An assertion that is difficult to disagree with, however it misses the essential queries of how much it alters climate, and in which direction. How powerful an influence is it compared to other factors.

    I became suspicious about Global warming theories in 1992. In New Zealand it was getting colder over a number of years and glaciers were growing. If it isn’t happening worldwide then it isn’t global.

    Since then there has been no clear evidence, nor any theory of global warming able to stand rigorous testing.

    Believing in global warming without testing it would not matter if there were not huge amounts of money being spent because of it. Money that could be used elsewhere.

    It may be fashionable to espouse global warming by commerce and politicians. However, for instance, I would rather Marks and Spencer provided a cost-effective quality products and service than proclaim in their shops and on the side of their vans their global warming credentials.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 6:24pm on 05 Jan 2010, Zeddy wrote:

    Here is more information about North Atlantic Oscillation [http://naoband.com/] ;)
    Personally, I can't help but think a nice cold spell will put the hoo-ha of Swine flu to bed. Who says it's all bad?

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 6:27pm on 05 Jan 2010, TVGgirl wrote:

    U14260427:

    Well argued! Keep 'em coming!

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 6:28pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "73. At 6:15pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    I have yet to see a comment by U14260427 that is actually backed by any factual information or attempt to use logic to back up his arguments."

    There have been plenty.

    Now try and look for information etc to back up the denialists?

    Go on.

    I'll give you some time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 6:30pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    ""What a joke, the BBC in full climate change spin mode. There is no man made climate change"

    There's nothing like a well reasoned argument. And this was nothing like a well reasoned argument.

    Most people would call it circular logic.

    But to this clown, it's just a thought train with no loose ends.

    Please prove that CO2 cannot cause global warming.

    There's plenty of proof for it to do so, so prove them wrong."

    No one is arguing that CO2 CANNOT cause global warming. What we are arguing is that the man-made CONTRIBUTION to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTING to global warming.

    Read a book. There have been plenty of times in the past when the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 was double what it currently is now, and on several of those occasions, global temperature was cooler than it is currently, even though there was twice as much CO2 in the air.

    Once you can properly explain that phenomenon, perhaps people will think that you have some sort of factual basis to support your particular hypothesis.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 6:31pm on 05 Jan 2010, David Jack Smith wrote:

    "Please prove that CO2 cannot cause global warming."

    Such a laughably childish comment.

    Don't blame Dr "U14260427" Jones. He's suffering Turrettsemail Syndrome.

    Professor Albert Gore/

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 6:31pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

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

  • 86. At 6:34pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    James: "It has become “does CO2 released by human activity affect climate”. An assertion that is difficult to disagree with,"

    You're new here, aren't you.

    " however it misses the essential queries of how much it alters climate, and in which direction."

    Uh, how can CO2 *COOL* the planet when you increase it?

    Cargo Cult Science.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 6:36pm on 05 Jan 2010, Devong1rl wrote:

    Dear U14
    You are not helping the argument in support of the AGW theory by appearing blinkered - this is not a black and white situation. Paddy presents an altogether more reasoned and logical approach to the issue.
    As a definite agnostic on the subject of AGW I would at least say this; our fossil fuels are finite - FACT. Surely it makes sense to use them more sparingly so that future generations are not left completely without - by doing this we can give today's (and tomorrow's) scientists the opportunity to find other sources of cost efficient energy.
    Further, all this pollution going up into the atmosphere surely can't be doing any good anyway - remember the London pea soupers.......

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 6:36pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "On the same tack , how can an impartial BBC , state funded journalist , have a vested interest in the AGW scaremongereing ? "

    For the same reason why they reported "scaremongering" stories of the bank troubles as opposed to the happy-smiley story AIG would like to have peddled.

    Because it's true.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 6:36pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    ""73. At 6:15pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    I have yet to see a comment by U14260427 that is actually backed by any factual information or attempt to use logic to back up his arguments."

    There have been plenty.

    Now try and look for information etc to back up the denialists?

    Go on."

    I provided the information to back up the denialists in my post, which you clearly did not actually read.

    Try again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 6:39pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    Here you go U14260427, even more data to back up the denialists. I have yet to see ANY actual data from you... where is YOUR data to back up the AGW True Believers?

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16781

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 6:40pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "84. At 6:31pm on 05 Jan 2010, David Jack Smith wrote:

    "Please prove that CO2 cannot cause global warming."

    Such a laughably childish comment."

    Why?

    Because you can't prove the IPCC wrong, so you'll laugh instead?

    There's a proof of CO2's warming effect.

    If you want to claim it's wrong, then prove it.

    If you can't, keep chucling.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 6:42pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    " Peter: "Secondly, the amount of money spent by "big oil" for climate research was on the order of $70 million (yes that is million with an M) last year,"

    How much was spent in lobbying?

    http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?year=2008&lname=Exxon+Mobil

    Just one country.

    Just one company.

    Just on senators. Nothing about how much money they spend on, for example, the Heartland Institute or the NIPCC.

    " while the amount spent by "big government" on climate research was on the order of $22 billion (yes, that is billion with a B)."

    Over how long?

    "I think these so-called scientists know which side their bread is buttered on, don't you?"

    Yes, McIntyre, Seiss and so on definitely know which side has the jelly.

    And they want a slice.

    Best of all, they don't even need to work hard. No need to prove anything, they IPCC have to prove THEM wrong!!!

    /professor monckton"

    Gee, you still completely failed to prove that "big oil" spends more money than "big government" on climate research! No surprise there, because you CANNOT prove it, just like you CANNOT prove that the activities of man have any net effect on climate whatsoever.

    Keep trying though...

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 6:45pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "I provided the information to back up the denialists in my post, which you clearly did not actually read."

    Lets have a look, peter.

    "What we are arguing is that the man-made CONTRIBUTION to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTING to global warming."

    Nothing. Just a statement that has not been proved.

    "I think these so-called scientists know which side their bread is buttered on, don't you?"

    Nope, not there.

    Links to Watts' site? Not science. I'll do you better:

    www.realclimate.org

    run by REAL scientists, not a TV weatherman without a degree

    www.ipcc.ch

    and check their references: real science papers!!!

    "There have been plenty of times in the past when the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 was double what it currently is now"

    And it was hotter. Even further back, it wasn't but the sun produced 5% less energy.

    And in none of those times was there a New York Stock Exchange.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 6:47pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    ""On the same tack , how can an impartial BBC , state funded journalist , have a vested interest in the AGW scaremongereing ? "

    For the same reason why they reported "scaremongering" stories of the bank troubles as opposed to the happy-smiley story AIG would like to have peddled.

    Because it's true.

    /professor monckton"

    You have yet to provide ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to back up your ASSERTION that "it's true". You are asking people to believe you that "it's true" without providing a shred of evidence to back up your position.

    I can provide endless evidence all day long that shows that it is somewhere between "highly questionable" and "not true", and the only defense you will give is that the studies I cite were "likely funded by the oil or coal industry", which you also cannot prove.

    However, when it comes to disproving the actual logic and science in any posts questioning the veracity of AGW, you simply CANNOT, because you know and I know that the science used to DISPROVE AGW is actually sound science, whereas we both also know that the "science" used to "prove" AGW is highly questionable at best and doesn't even stand up to a 1st-year-college student level statistical scrutiny.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 6:48pm on 05 Jan 2010, Cloud-Cuckoo wrote:

    So the big freeze is coming from Iceland just as we are asking for our money back. Coincidence? I think not.

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 6:48pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "You are not helping the argument in support of the AGW theory by appearing blinkered"

    Yeah, I don't like to accept lies as truth just so I don't appear blinkered.

    "this is not a black and white situation"

    Uh, it isn't the situation they're talking about either.

    Might as well say "well the earth being flat or not isn't a black-or-white situation".

    Sometimes someone is just wrong.

    Or is that unpossible for you?

    And it appears you don't even know what the problem is, so how can you state what it isn't?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 6:51pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #86:

    " however it misses the essential queries of how much it alters climate, and in which direction."

    Uh, how can CO2 *COOL* the planet when you increase it?"

    So CLIMATE == TEMPERATURE now, is it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 6:53pm on 05 Jan 2010, Rolf McHarris wrote:

    Ummm.... it's bitterly cold and snowy in Sweden.

    Much as you would expect.

    No bikinis here.

    So how does that fit into the theory?

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 6:56pm on 05 Jan 2010, ken wrote:

    I'm absolutely convinced this cold winter is partly being caused by the recent deep low in the solar (sunspot) cycle. The low in 2008/9 was the deepest in about 100 years. A longer well documented period of low sunspot numbers coincided with a mini-ice-age in Europe 350 years when ice fairs were regularly held on the frozen Thames.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 6:57pm on 05 Jan 2010, SPBMK2 wrote:

    Nos 20 - my sympathies. Hope you have your job at the end of this.

    Was hoping to have some expert (ice-core) prove the ice-core techniques right or wrong, good or a bad method on here, guess its not going to happen.

    Is it known with scientific consensus (independents included) whether or not the earth is warming up or cooling down, naturally in the short term - tens - hundreds of years with out mans Co2 activities ?

    Anyone - sensible non abusive reply appreciated.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 6:58pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Gee, you still completely failed to prove that "big oil" spends more money than "big government" on climate research!"

    Gee! I didn't know I had to!

    It's cheaper to spend money on lobbying if you can because you don't need any lab equipment.

    You also don't have to prove anything.

    All you need is lots of face time.

    It costs money, but you spend money to make money in business.

    So Big Oil is spending Big Money on Big Politicians to get what?

    Well what are the politicians looking at at the moment?

    AGW.

    Will AGW hurt the bottom line of the fossil fuel industry?

    Heck yes!

    So do you think they'll ignore that in their lobbying?

    Heck no!

    So the lobby money will be spent not on disproving AGW (in climate science) but in making the politicians avoid any legislation to combat it.

    Just like $650M over 10 years was spent by medical insurance companies in the US to lobby in the run up to the Healthcare Reform bill.

    And the reform bill?

    Neutered.

    Just like copenhagen.

    The lobbying spend is enormous.

    That doesn't include the monies spent on PR campaigns to get the public "on board".

    from

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

    "Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon an oil lobbyist sent him a fax saying "You are doing a great job.""

    "The Guardian discussed similarities in the methods of groups funded by Exxon, and those of the tobacco giant Philip Morris, including direct attacks on peer-reviewed science, and attempts to create public controversy and doubt.[5]"

    "president Dr.Frederick Seitz who, according to an article by Mark Hertsgaard in Vanity Fair, earned approximately US$ 585,000 in the 70s and 80s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company"

    That money didn't go on research.

    It went on lobbying.

    And Denialist scientists want a slice of the gravy while it's still pouring.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 7:00pm on 05 Jan 2010, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @96
    "Sometimes someone is just wrong"

    Have you ever considered "It may be you" ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 7:04pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Peter: "You have yet to provide ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to back up your ASSERTION that "it's true". "

    Yes.

    www.ipcc.ch

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 7:04pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    Sorry U14260427, linking to realclimate.org (run by Jones, Mann, and Briffa) and linking to the IPCC page (also run by Jones, Mann, and Briffa) isn't going to convince anyone here that you know what you are talking about.

    Continue to cite web-pages that are known to be highly suspect if not out-right fraudulent if you like, but no one other than the "true believers" believes anything coming out of the ipcc or out of "realclimate.org" anymore.

    Try a few of the following instead:

    http://www.icecap.us/
    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 7:07pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    ""Uh, how can CO2 *COOL* the planet when you increase it?"

    So CLIMATE == TEMPERATURE now, is it? "

    COOL.

    Not TEMPERATURE.

    And yes, climate change and temperature change go hand in hand. What do YOU think climate is? When they say "Hawaii has a tropical clime", what do you think they're talking about? It rains a lot in Manchester too, but that's not tropical.

    Epic fail. Truly Epic.

    And it IS when you're saying "the CO2 effect could be the reverse".

    Since science shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing it makes the global mean temperature warmer, then "reverse" of warmer is "cooler".

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 7:11pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #13:

    "Does manny think there isn't a body temperature of humans too?

    Does he think a doctor cannot tell if you have a fever because there is no way to measure temperature INCREASES???"

    If the human body, like the Earth, were in constant thermal flux, with variations of up to around 100c between different parts, and heat constantly flowing at varying rates between parts with different thermal capacities, I daresay the doctor would have no good way of measuring its temperature - let alone detect an increase of a fraction of a degree. And the temperature of the human body is regulated.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 7:11pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Was hoping to have some expert (ice-core) prove the ice-core techniques right or wrong,"

    But you didn't think of going here:

    www.nsidc.org

    for it?

    Peter:

    " Sorry U14260427, linking to realclimate.org (run by Jones, Mann, and Briffa) "

    1) Jones and Briffa don't run it
    2) Gavin et al are climatologists and active in their field.

    "Continue to cite web-pages that are known to be highly suspect"

    After you linked to WUWT, I thought you liked highly suspect sites?

    Please. They do the science discussion over there.

    Do you have any GENUINE responses to their work, or just ad hominem attacks?

    If the facts aren't on your side, bang on the table for you, isn't it.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 7:12pm on 05 Jan 2010, David Jack Smith wrote:

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

  • 109. At 7:13pm on 05 Jan 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    79. At 6:20pm on 05 Jan 2010, James wrote:


    "I became suspicious about Global warming theories in 1992. In New Zealand it was getting colder over a number of years and glaciers were growing. If it isn’t happening worldwide then it isn’t global."

    If you were (are)here now, James, you might (just might) change your mind again!

    The Northern Hemisphere is not the ONLY hemisphere. Just ask a few firefighters in Ozzy what the temperatures are like there!

    And then of course there's the sea. Big heat sink there!

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 7:13pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    ""There have been plenty of times in the past when the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 was double what it currently is now"

    And it was hotter. Even further back, it wasn't but the sun produced 5% less energy.

    And in none of those times was there a New York Stock Exchange."

    As usual, U14260427, you are incorrect. Becoming like clockwork I see.

    There were plently of times in the past where CO2 was double (or more) concentration in the atmosphere compared to what it is now, and in almost all of those cases, IT WAS COOLER THAN IT IS NOW. Obviously you haven't done any real research.

    If anyone is tempted to believe your arguments, all they have to do is do a bit of critical research of their own to show that you are very good at making assertions which you wish were true, but you fail utterly at providing ANY ACTUAL DATA to back up a single thing that you say.

    http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 7:15pm on 05 Jan 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    There are some warmist trolls that make such a mark that even realclimate can get completely fed up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 7:15pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    "96. At 6:48pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:
    "You are not helping the argument in support of the AGW theory by appearing blinkered"

    Yeah, I don't like to accept lies as truth just so I don't appear blinkered.

    "this is not a black and white situation"

    Uh, it isn't the situation they're talking about either.

    Might as well say "well the earth being flat or not isn't a black-or-white situation".

    Sometimes someone is just wrong.

    Or is that unpossible for you?

    And it appears you don't even know what the problem is, so how can you state what it isn't?

    /professor monckton"

    Once again, you make a lot of assertions and provide absolutely no facts whatsoever to back them up. I am noticing a strong pattern in your posts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 7:18pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    """Uh, how can CO2 *COOL* the planet when you increase it?"

    So CLIMATE == TEMPERATURE now, is it? "

    COOL.

    Not TEMPERATURE.

    And yes, climate change and temperature change go hand in hand. What do YOU think climate is? When they say "Hawaii has a tropical clime", what do you think they're talking about? It rains a lot in Manchester too, but that's not tropical.

    Epic fail. Truly Epic.

    And it IS when you're saying "the CO2 effect could be the reverse".

    Since science shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing it makes the global mean temperature warmer, then "reverse" of warmer is "cooler".

    /professor monckton"

    Once again, lots of assertions, no facts.

    Epic Fail

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 7:19pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #101:

    "Will AGW hurt the bottom line of the fossil fuel industry?

    Heck yes!"

    The steep increase in the dollar-barrel price of their product has hurt their mottom line, how???

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 7:22pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    And peter, let's look into the past of those links.

    ICECAP:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ICECAP

    "It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization,"

    So its remit is to deny AGW.

    World Climate:
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=World_Climate_Report

    "WCR states that it "points out the weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as “proof” of disastrous warming."

    Again its remit is to deny AGW.

    Patrick Michaels. Works for CATO. A libertarian think tank. ANY government intervention is wrong. PERIOD.

    And on The Cryosphere Today, try this look by a prominent mathematician at their "analysis":

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/cold-hard-facts/

    And that site is not really germane to the science of CO2's effect on the climate, is it.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 7:24pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #105:

    And climate can also be warm, cold, rainy, humid, dry, windy, etc etc etc

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 7:27pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Peter:
    "If the human body, like the Earth, were in constant thermal flux"

    It is.

    Unless you're DEAD.

    "There were plently of times in the past where CO2 was double ... and in almost all of those cases, IT WAS COOLER THAN IT IS NOW. "

    Yup. You see that bright burny thing up in the sky? The Sun. Well it was colder back then.

    Less heat to trap.

    I also note despite your wailing and hair-pulling you're just stating these as if they were true.

    "but you fail utterly at providing ANY ACTUAL DATA to back up a single thing that you say."

    You're pretty pants at that too.

    Try instead of a unscience blog reading www.ipcc.ch

    It's all in there.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 7:28pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nir_Shaviv

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 7:30pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Peter LEAPS to conclusions:
    "The steep increase in the dollar-barrel price of their product has hurt their mottom line, how???"

    That's due to Peak Oil.

    Not AGW.

    But I guess you have some links and proofs, given how you hate people who supply statements without backup...?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 7:33pm on 05 Jan 2010, stronghold_barricades wrote:

    so how did the Met Office get it so wrong if this phenomenon is so well known?

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 7:36pm on 05 Jan 2010, Lloyd wrote:

    I pity you Richard, you are in a state of complete and utter denial.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 7:38pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Tiresome Continues: "And climate can also be warm, cold, rainy, humid, dry, windy, etc etc etc"

    And that can change.

    Because CO2 traps heat and that heat changes the climate.

    What do YOU think CO2 does?

    stronghold:
    "so how did the Met Office get it so wrong if this phenomenon is so well known?"

    Well volcanoes are well known. Their effects successfully replicated in the crude GCMs of the 1980's.

    But they aren't predicted in climate models, are they?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 7:39pm on 05 Jan 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @yeahwhatever

    This blog has been hijacked by a complete non-entity. One wonders whether he has in fact has anything to contribute.

    Read the emails or get someone to do it for you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 7:39pm on 05 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    Minuend @ no. 32 said:

    "Against all predictions the Northern Hemisphere is suffering one of its coldest winters on record - record snow falls, record cold temperatures and record periods of cold."

    Actually, the Northern Hemisphere AS A WHOLE is not suffering coldest winter on record, snowfalls, etc. SOME countries in the Northern Hemisphere are enduring extreme weather conditions (something predicted by the AGW/climate change model, btw). Many other countries are experiencing average or above-average temperatures - particularly areas at higher latitudes. In fact, the higher the latitude, the higher the tempeatures seem to be above average.

    This is something I went into in my post at No. 29. Not sure why it has been referred - I thought the second one was potentially more controversial! Ah, well - maybe the explanation didn't fit in with someone's prejudices.

    "This shows that Global Warming is faith-based nonsense."

    All this discussion shows is that deniers keep repeating the same old claptrap, without any scientific or evidential back-up, continually restating positions that have been repeatedly booted into Row Z - eg, the non-existent 'debunking' of the 'hockey stick'.

    Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true. But, as ever, simplistics - even if untrue - are often preferred over complicated and messy realities.

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 7:42pm on 05 Jan 2010, SPBMK2 wrote:

    107 - waiting for a reply.

    I do note your jumping to conclusions. Just as -

    "how do you know he is right"

    when I didn't say Dr. Jaworowski was right or wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 7:44pm on 05 Jan 2010, Lloyd wrote:

    @ U14260427

    I very much doubt that anybody on here even bothers to read your posts any more.

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 7:45pm on 05 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    Paddytoplad said:

    "I am a scientist. Well at least I have a Bsc from St Andrews and I dont agree with AGW. I have a beard but no glasses."

    First, please try and spell my name correctly - it is right there in front of you, after all!!

    Second, congrats on being a scientist. what was your degree in, btw?

    In my household/immediate family - purely for your interest - we have a Physics graduate, a geographer/sociologist/historian (who also dabbles in economics!), a very cunning linguist, an IT expert and a very hard-working materfamilias.

    But I digress. What was your point, sorry?

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 7:46pm on 05 Jan 2010, Mick May wrote:

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

  • 129. At 7:49pm on 05 Jan 2010, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @115

    Of course sourcewatch is totally unbiased :hahahahahaha:

    .....and then that "prominent" mathemetician "Tamino" who features so prominently in the "Climategate" emails !!!!!!!!!

    ..if you want to know "Taminos" true identity , try reading the CRU mails, then try and tell me he is unbiased.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 7:51pm on 05 Jan 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    U14260427
    I seriously recommend you go outside and build a snowman, it is very therapeutic, clears the drive of snow, good exercise and more fun than blog bashing people. My snowman is built, the drive is cleared and I got to hear children screaming with laughter and excitement, drivers complaining of holdups that stretch back to the motorway and people passing by being friendly and saying hello.

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 8:08pm on 05 Jan 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    It is pretty clear that the BBC are happy for this blog to be hijacked as it restricts any sensible debate.

    Organisations can campaign but the BBC by its charter is not allowed to do so. If it does it infringes our human rights.

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 8:10pm on 05 Jan 2010, PolarRob wrote:

    Thank-you True Believers. I was beginning to lose faith in the "Hockey Stick" graph of global temp, but it is clear you will deny as many inconvenient truths as necessary to maintain the cause. When the UK has finished freezing over we will ship you some Polar Bears. Their population continues reach new highs every year. Actually the the graph resembles a hockey stick.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 8:16pm on 05 Jan 2010, Jack Frost wrote:

    My word there are lots of U14260427 posts to scroll past.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 8:18pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    ""There were plently of times in the past where CO2 was double ... and in almost all of those cases, IT WAS COOLER THAN IT IS NOW. "

    Yup. You see that bright burny thing up in the sky? The Sun. Well it was colder back then.

    Less heat to trap.

    I also note despite your wailing and hair-pulling you're just stating these as if they were true.

    "but you fail utterly at providing ANY ACTUAL DATA to back up a single thing that you say."

    You're pretty pants at that too.

    Try instead of a unscience blog reading www.ipcc.ch

    It's all in there.

    /professor monckton"

    Your ASSERTION that the sun was colder back then than it is now is interesting, but unfortunately for you, it is just that, AN ASSERTION. You provide no evidence to back up what you are purporting to be fact.

    In actuality, the sun was actually warmer in the past than it is now. In fact, as the sun ages, it actually becomes COOLER. You see, yellow stars like ours eventually cool, grow, and become orange stars, which cool, grow, and become red dwarfs. The sun was at its absolute hottest shortly after it was created as a star, and it has been very gradually cooling ever since.

    http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/the-sun/temperature-of-the-sun/

    If you are going to post assertions which you wish us to believe as facts, and yet your assertions are all pitifully simple to disprove....

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 8:21pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:



    @123 is it back to that one again? Or am I still Dr Jones now? Can you make up your mind who you think I am?

    And read what emails? The CRU emails? Well, your source stole them and cherry picked the worst he could find. The emails are lacking in any proof of wrongdoing.

    @125 You want to know more about methods. Start with his. Get it put on here and discussed.

    @126 You just did

    @130 No snow.

    Peter, are posts 126 et al examples of your "well supported" fixation from the denialist camp?

    A camp that seems unable to do anything other than throw around vague threats, accusations, slurs and ad hominem attacks in the extremely vain hope that nobody will notice under all the din that they have nothing of fact on their side.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 8:23pm on 05 Jan 2010, Purlieu wrote:

    "the village of Oymyakon, which has seen the mercury plummet as low as -71C"
    I'm afraid it didn't, since mercury solidifies at -38.83 °C

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 8:26pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "When the UK has finished freezing over "

    You mean in summer?

    And why are you talking like a colonial? After all, it was in the Victorian Era that the UK *was* the world.

    "It is pretty clear that the BBC are happy for this blog to be hijacked as it restricts any sensible debate."

    Yup, so why don't you stop typing tripe and get some genuine facts?

    Or do you call "This blog has been hijacked by a complete non-entity" "sensible debate"?

    Is "I pity you Richard, you are in a state of complete and utter denial." from someone who wants a sensible debate?

    No, you want "what I say"-sensible even when you don't have anything sensible to say.

    Go to

    www.ipcc.ch

    read the WG reports.

    Come back with something that isn't from the dittos.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 8:26pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter wrote:

    "And that can change.

    Because CO2 traps heat and that heat changes the climate.

    What do YOU think CO2 does?

    stronghold:
    "so how did the Met Office get it so wrong if this phenomenon is so well known?"

    Well volcanoes are well known. Their effects successfully replicated in the crude GCMs of the 1980's.

    But they aren't predicted in climate models, are they?

    /professor monckton"

    Your assertion this time is TECHNICALLY correct, CO2 is CAPABLE of trapping heat. However, this MAY or MAY NOT change climate. Your pitifully simplistic view of "climate" ignores about 1000 other variables that also interact with each other and affect the climate in aggregate. You cannot single out any one particular variable in a 1000 variable system and attribute the aggregate behavior of that entire system to that one variable.

    Take, for example, your volcano:

    A volcano puts out TONS of CO2 when it erupts, yes?

    So, a volcanic eruption shoud WARM THE EARTH TREMENDOUSLY, based on your hypothesis.

    BUT WAIT... eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo NOTICEABLY COOL the climate for a 2-3 year period? What is going on?

    Well, in reality, IN ADDITION to releasing TONS of CO2, the volcano also releases TONS of SO2, and tons of fine particulate matter. The SO2 and the fine particulate matter generally tend to cool the atmosphere, and they OVERWHELM any possible warming effect from all of the CO2 released from the volcano.

    So, if we were to use the U14260427 hypothesis that climate change is ONLY ATTRIBUTABLE to changes in atmospheric CO2 content, we would naturally make the mistaken assumption that big volcanic eruptions would raise global temperature.

    However, when we properly take more than this one simple variable into account, we can more properly predict that big volcanic eruptions tend to have a cooling effect.

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 8:28pm on 05 Jan 2010, SPBMK2 wrote:

    131 - You should have seen what they allowed with the poster -

    jaded_jean

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 8:32pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Peter makes s*t up again:
    "Your ASSERTION that the sun was colder back then than it is now is interesting, but unfortunately for you, it is just that, AN ASSERTION."

    Nope, it's well supported stellar physics.

    Just look it up in any astrophysical tome on stellar physics.

    I also note that your ASSERTION is itself merely an assertion.

    Do you have something that astrophysicists have not?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 8:32pm on 05 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    "In actuality, the sun was actually warmer in the past than it is now. In fact, as the sun ages, it actually becomes COOLER"

    Actually according to the standard model the sun has brightened over time. Google faint young sun paradox. By the way co2 as a primary climate driver on geological time scales is one of the solutions to that paradox.

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 8:35pm on 05 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    Re 110 Peter:

    "There were plently of times in the past where CO2 was double (or more) concentration in the atmosphere compared to what it is now, and in almost all of those cases, IT WAS COOLER THAN IT IS NOW."

    Can you name one of these times? Ie a date?

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 8:41pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Peter evolves his fantasy yet more:
    "A volcano puts out TONS of CO2 when it erupts, yes?"

    Not always.

    "So, a volcanic eruption shoud WARM THE EARTH TREMENDOUSLY, based on your hypothesis."

    Nope. Only if volcanoes produce ONLY CO2.

    WBUT WAIT... eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo NOTICEABLY COOL the climate for a 2-3 year period? What is going on?"

    It's throwing up sulphur compounds and ash.

    Causing a cooling from the high altitude debris. James Hansen's GCM produces just this effect and that was written in the 1980's.

    It is also the reason why you'd have a nuclear winter.

    Strange how you know so little.

    Maybe this is why you keep demanding links: you don't know and you want to read up. But if that were the case, why yell and scream like a five year old?

    "Well, in reality, IN ADDITION to releasing TONS of CO2, the volcano also releases TONS of SO2, and tons of fine particulate matter."

    Oh look.

    You set up a strawman and shot it down.

    YOU brought up "volcanoes produce lots of CO2". I didn't. Then you make an argument on that and then shoot it down. I guess it's a lot easier to win an argument when you run both sides, isn't it.

    Funny thing is, it pours out much more dust and SO2 than CO2.

    So it would be "small warming from CO2" and "large temporary cooling from SO2 et al".

    Or have you just thrown away one of the constituents (CO2)?

    "So, if we were to use the U14260427 hypothesis that climate change is ONLY ATTRIBUTABLE to changes in atmospheric CO2 content"

    Where did I say that was my hypothesis?

    Check out the papers in

    http://www.ipcc.ch

    They'll not say it is only CO2 as well.

    "However, when we properly take more than this one simple variable into account,"

    Which I do. And the IPCC contributors and the GCMs.

    It's just scarecrow creators like yourself who bang on about "CO2 is the ONLY cause".

    And like I said earlier, you seem to have forgotten CO2 comes out of volcanoes too.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 8:50pm on 05 Jan 2010, M Smith wrote:

    Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

    Wolfgang Knorr
    Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

    In other words, manmade airborn Co2 has not increased since 1850!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 8:54pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Organisations can campaign but the BBC by its charter is not allowed to do so. "

    However, they can tell the truth rather than report what a vocal (EXTREMELY vocal) denialist minority campaign.

    Think of it this way:

    Either this is a world-girdling conspiracy NOBODY has managed to prove, and what are you going to be able to do to stop that?

    OR

    AGW and the IPCC are right. In which case you can do something about it.

    PS is that post an example of what you'd call "reasonable debate"? Cos it looks like content-free raving to me...

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 8:54pm on 05 Jan 2010, walterwalter wrote:

    About your graph of the Artic Oscillation, I remember the winter of 1962-63 as being one of the coldest in my life time (in the UK at least) with around 3 months of almost continuous ice and snow, blizzards and snow drifts. Lakes and ponds had at least 1ft of ice on them, which has rarely happened since, if ever. Yet it does not show up as negative on your graph as many much milder winters. Equally last winter 2008-2009 was relatively cold and snowy compared to many recent winters, yet it appears red on your graph. The AO does not seem to be a reliable indication of hot or cold weather.

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 8:55pm on 05 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    Paddytoplad @ 55 said:

    "There are a very a large minority of scientists who dont believe in AGW but as many have said before

    Follow the Money,"

    Quite a lot of what you say is worthy of discussion - or at least shows some thought, rather than the repetitious ranting of many. (It's surprising that someone said the 'deniers' were being 'houted down' - all you need do is read this and otehr public discussions to see that the opposite is the case).

    However - two points:

    First, 2.5% (as I referred to above) of qualified and published climate scientists surveyed is not, imho, a 'significant minority'.

    Second - your advice to 'follow the money' is a very good suggestion indeed. Can I refer you to the following news report:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32988835/ns/us_news-environment/

    quote therefrom:

    "...Many countries, including the United States, provide tax breaks and direct payments to help produce and use oil, coal, natural gas and other fuels...

    ...In the U.S. alone, the federal government gave $72 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry between 2002 and 2008, according to a study by the Environmental Law Institute..."

    $72 billion in the US ALONE.

    Follow the money, indeed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 8:59pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "In other words, manmade airborn Co2 has not increased since 1850!!"

    Uh, how do you know?

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    Says otherwise.

    So does

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n6711/full/396560a0.html

    And "nearly zero" is not zero.

    After all, the earth is nearly flat. How big a stick do you need to show the earth's curvature? Longer than anyone can make, that's for sure.

    But over the thousands of miles, that "flat" turns into a sphere.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 9:16pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Seems like the good Mr M Smith is falling for the wrong meme:

    http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/01/knorr-soup.html

    The paper investigates whether the sinks for CO2 are reaching saturation and therefore worsen the amount of CO2 production that stays in the air affecting climate.

    This isn't about how much human produced CO2 is in the air nor how it's growing (that doesn't even pass the sniff test: where is the 200ppm human production going then?). It's whether we can still hope that the oceans will take up a large portion of our emissions.

    Bad news for corals and shellfish, mind.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 9:20pm on 05 Jan 2010, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    hahaha so the cold is due to the warm right? is war peace? is ignorance strength? you are so confused Mr Black! i hope your CV is up to date!

    http://www.metro.co.uk/news/807821-pensioners-burn-books-for-warmth

    seems some pensioners have found an alternative energy source, better than the wind at any rate. the people who fought the book burning nazis 60 years ago are now burning books for warmth. it would almost be funny if it didn't make me feel like crying.

    Mr black: just wanted to let you know you warranted a mention on a far more worthy venue for our thoughts than this ++good e-space:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100021337/q-whats-the-difference-between-weather-and-climate/

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 9:23pm on 05 Jan 2010, P Steadman wrote:

    47. At 5:05pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Thereby proving kimosabe has nothing going on.

    International
    Panel on
    Climate
    Change"


    Shouldn't that read "Intergovernmental", Professor (or whatever)?

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 9:23pm on 05 Jan 2010, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    'Bad news for corals and shellfish, mind.'

    this has been covered in these blogs before and you are wrong yet again. still doesn't matter eh? the proAGW MO is simply to shout the same crazy rubbish over and over again until people say they agree with you to get you to leave them alone. sad really.

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 9:24pm on 05 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    re 148 Professor Monckton

    "Uh, how do you know?"

    Either he misread the abstract. Or more likely he has just copy pasted it after hearing the intepretation of WUWT or some other anti-science source.

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 9:24pm on 05 Jan 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    #23 says:-
    ‘…Thank God this nightmare is lifting and truth at long last prevailing.’
    And

    # 32 says:-

    ‘….Against all predictions the Northern Hemisphere is suffering one of its coldest winters on record - record snow falls, record cold temperatures and record periods of cold. This shows that Global Warming is faith-based nonsense.’

    # 36 says:-

    ‘..…#U142 at post 21 how can you explain this cold within the realms of your belief system. ‘

    Maybe it’s more than a ‘belief’ if we ask American Geophysical Union. See below:-

    You see, I think you’re all being very premature in your hasty ‘analysis’ of the cold weather.

    There may be a much, much more worrying reason for the present coldness coming out of Siberia and it may be due to loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic due to global warming. 2007 was the very low summer sea ice year and we have now had two cold winters in succession. See:-

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1398&tstamp=&page=17

    and this from the American Geophysical Union :-

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035607.shtml

    Quote:

    ‘…These shifts provide an accelerating impetus for the recent rapid Arctic climate system changes, perhaps shedding light on recent arguments about a tipping point of global-warming-forced climate change in the Arctic.’

    Comments?


    # 42 says:-

    ‘..your graph is how many months out of date..’

    It’s from yesterday Kambo.

    James at # 79. Are these your growing NZ glaciers?

    http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news-nz/20092411-20286-2.html


    Peter #104. I tried your link. Here it is.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/iphone.anom.series.html
    Why is it going downhill?

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 9:28pm on 05 Jan 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #144 M Smith:

    “In other words, manmade airborn Co2 has not increased since 1850!!”

    It is the fraction that is believed to have remained constant not the absolute level.

    Don't feel too bad, not even the U Oracle understands this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 9:36pm on 05 Jan 2010, rjaggar wrote:

    Good to see a sensible position beginning to emerge.

    Next thing which needs to be established is a professionally run, consistently maintained series of weather stations with daily data made globally accessible online. To eliminate potential for arguments about data quality, consistency and global reach.

    This cold snap isn't global warming, global cooling or anything else. It's just weather patterns which I saw at least 3 times before in my life: 1979-1981; 1985 - 1987; 1991.

    Time will tell how long it will last: in 1986 the Cam froze for 6 weeks in Cambridge. In January 1987 there was a week of blizzards in Glasgow. And in New Year 1985 the diesel in the coach bringing us back from the Alps solidified and they had to cut a hole in the tank to inject anti-freeze.

    It happens.

    Mercifully, not too often though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 9:43pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Rob Whines back:

    "Don't feel too bad, not even the U Oracle understands this. "

    Uh, you missed this:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html#P90578955

    But you miss so much in your haste to be "with it".

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 9:45pm on 05 Jan 2010, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @156

    Eminently sensible post, which for this blog is exceptional.

    Cold is a far bigger killer , and that is what we should be planning to avert.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 9:46pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "this has been covered in these blogs before and you are wrong yet again."

    Huh?

    You may have stated it was fine for shellfish, teary, but corals don't like carbonic acid.

    http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/672/

    http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=1103001292009

    PS if you can give links as to where you or your pals have said shellfish don't mind acidifying waters, let me know and I'll laugh at them.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 9:47pm on 05 Jan 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Also, have a look at this graph from the European Environment Agency.

    Scroll down to Fig. 3 ‘Fig. 3: Observed and projected Arctic September sea-ice extent 1900-2100 (Ver. 1.00)’

    http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/observed-and-projected-arctic-september-sea-ice-extent-1900-2100

    Quote:-

    ‘Key message
    1. The extent of the sea ice in the Arctic has declined at an accelerating rate, especially in summer. The record low ice cover in September 2007 was roughly half the size of the normal minimum extent in the 1950s.
    2. The summer ice is projected to continue to shrink and may even disappear at the height of the summer melt season in the coming decades. There will still be substantial ice in winter.
    3. Reduced polar ice will speed up global warming and is expected to affect ocean circulation and weather patterns. Species specialised for life in the ice are threatened.
    4. Less ice will ease access to the Arctic's resources. Oil and gas exploration, shipping, tourism and fisheries will offer new economic opportunities, but also increase pressures and risks to the Arctic environment.’

    Number 3. seems relevant in the light of the AGU discussion.
    Number 4. will be the human response!?

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 9:52pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/

    November 2009.

    Not from the "dodgy" CRU data (if you believe that the CRU emails prove it's been fudged), but from the US GISS data.

    And using HadCRU data to prove temperature figures (even by proxy: "it's been cooling since 1998" for example) will be implicit assertion that the CRU data has not been fudged to make a result. Otherwise why would you use it in your argument?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 9:58pm on 05 Jan 2010, MATT wrote:

    “So the question of how long the unusually wintry UK conditions will last is really a question of how long the Arctic Oscillation will remain in its extreme negative state - and a week to 10 days seems to be the favoured timescale.”
    I think the term “favoured timescale” tells it all. Neither Richard nor the people he seems to consult with really knows. The favoured term used to be “unprecedented global warming”. Then the favoured term for the winter was “above average” winter .with only “1 in 7 chance of colder winter “, then it went to “20% chance of colder winter”, just recently it was “45 % chance of colder winter , and the latest current view is that things are supposed to warm up again” in a week or 10 days “. Not very likely in my opinion. Based on this method they will be 1OO% correct after the winter is over.

    The smart meteorologists are saying that Europe is in for a colder than normal winter, for the entire winter. [Colder temperatures could last to May]. Matter of fact the entire 2010 could be colder than 2009. This current cold spell is not just a local cold spell but involves the entire Northern Hemisphere, North America , Europe , Asia , Russia, China , Korea, India , etc. Check the BBC news again, Richard.

    Global warming is looking more flawed than ever as the cold winter continue year after year. Winters were supposed to have ended 10 years ago according to some CRU scientists back in 2000


    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 10:01pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Cold is a far bigger killer"

    Is it?

    The arctic is far more abundant with life than the Sahara.

    35,000 europeans died from heatwaves one summer.

    You can wrap up warm (and if you run heating, the waste energy is in the form of heat which you want) but you can only strip down so far before people complain or you start bleeding (and if you run refrigeration, waste energy is in the form of heat which counters your cooling).

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 10:04pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #144:

    "In other words, manmade airborn Co2 has not increased since 1850!!"

    I think you may have misunderstood. That the airborne fraction has not increased means simply that the proportion in the atmosphere has not increased, not that the amount has not increased. What it does show is that, contrary to some opinion, the carbon sinks are not losing their ability to sink CO2.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 10:06pm on 05 Jan 2010, Space_1999 wrote:

    All of which shows the politicisation of the weather...

    If I'd beamed forward 29 years, from our last real cold snap, and read this, I'd be utterly befuddled.

    It used to be called winter.

    Now it's proof of global warming... and that means we have to tax people and tell them to change their lifestyles due to unproven conjecture from certain (highly political) so-called scientists.

    The world has gone mad, and you Richard are right at the heart of it!

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 10:10pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #149:

    "Bad news for corals and shellfish, mind."

    Shells are made of calcium carbonate. Where do you think the carbon in calcium carbonate comes from?

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 10:15pm on 05 Jan 2010, endgame wrote:

    Richard says that one weather service refers to upside down conditions. The service he refers to is Accuweathers Brett Anderson. If he looks at Brett's current forecast for the uk he might see another quote from him.
    No rise in Man-Made Atmospheric CO2 in the Past 150 Years.
    He should be careful who he quotes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 10:16pm on 05 Jan 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #157 Uxxx says:

    “Uh”

    In fact Uxxx says “Uh” quite a lot but thankfully this is one of his more intelligent utterances.

    So you consider yourself to be the U Oracle?

    The post you referred merely demonstrates your lack of understanding and the fact that you didn't even know what IPCC stands for demonstrates your ignorance.

    Note that I was correcting a misunderstanding in what may have been considered an anti-AGW point the same as I would a pro-AGW point.

    There are some of us who just want to find the truth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 10:17pm on 05 Jan 2010, keith nichols wrote:

    Unfortunately, those non-believers in climate change will use this upside-down weather as "I told you so" to continue to deny the rapid climate change we are experiencing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 10:17pm on 05 Jan 2010, Potty Harry wrote:

    Richard, please give up trying to find warm counterpoints in distant parts of the world to compare and weigh against our current cold spell, which is doing its level best, following closely in the wake of the "climategate" revelations, to further unravel the trendy hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming, so beloved in the media for its almost bottomless store of potential scare stories.

    The cause is now looking fragile in the face of evidence which is plain for all to see, and to go sledging in.......

    Further spin will only serve to damage the corporation's reputation, already reeling a little, for impartial reporting.

    Especially in the field of science.

    For each Goose Bay you cite, there are dozens of locations globally which this winter have broken records in terms of either the early onset of the season, or the severity of the associated recorded temperatures.

    I just returned to the midlands from Cumbria, where the mercury has barely nudged zero all week, and regularly fell into the double figures minus zone at night, and where people were seen to walk on the frozen surface of Derwentwater, an activity not possible during the last 20 years.

    My journey back south was a nightmare of closed motorways and barely moving traffic, struggling with the unexpected, and unpredicted, cold conditions.

    Unpredicted that is, by all except a few solar scientists who, recognising the correlation between solar activity as evidenced by sunspot counts, and indicative climate dependant variables such as the global grain crop, have been predicting the current fall in temperatures for some little time.

    Looks like they may be on to something after all.

    PS: Your Goose Bay temperature data is a little off the mark.

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 10:19pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "That the airborne fraction has not increased means simply that the proportion in the atmosphere has not increased, not that the amount has not increased."

    It doesn't mean that, either, Peter, though you're close in the rest of the post.

    The airborne fraction of antropogenic CO2 HAS increased. What hasn't changed much is what fraction we put out gets taken up.

    When it was 280ppm, about 0% was human produced.

    When it was 350ppm, about 20% was human produced. If it hadn't been for the ocean sinks that would have been ~420ppm and 33%.

    Now it's near 390ppm, about 28% is human produced. It it hadn't been for the ocean sinks that would have been 500ppm and 44% human produced.

    And space:

    "The world has gone mad, and you Richard are right at the heart of it!"

    More examples of the "rational discourse" denialists want to see more of...

    Space, this is what happens when preserving the environment costs big business money.

    Stall, stall, stall.
    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 10:19pm on 05 Jan 2010, FrankFisher wrote:

    "It used to be called winter. "

    Yup. Maybe no one under 30 can actually understand this. In England, it pretty much always snowed in winter - the last couple of decades have been unusually mild. *this* is not a weird winter. I just watched the ten o clock news report on this - they included a segement mirroring Black's article above, complete with graphics showing the bizarre and highly unusual occurance of... northern winds coming from the arctic and Russia, bearing snow...

    Well durrr. "When the north wind doth blow, we shall have snow"? Has no one at the Met Office ever heard this?

    When so many people, including such major news organisations and government departments, gather together to distort, fantasise, disemble and plain *lie* on this scale, I think we should all be extremely worried. Big Lies like this are told for a reason. The world's governments and mainstream media are lying for a reason. I can't see that this reason is going to be something we'll appreciate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 10:22pm on 05 Jan 2010, Julian Flood wrote:

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

  • 174. At 10:25pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Aptly named, Harry:

    "Richard, please give up trying to find warm counterpoints in distant parts of the world to compare and weigh against our current cold spell, which is doing its level best,"

    You mean stop talking about other places in the world that are hot when talking about global temperatures and concentrate instead on one small island's freezing temperatures?

    However you manage a great slip here:
    "Further spin will only serve to damage the corporation's reputation, already reeling a little, for impartial reporting."

    Yup, when you report impartially but what you report isn't liked by people with money or agenda, you WILL be punished.

    ROFL. :-D

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 10:25pm on 05 Jan 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 176. At 10:27pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #163:

    "The arctic is far more abundant with life than the Sahara."

    Typical of your logic. (apples == pears)
    Virtually every plant and animal species does just as well, if not better, in a warmer climate - but NOT a drier one.

    "35,000 europeans died from heatwaves one summer."

    And about 20,000 people die of the cold EVERY winter in Britain alone.

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 10:29pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Peter falls again:
    "Shells are made of calcium carbonate. Where do you think the carbon in calcium carbonate comes from?"

    Their hydrocarbon foods.

    Now what happens if you put calcium carbonate in mildly acidic water?

    It dissolves.

    Or do you this time know something biologists don't?

    http://www.gcsescience.com/f3.htm

    Maybe the conspiracy extends all the way to the schools!!!

    PS since you kept banging on about not giving links, why have you still not read any links I have given?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 10:30pm on 05 Jan 2010, eggs benediction wrote:

    lots of fearful people waiting to pounce upon climate change --- I suspect they just can't cope with the scale of the problem. Like religious people who can't face their mortality, they pounce in anger, out of frea. The bottom line is this: if there's even a less than certain chance, that we are causing this --- a smart people, and intelligent species, would be concerned and be sure act, nomatter the inconvenience, the scale of potential disaster is too great. Why is it so impossible to think that post industrial revolution pollutants are affecting the world? Climate changes drastically on its own over thousands of years, but we could be willigly walking into a preventable disaster over a much shorter period of time- its just not the type of thing you want to take chances on - and the evidence is compelling. It's not worth taking a chance on, you're literally risking everything... so you better be damn sure of yourself before you start an climate change denial campaign via posts and emails.

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 10:31pm on 05 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    Re 170 Potty Harry and 162 MATT:

    Your cold anecdotes miss the forest from the trees.

    The first global temperature average for December is in from UAH and shows December 2009 was 0.28C warmer than the 1979-2000 average. 6th warmest in that record. It was both warmer than December 2008 and December 2007. That's a whole month of winter.

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 10:32pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Rob Whines back
    "The post you referred merely demonstrates your lack of understanding"

    In what way?

    This is the reason why I type "Um?" a lot: you make no sense. Complete fabrications all the time. Illogical arguments abound from you and your coworkers.

    "Note that I was correcting a misunderstanding in what may have been considered an anti-AGW point the same as I would a pro-AGW point."

    Nope you also snided a snide remark in too.

    Just like you did in that post again.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 10:33pm on 05 Jan 2010, Princess Anne wrote:

    Shells are made of calcium carbonate. Where do you think the carbon in calcium carbonate comes from?

    Of course too much CO2 results in carbonic acid which results in less alkaline sea water which leads to shell dissolving or not being able to form.
    May i also just say the title of Broekers essay was, 'Climate Change, are we on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?". Not many people seem to have noticed the question mark which of course changes the sense of the 'statement'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 10:34pm on 05 Jan 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    @Richard Black

    Can I remind you of your rather offhand words last October:

    "During the meeting, Mr Corbyn made concrete forecasts relevant to the UK; here they are.
    ...
    The UK winter, he forecasts, is likely to be cold with some very cold spells. His bete noire, the Met Office, says in an "early indication" that temperatures are likely to be near or above the recent average (3.7C for December), though there is a one in seven chance of a cold one. @


    Well I wonder who was closer ? Eh ? Eh ?

    Reading on, Richard tells us that
    "What some in the sceptical camp do not appear to appreciate is that published, peer-reviewed science is not only the sole way of establishing and improving theories; it's also, now, the only route to the policymakers they want to influence."

    This was just before ... Climategate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 10:37pm on 05 Jan 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    And why not investigate why the boss of the useless Met Office just got a 25% pay rise to £200,000.

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 10:38pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    @163.
    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=574

    "Increases in deaths from respiratory and circulatory diseases are responsible for most of the excess winter mortality. Influenza is often implicated in winter deaths as it can cause complications such as bronchitis and pneumonia, especially in the elderly"

    "THE COLD" produces more deaths. Not the cold weather.

    That 35000 was dying from heatstroke. Not any illness caused by being closeted up for months.

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 10:39pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #177:

    "Now what happens if you put calcium carbonate in mildly acidic water?"

    Since when is the ocean 'mildly acidic'? It's actually mildly alkaline, and will remain so for at least the next several thousand years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 10:40pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    @182.

    So where's Piers Corbyn's methodology?

    Doesn't exist?

    Then that's proof his theory is wrong.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 10:40pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #177:

    "PS since you kept banging on about not giving links, why have you still not read any links I have given?"

    You must be confusing me with my namesake.

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 10:44pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Frank:
    "When so many people, including such major news organisations and government departments, gather together to distort, fantasise, disemble and plain *lie* on this scale,"

    What lie?

    Winter? No, they admit that.

    Winds from the North bearing snow? No, they admit that.

    What is lying is saying they're gathering together to distort fantasize disemble and plain lie on this scale.

    That there is a distortion, fantasy and plain old fashioned lie.

    And you start off so well.

    Yes winters were cold.

    Actually, this is getting toward the 6th warmest on record. So although there's this whole brouhaha about how cold it is, it's just winter.

    The lie is the one about AGW being a lie.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 10:45pm on 05 Jan 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 190. At 10:48pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #174:

    "You mean stop talking about other places in the world that are hot when talking about global temperatures and concentrate instead on one small island's freezing temperatures?"

    What about most of Europe, North America, China, Mongolia, Korea etc - all experiencing anomalously cold weather and heavy snowfalls.
    Places in the SH, like Australia, are hot - but then it's midsummer there.
    Or, by 'hot, do you mean a few places in the Arctic which are a few degrees warmer than usual? -40 instead of -50 hardly constitutes a heatwave, does it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 10:48pm on 05 Jan 2010, Martijn wrote:

    "It is about time the BBC started to employ professional scientists and engineers."
    As opposed to the non-climatologists paid by the oil industry that you appear to put your trust in, I suppose?

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 10:50pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    ""Now what happens if you put calcium carbonate in mildly acidic water?"

    Since when is the ocean 'mildly acidic'? "

    Compared to how acid it was 150 years ago and had been for thousands of generations of shellfish before then, so they've adapted to that level.

    Peter 317
    "You must be confusing me with my namesake."

    Yup, so can you please go and read the links rather than just go "you're wrong".

    Jack Hughes
    "And why not investigate why the boss of the useless Met Office just got a 25% pay rise to £200,000."

    Why not ask why you're funding a $22M a year pay deal for an oil company boss.

    It's coming from shareholder profit, that. Or customer pockets.

    It's not like he's got much of a job to do: cars need oil and it comes out of the ground. He doesn't even do the drilling.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 10:55pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:


    "What about most of Europe, North America, China, Mongolia, Korea etc - all experiencing anomalously cold weather and heavy snowfalls."

    ARE they anomalous?

    You throw that out there as a fait accompli, but nothing showing that this is the case.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 10:57pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Or, by 'hot, do you mean a few places in the Arctic which are a few degrees warmer than usual? -40 instead of -50 hardly constitutes a heatwave, does it?"

    It's 10 degrees warmer.

    Or is 10 degrees nothing?

    What's your body temperature, by the way...

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 10:57pm on 05 Jan 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Hi Martijn,

    The BBC's Roger Harrabin has a degree in ... English (Shakespeare, Byron, etc).

    Richard Black ? No idea: cannot find any info at all on his qualifications.

    I think Paul Hudson has a degree in something scientific which makes him the odd man out at the BBC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 11:01pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    And anyone who wants to see how well denialists can count can go to Realclimate and check:

    "In fact Completely Fed Up says “Uh” quite a lot"

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/unforced-variations-2/comment-page-9/#comment-153240

    Yup, when these guys want to count "a lot" one is enough.

    Even Detritus the Troll can manage one, two, many, lots.

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 11:01pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #184:

    "That 35000 was dying from heatstroke. Not any illness caused by being closeted up for months."

    How do people manage in the tropics and in places like India, Australia, North and South America, where sustained summer temperatures in excess of 40c are commonplace?
    I'd suggest that the Europeans were as ill-equipped (and ill-informed) to deal with that heatwave as we are to deal with a few inches of snow.

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 11:02pm on 05 Jan 2010, isnt_it_obvious wrote:

    @22.

    "Cold weather in winter? -- What a crazy, upside-down, mixed-up world!"

    So when we get RECORD cold in Alberta, RECORD cold in the U.S., the coldest temps in Britain since the 1960's, the most snow in Korea since at least 1937 and RECORD breaking cold and snow in China it is just "Winter"

    But when we get a record heat spike during Summer it is Global Warming and Catastrophe is just around the corner?

    AH, got it now - thanks for clarifying your settled science...

    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 11:05pm on 05 Jan 2010, -OldGit wrote:

    Didn't this 'Big Freeze' used to be known as 'Winter'?


    http://www.prisonplanet.com/prominent-russian-scientist-we-should-fear-a-deep-temperature-drop-not-catastrophic-global-warming.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 11:06pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #188:

    "Actually, this is getting toward the 6th warmest on record"

    Are you aware just how deranged you're starting to sound?

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 11:08pm on 05 Jan 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Comment 65 by 'HolbornMoleStrangler' - could not agree more, great post.

    You can almost see the tiny minds of the skeptics going into meltdown 'blog...does...not...say...something...is...about...climate...change...therefore...I...must...rant...my...nutty...thoughts...anyway...EVI...COMMUNISTS...taxes...conspiracy...money...religeon...Ahhh!

    I do feel somewhat jealous of some of the posters above though. My house is freezing and I don't have the prospect of thinking warm gooey thoughts about that lovely piers (he's such a dreamboat...)

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 11:11pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #192:

    "Compared to how acid it was 150 years ago and had been for thousands of generations of shellfish before then, so they've adapted to that level."

    By your logic, ice at -10c is more melted than ice at at -11c

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 11:13pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "How do people manage in the tropics and in places like India, Australia, North and South America, "

    Tip:

    They aren't in Europe.

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 11:18pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #194:

    "It's 10 degrees warmer.

    Or is 10 degrees nothing?"

    What physical effect can 10c on -50c possibly have? Other than a bit more IR radiation?

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 11:18pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    @192. Nope, that hysteria is another strawman.

    When there is a heatwave in the UK, it's "and these conditions could become even more common in future because of climate change".

    It's only your latest strawman.

    But every time there's a cold day in summer or one flake of snow: PROOF there is no AGW and it's all fake.

    You've seen it here.

    Just look through the leader that Black wrote. See any of your hysteria? Go check back in summer (there's a handy guide at the bottom of the web page for you). Go find a hot summer one and see if your attribution is right.

    Go on have a look.

    Now look at the number of people here going ballistic over this being cold.

    Didn't hear anything about November being the warmest on record:

    http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/

    like you propose.

    But if weather can disprove climate change, then it can prove climate change too. So Nov2009 proves AGW.

    Simples.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 11:24pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "By your logic, ice at -10c is more melted than ice at at -11c"

    By physics, it is. By maths it is.

    Or are you denying that -10 is nearer zero than -11?

    Do you have any idea how deranged you sound?

    You can get water staying as water down to -30C. Did you know that? -10 is easy. -11C is harder to manage.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 11:25pm on 05 Jan 2010, david glyn wilson wrote:

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 11:25pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "What physical effect can 10c on -50c possibly have? Other than a bit more IR radiation?"

    Are you saying there can be NO difference?

    Absolutely and categorically none, apart from IR output?

    Please confirm because I find that astounding if true.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 11:27pm on 05 Jan 2010, Space_1999 wrote:

    "There has always been a nagging doubt about this science, mainly because the researchers involved refused to release the raw data on which the computer models were based. That is not good science, it is commercial positioning. From a scientific point of view, there should be no question of any possible commercial gain for anybody, or any organisation, in a matter that is supposed to affect the future of the planet.

    Warning bells began to tinkle when the so-called "Hockey Stick Graph" was shown to have excluded all data from the (fully authenticated) Medieval Warming Period. The Manhattan Protocol underlined this.

    That tinkle grew to a clamour with the recent publication of the CRU E-mails and documents. Since then, the clamour has become deafening with the disclosure that the main temperature database on which all the predictions of anthropogenic warming data are based, has cherry-picked the data from Siberia, apparently to make the data fit the computer model! Now, that is bad, really bad, science.

    Science is sceptical or it is nothing. Any good scientist is a sceptic until the evidence for a theory is overwhelming an incontrovertible. In this case it is neither, and healthy scepticism remains the rational option."

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 11:31pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #208:

    "Are you saying there can be NO difference?"

    I asked the question - now give me an example of a difference.

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 11:32pm on 05 Jan 2010, bazza24 wrote:

    I'm not sure there is such a thing as "climate science". What is apparent is that so many of the posters on here are not scientists, but FANATICS.

    A true scientist will observe facts, and new lines of argument with interest and curiosity, not "yah-boo" "I'm right, you're wrong" nonsense.

    We can't conduct remotely representative experiments to test climate hypotheses, because we don't have a toy solar system to play with, and so we are stuck with mathematics and probabilities. Not saying that's a bad thing, just so unlikley to ever be correct, that the debate is mad.

    Please don't label me a "denialist / denier" - that's like a christian calling me a heretic - it's meaningless.

    So,
    1. We don't have any true science
    2. the debate is turning into hysteria
    3. there is no item 3
    4. Anyone fancy a pint?
    5. I'll get me coat

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 11:35pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #206:

    "You can get water staying as water down to -30C. Did you know that?"

    I'm well aware of the supercooled water effect. Now you tell me where I can find a perfectly still ocean.

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 11:35pm on 05 Jan 2010, Space_1999 wrote:

    211 - brilliant! I want to have your babies. Ermm, sort of!

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 11:36pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    @210, no you've said what SEEMS to be saying "there is no difference between -50C and -40C except the IR output".

    Is that what you're saying.

    Categorically, no difference apart from IR.

    Confirm it first because otherwise you'll scurry the goalposts away.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 11:39pm on 05 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #205:

    "Didn't hear anything about November being the warmest on record:"

    Perhaps because nobody noticed.
    Just like few people are going to notice the difference between -40 and -50 unless they're looking at a thermometer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 11:39pm on 05 Jan 2010, nickmcw wrote:

    I'd like to thank Richard Black for this fascinating feature about our current weather in Britain and the Atlantic Oscillation. It's perhaps a bit of a shame that the discussion has gone off into a climate change debate, specially when we read here that there is "little discernible pattern to how the pressure difference varies, or what causes it" - I'd say that is what really deserves the follow-up discussion and research.

    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 11:40pm on 05 Jan 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    130. At 7:51pm on 05 Jan 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Excellent recommendation, Granny.

    But.......why pick on just one person? Seems to me there are many on this site,both sides......busy playing "I've got a bigger ego than you"

    I liked your final para in 439 from the previous "blog"
    "We as a species, mostly cooperate with each other because it is usually to our benefit."
    The question here is what do we perceive as being of "benefit"?

    "If there were to be a serious shortage of resources then those levels of cooperation would dramatically reduce until civil unrest broke out."
    If we continue "business as usual" that will undoubtedly happen......but sometime in the future. Nothing to worry about now.

    "During the war people cooperated with each other because they felt they were supporting their own country and people and cooperation was perceived as the only way to survive and prevent a foreign invasion."
    For those of us around then, and can remember those times.........so true!
    But the "invasion" was obviously "imminent". Like within days or weeks or months.AND without that co-operation, it would actually have happened! Currently, if the predictions (IPCC) are true, nothing dire will happen (to most Europeans) for many years...............it's all too far in the future! The current "war" is the "war" against my lifestyle! "I'll get taxed out of existence:..."I'll have to give up my SUV and all the other "big-boy toys" I've collected etc etc. That "war" is very real to many in the near future so that's the "war" many are fighting now.

    However.....
    In the meantime, the BBC's "blog" counter is racing up and they must be very happy with their ratings.

    Looks like Richard may be in for a "performance bonus"!!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 11:41pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "A true scientist will observe facts, and new lines of argument with interest and curiosity,"

    Which has been done.

    Read the IPCC reports.

    http://www.ipcc.ch

    Read the papers referenced in those reports.

    Now check whether Steve McIntyre looked at HIS paper, observed facts and new lines of argument with interest. Or did he go "ya boo, I'm right, you're wrong"?

    How about Lomberg? CLOUD is refusing to show the effects touted. Has he looked at the output, the facts and the arguments? Or is he refusing to budge.

    Have a look here. You have people here stating that shelled sea creatures are fine with the acidification of the ocean.

    Have they looked at the arguments or have they just repeated what they've been told and gone "ya boo sucks, I'm right, you're wrong"?

    I think you'll find you're looking in the wrong place, kid.

    "Please don't label me a "denialist / denier"

    But when you state this:

    "1. We don't have any true science"

    YOU ARE DENYING.

    We have plenty of true science.

    You just deny what you see because you don't like it.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 11:43pm on 05 Jan 2010, besserwisser wrote:

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 11:44pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    @215
    ""Didn't hear anything about November being the warmest on record:"

    Perhaps because nobody noticed."

    Which is my point.

    Where was the hysteria that was fabricated as the inevitable line from what he deemed to be "hysterical climate believers"?

    "Just like few people are going to notice the difference between -40 and -50 unless they're looking at a thermometer."

    Nobody uses an IR photometer to measure temperatures in that range.

    And you're avoiding answering the question: is the ONLY effect of arctic temperatures being -40C rather than -50C IR output alone?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 11:47pm on 05 Jan 2010, voltscommissar wrote:

    I *think* I've asked Richard to raise this with climate scientists before: Does open Arctic sea release more moisture into the winter Arctic air than the same area of Arctic Sea ice? Intuitively I would have thought water at zero Celsius can deliver lots more water molecules into the air than can solid ice at minus 5, 10, 20, whatever.

    If there is more winter air moisture now than when the Arctic ice cap was (on average) bigger, thicker and colder at its surface, and if the pressure gradients are driving that moisture to mid-latitudes, then this seems a plausible hypothesis for the scientists and the sceptic-corporatist-goons to investigate, SCIENTIFICALLY.

    This is not the "Day After Tomorrow" scenario of a new ice age, but the hypothesis IS climate change, and as it relies on huge net loss of sea ice, and a warming surface temperature inside the Arctic Circle, it is probably fair to characterize it as anthropogenic global warming, based on the overwhelming evidence of peer-reviewed atmospheric physics.

    Joe Public can be forgiven for thinking global warming is bunk sitting in a car stuck on the turnpike this week, but the real world is so complex it should not surprise us that when we start messing with this planet, strange even paradoxical things can happen: Arctic warming *can* lead to freezing rain and blizzards in Illinois. Like all good scientists we should study the mass energy fluxes closely to learn what is really going on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 11:48pm on 05 Jan 2010, besserwisser wrote:

    Oh, I see... yes, now I see. U14260427 is actually Michael, Rick Spleen's "friend" from "Lead Balloon".

    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 11:49pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    grumpymike et al.

    What were the first posts on here talking about global warming or climate change?

    #4
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html#P90559111

    Bowman.

    #6
    John from Hendon

    #7
    ManmadeupGW

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 11:52pm on 05 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    RuariJM wrote:

    Nothing Important

    ( Just joshing)

    My degree is in Physiology/Cellular Biology.

    (At least I've got an ology eh! as Maureen Lipmann would say)

    My wife's a quack as are my two eldest brothers and my other brother is a graduate of Harvard Business school.

    As you can see I was the runt of the litter.

    I do however have a reasonably good problem solving mind. When I did my thesis/project for my degree I had to collate huge amounts of data.
    (Thesis: Corticosteroidogenesis of the interrenal gland of the lesser spotted dog fish)
    I had to take a significant number of samples to be able to test my theories. This meant getting up at six in the morning 5 days a week offing a couple of dogfish dissecting them removing there interrenal glands mashing them to buggery and then finally radioactively labeling the resultant goo and measureing the levels of the hormones present.)
    I did this every week for 14 weeks until I had enough to ensure accurate and reproducable evidence. My research formed part of a greater study which eventually lead to the production of some rather effective anti diabetes drug (puffs out chest smuggly)

    What was important is that the sampling was taken to significant levels. I dont believe that the 30 yrs we have been properly measuring global temperatures is of a large enough sample to draw any rock solid conclusions.
    The data may point to something but it is not concrete proof. The sample size is too small.

    Based on this I have not got much faith in the absolutist nature of the warmers arguments. Yes it may indicate MMGW but its too early to tell.

    Much of the argument has been muddied by special interest groups like friends of the earth and greenpeace making totally exaggerated claims like the north pole being ice free in 50 yrs.This claim by the boss of Friends of the earth was later retracted live on the beeb. He admitted he had grossly overstated the case.

    This hyperbole and hysteria has caused an entrenchment by the two sides which resulted in Mr Black trying to ridicule another scientist who has an opposite view. Read mr Blacks article on Oct 29 and tell me its not biased.

    Auntie has spread the lie that the science is settled. It isnt. Many emminent scientists strongly disagree with AGW theory.

    I would rather have a proper debate where our main state broadcaster did not take sides. Where it did not employ people who are members of campaign groups but independant and to the maximum extent possible impartial. Then after airing the different sides of the debate the public would be allowed to make up its own mind.

    I am too clever to be preached at and lectured to by some artschool activists (Sounds arrogant but I believe most people are intelligent enough to be given the facts not force fed them). I want the facts as each side sees them and then allow me the courtesy to make up my own mind

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 11:59pm on 05 Jan 2010, bazza24 wrote:

    /professor monckton

    I admire your readiness to address every point raised as a challenge, but aren't you, therefore, guilty of adopting an unscientific position?

    You obvioulsy spend a lot of time on this stuff, good luck! But, surely you are not saying that you can personally guarantee that every piece of material that you quote or reference in support of your position is TRUE / Proven (and error-free) are you?

    what if you're wrong?

    - the horror, the horror.

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 00:01am on 06 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #220:

    "And you're avoiding answering the question: is the ONLY effect of arctic temperatures being -40C rather than -50C IR output alone?"

    No, you're the one who's avoiding the question - after I gave you a written invite.

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 00:05am on 06 Jan 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    "Move along everyone, nothing to see here!" says Mr Richard Black smiling smugly. After all, this rather unprecedented cold is just one of those funny AO upside-down weather events - you must know these happen all the time and it will of course pass and, of course, it will get dangerously warm again soon (and the sky is falling and we will all drown, and all the world's coral reefs will be burned & boiled in acid, and the cuddly polar bears are all dying...etc..etc..etc... rinse, wash, repeat, ....rinse, wash, repeat...this time it really is the end of the world you know!)

    Piers Corbyn seems to think the climate can be explained by studying the Sun - what a joke - he was just incredibly lucky (again) that all his predictions, which I (Mr RB) ridiculed in my blog article a couple of months ago, all turned out to totaly accurate. What can Piers Corbyn know compared to the great minds of the Met Office, their supercomputers and Mr RB at the BBC- come on the Sun - I mean give me a break - there is ONLY one true GOD of climate and that is CO2 - every good and honest citizen knows that - only barbarians, heathens and evil pagans woudl question or doubt the word of our Lord CO2!

    RB, I suggest you quickly learn to eat humble pie and admit you have been completely hood-winked by the "man-made" global warming hype. You better do this real fast if you want any chance of saving a sliver of your rapidly evaporating credibility! As a career saving move, I strongly suggest you go and interview Hernrik Svensmark PHD and find out about some real constructive climate research at CERN (CLOUD experiment) and stop writing BBC propagandist poppycock end of the world drivel because everyone is fed up with the stink you and your ilk make.

    Complain about this comment

  • 228. At 00:07am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    more dung finging from the peanut gallery.

    Tell me, bess (@222), did you really create an account on the BBC so you could make pointless personal attacks? Was that the best you could do with your time?

    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 00:09am on 06 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #216:

    "It's perhaps a bit of a shame that the discussion has gone off into a climate change debate, specially when we read here that there is "little discernible pattern to how the pressure difference varies, or what causes it" - I'd say that is what really deserves the follow-up discussion and research."

    Yes, it's a great pity. But you'll probably never see a sensible debate about that here - they already have their answer.
    Yes, it would be really nice to have research and discussion about, for example, what causes the changes in the course of the jet stream.

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 00:11am on 06 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    Re 221 voltscommissar:

    You are right, the loss of sea ice results in more moisture from the oceans entering the atmosphere, which could lead to bigger storms. It also allows bigger waves to form.

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1398
    http://www2.ucar.edu/staffnotes/research/arctic-sea-ice-loss-and-climate

    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 00:13am on 06 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    Re 224: "What was important is that the sampling was taken to significant levels. I dont believe that the 30 yrs we have been properly measuring global temperatures is of a large enough sample to draw any rock solid conclusions."

    Noone is drawing any conclusions from 30 years. The conclusions are drawn from what is understood about the physics (and as with all science this is a conclusion in the sense of conclusion-to-date). What's happened in the past 30 years is merely consistant with these conclusions. No amount of years - 30, 50 or 100 is enough alone to draw conclusions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 00:17am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Read mr Blacks article on Oct 29 and tell me its not biased."

    OK.

    It's not biased.

    "I would rather have a proper debate where our main state broadcaster did not take sides."

    So when child porn is being legislated against, you'd like to see the BBC defend the right to KP?

    Really?

    And they'd have to make up a side to take: the denialists have, at last count, over 100 sides.

    "I am too clever to be preached at and lectured to by some artschool activists"

    Noting like having an open mind, eh?

    If you listened, maybe you wouldn't be lectured. Try scientists if you don't like artschoolers:

    http://www.ipcc.ch

    "I want the facts as each side sees them and then allow me the courtesy to make up my own mind"

    Then go read them. Go to the IPCC reports and read the facts.

    Good luck finding much that works the other way.

    "I dont believe that the 30 yrs we have been properly measuring global temperatures is of a large enough sample to draw any rock solid conclusions."

    Then you're wrong.

    It's easy to test for yourself.

    Take the annual temperature readings and work out the RMS error from the flat mean.

    Simple 14-year-old-schoolboy maths.

    Then work out how many years you need before the simple 14-year-old-shcoolboy maths of "binomial counting statistics" reduces the error of the calculated mean significantly below the noise of the set.

    You'll find it is about 30 years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

    for a start.

    But you can do the maths yourself.

    30 years.

    And before you leave, look at this graph:

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

    Doesn't that look like it is significantly "up"?

    The green bars are the errors in average estimation.

    For someone who demands to be given the facts to make up their own mind, you don't seem to want to do the work, do you?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 233. At 00:23am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    @226.

    So you ARE categorically saying that the only difference is IR output.

    If you didn't mean that, you've had plenty of chance to say no.

    Now. How about moisture content? How does that change between -40 and -50?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goff-Gratch_equation

    Oh dear.

    What about convection losses? Do they stop below -40C?

    No, they don't.

    Oh dear.

    Do you think that water vapour and convection may have *something* to do with weather and climate?

    Oh dear.

    Failed epically.

    "But you'll probably never see a sensible debate about that here"

    Not when you dodge questions and ignore answers all the time.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 234. At 00:30am on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Paddytoplad #224.

    "Then after airing the different sides of the debate the public would be allowed to make up its own mind."

    please, no, this isn't Switzerland! many people in this country haven't a decent enough education (something like 1/5th are more or less illiterate (and far too often proud of it)).


    besserwisser

    love the tag, "know-it-all" in English, apt?

    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 00:33am on 06 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    Infinity
    Man sits at end of street ripping up bits of paper.

    Concerned passer by comes up and says 'Why are you ripping up bits of paper and making such a mess'

    Man ' It keeps the elephants away'

    Passer by 'There are no elephants around here'

    Man 'Must be working then'.

    Its a game of consequences.

    Are there no elephants because of the paper or is it totally unconnected.

    You could point out that the paper mess is found only where there is a lack of elephant population and postulate a link.

    On the other hand you could look for more logical conclusions e.g. man not in africa therefore elephants unlikely.

    Just because CO2 follows/precedes/copies temperature change(depending on your point of view/prejudice)doesnt mean that temperature change is caused by it.

    Standard deviations in time measurement are too wide to accurately state the following/preceding arguments.

    Complain about this comment

  • 236. At 00:44am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Paddy:
    "Are there no elephants because of the paper or is it totally unconnected."

    There are if it's known that elephants are afraid of torn paper.

    We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    We know we're producing it by burning fossil fuels.

    We know how much fossil fuel we're burning.

    These are not up for debate: they are real.

    "Just because CO2 follows/precedes/copies temperature change(depending on your point of view/prejudice)doesnt mean that temperature change is caused by it."

    But if we know that CO2 can block IR and thereby insulate the earth from cooling off into space, we know how the change can be caused.

    We can then check to see if the science adds up to the right number measured.

    This check has been done.

    It passed.

    "Standard deviations in time measurement are too wide to accurately state the following/preceding arguments."

    Streamofconsciousness babbling won't help you paddy.

    The error in determining the climate mean for global temperatures is well within the signal that can be assigned to CO2's effects if Tyndal's/Arrhenius' work is correct if you take ~30 years to average away the noise.

    Just fit the data to a lowess filter and check the RMS errors from that line yourself.

    Then check that lowess average against the natural log of the CO2 concentrations.
    75-85% of that shape comes from the ln(CO2) shape.

    Check what the CO2 sensitivity would be to make them match and you get something close to 3C per doubling.

    Computer models likewise have as the emergent property of the science folded in to them of a 1.5-6 C per doubling sensitivity. Averaging out to 3.

    Looking at the past temperatures before man you find a range of sensitivity is 2-4.5. Best guess at 3.

    When multiple different methods give you the same answer, this, to a scientist, is deemed proof enough.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 237. At 00:45am on 06 Jan 2010, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    dudes: i'm off to build a midnight snowman. good to see lots of new climate realists. the climategate-denialists are spinning away to little avail.

    one thing i noticed: someone said r black might be due a raise because of the increased traffic! ho ho ho! i wonder how the Team feel about how good a job our kind host is doing in light of the balance and nature of the nature from each side (subtract Unumbers/yeahwhatever/marks posts and suddenly things become more representative of reality and the population in general! i'm also impressed at his prodigious output, i periodically have to wait a minute before i'm permitted to repost)

    another thing: we can say with absolute certainty that we are in an ice age. we're probably about half way through it and in a toasty interglacial when our species always expands and does very well, at least in comparison to the harsher chilly times. sooner or later (possibly as much as a few thousand years possibly sooner) the interglacial will end and it will get very cold again and we will retreat towards the equator once more. food for thought.

    i hope ashani can find some way out of his/her unpleasant predicament. all the best to you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 00:47am on 06 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    U2 you old hippy. Enjoyed the debate. I'm off to bed to dream of girls in Inverness wearing bikinis and Luows on Roker beach in Sunderland.

    Enjoy your tofu wrap under the soft glow of your low wattage tree hugger light.

    May you never need a four wheel drive may you never have your steel job moved to India to save the planet.

    May you never be taxed out of business.

    I await the beatifcation of the venerable Al Gore and look forward to welcomeing you into my eco friendly mud hut where we can share some nettle tea and some locally sourced seasonal fruit

    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 00:47am on 06 Jan 2010, tardigrade wrote:

    It's cold because it's winter. It's snowing because it's winter. That's what happens in winter in the UK. It happens every year to some degree. We have had a number of relatively milder winters recently, but it still gets cold and snows. Why do so many people seem to forget this each year? Does nobody other than those of us that are over 35 remember that it is the normal state of affairs for it to be cold in winter in this country? Why do we have to have this same discussion every year as well?

    The current BBC News headline reads, "Snow and ice cause travel chaos".
    Beneath this there is a link. "Analysis: Why so cold?"
    This links to a blog post entitled, "Arctic roots of 'upside-down' weather".
    Followed by 200 odd comments about a completely unrelated subject called AGW where a user called U123456789 tries to single handedly undo all the work done by the IPCC.

    Is all this designed to try to convince people that the current wintery conditions are unseasonal?

    The conclusion to the analysis should be. It's winter get over it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 00:49am on 06 Jan 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #196, U14260427 wrote:

    ... 'And anyone who wants to see how well denialists can count can go to Realclimate and check:
    "In fact Completely Fed Up says “Uh” quite a lot"
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/unforced-variations-2/comment-page-9/#comment-153240
    Yup, when these guys want to count "a lot" one is enough.
    Even Detritus the Troll can manage one, two, many, lots.' ...

    Amusingly a search of the above mentioned site for “Uh,” brings up some guy named Mark as the first hit ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 00:50am on 06 Jan 2010, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ Noise to Signal ~ One order of Magnitude Too High ///

    Anyone have a filter?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 00:53am on 06 Jan 2010, besserwisser wrote:

    Anyone fancy a pint?

    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 00:57am on 06 Jan 2010, mivadar wrote:

    I love how so many people are jumping to either bash or promote anthropogenic climate change on the basis of one cold winter.

    For climate modelling and climate record reconstruction one year simply doesn't matter - a realistic prediction fluctuation error bar is about a decade.

    Both camps are doing this, actually - both the "see, this is the coldest winter in the past 10 years", and the "see, we had the hottest summer in the past 10 years" ... when basically no changes within "the past 10 years" matter at all for the underlying trend.

    Of course there are yearly spikes, in both directions - though, globally, this winter is not even too cold, though with quite an unusual precipitation distribution, and the UK and much of the US did happen to catch some regional cold (it's not normal that in North Carolina it was colder than upstate Maine).
    But, they simply don't matter.

    For climate record reconstruction, one needs to think decades and centuries.
    When a series of tree-ring records from either side of the Atlantic reconstruct (with fairly impressive accuracy) decadal-scale fluctuations in ocean temperature based on ship-board measurements over the last century and a half, then you can begin to have confidence that the data in the preceding 350 years gives a picture of climate beyond our time of direct observation. And then when the Manganese record in a deep sea coral shows the same pattern of fluctuation over the last 300 years, you begin to have even more confidence that the tree-ring record is not just another 'Superbowl' correlation. When oxygen isotope patterns in ice-cores from different parts of the world show the same global pattern over several hundred thousand years, matched by coherent patterns in sediment cores recovered from different parts of the world's oceans, it gets harder and harder to pretend that these are random correlations and not a picture of a global pattern.
    And when gas-bubbles trapped in glacier ice consistently show a pattern of high CO2 in past warm times, then although cause and effect remain a legitimate point of debate, one begins to eye the current pattern of CO2, which has already risen to levels significantly higher than at any other time in the last 500 thousand years, at a rate that is completely unprecedented in many millions of years, with a great degree of nervousness.

    Yes, the models need to be refined, we need to incorporate more forcings, more carbon sources and sinks, and find more causal relationships. A lot of work has to be done.

    But, it is a lot easier to predict the average climate of the next 100 years than the weather of the next month, and one cold or mild winter says nothing about the reliability of the present climate models, one way or the other.
    Trying to "sell" the model on the basis of a warm year is just as bad as going against the findings on the basis of a cold one - especially because the cold year will come and previous statements will be remembered.

    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 01:02am on 06 Jan 2010, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    one snowman built, perfectly formed and beautiful. its been years since i've done that hehe!

    it's properly chucking down again, another half foot this evening do we think?

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 01:30am on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    tardigrade #239.

    "Why do we have to have this same discussion every year as well?
    The current BBC News headline reads, "Snow and ice cause travel chaos"."

    because it fills up available time?

    you only need to compare BBC 24h News and EuroNews channels to realise how one-dimensional the reporting is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 246. At 01:31am on 06 Jan 2010, rich albertson wrote:

    I believe the upside down weather can be sensibly explained.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics says, among other things, that heat is always drawn to cold, never the other way round. Because of that rule, heat from the sun developing in the Northern Hemisphere does not move southward because it is hotter in the equatorial region. In keeping with the rule it is drawn north toward the colder Arctic region. That's the reason for the unseasonably hot weather in the Arctic.

    As the hot air floods into the Arctic, it pushes the colder air already cooled by winter ice southward. Since the air entering the Arctic region from the south is hotter than the Arctic air it also rises above that colder air pushing it down toward the planet's surface as it moves it southward into populated regions.

    Climate change is creating the additional heat but operation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is what is causing both polar regions to record the greatest levels of heat increases anywhere on the planet.

    For most of the past two decades the inventory of ice on the planet has been in decline as the glaciers and polar caps melt faster than the snowfall can replace it. Each year, less planetary ice.

    Over the same two decades, the mean temperature of earth has been increasing and is now 0.6 degrees C above the historical mean. Each year, more planetary heat.

    Susan Solomon of NOAA and David Archer, renowned climatoligist, advise their research discloses that the CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere will mostly remain aloft, generating additional heat, for the next thousand years.

    If you have an established trend (two decades nearly) of both more heat and less ice each year and the cause of that phenomenon is going to last at least another thousand years, it seems to me you would be forced to conclude that the melting will continue indefinitely, until all of earth's ice is gone and reducing our carbon footprint won't slow it down one bit - even if we reduced that worldwide carbon footprint to zero - tomorrow. And that my friends is the dismal truth about climate change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 247. At 02:13am on 06 Jan 2010, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    anyone who's denying that we are experiencing global low temps (or at least pan-northern-hemisphere) at the mo ought to check out this link (it's from the beeb bizarely enough):

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/i_did_warn_you.html

    Since then we've had record snowfalls and low temperatures from North America to Scotland to China (where Beijing has just had its heaviest snow for 60 years) to South Korea (whose capital has had the worst snow since records began in 1937). So I think we can say the cold weather is global (for those parts of the globe where it is winter).

    strange the beeb usually keeps everyone singing from the same hymnsheet. dissension in the ranks perhaps?

    Complain about this comment

  • 248. At 02:22am on 06 Jan 2010, besserwisser wrote:

    Extract from a message from Michael (aka U14260427) to Rick Spleen:

    Hello Rick - Just to say that if you would like to do a spot of metal detecting over the holiday - which could unearth the causes of global warming... (who knows? but then of course they're already very well established and peered at) - then (as I'm probably going to be filming soon for "What not to email as a Climate Scientist") we could arrange...

    Complain about this comment

  • 249. At 02:25am on 06 Jan 2010, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    'If you have an established trend (two decades nearly) of both more heat and less ice each year and the cause of that phenomenon is going to last at least another thousand years, it seems to me you would be forced to conclude that the melting will continue indefinitely, until all of earth's ice is gone and reducing our carbon footprint won't slow it down one bit - even if we reduced that worldwide carbon footprint to zero - tomorrow. And that my friends is the dismal truth about climate change.'

    dude you could have summarised your entire post with one simple sentence:

    WE'RE DOOMED, DOOOOOOMED!

    Complain about this comment

  • 250. At 02:31am on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    tears of our forefathers #247.

    "..global low temps ... at the mo.."

    are to be expected, did you read mivadar's 243?

    Complain about this comment

  • 251. At 02:48am on 06 Jan 2010, poitsplace wrote:

    @infinity #141 who wrote...

    "Actually according to the standard model the sun has brightened over time. Google faint young sun paradox. By the way co2 as a primary climate driver on geological time scales is one of the solutions to that paradox."

    The other is that its been found that the earth's atmosphere is being depleted FAR more rapidly than originally thought. A much thicker atmosphere also answers the faint young sun paradox...a little better, actually since CO2 requires massive, unidentifiable feedbacks while a thicker atmosphere would do it all by its self.

    But you are right that the evidence we currently have says that the stars warm as they age.

    Complain about this comment

  • 252. At 02:48am on 06 Jan 2010, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    briefly un-ignoring you:

    yep i read it. i don't think you paid much attention to what i was saying. it's a cold winter: that unproves AGW for the simpleminded (as opposed to all the scientific fraud). the really hot summer in 1988 proved AGW to a bunch of braindead senators and apparently a horde of the easily gulled/politically inclined to buy anything that allows them to do what they wanted to do anyway.

    both, i happen to think, are pretty weak arguments. however: this winter is kind of impossible if you buy all the co2 forcing nonsense (cue no it's not chorus') and is the total opposite of the 'predictions' made by proAGW institutes. i overheard a lady in the street today saying to her friend that this will be the last time she'll see snow like this in her lifetime! rofl

    i was responding a specific point (that it's only regional, honest) mentioned by several posters (and in the article itself: I don't know how balmy it is in Oymyakon right now but in Yakutsk itself, the daily minimum is a mere -35C - that's 10C warmer than the January average.) not saying that because it's a chilly winter AGW is false. it's false because of evidence (of collusion and scientific fraud), not opinion. i love that whistleblower, whomever they be.

    i happen to agree with you about 24 hour news, they just need stuff to fill the time so instead of doing what they used to do (furnish us with actual, important news) they just hunt stuff to gibber about that will boost ratings and now we are faced with simpleminded untalented celebrities spouting off 24 hours a day about whatever they are told to spout off about.

    nighty night

    Complain about this comment

  • 253. At 02:53am on 06 Jan 2010, jgfox wrote:

    “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past” headline was posted in the Independent newspaper in the UK on March 20, 2000.

    “Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

    However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become

    "a very rare and exciting event".

    "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. (end)

    But since Goosebay is warmer than normal ignore the blast of snow and cold now sweeping the UK.

    Who are you going to believe about climate change? CRU? The BBC? Richard Black? Or your lying eyes as you look out the window?

    Enjoy this fleeting rare event.

    Complain about this comment

  • 254. At 02:57am on 06 Jan 2010, jgfox wrote:

    Oh yes, when CRU "homogenizes" and applies "quality control" measures, this Winter will be found to be "normal" if not slightly warmer than usual.

    Complain about this comment

  • 255. At 03:08am on 06 Jan 2010, dennisjunior1 wrote:

    Mr. Black:

    Thanks for the informative blog about the Arctic roots of the "current" upside down weather....Also, you have forgot to remarked about all of the snow that most of the world has been receiving recently.

    -Dennis Junior

    Complain about this comment

  • 256. At 03:13am on 06 Jan 2010, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    'Oh yes, when CRU "homogenizes" and applies "quality control" measures, this Winter will be found to be "normal" if not slightly warmer than usual.'

    we're already being told my various parties that 2009 was warmer than average, above the global decadal optimum or somesuch.

    the boy who cried wolf suffered a profound loss of credibility as a result of his actions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 257. At 03:16am on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    jgfox #253.

    "Who are you going to believe about climate change? CRU? The BBC? Richard Black? Or your lying eyes as you look out the window?"

    if you want to watch the weather, you can look out of your window for hours or days. to see the "climate change" you'll have to spend a little more time, best to get a comfy chair.

    Complain about this comment

  • 258. At 03:25am on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Dennis Junior #255.

    "..all of the snow that most of the world has been receiving recently." (emphasis added)

    particularly in the equatorial regions. :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 259. At 03:30am on 06 Jan 2010, Michael Tuckson wrote:

    Would the deniers who regularly claim that 30,000 scientists have signed a petition claiming that global warming doesn't exist, or something of that sort, please give a reference so we can check the number, the university degrees and the past and present occupations of these people.I think it likely that if in fact 30,000 deniers have risked putting their name to such a document, that many are not actually science or even similar graduates, and of those who are, many will be or have worked for the fossil fuel and related industries, and apart from thsoe, extremely few will have practiced any science close to climate science, including palaeo-climatology or even environmental science, and of those who have, many will have ceased doing so long ago. If the list does not include this basic information you can consider it a con.
    While we are waiting, we might check out an excellent website: stopglobalwarming-newstrategies.net

    Complain about this comment

  • 260. At 03:43am on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Michael Tuckson #259.

    "..we might check out an excellent website.."

    since it is your own website you may well think it "excellent" but it doesn't even re-format for different screen resolutions, hope the content's better.

    Complain about this comment

  • 261. At 03:45am on 06 Jan 2010, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    can you, mr tuckson, provide me a reference to the 2500 scientists who signed onto the early IPCC reports and a full list of all their qualifications? you see: i've read some emails that suggest most of them (nearly 2000) might not even have had phds and the majority were in unrelated fields.


    we antiAGWrealists are having a great new year, and 2009 was pretty awesome as well. you climategate-denialists/true-believers seem to be getting a little repetitive tbh. and fewer by the day.

    nighty night.

    Complain about this comment

  • 262. At 07:13am on 06 Jan 2010, Robin Sharp wrote:

    This article Relies on temperatures being near 0 degrees in Goose Bay.

    Well I just checked the basic facts and it's -30 in Goose Bay.

    Richard the first rule of journalism is to check your sources.

    I think you should retract this article immediately with an apology.



    Weather for Happy Valley-Goose Bay, NL, Canada
    2°C Rain and Snow
    Wind: N at 12 mph
    Humidity: 93%
    Wed : -29°C | -32°C
    Thu : -27°C | -28°C
    Fri : -27°C | -28°C
    Sat : -27°C | -28°C
    Weather Report for Goose Bay, Canada

    Complain about this comment

  • 263. At 08:09am on 06 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #172 FrankFisher wrote:

    "When so many people, including such major news organisations and government departments, gather together to distort, fantasise, disemble and plain *lie* on this scale, I think we should all be extremely worried. Big Lies like this are told for a reason. The world's governments and mainstream media are lying for a reason. I can't see that this reason is going to be something we'll appreciate."

    Isn't it all just part of a widespread human weakness for authority?

    Complain about this comment

  • 264. At 08:18am on 06 Jan 2010, Mark wrote:

    It's global warming of course!

    Complain about this comment

  • 265. At 08:20am on 06 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    A lot of people have remarked, correctly, that one cold winter does not constitute evidence that global warming is not happening.

    However, when a theory or model predicts a warm winter, then one cold winter constitutes a failed test of that theory or model. When a model or theory predicts a hot summer, then a cool summer constitutes a a failed test of that theory or model.

    I'm not much interested in the Met Office models because I imagine they're mostly a "crap shoot". But those who do put their faith in them ought to be worried, because they seem to failing tests more often than passing tests.

    Complain about this comment

  • 266. At 08:27am on 06 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "I just checked the basic facts and it's -30 in Goose Bay."

    "Weather for Happy Valley-Goose Bay, NL, Canada
    2°C"

    Two degrees centigrade?

    Complain about this comment

  • 267. At 08:30am on 06 Jan 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    242. At 00:53am on 06 Jan 2010, besserwisser wrote:

    "Anyone fancy a pint?"

    Darn Good Idea!

    I'll join you!

    A pint of single malt especially...........go down really well!

    Complain about this comment

  • 268. At 08:43am on 06 Jan 2010, Beejay wrote:

    Look back to the 15/16/17th centuries and weather observations from monks/scribes etc. Observe how even during apparent bitterly cold years there were periods of intense warmth. Normal climate variation - no suv's interfering, no aircraft trapping greenhouse gases and yet now every deviation is attributed to Global Warming / Climate Change/ Carbon Overload by the Warmists and 24 Hr Breaking News Media.

    "These are not the answers you are looking for - move on!"

    CO2 is a good gas, plants and mankind would die without it.

    This is winter and winter means cold weather, snow, ice etc. How does Richard Black construe what we have now as being upside down?

    Complain about this comment

  • 269. At 08:47am on 06 Jan 2010, jazbo wrote:

    When you say "Atlantic Oscillation" I assume you mean the NAO - North Atlantic Oscillation?

    http://blackswhitewash.com/2010/01/04/north-atlantic-oscillation-uea-cru-information-is-interesting/

    Complain about this comment

  • 270. At 08:51am on 06 Jan 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    263. At 08:09am on 06 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Isn't it all just part of a widespread human weakness for authority?

    Once again, Bowman, I find myself in total agreement.

    Many years ago I lived on an Island in the Hauraki Gulf close to our major city, Auckland.

    Getting off the ferry one evening, I and another fellow traveler were looking up at the hillside where a flock of sheep were looking down at us. One of us said (doesn't matter who it was)......."Look at those sheep on the hillside"

    The other said............"Bet they are thinking................look at those sheep down on the wharf!"

    It's all a matter of perception (or manipulation) as to which "shepherd" we choose to follow.

    Complain about this comment

  • 271. At 08:57am on 06 Jan 2010, Jack Frost wrote:

    Hot Weather Convinces Media of Climate Change; Cold Weather Ignored

    http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100104141202.aspx

    "The news media constantly misuse extreme weather examples to generate fear of global warming, but when record cold or record snow sets in journalists don’t mention the possibility of global cooling trends. While climatologists would say weather isn’t necessarily an indication of climate, it has been in the media, but only when the weather could be spun as part of global warming."

    Complain about this comment

  • 272. At 08:58am on 06 Jan 2010, jon112dk wrote:

    I was sceptical about jokenhagen - a few thousand politicians controlling the weather?

    But messiah Obama flew in for just one day and now we have this!!!

    Has he over done it?


    Complain about this comment

  • 273. At 09:03am on 06 Jan 2010, jazbo wrote:

    24. At 4:12pm on 05 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    @18.

    Oh enlightened one. I don't think many people actually disagree that the temperature trend is up, what people are challenging is that its all mankinds fault. It could be, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest its not as well.

    Some of us are increasingly annoyed with the "science is settled" viewpoint taken by Richard Black etc, when the evidence on the ground is far from settled. We are looking for debate, something Richard and others refuse to do, mainly because the take the arrogant view of the people over at "real climate" that anyone who does not agree with the "facts" is a caveman who should get on with flipping burgers.

    Everyone has an opinion, a lot of them with valid points that need answering, and even a burger flipper can spot a politically and funding motivated whitewash when they see, read and hear it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 274. At 09:11am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Oh dear, now I'm Mark again.

    So is that Dr Mark Jones, head of the CRU?

    What a bloody circus.

    Including this piece:

    "and even a burger flipper can spot a politically and funding motivated whitewash when they see, read and hear it."

    Yup, and how do you influence politicians? You buy lobbyists.

    Now who's paying for lobbying..?

    The Fossil Fuel Industry.

    Who as has been mentioned before get paid $72Bn from US government handouts and make something like $10Bn a day for oil.

    Follow the money and you'll see the influence.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 275. At 09:13am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Hot Weather Convinces Media of Climate Change; Cold Weather Ignored"

    Nope, we've already seen that this is false.

    Where was the hot weather that was November 2009 bandied about?

    As one of your denialists coworkers pointed out, nobody noticed.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 276. At 09:15am on 06 Jan 2010, Jack Frost wrote:

    Real Forecasters (not the constantly wrong MET office) predictions:-


    http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp

    "Winters like this will become more common the next few decades. After we get through with ocean cycles, pacific and atlantic that are colder and some of the ideas with solar cycles, we will be able to see that the earths temp is relative to when we started using the sattellite. My forecast is that it will return to at least where it was, and perhaps event further..back to where we were in the 1800s. But the cooling is just as likely as the screaming and yelling about warming."

    Complain about this comment

  • 277. At 09:16am on 06 Jan 2010, LarryKealey wrote:


    Well, all I can say is that I just jumped off a thousand foot tower at 2 am this morning, and it was really cold - in South Texas...and gonna get colder - seems like we are returning to the weather patterns of 30 years ago, when we had arctic highs, sending frigid cold air down upon North America. It all goes in cycles...what goes around, comes around.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    PS - Manysummits - the only thing better than standing atop the summit is jumping off it ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 278. At 09:17am on 06 Jan 2010, WAMO wrote:

    U14260427 and others


    "There have been plenty of times in the past when the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 was double what it currently is now"

    And it was hotter. Even further back, it wasn't but the sun produced 5% less energy."



    "During the relatively brief period where we have seen a close correlation between temperature and CO2, every single ice core study has demonstrated that temperature primarily drives CO2, not the other way around."

    See (this maybe somewhat biased site depending on what site you are I guess):

    http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-change-science-overview.html

    What strikes me is that most socalled warmers and deniers are quite simmilar in their behaviour of adressing the subject i.c. I am right and you are wrong (and v.v.).

    I'm observing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 279. At 09:24am on 06 Jan 2010, Jack Frost wrote:

    SNOW CHAOS: AND THEY STILL CLAIM IT'S GLOBAL WARMING

    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/149966

    AS one of the worst winters in 100 years grips the country, climate 'experts' are still trying to claim the world is growing warmer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 280. At 09:24am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    And just to show how barefaced a liar Rob Whines back is, his asserition is that the first result for searching for "Um" on the RC website is Mark.

    Check for yourself.

    The first one is this:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/

    4
    A Fortner says:
    10 May 2006 at 4:10 PM

    Could not help but chuckle at this assertion:

    “And it is interspersed with personal reflections from Gore that add a very nice human element.” Um, sure they do. He is so known for his, you know, humanlike qualities.

    ++++

    So much for technical accuracy from the denialosphere dittos.

    PS like lorraine asked before, but nobody answered, why are you guys so afraid of Mark?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 281. At 09:34am on 06 Jan 2010, LarryKealey wrote:



    Interesting, we have "Random Arctic Fluctuation" - just goes to show how little we know about Earth's Climate System - and how much we don't know, nor understand. And people like Richard, Micheal Mann and Al Gore think that 'the science is settled' - LOL.

    Truth is - we don't know squat. The idea that we can accurately model something we don't even understand is just plain laughable. We might as well use the Monte Carlo Method to predict climate change - we would have just about the same chance of being accurate - less than 50/50.

    Ed Lorenz reached the conclusion that we would never be able to accurately model the climate system some 50 years ago - and his reasoning is still sound today. This is just yet another attempt for the liberals of the world to exert more control on our lives.

    Should we develop newer, cheaper, better energy technology - of course, but we should do it right. Windmills have been around a long time - and people have known we can generate electricity from them for as long as we have had electricity, why didn't they just build wind farms a hundred years ago? Simple: cause it don't make sense. Its expensive, unreliable and unsound.

    Wanna tax all the cheap energy to make it too expensive to use? People will just turn to cheaper, less efficient sources - like heating their homes with wood - is that what we want? That is what happened here in the energy crisis of the late seventies. I don't think we want that to happen again.

    Lets spend our money developing new technology - viable technology - cheap, efficient energy. Lets move forward, not backward.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 282. At 09:36am on 06 Jan 2010, bandythebane wrote:

    Last year when December and January were the coldest for at least 18 years, there was no talk of upside down weather, it was merely an aberration within the range of what could be expected under a warming trend in a chaotic weather pattern.

    In the second year that explanation will no longer wash so there had to be an "upside down" weather event. Perhaps this may be true even if your Goose Bay fiqures are wrong but it does begin to sound like a bit of rather desperate special pleading.

    The worldwide warmth anomaly from November to December halved (from about 0.4 to 0.2 degrees C) and we will wait with interest to see what the January figure turn out to be.

    Can you please tell us Richard what your explanation will be if next Winter is cold again? It will have to be good. You are beginning to be somewhat at risk of becoming a bit of a joke.

    Complain about this comment

  • 283. At 09:40am on 06 Jan 2010, LarryKealey wrote:


    @U

    we are not afraid of Mark - we are just annoyed with his constant barrage of insults and his preaching of his 'true religion' - Mark.

    *Chuckle*

    Complain about this comment

  • 284. At 09:43am on 06 Jan 2010, LarryKealey wrote:



    Can anyone tell me what the current temperature of the Earth is? How is it measured? How was it measured a hundred years ago? Were the same measurements taken? I hardly think so. We can't even define the 'current temperature' of the earth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 285. At 09:49am on 06 Jan 2010, -OldGit wrote:

    quote 243:
    mivadar wrote:
    "I love how so many people are jumping to either bash or promote anthropogenic climate change on the basis of one cold winter.

    For climate modelling and climate record reconstruction one year simply doesn't matter - a realistic prediction fluctuation error bar is about a decade."

    So based on the this idea it seems that the anomalus decade was that of high temps in 1984-1994 - see:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/month.ao.jpg

    I remember that in the 1970s the fear was that we were entering a mini ice-age, of course back then we didn't have such powerful means of communication and news to spread the hysteria.

    Complain about this comment

  • 286. At 09:49am on 06 Jan 2010, Jack Frost wrote:

    I think someone needs to tell the MET office to look out the window:-

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/2009/winter.html

    "Preliminary indications continue to suggest that winter temperatures are likely to be near or above average over much of Europe including the UK. Winter 2009/10 is likely to be milder than last year for the UK"

    Complain about this comment

  • 287. At 09:53am on 06 Jan 2010, jazbo wrote:

    99. At 6:56pm on 05 Jan 2010, ken wrote:
    As Richard says, it is the NAO that is the cause of this weather, however, take a look at the NAO and you see it moves positive then negative in cycles, so its just part of the natural weather pattern, and far from "upside down".

    Complain about this comment

  • 288. At 09:54am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Can anyone tell me what the current temperature of the Earth is? "

    Why? We'll come to why I ask that later.

    "How is it measured?"

    It's measured at points scattered over the earth. With thermometers.

    "How was it measured a hundred years ago?"

    The same way.

    "Were the same measurements taken?"

    The temperature changed, so no, the same measurements were not taken. But the same method was used.

    "I hardly think so."

    Personal incredulity on whether a Stephenson screen can work???

    "We can't even define the 'current temperature' of the earth."

    The only reason you say that is because you don't think we can.

    But why do you need the earth's current temperature? We don't have the human's current temperature: we measure it with a thermometer in an armpit, in the mouth or rectally. Hopefully sterilising the thermometer first.

    And when someone has a fever, we confirm this by putting the thermometer back in and seeing if the temperature has risen.

    If it has, there's a fever, if it hasn't, there isn't.

    So we don't need "the earth's temperature" any more than we need "the human's temperature" to see if temperatures have risen.

    I would have thought that someone who worked on a team on finite element analysis would know you don't need a continuous measure to measure changes. By the way, what team was that pioneering work for?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 289. At 09:55am on 06 Jan 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @jgfox
    "According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become

    "a very rare and exciting event".

    "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. (end)
    End of part post

    The sad thing is this that this guy is now at The British Council wasting taxpayers money. Head of Climate Change?

    Oh and in answer to your final question I will look out the window and let my eyes tell me the truth?

    @ Larry Kealey

    Good to see you back. Unfortunately you won't recognise my screen name because the BBC ruled that the words play and cold could not be put together and used.

    Happy New Year

    Complain about this comment

  • 290. At 09:56am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Laffeer Larry:
    "@U

    we are not afraid of Mark "

    Yes you are, since you seem to see mark all over the place.

    Either afraid or obsessed.

    If you just didn't like the insults

    a) why do you love them yourself so much
    b) why are you fine with others doing nothing but
    c) why keep accusing others of it when just saying "I don't like you being rude"

    ?

    So no, your hypothesis doesn't stand up to the test.

    But being afraid of Mark, well, that does fit: when you're afraid of something you see it all around.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 291. At 09:58am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    From the man who doesn't think thermometers can measure temperature:
    "Truth is - we don't know squat."

    What's this "we", bwana?

    YOU know squat. You just said so. Doesn't mean nobody else knows something.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 292. At 09:59am on 06 Jan 2010, David Jack Smith wrote:

    Dr "U14260427" Jones, Global Climate Fraud Unit, East Anglia, CRUD.

    COMPLAINT TO THE BBC ABOUT THIS POSTER

    This poster is CLEARLY more than one person.

    This is irrefutable if you look at the rapidity of posting (sometimes 2/3 posts within a 2 minute span); the simaltaneous posts on multiple threads; the differnt styles, and the length of time spent posting.

    This breaks BBC HOUSE RULES

    1. If there is more than one poster, then the other/s : Appear to impersonate someone else

    2. Given the whole extensive effort and taken as a whole, it is clear that it is an attempt to: disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others.

    3. Contain links to other websites which break our Editorial Guidelines

    Complain about this comment

  • 293. At 10:00am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Oldgit:
    "I remember that in the 1970s the fear was that we were entering a mini ice-age,"

    Well, the memory is often the first thing to go when you get older.

    Watch this and refresh your memory:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/0/XB3S0fnOr0M

    Turns out it was two newspapers pulling the scare. Not the scientists.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 294. At 10:00am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "SNOW CHAOS: AND THEY STILL CLAIM IT'S GLOBAL WARMING "

    WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE!

    Complain about this comment

  • 295. At 10:03am on 06 Jan 2010, jazbo wrote:

    @107 -U - oh U know who you are:

    You point the questioner to a website so arrogantly, she asked a questions and you question why she has not found the site. Rude.

    You are right, it is an interesting site.

    They discuss the significant medieval warm period and little ice age, both dismissed and ironed out by Jones and the IPCC:

    http://nsidc.org/data/gisp_grip/document/gispinfo.html

    In a previous post you also said that the conclusions drawn from the core samples in the BBC documentary I cited was disupted regarding the rapid end of the youner dryas period.

    Yet the NSIDC on that page agree that there was a major event, correlates with other cores, such as Vostock.

    Rapid temperature rises and a doubling of snow accumulations in the space of a few years according to NSIDC. Sound familiar?

    Complain about this comment

  • 296. At 10:04am on 06 Jan 2010, Julian Flood wrote:

    quote Re: # 173. At 10:22pm on 05 Jan 2010, Julian Flood wrote:

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

    My word, first time ever on any blog. My sin was probably trying to prick the consciences of those who should follow the code of their profession and actually investigate things, instead of just regurgitating press releases.

    Anyway....

    Have a look at the AO index above. What stands out is not the terribly usual cold excursion at the moment, it's the awfully warm excursion in the 80s, just when AGW hysteria hit the headlines. Surely it can't all be because of a random fluctuation of ocean currents which has now abated?

    It would be nice to see a journalist investigate. Whoever breaks the big story behind all this is going to be God in the newspaper or broadcasting world. And those who don't will kick themselves for the rest of their professional lives.

    JF

    Complain about this comment

  • 297. At 10:10am on 06 Jan 2010, jazbo wrote:

    Yet another whitewash from Mr black of course. A pro-AGW activist cherry picking data, who would have thought it.

    Barely below zero in Googe Bay, what every day Richard, or just today?

    http://www.weathercity.com/ca/nf/goose_bay/

    Looks like its gonna be a daytime high of -18 degrees by Saturday.

    Complain about this comment

  • 298. At 10:11am on 06 Jan 2010, LarryKealey wrote:



    @U

    I jump out of airplanes, off buildings, antennas, bridges, cliffs, cranes and anything else I can - I am certainly not afraid of you - whether you call yourself Mark, lorrain or this U thingy.

    Before I put U back on ignore - you failed to answer the question:

    What is the current temperature of the Earth?

    Your lack of intelligence is annoying, but I won't allow you to bait me.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 299. At 10:11am on 06 Jan 2010, dazz599 wrote:

    the way I see it is that surely measuring planet temps over 100 years and making claims of manmade climate changes seems pointless.100 years compared to how long the earth has been around is but a blink of an eye and temperature fluctuations have been going on for millions of years.
    I remember a few mild winters ago people blamed the lack of snow on global warming.Now we have snow 2 years running people are blaming climate change.Come on people,which one is it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 300. At 10:12am on 06 Jan 2010, peakbear wrote:

    U14260427 - #163 #184

    Do you really think that hot weather kills more people than cold weather in Europe? I'd have thought that without any heating and just wrapping up warm, the winter mortality in Europe would be quite a bit higher. The fact that "Excess Winter Mortaility" I'd put down largely to the fact that the winter is colder than the summer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 301. At 10:13am on 06 Jan 2010, jazbo wrote:

    294. At 10:00am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "SNOW CHAOS: AND THEY STILL CLAIM IT'S GLOBAL WARMING "

    WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE!

    UNLESS ITS HOT OF COURSE.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 302. At 10:14am on 06 Jan 2010, mivadar wrote:

    "However, when a theory or model predicts a warm winter, then one cold winter constitutes a failed test of that theory or model. When a model or theory predicts a hot summer, then a cool summer constitutes a a failed test of that theory or model."

    Just to make this clear again - the models and projections used to predict weather on a weekly scale, on a multi-month/yearly scale, and on a decadal average scale, have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
    Nothing, whatsoever.
    (Well, except that occasionally they are run on the same computers.)

    To claim that a cold winter is buckling a trend or that it completely goes again long-term predictions, is nonsense.

    On the other hand, beside the normal "single point measurement" tendencies that people have, the blame for this hype also lies with the politicians and science reporters who tried to sell global warming on the basis of a single warm year (be it 1988, 1992 or 2003).

    Complain about this comment

  • 303. At 10:16am on 06 Jan 2010, LarryKealey wrote:



    @dazz599

    We can't even define the 'temperature of the planet', much less measure it. I mean really - what is the temperature of the planet right now? I know what it is here in Texas right now - cold - but that means nothing in the big scheme of things. The idea that we can even accurately measure the 'temperature of the planet' is laughable - much less measure the changes over even one hundred years.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 304. At 10:29am on 06 Jan 2010, dazz599 wrote:

    ok Kealey.fair point.Lemme put it another way.However the scientists calculate climate change would be a better quote....that covers all parameters rather than planet temp alone and figures gathered over 10 or 100 years are still pointless


    Complain about this comment

  • 305. At 10:37am on 06 Jan 2010, YAD061 wrote:

    Extreme weather? I can remember when winters like this were considered normal, I think you'll find that, much like a certain hockey stick, this is a bit of an exaggeration

    Complain about this comment

  • 306. At 10:37am on 06 Jan 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:


    281. At 09:34am on 06 Jan 2010, LarryKealey wrote:

    "Truth is - we don't know squat."

    Perfectly true, Larry! We (I assume) means you too.

    Still preaching the same old (libertarian) garbage.

    Point one. ALL fuels are cheap (wood and oil) when supply exceeds demand.

    Point two. When the middle East held the world to ransom (for a very brief period) I still used petrol and diesel to fuel my vehicles, not wood. I just paid more!

    Point three. One day oil will be so expensive (supply versus demand) that alternative energy (wind, wave, solar,whatever) will be "cheap" in comparison. That may not be too far away.

    Point four. When I lived in London during the war we used to wait 'til we heard the noise of the "doodlebug" (V1 to you) cut out. Then we would take cover. The early rockets had limited range, your modern rocket can exit earth's atmosphere. ALL technology advances as I am sure you are well aware AND gets cheaper. So will alternative energy. BUT existing technology will suffer in the process.

    Point four. The UK is a developed nation. ( no, I don't live there). However there are many there who consider that the population is increasing beyond sustainability and are proposing controls.Development does not always lead to population stabilisation. Just ask Singapore.

    Point five. Your problems may be realistic (population, pollution etc.)but your solutions are too simplistic.

    For those who are curious as to where I am deriving my comments, check on Larry's previous comments. You may get the same impression I get. Larry has great investments in coal.

    No apologies Larry.......I'm just bored with your continual K-rap







    Complain about this comment

  • 307. At 10:42am on 06 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #292 David Jack Smith wrote:

    "This poster is CLEARLY more than one person.

    "This is irrefutable if you look at the rapidity of posting (sometimes 2/3 posts within a 2 minute span); the simaltaneous posts on multiple threads; the differnt styles, and the length of time spent posting."

    There is also the general incoherence of the postings, as if one person is picking up a thread that another person started without having any grasp of what is going on. Consider this little gem (in which U14260427 defends his project to get rid of all green plants on Earth):

    #488 U14260427: "We would eat a mix of synthetic proteins and minerals that constitute all the human body needs."

    #513 bowmanthebard: "Now I wonder why we'd do that if we could simply eat plants?"

    #516 U14260427: "Because plants are available."

    Complain about this comment

  • 308. At 10:46am on 06 Jan 2010, hairydalek wrote:

    It’s winter. Surely we are meant o have weather like this anyway?

    Complain about this comment

  • 309. At 10:50am on 06 Jan 2010, David Jack Smith wrote:

    30 7. At 10:42am on 06 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Bowman -- I have complained that Dr "U14260427" Jones, suffering Tourettesmail Syndrome, clearly violates house rules:

    1. If there is more than one poster, then the other/s : Appear to impersonate someone else.

    2. Given the whole extensive effort and taken as a whole, it is clear that it is an attempt to: disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others.

    3. Contain links to other websites which break our Editorial Guidelines

    But they could care less.

    However my most important complaints about multiple posts from Dr "U14260427" Jones, was also give no consideration, in that it was email rejected almost instantly:

    Complaint From: David Jack Smith
    Moderation Reference: 27118398 about Post 90585149
    I believe this post is racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable for the following reason:

    As I explained in a previous complaint, the use of the word "denialist" is grossly offensive to me as a Jew.

    This seeks to demean those who don't believe a "scientific" theory as being in the same league as Holocaust deniers.

    As such is it a nasty, vicious adjective that is deliberately meant to close down civilized discourse, and cast others in the most offensive light to all decent people.

    Truly a disgusting libel.

    Complain about this comment

  • 310. At 10:50am on 06 Jan 2010, ubernuka wrote:

    U14260427 you say the sun used to be a lot cooler.so its the sun thats warming the planet then.SHOCK HORROR!!!!!

    U14260427
    "A volcano puts out TONS of CO2 when it erupts, yes?"
    Not always.

    FOR REAL millions of tons of molten rock and fire dont always produce CO2!!!!!!!!!
    YES THEY DO!!!!!!!
    Whats the phrase ........mmmm....OH YES.... EPIC FAIL!
    Think b4 you post.
    maybe you did but do not understand the process of oxidisation through combustion.
    which begs the question do you actually understand any science or just cheerry pick quotes to trot out parrot fashion for your own ends WHATEVER they may be.

    Complain about this comment

  • 311. At 10:50am on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    David Jack Smith #292.
    bowmanthebard #307.

    "This poster is CLEARLY more than one person."

    anyone's got some software for semantic analysis handy?

    Complain about this comment

  • 312. At 10:53am on 06 Jan 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    I found Richard's article interesting, enjoyable and worthwhile to read. I learned things I didn't know before.

    However most of the posts above are simply rehashing the same tired old repetitive 'content-light' (and often insulting) polemics of the past months.

    I thought that the refrain on December 31st went something like 'out with the old, in with the new'? Try it! It would make the comments much more interesting...

    Complain about this comment

  • 313. At 10:58am on 06 Jan 2010, sebsyd wrote:

    Hottest decade on record: official

    Complain about this comment

  • 314. At 11:00am on 06 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    People claiming the whole globe is cold are ridiculous. There are more places than "korea, china, US and UK". Consider the Japanese Meterological Agency's map of global land temperature anomalies for the past week.

    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/synop.html

    Korea check. US check. UK check. Europe check - although sourthern europe is warmer than usual.

    But you'll have to ignore all the warmer than average places too.

    iceland, greenland, southern europe, newfoundland, middle east

    Complain about this comment

  • 315. At 11:03am on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    David Jack Smith #309.

    "As I explained in a previous complaint, the use of the word "denialist" is grossly offensive to me as a Jew. This seeks to demean those who don't believe a "scientific" theory as being in the same league as Holocaust deniers. As such is it a nasty, vicious adjective that is deliberately meant to close down civilized discourse, and cast others in the most offensive light to all decent people."

    wow. well I find it offensive that you (as a Jew) want to appropriate the word "denialist" as an exclusive insult against your own folk. no, really. further, you're the one who's bringing racism to the table -- persecution complex or simply a cynical exploitation of your roots?

    Complain about this comment

  • 316. At 11:04am on 06 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    303 Kealey:
    "The idea that we can even accurately measure the 'temperature of the planet' is laughable - much less measure the changes over even one hundred years."

    If it wasn't possible to do then the graphs of global temperature records would just look like noise with no discernable trend or predictable features such as warming in El Ninos, cooling during La Ninas and after volcanic eruptions.

    But on the contrary they do show similar trends. Additionally the satellite record and surface records use independent methods to determine global temperature and those records match up well over time - how do you explain that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 317. At 11:08am on 06 Jan 2010, Eimear wrote:

    Richard you are wrong, your data is incorrect and your beautiful graph shows no correlation with how cold or warm the weather has been.

    Try Again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 318. At 11:11am on 06 Jan 2010, John Carney wrote:

    Is the world getting warmer? Possibly but by no means confirmed
    Are human additions to the available atmos. CO2 conributing to any warming? Highly unlikely as there is NO link to CO2 levels and mean global temperature for previous climate change episodes.
    If any one tells you there is they are mis-informed. If anything there is a lag between CO2 levels and temperature due to increases bio-mass as the plannet warms, but even this is sketchy at best.
    Do governments hang on to anything to increase taxes? Yes.
    Thatcher started this as an excuse to get rid of the NUM and produce more Plutonium for the Trident program.
    If this cold spell continues for another 3 weeks the UK population will be screaming out for hydrocarbons as most of us a now completely reliant on gas for heating. Another legacy from Mrs T's government...
    Don't beleive the hype

    Complain about this comment

  • 319. At 11:13am on 06 Jan 2010, Trefor Jones wrote:

    Good article - similar stories all over the blogosphere. However, it is rather astonishing that the NAO oscillation is suddenly making a comeback considering that this was pointed out decades ago prior to the whole AGW cataclysm. By the way are tou referring to Brynmawr ( Blaenau Gwent) or Bryn Mawr ( Penn.;USA) in your aticle? I can assure that the former was deep in snow last weekend with scenes reminiscent of the 1981/82 snows. The most important thing is that this whole debate is handed back to the cautious study of climataology, not the razzamatazz of the information revolution fuelled noughties, if that is not amixed metaphor. Happy New Year.

    Complain about this comment

  • 320. At 11:16am on 06 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    Re 318 John Carney:

    "Are human additions to the available atmos. CO2 conributing to any warming? Highly unlikely as there is NO link to CO2 levels and mean global temperature for previous climate change episodes."

    Yes there is. The magnitude of glacial cooling and interglacial warming is too large to be explained solely by the orbital changes and albedo alone. An amplifying factor is needed and co2 increasing and decreasing by 50% is sufficient to explain that.

    A similar picture exists for temperature changes over geological time, again an amplifying factor is needed and the variations in co2 level can fit that bill.

    So rather than concluding "Highly unlikely", quite the opposite.

    Complain about this comment

  • 321. At 11:16am on 06 Jan 2010, YAD061 wrote:



    ""Complaint From: David Jack Smith
    Moderation Reference: 27118398 about Post 90585149
    I believe this post is racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable for the following reason:

    As I explained in a previous complaint, the use of the word "denialist" is grossly offensive to me as a Jew.

    This seeks to demean those who don't believe a "scientific" theory as being in the same league as Holocaust deniers.

    As such is it a nasty, vicious adjective that is deliberately meant to close down civilized discourse, and cast others in the most offensive light to all decent people.

    Truly a disgusting libel.""

    Well said Jack, about time someone highlighted this. Why science has to be reduced to this level of personal attack is very telling. I would also like to complain about this connotation to the holocaust

    Complain about this comment

  • 322. At 11:23am on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    YAD061 #321.

    "Why science has to be reduced to this level of personal attack is very telling."

    make up you mind, either the attack is "personal" in which case it cannot be 'racist', or it targets a group in which case what makes you think (apart from DJ Smith's comments) that it is aimed at an ethnic group?

    Complain about this comment

  • 323. At 11:24am on 06 Jan 2010, David Jack Smith wrote:

    315. At 11:03am on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Frankly sir, what you think? I can could give a flying you know what but it rhymes with luck.

    But please explain my "racism". I would love to know

    I'd like to know why you think I'm a "racist" because I object to the deliberate use of a phrase that is inextricabley linked to David Irving and all those actual denialists of the Holocaust.

    No sir, this use of the word is a attempt smear people who don't see any "proof" for the theory that the miniscule amounts of CO2 produced by mankind (as compared to nature), can cause so-called "gloabal warming." (Which has not occured in any significant amount in any case.)

    When, in fact, CO2 is, in itself, a small "greenhouse" gas, compared to the major greenhouse gas, water vapour in the atmosphere.

    Please sir: tell the world of my "racism." Either that or apologize immediately.

    Complain about this comment

  • 324. At 11:28am on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    furhter to #315, #322.

    and what's worse, I'd bet that neither of you has any actual first-hand memories of the holocaust. where's tears of our forefathers when you need him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 325. At 11:31am on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    David Jack Smith #323.

    "Frankly sir, what you think? I can could give a flying you know what but it rhymes with luck."

    so why do you wish to have others think more highly of you than you think of others? pray tell.

    "But please explain my "racism". I would love to know"

    because you saw fit to bring your ethnic ('racial') background into it!

    Complain about this comment

  • 326. At 11:34am on 06 Jan 2010, sebsyd wrote:

    simon-swede "However most of the posts above are simply rehashing the same tired old repetitive 'content-light' (and often insulting) polemics of the past months."
    There's too many of these climate change skeptic type of posts around the blogosphere. In common they are uninformed, pushing simplistic arguments against anthropomorphic climate change. They don't bother with the facts, as mentioned often abusive.







    Complain about this comment

  • 327. At 11:36am on 06 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    Re 323 David Jack Smith:

    "When, in fact, CO2 is, in itself, a small "greenhouse" gas, compared to the major greenhouse gas, water vapour in the atmosphere."

    Your excuse is a really poor one considering that climate models take into account the quanaties of water vapor and co2 in the atmosphere and yet they still find significant warming from doubling co2. So you are effectively just stating something that climate science factors in and then claiming it doesn't.

    Complain about this comment

  • 328. At 11:38am on 06 Jan 2010, David Jack Smith wrote:

    324. At 11:28am on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Sir

    The first rule of holes is when you're in one, stop digging.

    But please, I beg you to reveal more of your personal demons. Guess what, it's not only Jews who object to the disgusting use of the words "denier" and "denialists".

    Many decent people do so. Many of them are Christians. Thney all know what's going on here.

    What next? Those who disgree with the massively funded (billions upon billions) global warming hype are part of a global Jewish conspiracy?

    IUsn't that the other way around. I mean follow the money, find the Jew? Isn't that how it works?

    Complain about this comment

  • 329. At 11:40am on 06 Jan 2010, David Jack Smith wrote:

    "Your excuse is a really poor one considering that climate models take into account the quanaties of water vapor and co2 in the atmosphere and yet they still find significant warming from doubling co2. So you are effectively just stating something that climate science factors in and then claiming it doesn't."

    Garbage in. Garbage out.

    Complain about this comment

  • 330. At 11:44am on 06 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    Always remember denier is also the measure of the thickness of tights and stockings. Things which stick close to ladies legs making them aesthetically pleasing.

    Funnily enough the more deniers you get the warmer it is. (Oops that doesnt help me too much)

    Anyway I dont mind being compared to stockings. At least the pictures in my mind are positive.

    Let all the hippies start a climate camp now. Go on I dare them. Get their unclean tents out and watch the poor blighters spending half and hour getting a peg into the permafrost.

    Where are plane stupid when the airports are snow bound. I'll tell you, they all left last week for GOA to spend daddys trust fund.

    Hypocrites luddites neo coms whingers spongers.

    Enjoy your warmist cult. Like King Canute of old you may pray for the earth to warm up to prove your misguided theories but unforunately the snows keep coming.

    I enjoyed my rant. Thank you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 331. At 11:45am on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    David Jack Smith #328.

    "The first rule of holes is when you're in one, stop digging."

    agreed, so learn your lesson.

    "..it's not only Jews who object to the disgusting use of the words "denier" and "denialists". Many decent people do so. Many of them are Christians."

    quantify "many decent people".

    Christians? christianity is a form of (as in split off from) Judaism, same difference from my perspective.

    "What next?"

    you get over your anger and focus on the debate in a manner that sets a good example?

    Complain about this comment

  • 332. At 11:45am on 06 Jan 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @U14260427 (Yeahwhatever)

    You sure do demonstrate that a little knowledge is dangerous. Please don't board a plane or play with matches.

    You're attempt to rewrite history in respect of global cooling is quite pathetic and disingenous:

    This is from Time June 1974: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-2,00.html

    On the following link you can watch Professor Schneider squirming when questioned about global cooling. Watch from about 1.5 mins in.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9W_7MgPJQs

    You spoil this blog by the appalling way you post and I would say that even if I agreed with your religious believes in global warming.

    Yeah Yeah everyone I know t'is a folly to be wise when ignorance is bliss.

    Complain about this comment

  • 333. At 11:47am on 06 Jan 2010, David Jack Smith wrote:

    "because you saw fit to bring your ethnic ('racial') background into it!"

    So mentioning why I (amongst counless others) as a "ethnic" find sonething offensive, makes me racist.

    Gosh. Sure... That is the sort of impeccable logic that explains why the majority of people don't buy the crazy theories peddled by Warm Mongers.

    But it does explain how the Warm Mongers manage to conclude that cold, hot, wet, dry, windy, not windy, can all be blamed on the miniscule amount of CO2 generated my mankind, as opposed to the massive amounts generated by nature.

    Oh please, do tell me that you find "warm monger" offensive. Or not.

    And if it helps, I remove the Jew part. As a HUMAN BEING I find it rather despicable to use a phrase that had been previously associated with those who deny the Holocaust that murdered 6 millions Jews, and millions of others threougout Europe.

    Complain about this comment

  • 334. At 11:49am on 06 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    329 David Jack Smith:

    "Garbage in. Garbage out."

    So you are a pseudoskeptic afterall

    Complain about this comment

  • 335. At 11:50am on 06 Jan 2010, Rob B wrote:

    Why is a warm summer "climate" and a warm winter merely "weather"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 336. At 11:55am on 06 Jan 2010, Veronica wrote:

    It is instructive to go back to Richard's blog of October 30th 2009 and ask who looks more believable now; Piers Corbyn or the Met Office?

    Complain about this comment

  • 337. At 11:59am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Apparently I'm not mark either. I'm a multitude.

    Go figure. These conspiracy theorists certainly love to exercise their paranoia, don't they?

    Laffer, your answer to "what's the earth's temperature" can be found here:

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

    But you avoid answering why you need to know it or how it's impossible to know.

    Just because YOU don't know doesn't mean it isn't known.

    PS where's that team you worked on pioneering finite element analysis computer modelling? You've continued to fail to produce.

    Rob whistles in the canyon of love:
    "Why is a warm summer "climate" and a warm winter merely "weather"?"

    It isn't.

    Only denialists say it. They accuse AGW and the IPCC of the former and deny the latter and demand to call it proof the climate is cooling.

    But you repeat the Big Lie.

    It won't work.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 338. At 12:00pm on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Paddytoplad #330.

    :-)


    David Jack Smith #333.

    "As a HUMAN BEING I find it rather despicable to use a phrase [denier] that had been previously associated with those who deny the Holocaust that murdered 6 millions Jews, and millions of others threougout Europe."

    well, and I don't, that's diversity of opinion for you.

    the end.

    Complain about this comment

  • 339. At 12:01pm on 06 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    332:

    "You're attempt to rewrite history in respect of global cooling is quite pathetic and disingenous:"

    There was no widespread scientific belief in the 1970s of an imminent ice age or severe cooling. It was media generated.

    Unlike today where we have a widespread scientific belief that doubling co2 will result in significant warming.


    Complain about this comment

  • 340. At 12:03pm on 06 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    Re 333. David Jack Smith:

    "can all be blamed on the miniscule amount of CO2 generated my mankind, as opposed to the massive amounts generated by nature."

    Nature takes more co2 out of the atmosphere than it adds. Humans put in more than nature removes on balance, which is why co2 levels are rising.

    Complain about this comment

  • 341. At 12:04pm on 06 Jan 2010, adders45 wrote:

    The sea where I live Porlock is abnormally cold locally we were wondering if this is due to a lack of gulf stream??

    Complain about this comment

  • 342. At 12:06pm on 06 Jan 2010, DrSoft wrote:

    Good article, thanks for the read.

    There appear to be a lot of armchair scientists posting comments here here who claim to know a lot, but the reality is that any scientist worth their weight never claims they know the answer for certain. All you can do is analyse observations and draw the most likely conclusion to explain the data. It is thanks to this methodical approach adopted by scientists that help make sense of A LOT of things in our lives.

    Your article explains a phenomenon and how it might be affecting our weather at present. Whether it is definitely the cause or not I found it interesting. Keep it up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 343. At 12:06pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Manny stamps his little feet in a tantrum and wails:

    "You're attempt to rewrite history in respect of global cooling is quite pathetic and disingenous:

    This is from Time June 1974: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-2,00.html"

    Uhm, what was that? When did time become a science journal?

    I gave a link and you didn't watch it. It's a video so you don't have to strain your brain to read:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/0/XB3S0fnOr0M

    out of 77 papers in the 1970's were they all talking of cooling? Were most? Were a large minority?

    No to all.

    And did you read the papers that did talk about it? You know what happened because of them? Clear Air Act. Which reduced the sulphates and stopped particulate cooling which was a linear term rather than an exponential one that CO2 warming is. And on the long run, an exponential always beats a linear progression.

    You project your demand to rewrite history and lie your face off on to me.

    Fail.

    Epic fail.

    "peakbear wrote:

    U14260427 - #163 #184

    Do you really think that hot weather kills more people than cold weather in Europe?"

    Showing that if you bother to include links, they don't read it (or read and discard because it doesn't agree with their personal fantasy world). Influenza (an infection) kills most of those people. Not the coldness of the weather.

    "310. At 10:50am on 06 Jan 2010, ubernuka wrote
    ...a lot of gibberish..."

    Try english, kid. You're all over the place. rocks aren't CO2. Neither are sulphates. But if you want to say volcanoes produce mostly CO2 have a talk with Peter who disagrees.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 344. At 12:08pm on 06 Jan 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @Infinity
    "There was no widespread scientific belief in the 1970s of an imminent ice age or severe cooling. It was media generated."
    End part post.

    This is not a true statement anyone looking at the links above in my post at 332 could not honestly come to that conclusion?

    It's to cold to play today;-)


    Complain about this comment

  • 345. At 12:09pm on 06 Jan 2010, A Travesty wrote:

    sensiblegrannie #3 asks if the gas supplies are going to hold out. I'm more concerned about my bank account holding out when the next gas bill comes in.

    Complain about this comment

  • 346. At 12:10pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "329 David Jack Smith:

    Garbage in. Garbage out."

    Does rather require that it's garbage in, though.

    you look at what comes out of GCMs, don't like the answer, call it garbage and then jump to garbage in because you call the output garbage.

    Not garbage in, not garbage out.

    If you have proof of garbage going in, furnish it.

    PS a lot of newcomers turning up just to insult me. Makes me feel warm and tingly. So much fear. So much anger. One wonders if it's because their comfortable fantasy is being challenged, their religion (either the primacy of man for the christians or the primacy of commercial enterprise for the libertarians) is falling down and they wish to fiddle while Rome burns.

    Hang the poor children of the world, if it means they get to drive a big SUV and show off. It's their fault they're poor. That's what the Holy Disciple Ayn Rand tells them. And they BELIEVE with all their hearts.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 347. At 12:14pm on 06 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    Re 344. ManmadeupGW:

    None of your links support the idea of a widespread scientific belief of cooling in the 70s. More papers in the 70s were predicting warming than cooling.

    Complain about this comment

  • 348. At 12:16pm on 06 Jan 2010, David Blake wrote:

    Debate on GW coming up live on Talk sport (talksport.net) or 1089 / 1053 am.

    Complain about this comment

  • 349. At 12:17pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Given the demands that hiding data was proof the GCMs were fabricated lies, how come all the love for Piers Corbyn's method where there is NOTHING on what he's doing gets a bye?

    Ah, sorry. Forgot: Piers is saying that AGW is wrong and you can go on about your business without worrying.

    It's comforting so it doesn't have to bother.

    There's the two faces of denialists staring out at you.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 350. At 12:18pm on 06 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    U14260427 wrote
    "Try english, kid."

    Are you perchance some grumpy eco Humphry Bogart or are you getting a bit tetchy.

    Take a chill pill and play nice.

    I enjoy your lttle diatribes but not when you get nasty.

    (Paddy wags finger at man with tiedyed shirt and flared trousers.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 351. At 12:19pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Manny's insanity proceeds apace:
    "This is not a true statement anyone looking at the links above in my post at 332 could not honestly come to that conclusion?"

    "links"?

    You gave one link.

    And not to a science journal.

    And try watching my link. It shows that your conclusion is one made by a dishonest person.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/0/XB3S0fnOr0M

    And you can even check yourself on Google Scholar whether he's right.

    But all YOU did was post one link, call it "links" and called it a link to *scientists* all saying it was cooling.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 352. At 12:19pm on 06 Jan 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    I think someone else is being a bit disingenous regarding temperatures in Goose Bay Newfoundland?

    Thursday 7 Jan High 0 Low -2
    Friday 8 Jan High -1 Low -7
    Saturday 9 Jan High -10 Low -13
    Sunday 10Jan High -13 Low -21
    Monday 11Jan High -20 Low -22
    Tuesday 12Jan High -17 Low -28
    http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/canf0113

    For accuracy and fairness maybe the blog shoul be updated?

    Complain about this comment

  • 353. At 12:21pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Check this out:
    "but the reality is that any scientist worth their weight never claims they know the answer for certain"

    Yeah, that's why the IPCC has a section on the uncertainties of the AGW science in their reports:

    http://www.ipcc.ch

    But have a look at G&T's "paper" on how AGW is false because of thermodynamics.

    Not a thing about uncertainties or where he may be wrong.

    So which one is the scientist?

    Read up.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 354. At 12:23pm on 06 Jan 2010, John Carney wrote:

    Infinity could you please enlighten the public as to the unequivocal data/evidence linking CO2 levels to global temperatures, In particlular how periods of glaciation are suddenly interupted by glacial retreat and interglacial periods of varying length followed by another rapid cooling episode. This is important as this whole theory/movement now put forward by the IPCC depends on this single factor. The recent "hockey stick" doesn't count here.
    By the way, warming following glaciation is much more rapid than anything we are (possibly) seeing today. I have personally found 2000 year old flint arrowheads in the midle of the Sahara desert, so you could say I have first hand evidence of this. In some areas you find them just about everywhere you look. That area went from fertile grassland to desert in a geological "blink of an eye".
    Also as a professional engineer with a great deal of experience of computer modelling I know that the inherent inaccuracies of these techniques would go a long way to explaining why weather forecasts are poor (at best) for only one week ahead, never mind the IPCC announcing their confident predictions for "warming" over the next century. My guess is there are making a lot of money from these predictions, but then I'm naturally cautious. Your augument will probably be that modelling of the global atmospheric weather systems for the next century is simpler than modelling daily temperature/rainfall at a particlar location on the globe seven days ahead. Do you or the IPCC know anything about non-linear systems?!
    Incidently did the IPCC take into to account orbital changes in their models? Probably not as again, this is currently not fully understood.
    P.S. I also like the way that the decade long cooling that has occured over much of the Antarctic was recently explained away by another manmade problem, the ozone hole. Global dimming anyone?!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 355. At 12:24pm on 06 Jan 2010, redrobb wrote:

    A fair amount of bloggs moderated here? H'mmm I wonder what gloom & doom merchants re- global warming were perhaps being singled out....personally its nature doing what it does...UNPREDICTABLE well mostly!

    Complain about this comment

  • 356. At 12:32pm on 06 Jan 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @U142 (Yeahwhatever)

    Sticks and stone will break my bones but your words will not hurt me.

    You have tourettes blogging syndrome, so the best cure is to wear boxing gloves when you are near a computer.

    I did this previously with you and will confirm that I will not answer or question your ramblings again. I suggest other posters ignore you and then you can crawl back to CIF (Comment is free if you agree) or UnReal Climate.

    The bit on the video with Professor Schneider at 1.5 mins in is brilliant?

    Complain about this comment

  • 357. At 12:32pm on 06 Jan 2010, MATT wrote:

    For many years now independent scientists and non –AGW scientists have been predicting that the climate for the next 20-30 years will be global cooling rather than global warming . Their wise voices were drowned out by all the doom and gloom global warming alarmism. In my judgment there are several reasons why many parts of the Northern Hemisphere including North America ,Asia, UK and European winter temperature will be colder than normal rather than unprecedented global warming for a 100 years http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22759
    1] Atlantic Ocean SST’s is declining and ocean heat content rise has leveled off and is dropping
    2] AMO has peaked and is likely to go negative or cool by January 2010. It is currently at 0.121
    3] WINTER NAO is headed for more negative periods like the 1960’s to 1980’s where 17 out 30 winters had negative NAO. In the 1960’s, 8 out of 10 winters had a negative NAO [This December 2009 cold spell has a negative NAO]
    4] PDO is heading for 30 year cool cycle and went negative/cool]-0.4] again Nov 2009. The Pacific Ocean SST north of 20N is cooling.
    5] Currently AO is at record low or negative level, allowing more cold Arctic air from north east to penetrate south adding extra cold to our climate
    6]] the current moderate El Nino will be less warming than predicted due to the cool PDO in the Pacific. During the last cool period for Europe [1961 -1990], only three El Ninos raised European winter temperatures. Six others had no warming effect.
    The current cool winter is the start of many such cool winters for the next 20-30 years. I see serious crop losses and energy shortages in the Northern Hemisphere during the coming decades starting this year and now also in Europe and Asia [last year Canada lost about 20 % of crops due to late cold spring and lack of spring moisture]. Global warming will be seen for what it really is, a very flawed science. Natural planetary cycles dominate our climate and dwarf any minor warming due to greenhouse gases. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783




    Complain about this comment

  • 358. At 12:34pm on 06 Jan 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @Infinity

    "None of your links support the idea of a widespread scientific belief of cooling in the 70s. More papers in the 70s were predicting warming than cooling."

    Yeah Yeah and I have fairies at the bottom of my garden to. Your quote is straight off CIF or UnReal Climate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 359. At 12:36pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    So did YOU understand it, Paddy?

    Or were you just flapping your gums going "ME ME ME!!!"

    Complain about this comment

  • 360. At 12:37pm on 06 Jan 2010, David Blake wrote:

    Good debate just gone on Talksport. Piers Corbyn v a guy from Friends of the earth. Obviously Piers wiped the floor with him. Come on U14 there's a phone in. Get dialing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 361. At 12:38pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "354. At 12:23pm on 06 Jan 2010, John Carney wrote:

    Infinity could you please enlighten the public as to the unequivocal data/evidence linking CO2 levels to global temperatures"

    Nobody's read any links so far, so why would it start now?

    Try the basics of the science in the IPCC reports:

    http://www.ipcc.ch.

    try here for links to the basic research done before computers and how skepticism SHOULD work with science, as opposed to the denialism and obstructionism that goes on here:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    And if you have any alternative theory, please show how that fits in unequivocally.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 362. At 12:39pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "I think someone else is being a bit disingenous regarding temperatures in Goose Bay Newfoundland?

    Thursday 7 Jan High 0 Low -2"

    And what did the article say?

    "In Goose Bay in Newfoundland, it's barely getting below 0C - bikini weather, relatively speaking, given that the average minimum for January is -23C."

    Looks like someone is clutching at any straw they can manage.

    Complain about this comment

  • 363. At 12:40pm on 06 Jan 2010, Veronica wrote:

    @ Uxxx (what a cheek to call yourself "monckton").

    seeing that you are so up with the science of global average temp measurement, please explain all the corrections and exclusions that are applied to the data points used. I refer to examples such as the Darwin airport adjustments illustrated in Anthony Watt's "Watts up with that" blog, which is well worth a shufty from those posting here. He also mentions which areas in the Antarctic are included and excluded as data points.

    Complain about this comment

  • 364. At 12:41pm on 06 Jan 2010, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @360

    Wonder if RB was listening, or the BBC are picking up any editorial feature ideas ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 365. At 12:42pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Why? all it takes is someone with brass neck enough to lie their face off and you can win a face-to-face.

    And where's his data?

    His hiding of his model and methods is proof that Corbyn is a fraud.

    Or is hiding your methods and data fine now? In which case, much of the CRU "expose" is rendered moot.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 366. At 12:45pm on 06 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    Re 354 John Carney

    The case for a doubling of co2 causing significant warming is primarily based in physics, independent of observations of what the climate has done in the past. When scientists crunch the numbers they find doubling co2 in the atmosphere significantly reduces energy loss into space due to some of that energy being absorbed by the extra co2. Calculations also find that in response to this the Earth warms by a significant amount, with much uncertainty but the range is about 1.5C to 4.5C.

    A secondary case for that kind of warming from a doubling of co2 is the magnitude of temperature changes in the past, which suggests temperature changes of the climate must be amplified by something. One of the few candidates for such an amplifier is co2.

    The interglacial, glacial periods were driven by orbital changes reflected in their clockwork timed cycles. An amplifier there would be albedo changes as ice cover retreated or grew, but scientists find that the albedo changes plus the orbital forcing falls short of explaining the magnitude of temperature change. Again co2 is one of the few candidates.

    Other distant longterm climate changes and events like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum also defy explaination without something like co2 amplifying forcings.

    Then there is the late 20th century. Scientists are unable to explain the warming in recent decades without factoring in the rise in greenhouse gases.

    Complain about this comment

  • 367. At 12:51pm on 06 Jan 2010, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @362

    More cherry picking and as you are such a "Weather is not climate" sort of guy , why not quote the whole weeks temperatures rather than picking just one day.

    Complain about this comment

  • 368. At 12:54pm on 06 Jan 2010, adders45 wrote:

    The sea is still bloody cold here in Porlock about 4 deg lower than ever before brrrr! Does any one have a reason for this, I'm mean we hear about cuddly(?) polar Bears (do Bi-Polar Bears live at both poles - so to speak)but what about our Trigger Fish they are dieing in this cold seas the poor dead things are being washed up on the beach -its very sad. Next summer there will not be any left for us to kill and eat!

    Last winter was cold and the predictions from the bbc for this one was for a mild one why - it is very unlikely to have two hard winters concurrently. Listen lads and lassies from the met office and soothsayers predicting the worlds climate - We may have more confidence in your dire warnings is you could predict tomorrows weather correctly let alone the global pattern for the next 50 years. Judging by the way you have to keep updating your predictions with what really is going on outside it seems like you lot are just stabbing in the dark. We have a chap called Trev who gives us the "Trevor Forecast" he correctly predicted last summers deluge and this winters freeze by birds and natural stuff (i don't know how he does it), but for Christ's sake he is more accurate that you lot and he would be a lot cheaper. Employ him or someone as good.

    Met office - clueless over paid morons who nothing about predicting weather in advance.

    Still the Sea is very cold even for winter?

    Complain about this comment

  • 369. At 1:02pm on 06 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    U14260427 wrote
    'So did YOU understand it, Paddy?

    Or were you just flapping your gums going "ME ME ME!!!"'

    Someone not get enough sleep last night?

    True i did find his english a little challenged and his argument disjointed but many of his points were valid. My observation however was that you were getting your panties in a bunch a bit and that you should tone down the invective.

    By the way as an observation. My Mrs drives a four wheel drive and without it I couldnt have come into work today. I wonder how many Pious/Priuses (plural?) got through the snow today.

    Last night when a gritting lorry skidded off the road the local GP in his 4wd managed to get to the drivers aid. I met them on my way home and it took the local ambulance about 45 minutes to get through the snow. Lucky the local GP wasnt some tree hugger eh? Mind you at least if he had a prius he'd have had a smug piece of mind in that he wasnt warming the planet as his car failed to get off his drive due to artic conitions.

    I wonder how many ecowarriers will be happy to have the assistance of a 4 by 4 today.

    Anyway as I said, before you got all premenstrual, I do enjoy your usual intelligent and informed debate but dont much care for your patronising hectoring side.

    Complain about this comment

  • 370. At 1:10pm on 06 Jan 2010, Paul Biggs wrote:

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

  • 371. At 1:14pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "363. At 12:40pm on 06 Jan 2010, Veronica wrote:

    @ Uxxx (what a cheek to call yourself "monckton")."

    I don't. See below.

    "please explain all the corrections and exclusions that are applied to the data points used."

    You can read it up in the dataset papers. Google scholar and a university account will sort your query out.

    "I refer to examples such as the Darwin airport adjustments"

    And what's wrong with the adjustments done? Have you ascertained what result that should give?

    And Anthony had listed 70 stations from the US observing network that he considered good sites.

    The report is a PDF


    But if the BBC don't let that through, you can search for it on the NCDC site:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

    and search for it or google

    "NOAA climate services response-v2.pdf"

    The result? No significant difference and the upward trend survives.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 372. At 1:19pm on 06 Jan 2010, HolbornMoleStrangler wrote:

    Wow this has been a fun way of wasting time at work, a bit bizzare at times, I mean how the heck did somebody bring the Holocaust into the equation?!
    My take on this whole warming malarkey, as a layman and I guess most of you are laymen/women, even some of those trying to convince us they're not, is rather similar to "Eggs Benedictus" at #178, basically why take the risk? Anyhow the blog was about the weather we're having at the mo (or at least some of us are having) and why and not GW as such. So I'm with the snowman making guy; enjoy it, if you can, while it lasts. It was lovely lurching out of the Tube Station last night after a few too many beers to see a usually distinctly unlovely part of London transformed. And even better to be the only person walking on newly fallen snow in the backstreets, sliding along the pavements and throwing snowballs at nothing in particular.
    Marvellous fun!
    Although I'm with "Atravesty"; the gas bills going to be 'orrible!

    Complain about this comment

  • 373. At 1:20pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Last winter was cold and the predictions from the bbc for this one was for a mild one why"

    The UK average temperature for December to February for the period 1971–2000 is 3.7 °C. A milder winter in the UK is defined by winter-mean temperatures greater than 4.3 °C, near-average by temperatures between 3.4 °C and 4.3 °C and colder by temperatures lower than 3.4 °

    From

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/seasonal/2009/winter/

    Meanwhile November 2009, unlike the predictions of the denialists who insist it's been cooling since 1998 (if they believe the CRU data is fine) or 2005 (if they don't) was the warmest one on record (if they don't believe the CRU data).

    If you're going to take weather as proof or disproof, then the idea we're in a cooling period is disproved.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 374. At 1:25pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Paddy:
    "True i did find his english a little challenged and his argument disjointed but many of his points were valid. "

    So no, you didn't understand.

    So how do you know what points were made, never mind if they were valid?

    I would stop making statements until you've found out how not to disprove them in the same sentence.

    I also note you didn't manage to make any of the points clearer.

    No, you just flapped your gums.

    Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    As usual.

    PS what invective?
    in·vec·tive (n-vktv)
    n.
    1. Denunciatory or abusive language; vituperation.
    2. Denunciatory or abusive expression or discourse.

    ?

    You're very thin skinned on behalf of others. Misappropriation of offence? How VERY PC of you. PC zealots often say "you can't say that about the African|Chinese|Whatever because it's offensive" when they are a middle-class white yuppie and not one of the putative offended group has proclaimed offence.

    It's a PC zealot trick to shut people up and get them to heel.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 375. At 1:25pm on 06 Jan 2010, Richard Black (BBC) wrote:

    Rob and jsherwood, thanks for the mercury correction - good point.

    walterwalter, the winter of 1962/3 did feature a negative AO (although not as strongly negative as now). Last year - sure, but I don't think anyone would argue that the AO is the only determinant of temperatures, especially for a single country.

    MATT, you're simply wrong in asserting that the current cold spell "involves the entire northern hemisphere". To verify this, you can go to the WMO pages that I linked from the post and do a station-by-station check. More elegant is the analysis at the link that infinity posted, which puts the whole thing on a map. Select "temperature anomaly" in the Element field and you'll see that the pattern is much more complex than a hemisphere-wide cold blanket, including not only high latitude warmth but also differences across the continents in the latitudes of the unusually cold weather band.

    Shadorne, if there was an award for the most creative interpretation of someone else's writing, you would be a contender.

    I wrote "North Atlantic Oscillation" in the post, jasonsceptic, so I'm not sure what the problem was. Thanks for posting the link though - I presume it's your blog?

    Thanks for the kind comments, Trefor Jones. I was thinking of the US town, primarily for alliterative purposes - but more than happy to hear it works for the Blaenau Gwent Brynmawr as well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 376. At 1:29pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "I mean how the heck did somebody bring the Holocaust into the equation?!"

    You noticed who did, didn't you?

    Someone who was called a denialist (but nothing about Holocaust) wanted to shut up others by censuring them by pulling the old "You're saying I'm a Holocaust denier?!?!".

    Denial is not about the Holocaust.

    But those who are denying science want their denial hidden so they can proclaim they are just skeptical (though surprisingly unskeptical of anything that may say AGW doesn't happen).

    They can't deny their denial so they try to make the argument that they are being likened to Holocaust deniers so that they can claim moral superiority and pain to shut up the critics.

    Funny enough, they try this while bemoaning how their voice is being stifled.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 377. At 1:37pm on 06 Jan 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    Dear Richard

    Please could you explain how the link by Infinity supports your argument?

    Complain about this comment

  • 378. At 1:44pm on 06 Jan 2010, kegspin wrote:

    I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this nonsense. I have read only 3 or 4 comments in to whole blog which have used any real scientific argument to support thir argument. There are so many inaccuracies on both sides that I really wouldn't know where to begin. The main issue is the complete confusion between weather and climate. This is something I taught 11 year-olds, and yet few of the people here appear to have any real understanding of the difference. Get a dictionary and check the two words. Look outside the window- that is weather. Climate is the average weather over a sustained period of time- usually taken as a thirth-year rolling average. Therefore the weather outside is irrelevant to any discussion regarding climate change. If cold weather were to continue for over thirty years, then you could probably claim that it was climate change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 379. At 1:46pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Manny. Have a look at the dots. It's not all blue (colder than normal) in the northern hemisphere. Therefore the cold spell is not for the entire northern hemisphere.

    Have a look at Canada, for example.

    "None so blind as do not wish to see"

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 380. At 1:47pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Karen, are there any posts saying that weather is climate from the IPCC/proAGW side?

    Complain about this comment

  • 381. At 1:47pm on 06 Jan 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Infinity at #314, Richard at #375

    I've just had a look at the temperature anomaly map. Thank you for the tip!

    Complain about this comment

  • 382. At 1:48pm on 06 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    Yippee! My entry at 29 has finally been approved - albeit edited. Apparently the link, which was to a pdf, was against House Rules. I shall bear that in mind.

    Anyway, let me reiterate for all who believe that Piers Corbyn is always right in everything he does, the crucial lines from his forecast, to which I linked:

    "Kamboshigh wrote:

    "Piers states the cold in the UK will continue until February with some short warm periods."

    Piers also predicted that the end of December would be warmer and we would be knee-deep in floods from the meltwater. See here: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] - a 'red letters' warning of "Severe storms & Floods coming 28 - 30 Dec – Special Trial forecast".

    (This forecast was dated 23 Dec 2009 and headlined 'Big Freeze Chaos - what Next?')


    Round 'ere, me dear (S Wilts), it got a lot colder from 28-30 Dec and the golf course was frozen (I hit a monster drive that just kept bouncing and rolling - but that's neither here nor there!). No need for wellies, sponges or pumps at all.

    Over the longer term, Corbyn's accuracy is around 55% - I exclude corrections subsequent to initial forecasts.

    His short-term record is quite good and could be a significant contribution to weather forecasting and the entireclimate change debate. Like a number of others, however, I would prefer that the old Trot submits his methodology to peer review and enable other climate scientists (or plain physicists and astrophysicists like himself) to test it and see if they come up with the same results - a basic examination of scientific theory, which every other reputable scientist (in whatever discipline) is prepared to undertake.

    Of course, he has claimed 'proprietary privilege', or somesuch, and he is commercially dependant on his forecasts. Fair enough - if it's truly unique, or contains unique elements, he can invest in patents to protect them. If the methodology isn't unique but the way he puts it together is, then he can register Design Rights. Either way, his intellectual property would be protected and he could continue to benfit commercially from it. Perhaps even more so, if he licensed it to meterological organisations around the world.

    If he truly cares as much about the potential cost of 'needless' investment in carbon taxes, cap and trade and alternative energy sources, then as someone so dedicated to the rights and interests of ordinary people, I don't see a problem. Unless, of course, he has put aside his socialism of the past and has taken capitalism firmly to his bosom (like many other ex-Trots).

    Complain about this comment

  • 383. At 1:50pm on 06 Jan 2010, kegspin wrote:

    Why would there be, it is fact, as supported by any dictionary you care to peruse. I haven't checked but feel free to do so. I wouldn't think they would waste their time on such trivialities!

    Complain about this comment

  • 384. At 1:51pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    A problem may occur with linking to Piers' site because he uses copyright to stop anyone talking about his work without his permission. The BBC could be prosecuted by him if they let a deep link in to his site appear.

    They also don't like pdfs, though sometimes they are let through.

    Complain about this comment

  • 385. At 1:51pm on 06 Jan 2010, kegspin wrote:

    I really fail to see why there are sides regarding an article that has no bearing on climate change one way or another.

    Complain about this comment

  • 386. At 1:53pm on 06 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #340:

    "Nature takes more co2 out of the atmosphere than it adds."

    Then can you please explain how it was that CO2 levels (reportedly) stayed static, within a few ppm, for thousands of years before the industrial age.

    Complain about this comment

  • 387. At 1:53pm on 06 Jan 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Looking at all of the arguments from warmists, deniers, sceptics, real scientists, philosophers, armchair observers(like me) and everyone else, I can see an amusing side to all of this. Referring back to the painting by Raphael Sanzo, 'The School of Athens' (1483-1520) and the argument in progress, doesn't the global warming debate run parallel with the debate going on in this ancient fresco? I am not saying the debate is the same, just that the debate at that time, was sufficiently complex for it to be commissioned as a large and immensely costly fresco.
    I can imagine a cartoon spoof of this fresco with all of the key players of the global warming debate set out as in the original image, in costume. Come on cartoon experts, make my year and produce a cartoon to show this, we all need a good laugh as nature is showing its teeth, and there is nothing we can do about it. Nature is not democratic, politically correct or merciful and it does what it does because it is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 388. At 1:54pm on 06 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    turn on the gas - where is your Porlock???!!!!

    (And I refer the hon member to the contribution I gave a few hours ago, at no. 29... Not a complete, definitive and hard and fast answer but I would deny any intention to mislead!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 389. At 1:57pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Sorry, don't know why I put Karen down there, unless you changed the nickname.

    "I wouldn't think they would waste their time on such trivialities!"

    Neither do I, but when you said

    "Tere are so many inaccuracies on both sides that I really wouldn't know where to begin."

    and then go on to say (rightly) that weather is not climate despite what's being said, it seems you're saying both sides do that.

    A moderate voice isn't one that criticizes both sides, it's one that looks at what all sides do and tries to see where the truth lies in the opinions.

    So when you have people arguing that pi is 3, or an irrational number around 3.142, you don't go on about how both sides are being silly.

    One is right and the other wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 390. At 1:57pm on 06 Jan 2010, John Carney wrote:

    Infinity and the "proffesor"
    Where is the evidence that CO2 is responsible for the natural temperature variations that have occured quite recently in the earths history. Even CO2 as an amplyfying factor could only be true if it was actually increasing/decreasing at the time of change. There is no evidence of this. We are currently in an interglacial, what caused us to come out of the last ice age (one of many)? Increasing levels of CO2? The answer is most likely a change on the eaths tilt or orbit or both simultaneously. Atmos CO2 level is incidental product of increaing amounts of life existing on the plannet following warming. I don't care what science the IPCC based their findings on, show me previous evidence of CO2 induced warming. There is no evidence and PLENTY to the contary.
    My theory is the climate is following patterns that have existed long before man evolved, but I don't need to prove this because I'm not telling the world to change how it lives, you people are. What is of much more importantance than spending billions on trying to prove global warming is happening, is to fund research into finding an alternatives to fossil fuels so that we can still feed the worlds population when they becaome scarce. The Climate change lobby have lived a charmed live so far but I'd bet my bottom dollar that you won't get such an easy ride when mechanised farming and global distribution systems can't function as fossil fuel start to run out. Focus on the important things, not small flucuations in CO2 levels. That's why I'm an engineer and not a scientist.
    P.S. If you saying that mankind currently has the ability to accurately model the global climate 100 years ahead then you delusional. Available techniques aren't that advanced.

    Complain about this comment

  • 391. At 1:58pm on 06 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #365:

    "His hiding of his model and methods is proof that Corbyn is a fraud."

    He makes a living out of selling forecasts. If his forecasts weren't good then he wouldn't make money from them, would he?

    So why then should he reveal his methods? Unlike the met office, CRU, IPCC etc, he's not funded by the taxpayer and therefore his methods etc are not public property.

    Complain about this comment

  • 392. At 1:59pm on 06 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    U2

    ok invective maybe a bit harsh but calling the bloke kid hardly shows politeness does it.

    By the way its the first time I've ever been called PC.

    Quite proud of it really. Mostly people use the reactionary tag to attack me. Still its all about opinions.

    Macbeth eh! Bit of tortured soul are we

    Complain about this comment

  • 393. At 2:06pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    @385.

    Look at the names of those starting it...

    @386
    "Then can you please explain how it was that CO2 levels (reportedly) stayed static"

    Because the atmospheric content has increased.

    Didn't you do diffusion equations in O level physics, petey?

    If you have a product in diffusive balance and add more product in one place, the excess will diffuse to the rest of the system to achieve a new balance.

    Therefore there will be more taken up by the earth system because we're adding more to one part of it: the air.

    This guy is just trying to garner attention. NOTHING he's said has turned out to be correct, so why is he doing it?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 394. At 2:06pm on 06 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #378 kegspin wrote:

    "Therefore the weather outside is irrelevant to any discussion regarding climate change."

    If the same computer modelling techniques are used to make long-term weather forecasts and climate forcasts, then the failure of long-term weather forecasts is relevant, because it indicates something about the reliability of those techniques.

    Complain about this comment

  • 395. At 2:07pm on 06 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    Re 386:

    Nature is removing more co2 from the atmosphere than it adds in response to the elevated co2 levels.

    Complain about this comment

  • 396. At 2:09pm on 06 Jan 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Grannie at #387

    From memory the Economist had q big colour cartoon along the lines you describe in a feature about climate about a year ago. I am sorry but I don't have a link to that cartoon (anyone else remember it?).

    By way of compensation, perhaps, if you add ".jpg" to the end of the address below, you get one about the competition for mineral resources beneath a thawing Arctic...

    http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/files/2007/08/arctic-cartoon

    Complain about this comment

  • 397. At 2:12pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Where is the evidence that CO2 is responsible for the natural temperature variations that have occured quite recently in the earths history."

    Co2 is naturally a greenhouse gas.

    So when it changes naturally, naturally the temperature of the earth changes.

    If it changes unnaturally, then temperature changes are the result.

    CO2 doesn't know where it came from, it just exists.

    "Even CO2 as an amplyfying factor could only be true if it was actually increasing/decreasing at the time of change."

    Yup, and it is.

    1850: CO2 280ppm Temperatures lower than today

    2000: CO2 380ppm Temperatures higher than 1850

    "I don't care what science the IPCC based their findings on"

    So you're anti-science.

    Not really worth speaking to, then.

    So for any others who may be thinking this barnpot has something, note he gives not one piece of that "PLENTY OF EVIDECE" to the contrary.
    Petey wails:

    "He makes a living out of selling forecasts."

    So do the National Met Offices.

    Regional Met Services make money selling their data to others.

    Therefore hiding their data is just as fine for them as it is for Corbyn

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 398. At 2:12pm on 06 Jan 2010, kegspin wrote:

    #243 and #246 are the only people in the entire blog who have talked sense, and the facts are there to support their arguments. There are thousands of articles to support quaternary climate change, using scientific research to support their arguments. The GRIP, GISP2 and VOSTOK ice core records, measuring CO2 levels in air bubbles trapped within the ice all show that CO2 and other gases have shown considerable variation, coinciding with warmer and cooler than present average global temperatures. CO2 emmissions caused by massive volcanic eruptions relating to mountain building episodes are thought to have caused mass extinctions in the geologic past (there is evidence demonstrating a coincidence). If anyone wants references of journal articles and books to support this, Bond & Lotti, and Perrott & Street-Perrott have written numerous articles regarding climatic fluctuations. Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles can also be researched. I would have to look through my uni books for articles regarding mass extinctions. In 2002, no-one on my course was in any doubt about the validity of concerns regarding the impact of anthropogenic CO2, as we had all seen unequivocal links between high CO2 and warm periods. Ironically, the melting of ice caps could well cause a tipping point into another ice age, as ocean circulation slows down and potentially stops (marine evidence shows that melting of the Laurentide ice sheet after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) was sufficient to stop ocean circulation, causing the Younger Dryas. This was a recognised theory in 2002, and further evidence since then has supported this argument. 'The Day after Tomorrow' had a lot of very dodgy science, particularly regarding the timeframes involved- to the extent that I can't watch the film, however the overall theory of ocean circulation cessation causing widespread cooling, was itself sound.

    Complain about this comment

  • 399. At 2:14pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Paddy

    "ok invective maybe a bit harsh but calling the bloke kid hardly shows politeness does it."

    So invective is harsh. So it doesn't show politeness either.

    Yet your unerring instinct to appropriate insult failed to intercept that one.

    Oopsie.

    And still you fail to say what points he made badly (by your own admission) that you believe have some validity.

    Is that because you forgot or because you were lying, Paddy?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 400. At 2:16pm on 06 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    Re 390. John Carney

    co2 rose as we climbed out of the last glacial period, so it would have contributed warming. The orbital changes and tilt of the Earth can explain how the glacial-interglacial transition was kickstarted but they don't provide enough warming to explain the full 5-6C warming from the glacial to interglacial. The full magnitude and pattern of 20th century warming cannot currently be explained without factoring in the contribution of greenhouse gases.

    Complain about this comment

  • 401. At 2:34pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "the failure of long-term weather forecasts is relevant, because it indicates something about the reliability of those techniques."

    No it isn't.

    You don't know what models do, do you.

    The weather is led by chaos, climate by forcings.

    The sun shines just as brightly today as yesterday, but the weather is different.

    But December is colder than July because we're positioned differently.

    Both can be worked out with the same science and same models.

    But one is talking about the specific path taken (weather), the other is about what trends emerge (climate).

    @398

    "#243 and #246 are the only people in the entire blog who have talked sense"

    neither of those did anything different from many other posts. Infinity for example.

    So why were those posts discarded?

    How about RuariJM?

    And when it comes to other posts where you may consider them "wrong", just how "wrong" are the arguments on either side?

    Peter317 who has made several blatantly false statements as if "fact"?

    Or me with "stop being a douche and read the IPCC reports"?

    Ignore whether you like the person or their methods, look at their arguments.

    Who is wronger?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 402. At 2:43pm on 06 Jan 2010, SheffTim wrote:

    Richard is right. Weather, even cold snowy weather, doesn’t happen without a cause.
    At present there is a rare combination of known factors in earth’s climate variability systems (Arctic Oscillation, El Nino and PDO in the Pacific) influencing Northern Hemisphere weather.

    According to reliable records back to 1950, this is the strongest El Nino combined with the most negative Arctic Oscillation we have seen for this time of year.
    The northern polar region is colder than usual, the equatorial Pacific warmer than usual (see below) which is producing a clash of airstreams across the N. Hemisphere.

    NB. Bear in mind it’s not cold worldwide. e.g. The town of Exmouth, in Western Australia, recorded record heat of 48.9 degrees last Saturday.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/06/2786432.htm?site=northwestwa
    ----------------------------------
    OK. Some factoids to bear in mind:
    Warm air carries moisture and mainly comes from the tropics/equator; cold air is denser and carries much less moisture and originates from our planet's poles.
    Whenever cold dry air moves away from the poles, it eventually encounters warm wet air moving away from the equator. When warm, moist air meets cold air condensation occurs and precipitation results; if the temperature is below zero then precipitation falls as snow.
    ----------------------------------
    An atmospheric pattern has been developing over the Arctic Circle region that flushes cold air away from the North Pole and toward the mid-latitudes (where we live).

    This pattern, known as ‘high-latitude blocking’ (also known as the negative Arctic Oscillation, or -AO) is essentially a large area of high pressure in the upper atmosphere over far northern latitudes. The high pressure pushes air downward, as that air gets nearer the Earth's surface it's forced outwards and away, sending cold air toward us.

    As of right now, this high-latitude blocking pattern (-AO) is the strongest on record for a December.

    El Nino refers to warmer-than-normal waters in the central to eastern Pacific Ocean along the equator. El Nino gets the blame for a very moist atmosphere that produces heavy precipitation in some regions.

    El Nino conditions formed in the equatorial Pacific last year and still continue.
    This El Nino is the strongest since that of the 2002-2003; at present the sea temperatures are above normal, the warmest for at least 12 years.

    The Australian Metrological Bureau reports: “Central Pacific Ocean temperatures remain well above El Nino thresholds. Trade wind strength returned to near normal over the past fortnight, slightly reducing the excessive warmth of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. However, significant areas remain more than 2 degrees C above average at the surface, and over 4 degrees C warmer than normal at depth.”
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

    Those warm waters (heat energy) both helps feed more moisture into the jet streams (that circle earth) and generate stronger upper-air winds, both of which add fuel to storm systems. e.g. over North America, especially in the southern U.S. and along the Eastern Seaboard which have seen heavy snowfall this winter.

    Meanwhile in the northern Pacific the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) has shifted into its cool, dry phase. This also adds to the clash of colder air with warmer moist air in the northern hemisphere.

    Neither the negative AO nor El Nino currently show any signs of ebbing.
    That means the potential exists for more snowfall during the traditional snowy part of the winter: January and February.

    If the AO wasn’t in this negative Britain would have still had the amount of precipitation we’ve had, but as rain not snow.
    Flooding may still be a risk, particularly if there’s a sudden thaw.

    As for those that say this means there is no global warming:
    a) Background natural climate variability continues regardless.
    b) Earth’s temperature rose by 0.8 degrees C last century. How do you think that’s going to banish winter forever? Even 6 degrees won’t. What’s more important about any change in earth’s temperature are consequent changes to ocean/atmosphere interactions and precipitation patterns. Some regions will get wetter, some dryer.
    c) The next time we have a hot summer will you then agree there is global warming? No? (quelle surprise) I thought not.

    If you want a reminder as to the difference between weather and climate there’s one here:
    http://sites.google.com/site/weatherandclimate/

    See also:
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/12/how_did_this_happen.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 403. At 2:44pm on 06 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #395:

    "Nature is removing more co2 from the atmosphere than it adds in response to the elevated co2 levels."

    How do some parts of nature know exactly how much CO2 to remove in response to huge and varying CO2 emissions from other parts of nature?

    Complain about this comment

  • 404. At 2:50pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    @403. It doesn't.

    In just the same way that water doesn't know how to move purple dye dropped in with an eyedropper around and turn the water red.

    Complain about this comment

  • 405. At 2:54pm on 06 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #404:

    That doesn't explain it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 406. At 2:57pm on 06 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    U2
    The Microbial business a bit slow at the moment?
    You seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands.

    Ok you asked for places where I thought he had a point

    you wrote

    ""You're attempt to rewrite history in respect of global cooling is quite pathetic and disingenous:

    This is from Time June 1974: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-2,00.html"

    Uhm, what was that? When did time become a science journal?"

    It may not be a science journal but it is one of the most important News periodicals in the world and I hardly think the article was made up by some subbie who was told to fill space.

    Secondly his ITN clip supportted his time article by showing that there was some significant scientific opninion that was worried about cooling.

    Saying as infinity does that this was just media hype seems a little thin.

    I dont pretend to have studied what GARP entailed but I believe Time is a reasonably credible source and if they are reporting a scientific issue as significant I would probably beleive them over you. Not saying that I beleive their science more than yours just that if they say there is a groundswell of debate then I think their journalistic standards are high enough to have checked.

    You may not have liked his attacks on you personally but his observations of your debating style are pretty on the money.

    You calling him kid seems a bit snipey and aggressive.

    I may have called you hippy but this was a light hearted dig at someone who obviously is a 'bit of an anorach' regarding environmental issues.

    You have replied in some fairly impolite ways. Thats your choice but it doesnt help sell your views to me if thats what you were attempting to do.

    As regards your remarks about stream of consciousness babble. Take time to read some of your replies to other posters and ask yourself are you trying to infobomb people to hide the weaknesses in your own position.

    Yours Respectfully

    Paddy

    Complain about this comment

  • 407. At 3:02pm on 06 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #402 SheffTim wrote:
    "At present there is a rare combination of known factors"

    "Known" but unpredictable, apparently. It's the predictability that counts if we are to take this "theory" into account as we plan for the future -- not someone's ability to explain surprises away after the fact.

    Complain about this comment

  • 408. At 3:06pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "That doesn't explain it."

    Yes it does.

    Your question is meaningless. It's diffusion which doesn't require anything to "know" how much to absorb. Just like water doesn't need to know how to move a dye around.

    So asking "how does it know" is the sort of question asked by a five year old.

    Complain about this comment

  • 409. At 3:09pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Ok you asked for places where I thought he had a point"

    that isn't the one who spoke bad english.

    It also isn't a science journal.

    It also isn't "links", merely "link". And as I've said, not to a science journal but to a newspaper.

    If you want respect, you have to earn it. Just demanding it doesn't work.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 410. At 3:11pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    ""Known" but unpredictable, apparently. "

    The lay of a hand of bridge is unpredictable.

    But the chances of a perfect hand is predictable.

    Weather has a prediction horizon of ~5 days.

    But weather isn't climate.

    How many times does that have to be said?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 411. At 3:16pm on 06 Jan 2010, normal-thinker wrote:

    So, all those folks driving ecolentilist cars are all stuck in the snow, whilst my (42mpg) 4x4 get me home with no issues...



    Complain about this comment

  • 412. At 3:17pm on 06 Jan 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    #398. kegspin wrote:

    "In 2002, no-one on my course was in any doubt about the validity of concerns regarding the impact of anthropogenic CO2, as we had all seen unequivocal links between high CO2 and warm periods."

    Didn't anyone on your 'course' wonder why CO2 rises happened AFTER temperature rises (or was the precision of the data available at the time so vague as you could not notice the timing relationship)?

    This whole causality business is quite critical - simply: you can't have light from a bulb BEFORE you have switched it on.

    Your 'course' may have represented the 'science' of a decade or more ago but please re-examine the data in the ice core studies etc. and reconsider the (your) 'science'. In summary: you were, I am sorry to say, on a duff course!

    Complain about this comment

  • 413. At 3:20pm on 06 Jan 2010, MATT wrote:

    375 RICHARD

    http://www.findlocalweather.com/weather_maps/temperature_north_asia.html

    I don't mean to split hairs about which country in the Northern Hemisphere is or is not experiencing a cold winter . The web source above illustrates that it is wide spread. Just click on Europe, North Asia , North AMERICA ,ETC. Many of the countries have been well covered by your UK news papers. My original point was that we were supposed to have warmer than normal winters with all the talk about global warming but really the opposite is happening . Globally the temperatures have been flat for nearly ten years now. So how can anyone find any credibilty in the AGW projections when they are so far out just the next season and the first 10 years of their forecast .The real tragedy is that the people of your country will find themselves in great personal difficulty because the nation has not prepared for such cold winters because they were told 10 years ago that the winters were no longer a factor in UK because of global warming. Even now we seem to be down playing the cold and the obvious hardship that it creates for the people . I find it a bit odd. We now seem to be denying the cold ? very strange .

    Complain about this comment

  • 414. At 3:24pm on 06 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    SheffTim
    0.8 degrees C in one century.

    How accurate were temperature readings before world war 1?

    How were they tabulated?

    Has methodology changed in this 100 years?

    How many samples were taken in 1910 around the planet and do these give a true picture of earths temperature within 1 degree?

    Could 0.8 degrees be percieved as within the margin of error?

    Secondly weather is continuously used by advocates of AGW when it suits them and you can understand the skeptics relish when weather can be thrown back into the faces of the warmers.

    I understand weather is not climate but weather does inform measurement of climate.

    Like it or like it not Warming has been measured using thermometers and temperature guages around the globe. A large number of these will be in the northern hemisphere which apart from one or two notable exceptions is experiencing an unusually cold spell. In this case its not swings and roundabouts.

    It will be very interesting to find out what the average global temperatures will be for the forthcoming year.

    How many more cooling or flat years can the world experience before the models have to be reconsidered?

    May I aplaud you on your polite debating style. I personally have learned a few things from your post and for that I am greatful.

    Complain about this comment

  • 415. At 3:30pm on 06 Jan 2010, Jack Frost wrote:

    From Brett Anderson the same guy Richard Black kindly links to with the "upside down weather" quote.


    --- Airborne Fraction of Man-Made Atmospheric CO2 has not Increased in past 150 Years ---

    "A recent study from the University of Bristol (UK) by Wolfgang Knorr suggests that the airborne fraction of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) has not increased during the past 150 years."



    http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2010/01/airborne_fraction_of_manmade_a.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 416. At 3:33pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "How accurate were temperature readings before world war 1?"

    The green bars on this graph:

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

    show the accuracy in determining the global average.

    Note the larger error in earlier times.

    PS he's applauding the polite style but he doesn't listen to the polite style.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 417. At 3:34pm on 06 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    John from Hendon @ 412:

    "Didn't anyone on your 'course' wonder why CO2 rises happened AFTER temperature rises "

    Probably not as they would have been familiar with the concept of positive feedback.

    I say this although I didn't attend that particular course but as it's such a basic concept I imagine it was either taken as read or taught in Year 1, week 2 (after the Freshers' Week booze had worn off).

    Complain about this comment

  • 418. At 3:39pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Fake Al Gore misses the party.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html#P90578955

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html#P90579487

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 419. At 3:39pm on 06 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    U2
    ooh hark at her on about respect and all.

    Your arrogance is truely astonishing.

    He gave 2 links one to youtube showing the ITN clip the other to time magazine.

    I have debated with you in the past and those times I found you informative and entertaining if a little closed however today you are being pretty aggressive.

    I normally like the rough and tumble of debate but you seem a bit meanspirited today.

    Maybe the weather.

    Cheer up according to your fellow warmers snowy winters are a thing of the past.


    Complain about this comment

  • 420. At 3:44pm on 06 Jan 2010, John Carney wrote:

    "Proffesor" lets keep it simple
    You use the same argument time and time again, quoting an as yet unproved warming trend over the last century and current rising CO2 levels (not disputed) as evidence of man made global warming. Two probably independant events.
    I go back to my point, are you saying that increases in atmosphereic CO2 are resposible for the earths rapid warming from the last glaicition. If so can you provide:
    1. Estimates of CO2 10'000 years ago and evidence of a sudden increase.
    2. An explaination of why CO2 levels suddenly rose suddenly during an ice age
    3. Why temperatures increased much more rapidly than at present.
    4. An explanation as to why during the medievil warm period the average temperature was at leat 0.75C was hotter than it is currently. Did CO2 rise and then fall again?

    For evidence to the contary of your belifs I give you cyclical Glaciation, do you need more. The glaciers on Kilimanjaro have been retreating since they were discovered, long before the industrial revolution. Are you telling me that the reason the Sahara formed was an increaes in greenhouse gases? Are you then going to say they fell again during the more recent "little ice age". We seem to be talking about CO2 levels bouncing around all over the place just to suit a theory. According to the IPCC the current CO2 levels are the highest ever? Which is it, either they have been higher in the past or they haven't? If they haven't how do you explain the rapid temperature variations. I re-iterate that money spent on this pseudo science would be better spent on sloving the real problems facing the world. Please let me know why you think the current huge spending on CC research is justified? After only 10 years the doom and gloom scenarios that you preach are already starting to look a little bit "weathered" if you excuse the pun. For evidence I again qute recent Antarctic cooling.
    Whatever science the IPCC uses is obviously inaccurate, but I tend to think you are using estimation methods rather than science. I should have chose my words more carefully but your insults and over defensiveness stem from desparation. You can't explain the past and until you do your theory is flawed and without foundation. Theories are exactly that until backed up by hard evidence, just theories.
    John Carney MSc (you see I don't dismiss science, just bad science)

    Complain about this comment

  • 421. At 3:44pm on 06 Jan 2010, Jack Frost wrote:

    --- Watchdog smacks Times for bogus climate claim ---

    An advertising campaign touting the depth and quality of the Times newspaper's environment coverage has been slapped by an industry watchdog for inaccuracy. The paper has agreed to modify the advertisements, which are based on a false climate change claim.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/05/times_asa_wrong/

    Yes the propaganda is crumbling.

    Complain about this comment

  • 422. At 3:48pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Paddy, you're adding nothing to it apart from your arrogance that you proclaim so bad in others.

    Do you have a SUBSTANTIVE point or are you just flinging dung at the zoo?

    "He gave 2 links one to youtube showing the ITN clip the other to time magazine."

    He did?

    I said "try english kid" in reply to 310:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html#P90589300

    Not one single link in that post.

    And you see two???

    Yet despite not understanding it, you still see validity in points you can't see...

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 423. At 3:50pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Cheer up according to your fellow warmers snowy winters are a thing of the past."

    Citation, please.

    Or are you my fellow warmer?

    Complain about this comment

  • 424. At 3:50pm on 06 Jan 2010, Jack Frost wrote:

    410. At 3:11pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:



    But weather isn't climate.

    How many times does that have to be said?

    ____________________________________________________________

    -- Climate Is Weather When It Is Not Climate, Weather Is Climate When It Is Not Weather. Or Not? --


    http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/climate-is-weather-when-it-is-not-climate-weather-is-climate-when-it-is-not-weather-or-not/

    Complain about this comment

  • 425. At 3:52pm on 06 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #413 MATT wrote:

    "The real tragedy is that the people of your country will find themselves in great personal difficulty because the nation has not prepared for such cold winters because they were told 10 years ago that the winters were no longer a factor in UK because of global warming."

    Ah, ten years ago... that would have been around the time Our Glorious Leader told us that the days of economic boom and bust were over too!

    Complain about this comment

  • 426. At 3:52pm on 06 Jan 2010, ruralwoman wrote:

    Britain's big freeze is most likely due to global warming, the Arctic ice sheets are melting.
    But I don't swallow global warming is man made, because the human race has only been polluting our planet and recording climate data for a milli second of Earths history.
    Geology correctly informs us about many extreme temperature changes in the Earth long long history.
    Warming up and Cooling down is what Planet Earth is all about and why it looks as it does.

    The question I want answered
    Is this rapid change in British weather conditions down to the Atlantic Conveyor Belt not coming as far north as it has in its recent years or even switching off?
    This current brings warm water up from southern latitudes to meet deep cold water, which then return cold deep waters southward.
    Which in turn seems to influence the position of the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream seemed to stay stuck in a lower than normal position, during the summers of 2008 and 2009, both of which were dire. Low pressure followed low pressure across the Atlantic.

    Could the above be the explanation of why Britain had dreadful summer weather during the past two years, and also be responsible the freezing conditions we are experiencing now.
    The powers that be or the Met Office are hardly like to tell us the truth, in case all Brits go overseas for holidays and we begin a mass migration to warmer climates.

    Complain about this comment

  • 427. At 3:52pm on 06 Jan 2010, SPBMK2 wrote:

    Nos 387 - good work !

    The School of Athens is about Raphael placing Classical Greek genius next to Renaissance genius and perspective.

    The interesting thing is, in the work Aristotle has his work 'Ethics'

    It can be found here :

    http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/en/texts1en.html

    Also about -

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics

    Ethics indeed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 428. At 3:57pm on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    normal-thinker #411.

    "So, all those folks driving ecolentilist cars are all stuck in the snow, whilst my (42mpg) 4x4 get me home with no issues..."

    ok, so you're affluent and many others are not. well done.


    MATT #413.

    "The real tragedy is that the people of your country will find themselves in great personal difficulty because the nation has not prepared for such cold winters because they were told 10 years ago that the winters were no longer a factor in UK because of global warming."

    when I arrived in the UK in 1985 'leaves on the rails' preventing a decent rail service were already proverbial; it seems to me that in this country less money is spent (wisely) on infra-structure and maintenance than in other European countries. why are you trying to lay blame on the forecasts?

    Complain about this comment

  • 429. At 4:00pm on 06 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #408:

    Nature is constantly emitting and absorbing CO2 in quantities which dwarf anthropogenic emissions - unless, of course, you subscribe to the speculative hypothesis that CO2 residency time is measured in hundreds of years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 430. At 4:01pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    John
    "You use the same argument time and time again,"

    Here's the answer:

    http://www.ipcc.ch

    your questions are answered there.

    "For evidence to the contary of your belifs I give you cyclical Glaciation, do you need more."

    Yes.

    For example
    1) what is it
    2) how do you know that's occurring
    3) how does that disprove CO2's effect

    "Are you telling me that the reason the Sahara formed was an increaes in greenhouse gases?"

    No, it formed because it's hot and dry.

    Why are you asking me, though? where did I say this?

    "According to the IPCC the current CO2 levels are the highest ever?"

    Please show us where the IPCC say the current levels are the highest ever.

    "I re-iterate that money spent on this pseudo science would be better spent on sloving the real problems facing the world."

    Like what?

    CO2's real effect on the climate, perhaps?

    How about taking some of that money being handed to the fossil fuel industries and using THAT to solve other real problems AS WELL AS AGW.

    "You can't explain the past and until you do your theory is flawed "

    Yes I have:

    http://www.ipcc.ch

    explains it.

    Where's your explanation?

    "John Carney MSc (you see I don't dismiss science, just science that doesn't fit with my political beliefs)"

    Fixed that for you.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 431. At 4:02pm on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    John Carney #420.

    food-for-thought post.

    "You can't explain the past and until you do your theory is flawed and without foundation."

    that's true for both sides though, no?

    Complain about this comment

  • 432. At 4:03pm on 06 Jan 2010, poitsplace wrote:

    @U14260427 re:following the money

    Its sad that anyone can delude themselves as much as you. You point to government subsidies to the energy industry and treat THAT as if it was their "propaganda" budget. It happens that big energy actually accounts for its spending and they only spend tens of millions on the things you're talking about.

    On the other hand, if you're working on a science degree/teaching and want to get some REAL money for your other research projects...or for yourself...the government is throwing similarly large amounts of money around for research on climate and doesn't care one bit about the quality of that work... as long as it supports the party line.

    How many people are there doing climate "research"...and how many tens of billions are spent doing it??? That is an awe inspiring "carrot" for them to go for. Even if there are a hundred thousand climate scientists...the total budget works out to nearly a million each!

    Put simply...there is a thousand times as much money enticing researchers to pull the AGW line as there is enticing them to go against it. Imagine how many AGW related dissertations are just poor graduate students milking AGW for grants...with a virtually guaranteed acceptance (and degree) at the end no matter how piss-poor their results are.

    Of course, your opinion is not swayed by reality. I guess this post is really more for everyone else. You'll just keep spewing (and man do you spew a lot) your strawmen, one sentence paragraphs and posts demanding others provide evidence where you yourself will provide none.

    Complain about this comment

  • 433. At 4:04pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Fake Al, that doesn't prove AGW wrong.

    Sorry.

    ruralwoman:
    "But I don't swallow global warming is man made, because the human race has only been polluting our planet and recording climate data for a milli second of Earths history."

    Nope, it's about 150 years.

    "The powers that be or the Met Office are hardly like to tell us the truth"

    They do, but nobody wants to believe it if it means they're going to have to give up 10 flights a year to the Canaries.

    And Fake Al in 424 still fails to show where the meme comes from apart from denialists diligently building strawmen arguments.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 434. At 4:05pm on 06 Jan 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    U2

    oops Mea Culpa

    I must confess I scanned your email and read the references wrong in the first instant.

    I hadnt realised you were trying to take on the whole web single handed.

    I apologise from my misguided attacks and ask your pardon.

    I withdraw my uncalled for remarks and slink into the distance embarrased

    However you are a bit chippy today (lol)

    Complain about this comment

  • 435. At 4:07pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Nature is constantly emitting and absorbing CO2 in quantities which dwarf anthropogenic emissions"

    Answer this, petey, if that is true, how come CO2 levels are at 380ppm when it was 280ppm before?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 436. At 4:09pm on 06 Jan 2010, Boris Tabaksplatt wrote:

    The man-made global warming theory has been falsified by the last decade of stable global average temperatures, despite the continued rise in CO2.

    Sudden warming/cooling events, which have lasted for several years, have been a feature of Earth’s climate for the past several hundred years, and this has happened with a periodicity of around 200y. For the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum these events seem to have coincided with a quiet sun, although the mechanism for why this happens has still not been found.

    So nothing new is happening and panic/over-reaction/taxation/world government are not required. Mankind and most species have survived these events in the past and will survive this next event, should it come to pass.

    Climate is the result of a number of processes which are driven by deterministic chaos. This means that trends provide no information about what the future will bring, and the only real information available is that from looking at the broad impact of climate quasi-cycles.

    1410-1500 cold (Sporer minimum) – Low Solar Activity(LSA?)
    1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
    1610-1700 cold (Maunder minimum) – (LSA)
    1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
    1810-1900 cold (Dalton minimum) – (LSA)
    1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
    2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)

    It is interesting to note that within these cooler or warmer centuries, there are further periods of warmer and cooler climate happening on the decadal scale, and still more surprising perhaps, within each decade the same variance can be seen. Climate is unpredictable at all time-scales.

    Complain about this comment

  • 437. At 4:10pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "@U14260427 re:following the money"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html#P90577956

    $72Billion for the fossil fuel industry.

    Follow the money.

    Complain about this comment

  • 438. At 4:12pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "demanding others provide evidence where you yourself will provide none. "

    Here:

    http://www.ipcc.ch

    You seen it yet?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 439. At 4:12pm on 06 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    Paddytoplad:

    Commiserations on being the runt of the litter. My brother knows how you feel...

    ;-)


    As you say, you've been trained (and have inherited, probably) a good problem-solving mind and the example you give of the dogfish study is a good example of the labour and sometimes downright tedium involved in scientific study.

    (Thank goodness for the commitment over many years of Roger Revelle and the guy who invented the atmospheric collector, whose name escapes me for the moment, but who walked the highways and byways of the world for years, sucking air into vacuum bottles)

    You did it for 14 weeks; climate scientists have been doing it for decades. Not all of them all the time, obviously, but the samples include ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica; tree ring records from Bristlecone Pines going back over 1000 years; anecdotal temperature data from individual observers from the Age of Enlightenment; and actual temperature data from stations all over the world, from the Industrial Revolution in the UK in the 19th Century and on to the early 1960s, when recording became more widespread (which is why the margin of error becomes progressively less as we approach the present day).

    The raw data is available and can be accessed by anyone with a good reason to have it. The collection and collation has followed a similar path to your investigation, as the CRU e-mails demonstrate - the problems of reconciling and rechecking data is almost certainly a process with which you are familiar. The distortion or selective use of the data by people apparently out to undermine everything you've painstakingly done, and subsequent desire to beat the living cr*p out of them, may also be familiar.

    I have to disagree with your assertion that the data sample is too small; on the contrary, the temperature and climate data available is immense, extensive and goes back thousands of years (with the caveat of increasing margin of error). You can see a lot of it at the IPCC website that /professor monckton (UXXXXXX) has linked to repeatedly.

    Of course uncertainty remains and of course conclusions are constantly updated, revisited and reconsidered in the light of events. However, two things came out of the IPCC's main sessions in 2007 & 2008: one, that everyone agrees that global temperature is warming; two, that human activity has something to do with it.

    What remains uncertain is the extent of warming that can be expected into the future - anything from 1.5 - 6C - and exactly how much human activity is contributing - a huge amount, a lot or merely rather significant.

    The Conference included the spectrum of opinion from 'we're all doomed, doomed' to 'hang on, it's not really that bad'. That a consensus emerged from such a diversity of opinion is remarkable; that it is as coherent as it is (i.e., not as much divergence of opinion as one might expect) is amazing. But there is one thing that was inevitable; the consunsus would cohere towards the conservative end of the spectrum.

    You said 'Many eminent scientists strongly disagree with AGW theory.' I have to disagree with 'many' but will accept 'some' - they are in a very small minority, if they're climate scientists. Being in a minority does not, of course, mean that you're wrong - but it does mean you have to work very, very hard to prove you're correct. All I see from the 'denial' camp is the repetition of arguments that are simplistic and simply do not stand up to even a cursory glance, or rely on data and methodology that is kept secret (e.g., Piers Corbyn). However, they keep on being brought up, again and again - that's why they get called 'zombie arguments' - it seems you just can't kill them!!

    I have no doubt that you want the facts 'as each side sees them' but I fear yours may be a fruitless search, as the deniers (a term I use with consideration) simply don't have them, or they are faulty, or are selected extracts from existing work. Outstanding examples include the 'Wattsupwiththat' lot - very typical of the anti AGW arguments and presentations. I fear you will be shocked with how poor the science is, when you look at it.

    Anyway - thanks for your efforts on the diabetes research. You never know, I may need it some day (my younger son already has type 2).

    Best wishes

    Complain about this comment

  • 440. At 4:15pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Here's a list of the physical science basis from the IPCC WG reports:

    # Preface and Foreword
    # Summary for Policymakers
    # Technical Summary

    1. Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
    2. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing
    3. Observations: Atmospheric Surface and Climate Change
    4. Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
    5. Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
    6. Palaeoclimate
    7. Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
    8. Climate Models and their Evaluation
    9. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
    10. Global Climate Projections
    11. Regional Climate Projections

    Here's the history of the progression of the science of how CO2 drives climate change up to the current date:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 441. At 4:16pm on 06 Jan 2010, Jack Frost wrote:

    I've sent the MET office a new cheaper weather prediction device to replace their super computers.

    It gives a 50/50 accuracy prediction every time without fail.

    1p coin on its way.

    (although landing on its edge results in a severe Global warming warning)

    Complain about this comment

  • 442. At 4:18pm on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    poitsplace #432.

    "..there is a thousand times as much money enticing researchers to pull the AGW line as there is enticing them to go against it."

    and yet, either way, the only beneficiaries are the business-as-usual money people.

    "the corporations are bigger than any nation state"
    song/lyric by Dub Syndicate, check'em out.

    Complain about this comment

  • 443. At 4:23pm on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Boris Tabaksplatt #436.

    "So nothing new is happening and panic/over-reaction/taxation/world government are not required. Mankind and most species have survived these events in the past and will survive this next event, should it come to pass."

    all of this was of course before we were using machines to clear forests and dragnets miles long to fish, before atmospheric nuclear testing, before.. you get the idea.

    Complain about this comment

  • 444. At 4:28pm on 06 Jan 2010, poitsplace wrote:

    @infinity #400 who wrote:

    "co2 rose as we climbed out of the last glacial period, so it would have contributed warming. The orbital changes and tilt of the Earth can explain how the glacial-interglacial transition was kickstarted but they don't provide enough warming to explain the full 5-6C warming from the glacial to interglacial. The full magnitude and pattern of 20th century warming cannot currently be explained without factoring in the contribution of greenhouse gases."

    The problem is that the much larger temperature swings known to exist within the holocene ALSO cannot be explained. Since there was an existing warming trend before CO2 emissions were even remotely relevant you cannot claim that we know THIS warming period is caused by CO2 or even partly explained by CO2...when it is well within the normal amplitude/rate of other holocene swings.

    Also we're not just looking at THIS winter. We're looking at stagnating (probably dropping) temperatures and increasingly severe winters over the last few years. This time there wasn't even a La Nina and we're being pounded. The La Nina in 2008 was moderate. What if we had a strong La Nina on top of a strongly negative north atlantic oscillation?

    How much better do you think the UK weather will be when the atlantic multidecadal oscillation goes negative? It is ENTIRELY possible that the entire warming period is a result of the PDO, AMO and NAO switching one by one into a warming mode...with a little help from the solar cycle. What's it going to be like over the next 20 years as those all switch one by one into a generally cooling mode?

    Complain about this comment

  • 445. At 4:38pm on 06 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #435:

    Because, as we are told, nature doesn't absorb quite enough (over and above the 'natural' emissions which it absorbs) to fully absorb the extra amount - so it builds up.

    And kindly moderate your condescending tone - we'll get along much better.

    Complain about this comment

  • 446. At 4:41pm on 06 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    pitsplace @ 432 said: "You point to government subsidies to the energy industry and treat THAT as if it was their "propaganda" budget."

    It was I who linked to that news story at 147. There was no contention that the number was either the fossil fuel industries' research budget or propaganda budget. It is an indication that the companies involved in those industries may have an interest, as in an axe to grind.

    The money they spend on propaganda and lobbying - several 10s of $millions a year each, in the case of some of the the big 'uns - could be regarded as an investment to protect that interest and those subsidies. The return on said investment is spectacular.

    Complain about this comment

  • 447. At 4:42pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "The man-made global warming theory has been falsified by the last decade of stable global average temperatures"

    Nope.

    This is only proven that the idea of CO2 being the sole factor in temperatures being true.

    But this is something only deniers insist is true, so they can say it's not happening.

    Why else does the IPCC WG report have a section called "Attributing Climate Change" (Chapter 9)?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 448. At 4:44pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "I've sent the MET office a new cheaper weather prediction device to replace their super computers.

    It gives a 50/50 accuracy prediction every time without fail."

    Unfortunately, the accuracy of weather forecasts is 85%.

    Your 50% chance is a downgrade.

    Keep your penny.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 449. At 4:44pm on 06 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #442 jr4412 wrote:

    "the only beneficiaries are the business-as-usual money people."

    Maybe the big business types are the only ones to make large quantities of money out of it, but there's a multitude of ordinary, decent people who simply need funding, because their graduate studies depend on it, or their jobs depend on it.

    This doesn't just apply to science. Every academic discipline involves fashions -- areas of study that suddenly become trendy, and the trend feeds on itself -- in effect the whole thing "snowballs", often gaining massive "inertia". And almost everyone involved is an innocent person just doing their best, trying to finish their PhDs, carve out a career, look after their family, etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 450. At 4:46pm on 06 Jan 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    RuariJM #439

    you may be interested in the views of Lord Monckton on the IPCC feedback findings. see

    http://sppiblog.org/news/not-guilty-how-we-know-our-influence-on-climate-is-harmless#more-529

    Complain about this comment

  • 451. At 4:51pm on 06 Jan 2010, matthew wrote:

    earth is 4.54 billlion year ago or there abouts A combination of greenhouse gases and higher levels of solar activity served to raise the Earth's surface temperature, preventing the oceans from freezing over. so green house gas climate change have been around long time.

    The present pattern of ice ages began about 40 Ma and then intensified during the Pleistocene about 3 Ma. The polar regions have since undergone repeated cycles of glaciation and thaw, repeating every 40–100,000 years. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago the planet was tropical climate before that good point to make france was join to use now it is not that was not man made the ice may still melting from the last ice age
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

    The sun has affect on weather and the earth magnetic field does as well.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth check this link out for what earth may be like also what Venus did not have life on it so how could it be full co2 without natural events

    climate change is not man made it just happen and if all this come out that we don't see change we make within 60/70 years then there will be up roar from thoose who are still a live then. i may be dead then but my chidlen will

    Complain about this comment

  • 452. At 4:58pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "The problem is that the much larger temperature swings known to exist within the holocene ALSO cannot be explained."

    Such as..?

    "Since there was an existing warming trend before CO2 emissions were even remotely relevant"

    Where..?

    "We're looking at stagnating (probably dropping) temperatures and increasingly severe winters over the last few years."

    No we're not:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/

    "The La Nina in 2008 was moderate."

    Which proves what? 2005 is the warmest year on record.

    "It is ENTIRELY possible that the entire warming period is a result of the PDO, AMO and NAO switching one by one into a warming mode."

    No it isn't because the cycles wouldn't add up to temperatures like this:

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

    "What's it going to be like over the next 20 years as those all switch one by one into a generally cooling mode?"

    Why would they do that? Their periodicities do not add up to that for the next 20 years.

    Tell you what, how about we cut back fossil fuel use, become more efficient in power use and if in 20 years it has provably cooled then that cheap and easy energy is still there to be used. And with our better efficiency, we will be able to get more out of that stored energy.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 453. At 4:59pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "you may be interested in the views of Lord Monckton on the IPCC feedback findings"

    Lord monckton having, of course, no science background and is a Journalist major.

    An artschool activist as Paddy would say.

    And here's an example of Monckton's work:

    http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 454. At 5:00pm on 06 Jan 2010, MATT wrote:

    313 Hottest decade on record: official.
    The past decade may have been warm but the next 2-3 will not.
    Coming to your neighborhood soon? Those who think that the current cold spell is just short term weather better think again. Cooling has been happening for 4 year now in parts of Canada and it is coming to your neighborhood also.
    Here is what Environment Canada reported about the 2009 Canadian winter. A similar pattern has been happening so far this 2010 winter. Environment Canada recorded minus 46.1 C or minus 58.4C with the wind chill at the Edmonton Airport on December 13, 2009 this broke the old record by 10 degrees C. Winter temperatures have dropped 7.1 C since 2006 in the Canadian Prairie and Northwestern regions.
    http://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=F2AE9E49-1
    2008/2009 winter
    Across the Prairies, winter started out cold and stayed that way with a season that seemed to go on for nine months. Westerners know about cold winter and are largely prepared for it, but when winter carries on through the longest and coldest spring in memory and is followed by a summer that refused to warm up, even the hardiest westerners begin to feel victimized by the weather. Desperate residents said they forgot what a warm day feels like and were looking forward to their first mosquito – a sure sign of warmth.
    From December to August inclusive, the Prairies tied for the coldest nine months in 27 years. Every city in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and central and northern Alberta endured nine straight months with below normal temperatures. In Winnipeg, for example, there had never been ten consecutive months below normal in a century – possibly the longest stretch since the 1880s.

    Here is some more data about the Canadian 2009 winter impact on crops. The yield was about 20% less
    In sharp contrast to their counterparts in Manitoba, agriculture producers in Alberta and Saskatchewan faced one of the most challenging growing seasons in years with drought, cold, floods and hail. Farmers rarely confront the dual threats of frost and drought at the same time, but parts of the Prairies experienced their driest spring in 50 years and their coldest in 35 years. Cool weather delayed crop development by three to four weeks, and with the risk of frost continuing into July, producers never caught up even when killing cold and the first snows came much later than usual in mid-October. Until the first hint of warmth in mid-June, all the talk was about the cold, especially its duration of six months and counting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 455. At 5:01pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "climate change is not man made "

    So what about the earth being 4.5Bn years old makes CO2 not a greenhouse gas?

    What in the rest of your points proves the science that shows AGW to be a reality to be wrong?

    Read:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    Does any of your points disprove any of that?

    Just because it's natural doesn't mean it is always natural.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 456. At 5:02pm on 06 Jan 2010, HolbornMoleStrangler wrote:

    Blimey RuariJM, I'm slightly worried about being viewed as a brownoser but I have to say that general summary post #439 was rather good. I guess others will disagree so I hope they post equally cogent counter arguements.
    Anyway it's interesting that you mentioned the "Wattsup..." site as I've spent a little time on that recently and while I can't actually tell if scientifically they are preaching a load of ol bull it does seem to be very political. I'd guess that a rather large majority of regular posters there hold pretty right wing libertarian views, with a minority being off the scale nut jobs! I can actually see why a sceptical view of Climate Change would appeal to these people but just as I'd rather not see my country run by them (again!) I'm not happy with leaving the future of our enviroment in the hands of their, minority, World View.

    Complain about this comment

  • 457. At 5:04pm on 06 Jan 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    #417. RuariJM wrote:

    "
    John from Hendon @ 412:

    "Didn't anyone on your 'course' wonder why CO2 rises happened AFTER temperature rises "

    Probably not as they would have been familiar with the concept of positive feedback.

    I say this although I didn't attend that particular course but as it's such a basic concept I imagine it was either taken as read or taught in Year 1, week 2 (after the Freshers' Week booze had worn off)."

    Please explain how it is that AFTER the temperature has risen then CO2 rises explains why CO2 CAUSES temperatures to rise. For something to cause another thing the change in the first change MUST happen BEFORE the second or do you have some form of time machine. I turn the kettle on and later it boils. Not it boils so I later turn it on!

    A temperature rise CAUSING a subsequent (i.e. afterwards) CO2 rise cannot logically imply that a CO2 rise CAUSES temperatures to rise - that is an extreme example of the unscientific nonsense at the very heart of the CO2/Climate Change lobby. Or do you have some special insight into the laws of physics that turns logic and causality on its head.

    Complain about this comment

  • 458. At 5:04pm on 06 Jan 2010, tom wrote:

    Both Shefftim and Boris Tabaksplatt and to a lesser extent the combative John from Hendon who I read a fair amount last year on various economics blogs make this last 30mins of my life worthwhile and that is not something I can say about every slice of time spent digesting a number of the comments on a number of the blogs on the BBC.

    There is no doubting the major climate player will remain the sun for the next 2 billion years and that in the past half a century we are slowly starting to piece together with data how the various weather systems terrainial oceanic atmospheric not just within the Arctic/North Atlantic sphere interplay - the one area I would like info on is where we currently are in terms of understanding cloud formation and being able to model this to any extent - which largely due to a couple of books I read a few years back now seemed to be a 'known unknown' - that could be a fairly apt strap line for this whole discussion.

    In areas where one lusts after reason and logic as the guide through uncertainty I realise personal experience one should pay scant regard - however as ever I will put thrupence worth in.

    I worked in Siberia for a couple of months over 2 years back in 2000/1 and in Novosibirsk where I was based I experienced i think -58C (sorry I have no link to confirm this although no doubt there is the data out there) which was 17C colder than had been experienced previously (again have to take my word for it or specifically Julie who worked at the Institute of Science who was particularly excited by this an weather in general to be frank)and then the snow melted a full 5 weeks earlier than had been previously recorded - I'm fairly certain the records only went back to 1920's which is a mere jot on the landscape climatically.

    I used to spend a fair amount of time underwater in the early 90's in Asia - Thailand and Phillipines predominantly - I have been back a few times in the last 4 years and the sites I dived are literally dead no fish no coral nothing (OK there were still a few fish!) - we used to fish for Sailfish/Marlin within a mile or so from the coast now boats are heading out over 30miles (min) to find them again they are just not about anymore.

    I was in Kiribati last year next to the solomons and they are honestly shipping soil into the islands and are having to build above ground gardening beds much like we do in the UK as pretty much all the ground is now saleanated as are the vast majority of the wells - the President is obviously slightly concerned and has been attempting to find a new home for his 180,000 people to be fair with little luch although the kiwis have upped their yearly quota to 62 from 40 they are still having issues integrating their white population into the indigenous population or is it t'other way round.

    In Kenya just before xmas and there is genuinely a most severe drought kicking in - I saw a remarkable number of dead cows and bizarrely Zebra as well maybe there were more Zebra about in the first place who knows....

    My point really is that the climate changes no doubt about it - just at the moment it is acting like a Drunk Yeoman - staggering around whacking things about be they animals, humans and at times holding it together for a straight 10 metre wander before lurching off wildly once more.

    Globally we have huge issues to face which are predominantly due to our massive number. Climate is Global, weather is local and it is localised issues of resource or lack thereof which will deconstruct our current impasse and a large chunk of what currently constitutes this and us.

    I hope I'm wrong - my worry is the locals all seem equally concerned.

    Complain about this comment

  • 459. At 5:09pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "The past decade may have been warm but the next 2-3 will not."

    And your proof of that deduction is..?

    "Cooling has been happening for 4 year now in parts of Canada and it is coming to your neighborhood also. "

    Then why is Canada seeing winter temperatures so far above average?

    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/synop.html

    (change Element to Temperature Anomaly)

    6-10C above normal for the average.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 460. At 5:09pm on 06 Jan 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    #430. U14260427 wrote:

    "John
    "You use the same argument time and time again,"

    Here's the answer:

    http://www.ipcc.ch"

    Please actually look at the IPCC datasets - theses do not support its conclusions.

    PS I know you are actually not having a pop at me! (but you might as well be.)

    Also see #457

    Complain about this comment

  • 461. At 5:16pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Probably not as they would have been familiar with the concept of positive feedback."

    That's no problem.

    H2O is a positive feedback. It traps heat and how much there is depends on the heat trapped.

    Are you saying that positive feedback MUST mean "runaway effect"?

    What's the infinite sum of 1/2**n where n goes from 1 to infinity?

    HINT: despite all being positive additions, it sums to 2.

    Not infinity.

    Missed out on maths too?

    "Please explain how it is that AFTER the temperature has risen then CO2 rises explains why CO2 CAUSES temperatures to rise."

    Because the CO2 released from the warming ocean causes later warming.

    (a warmer ocean cannot hold as much CO2 as it could before).

    "that is an extreme example of the unscientific nonsense at the very heart of the CO2/Climate Change lobby."

    It's an extremely WRONG example. It is, in fact unscientific in itself.

    Please also explain the PETM if CO2 only lags temperature.

    Go on.

    That is only one, if extreme, example of the unscientific nonsense the denialist dittos produce time and time again.

    http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_misinformation_co2_lags_not_leads.html

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 462. At 5:19pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "which largely due to a couple of books I read a few years back now seemed to be a 'known unknown'"

    However, those known unknowns (and the unknown unknowns) are constrained by observation:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/7np5t35mq27p3q24/

    "In this paper, we investigate some of the assumptions underlying these estimates. We show that the popular choice of a uniform prior has unacceptable properties and cannot be reasonably considered to generate meaningful and usable results. When instead reasonable assumptions are made, much greater confidence in a moderate value for S is easily justified, with an upper 95% probability limit for S easily shown to lie close to 4°C"

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 463. At 5:20pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    The datasets DO agree with the IPCC reports, John from Hendon.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 464. At 5:21pm on 06 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    457. John_from_Hendon

    John, you're a bit like one of those 6th form or second year students who writes to someone politely for information and effectively wants them to write their essay/thesis/dissertation/ whatever.

    Why not do a bit of Victorian self-improvement and take the time to look up 'positive feedback'? You can Google it and then search within results for CO2 - you will find a wealth of information, including explanations of how it works.

    Or, if you would like to get to it a little faster, read the papers available from IPCC. They aren't a load of dang commies, you know!

    If you do either thing, you may find the information you gather somewhat discomfiting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 465. At 5:21pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    On model/data comparisons:

    http://www.realclimate.org/images/model09.jpg

    Well just looky.

    Complain about this comment

  • 466. At 5:22pm on 06 Jan 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    #458. tom wrote:

    "...and to a lesser extent the combative John from Hendon.."

    Thank you (I think!)

    You will appreciate that my stance is that Climate Change is a real problem that needs tackling BUT CO2 is not the cause and nor is controlling CO2 a way of 'tackling' climate change. I am not at all impressed by the so called 'scientific' evidence that purports to link CO2 rises to subsequent temperature rises - in fact I will go so far as to say directly that there is no proven causal link between CO2 levels and temperatures that indicates that changes to CO2 will have any effect on temperature (or climate volatility).

    (I will no reiterate the data again here but I think I have quoted them extensively in previous posts.)

    My view is that we, as a planet, need to tackle the worst effects of a volatile and more energetic climate that appears to be upon us. (But that it is a huge mistake - and an illogical act - to pin our hopes on CO2 moderation - even if that is possible.) We need to try to better look after our planet and its biosphere of flora and fauna.

    Complain about this comment

  • 467. At 5:22pm on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    bowmanthebard #449.

    "Maybe the big business types are the only ones to make large quantities of money out of it, but there's a multitude of ordinary, decent people who ... depend on it."

    not just a multitude, ALL of us (ordinary, decent or not) depend on 'fitting in' with the system, but we too become corrupted as a result; that's why we need a root and branch overhaul of states/institutions/laws/you name it (I'd say 'revolution' but you never know who's listening in ;)).

    Complain about this comment

  • 468. At 5:24pm on 06 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    Spanglerboy @ 450 wrote:

    "you may be interested in the views of Lord Monckton on the IPCC feedback findings. see

    http://sppiblog.org/news/not-guilty-how-we-know-our-influence-on-climate-is-harmless#more-529"

    Then again, I might prefer to stick red-hot needles in my eyes rather than read any more of His Lordship's partial, prejudiced and uninformed cr*p.

    Complain about this comment

  • 469. At 5:30pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "(I will no reiterate the data again here but I think I have quoted them extensively in previous posts.)"

    See #465

    Complain about this comment

  • 470. At 5:34pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    You could, instead have a laugh at The Holy Prophet's ineptitude rather than poke your eyes out:

    http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

    and see how well his "maths" (very obviously a classics major) works out.

    E pluribum unum. As He would say.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 471. At 5:53pm on 06 Jan 2010, Gundula Azeez wrote:

    There are lots of annoying global warming sceptics here. Professor Monckton, thanks for your comments. I only read the first few, but they make a lot of sense.
    The global warming sceptics do seem a bit thick, don't they?! Weather is what's happening here and now, climate is about long-term trends. From my layman's understanding, weather will be out of sync with the long-term trend a lot of the time. Why do they find this so difficult to understand? I have read about a lot of the scientific studies that prove that the current warming trend is very likely to be man-made. Let's continue to be critical, but we should not take these ignorant rants from the sort of sceptics that appear on these message boards too seriously. That said, your responses are really appreciated, Prof Monckton!

    Complain about this comment

  • 472. At 5:57pm on 06 Jan 2010, MATT wrote:

    #459
    This will give you an idea about current and recent Canadian temperatures


    http://www.findlocalweather.com/weather_maps/temperature_canada.html

    and

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Edmonton+coldest+place+North+America/2336460/story.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 473. At 6:05pm on 06 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    at 470 U14260427 wrote:

    "You could, instead have a laugh at The Holy Prophet's ineptitude rather than poke your eyes out:

    http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

    and see how well his "maths" (very obviously a classics major) works out."

    I was reluctant, on the basis that my brain might have exploded in frustration but thank you for that link - it's given me a good old chuckle!

    For this relief, much thanks.

    Paddytoplad - this is a good example of the poor science I was talking about, demolished piece by piece.

    Spanglerboy - try it.

    "E pluribum unum" ROFL.

    Complain about this comment

  • 474. At 6:11pm on 06 Jan 2010, David J wrote:

    "the village of Oymyakon, which has seen the mercury plummet as low as -71C"

    The mercury may have got that low, but as it freezes at -38C, so I suspect they were using something else to measure the temp !

    Complain about this comment

  • 475. At 6:23pm on 06 Jan 2010, infinity wrote:

    re 457 John_from_Hendon

    see:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

    Complain about this comment

  • 476. At 6:25pm on 06 Jan 2010, Paul Levy wrote:

    To John from Hendon and anyone who is "not at all impressed" by the evidence for CO2 warming the earth - if you aren't impressed, then that says far more about your understanding of the science than it does about the actual evidence. Quite simply, you don't know what you are talking about. All serious climate scientists - even those classed as "sceptics" - accept that increasing CO2 will warm the earth up. The rest of the debate is just about "how much" - specifically, what feedback effects there will be (positive and negative). The idea that increasing CO2 will warm the earth is not a fringe theory, it is based on extremely well-understood science going back over a century. You reject it due to your own misconceptions, not due to any weakness in the theory.

    Oh and by the way John from Hendon, the old "CO2 rises *after* temperature rise" argument is old hat. The fact is that CO2 hasn't (usually) been the main driver of changes to the earth's climate in the past, but it played a role in *amplifying* the effect of changes to the earth's orbit. If CO2 was unimportant, then Europe wouldn't have been covered by glaciers 15,000 years ago!

    Complain about this comment

  • 477. At 6:33pm on 06 Jan 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #280, U14260427 wrote:
    “And just to show how barefaced a liar Rob Whines back is, his asserition [sic] is that the first result for searching for "Um" on the RC website is Mark.”

    The search term was “Uh,”.

    Not only did the anthracophobe not know what IPCC stood for but he is also unaware of what grunting noises he makes.

    Amusingly a search of the above mentioned site for “Uh,” still brings up some guy named Mark as the first hit ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 478. At 6:34pm on 06 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #476 Paul Levy wrote:

    "To John from Hendon and anyone who is "not at all impressed" by the evidence for CO2 warming the earth - if you aren't impressed, then that says far more about your understanding of the science than it does about the actual evidence. Quite simply, you don't know what you are talking about."

    Let's put that to the test, shall we? I propose you give a brief account of what you think constitutes evidence in science. Then we'll see.

    Complain about this comment

  • 479. At 6:34pm on 06 Jan 2010, Boris Tabaksplatt wrote:

    At 4:23pm on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:
    "Boris Tabaksplatt #436.

    ["So nothing new is happening and panic/over-reaction/taxation/world government are not required. Mankind and most species have survived these events in the past and will survive this next event, should it come to pass."]

    all of this was of course before we were using machines to clear forests and dragnets miles long to fish, before atmospheric nuclear testing, before.. you get the idea."


    Couldn't agree with you more, JR, mankind has done much damage to the biosphere, and to your list I would add pollution from chemicals, plastic waste e.t.c. Money needs to be spent on mankind improving our management of the ecosystem, but wasting money on reducing levels of CO2, which is vital to the biosphere, is not the way forward.

    However, all of the things mentioned above are like a pimple on the backside of an elephant as far as Earth's climate is concerned. The climate system it is so vast and the energy transfers involved are so massive that humanity has little effect.

    As well as cleaning up our act, mankind also needs to invest in finding cheap energy sources, as this is what ultimately will allow us to survive and prosper as Earth's population continues to increase.

    Complain about this comment

  • 480. At 6:40pm on 06 Jan 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    Hey Richard

    I now understand why you don't moderate U142...(Yeahwhatever)

    Your bosses think you have 479 posts but the fact is that 300 of these are by one of your cheerleaders yeahwhatever?

    Complain about this comment

  • 481. At 6:43pm on 06 Jan 2010, poitsplace wrote:

    @RuariJM #446 RE:big oil's money

    No, I was replying to U14260427 because he's been spewing that "follow the money" thing for most of the time he's been here...implying that SOMEHOW "following the money" would allow you link the tens of billions in subsidies to the tens of millions in PR.

    ...and this compared to the tens of billions spread among the relatively small number of AGW slanted research projects (of course, you won't get any of that if you're investigating something that bucks the consensus)

    Complain about this comment

  • 482. At 6:45pm on 06 Jan 2010, Kev wrote:

    U14260427,
    If you are a respected climate scientist as you claim you are, how come you spend the entire day on this Blog?? Don't you have a planet to save. Or is the science done now?
    You know what your sterling efforts have convinced me of the error of my ways. From now on I'm a believer, and do you know what, I'm so proud of what man has achieved. Just think a few years ago this sort of winter was normal, now it's limited to just a few freakish years every 50 years or so.
    Fantastic job, well done everyone, imagine the chaos if every winter was like this. Instead we get nice warm summers and mild winters. Fantastic job everyone.

    Complain about this comment

  • 483. At 6:45pm on 06 Jan 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    Here's an interesting hockey-stick:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/285693/#more-7310

    Complain about this comment

  • 484. At 6:49pm on 06 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    bowmanthebard @ 478 wrote:

    "I propose you give a brief account of what you think constitutes evidence in science. Then we'll see."

    What a topping idea! Why don't you get us all started by telling us what YOU thinks constitutes evidence in science, first - as it's your notion?

    I only ask because there has been no evidence - scientific or otherwise - of a settled opinion on the matter from you.

    Once you ahve done that, everyone will be able to see if you're either

    a) a thoughtful and possibly insightful sceptic, in the true meaning of the word, who has examined real evidence and drawn sensible and defensible conclusions from it; or
    b) a complete nincompoop who hasn't the faintest idea what s/he's talking about.

    Over to you!

    Complain about this comment

  • 485. At 6:53pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    So am I back to being 'yeawhatever' now?

    And Mandy talks out is arse in #480 again.

    Boris:
    "The climate system it is so vast and the energy transfers involved are so massive that humanity has little effect."

    But that is not proof that CO2 which LEVERAGES the power of the sun (which is vast) doesn't have its effect.

    In fact you have nothing now to explain the ice ages.

    Or do you have a model that does and doesn't require CO2?

    "I propose you give a brief account of what you think constitutes evidence in science."

    Ladies first, bardy.

    After all, you have the real climate scientists against you, so your claim they are wrong is extraordinary, requiring extraordinary proof.
    PS to the posters who said thanks, thanks.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 486. At 7:03pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "If you are a respected climate scientist as you claim you are,"

    I don't claim that.

    So I don't have to answer.

    @poit:
    "No, I was replying to U14260427 because he's been spewing that "follow the money""

    Lets look at who spouted that first:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html#P90566933

    Post #55.

    Paddy.

    Mwa mwha mwhaaa....

    And Mandy makes more stuff up (IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!!!!). Wonder how the dood gets through the day with all that checking for spies in the toilet he does...

    Instructive that he's not got anything to say apart from try to make out that I'm in cahoots (or the BBC is, it's quite hard to tell) with the conspiracy, in the vain hope he can then just go "He's just biased" as if that's a reason.

    /professor monckton (or Legion)

    Complain about this comment

  • 487. At 7:03pm on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    RobWansbeck #477.

    looked for 'anthracophobe' in dictionary - no dice. what word did you intend to write?

    Complain about this comment

  • 488. At 7:07pm on 06 Jan 2010, Paul Levy wrote:

    To bowmanthebard #478 - I've already given you one: previous ice ages cannot be explained unless feedback effects from CO2 (and other sources) are factored in. On a basic level, we know that there is a greenhouse effect because otherwise the earth would be much cooler.

    To name *just one* other (very strong) line of evidence, the fact that the lower stratosphere is observed (from satellite measurements) to be cooling is exactly what you expect with CO2 warming the planet.

    Just generally, you don't seem to get the point. If CO2 *isn't* warming the planet, then this has to be due to some mysterious mechanism that hasn't yet been proposed (the bizarre theories of Miskolczi apart). The default position is not that CO2 doesn't do anything - to assert this is to reject a lot of basic physics. If you are going to do that, then it's *you* that has to come up with the evidence, not mainstream science. You'd better start hunting if you want to be taken seriously.

    Complain about this comment

  • 489. At 7:11pm on 06 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Boris Tabaksplatt #479.

    thanks.

    "However, all of the things mentioned above are like a pimple on the backside of an elephant as far as Earth's climate is concerned. The climate system it is so vast and the energy transfers involved are so massive that humanity has little effect."

    ah, would that I had a better education, still, isn't there something in dynamic (chaotic) systems theory about small inputs/changes being capable of pushing the whole system from one (near stable) state into another?

    Complain about this comment

  • 490. At 7:13pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Given Mandy's cries

    "I now understand why you don't moderate U142..."

    He's tried several times to shut me up for reasons that do not contravene blog rules.

    Tut tut, mandy.

    Robwhinesback, you certainly pick the blogs. Try picking SCIENTIFIC PAPERS instead.

    How about the NAS:

    "At the request of the U.S. Congress, a special "Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years" was assembled by the National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. The Committee consisted of 12 scientists from different disciplines and was tasked with explaining the current scientific information on the temperature record for the past two millennia, and identifying the main areas of uncertainty, the principal methodologies used, any problems with these approaches, and how central the debate is to the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change.

    The panel published its report in 2006. The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect. The report summarizes its main findings as follows:"

    Go on. You know you want to...

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 491. At 7:15pm on 06 Jan 2010, Tenney Naumer wrote:

    Dear Mr. Black,

    Thank you for a very nice explanation of the currently negative AO.

    It has been extremely negative for nearly 25 days now.

    Those interested in the daily reading can see NOAA's page here:

    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 492. At 7:17pm on 06 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #480 ManmadeupGW wrote:

    "Your bosses think you have 479 posts but the fact is that 300 of these are by one of your cheerleaders"

    Remember too that a "filibuster" is a type of censorship. The idea is to make reasoned debate impossible -- in effect, to silence the speakers and to make listening too wearisome -- by filling the air with noise.

    I regard filibustering as a type of harm. I've often seen it among student mobs who want to silence an unpopular speaker. Their j"justification" is to "deny a platform" to views they regard as immoral.

    Complain about this comment

  • 493. At 7:25pm on 06 Jan 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Infinity and U2:

    You still have not given any decent explanation as to how CO2 levels stayed so constant for so long, when natural emissions and sinks, land and ocean, amount to ~200 gigatons a year, as opposed to anthropogenic emissions of ~6.5 gigatons a year, of which approx. half is absorbed.

    Plenty of links to this, here is just one of many:

    http://www.whrc.org/carbon/index.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 494. At 7:29pm on 06 Jan 2010, RuariJM wrote:

    At 481 poitsplace wrote:

    "@RuariJM #446 RE:big oil's money

    No, I was replying to U14260427 because he's been spewing that "follow the money" thing for most of the time he's been here..."


    That's rather unfair - someone else was coming up with 'follow the money' time and again, suggesting that climate scientists are only saying what they are because of the loot available. It's a widespread allegation - as you demonstrate - and U14260427 picked up on the MSNBC story and has used it in rebuttal. Perfectly fairly, imho - I did so myself.

    In terms of following that money, btw, as soon as governments and public agencies get involved then a lot of the cash is sucked up along the way by bureaucrats, travel expenses and burgeoning - but no doubt essential - departments and personal staff. This applies regardless of the subject, topic or investigation. The proportion of money that actually reaches the practitioners is, you will find, quite distrssingly small. That's why the caricature of the typical scientist has him (usually him) with leather patches on his elbows - he can afford the patches but not a new jacket.

    I've just been tangentially involved in a quest for a grant for postgrad research. That which has been secured so far won't cover the rent for a year. But one lives in hope.

    'Big oil' has been spending loads of money - 10s of $millions, as I said - for years on lobbying, essentially contra-AGW and even against global warming itself, despite the evidence in front of their eyes. It has, to be fair, spent money on research into 'alternative energy' as well. In the case of one, which had better remain nameless for fear of libel, about £5 million a year. Sounds a lot but it's less than one-fifth of what they spend with lobbyists and advertising. The lobbying/advertising budget goes to a relatively small number of people; if you want to get fat on the subject, THAT group is the one you want to be part of. Consider: if 97.5% of climate scientists support the AGW position and 2.5% don't, whose money trough would you rather be at? The AGW one, which has to be shared among so many, or the anti, at which so few are filling their faces?

    Either position, to be frank, is a gross calumny against scientists who have done a great deal of work, over many years, and have developed sincerely-held beliefs. It also ignores the fact that climate science has become a high-profile subject only in recent years; for decades, it was very much a Cinderella subject. And one with a lot of overheads: all those research stations, temperature measuring devices, satellites and so on and so forth cost a lot of money, which does NOT go into the pockets of the researchers. Please, please do not suggest that NASA is in the pocket of a 'global warming conspiracy' special-interest lobby. It doesn't care whose satellite it puts into orbit, so long as they pay for it.

    The data NASA gets is important, for astronaut safety and for the survivability of equipment - why? because, for example, solar radiation impacts on the Van Allen belts. It also needs to know what the temperatures are like in the upper stratosphere and to understand why variations occur.

    I must also ask - how much money is being diverted to the birds and land animals that are moving to higher latitudes? Or the flora that is establishing itself beyond its traditional areas? Are they in on the conspiracy, too? what about the Arctic Ocean? Is it reducing its ice cover (AND depth - don't forget depth) because it hopes to get a slice of the wedge?

    Of course not - none of these cares a fig about the money, whether from big oil or the UN. But their behaviour is something that has to be investigated - and that costs money.

    Hope that helps somewhat but must dash now - it's suppertime!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 495. At 7:33pm on 06 Jan 2010, Boris Tabaksplatt wrote:

    At 5:04pm on 06 Jan 2010, tom wrote:
    "Both Shefftim and Boris Tabaksplatt and to a lesser extent the combative John from Hendon who I read a fair amount last year on various economics blogs make this last 30mins of my life worthwhile and that is not something I can say about every slice of time spent digesting a number of the comments on a number of the blogs on the BBC."

    'Sudden warming/cooling events, which have lasted for several years, have been a feature of Earth’s climate for the past several hundred years, and this has happened with a periodicy of around 200. For the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum these events seem to have coincided with a quiet sun, although the mechanism for why this happens has still not been found.

    So nothing new is happening and panic/over-reaction/taxation/world government are not required. Mankind and most species have survived these events in the past and will survive this next event, should it come to pass.

    Climate is the result of a number of processes which are driven by deterministic chaos. This means that trends provide no information about what the future will bring, and the only real information available is that from looking at the broad impact of climate quasi-cycles.

    1410-1500 cold (Sporer minimum) – Low Solar Activity(LSA?)
    1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
    1610-1700 cold (Maunder minimum) – (LSA)
    1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
    1810-1900 cold (Dalton minimum) – (LSA)
    1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
    2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)

    It is interesting to note that within these cooler or warmer centuries, there are further periods of warmer and cooler climate happening on the decadal scale, and still more surprising perhaps, within each decade the same variance can be seen. Climate is unpredictable at all time-scales.'


    Thanks for the kind words, Tom. I think it's important people are stimulated to think about the issue of Climate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 496. At 7:33pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "by filling the air with noise."

    You mean like the noise Mandy's made about how I'm Dr Jones/Mark/Lorraine/yeawhatever/completelyfedup/severalpeopleallpostingup

    ?

    Or the accounts that turn up repeating zombie tropes from the planet denial?

    Or the complete and utter science fail that is peter asking questions like "what are shells made of?" etc?

    That sort of noise?

    Or the noise of those wailing, puling little tyrants being corrected?

    In fact, what did YOUR post add apart from noise?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 497. At 7:38pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "You still have not given any decent explanation as to how CO2 levels stayed so constant for so long,"

    Did you not do physical geology at school?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

    "anthropogenic emissions of ~6.5 gigatons a year"

    Well let's see.

    6.5x10^12kg a year, assume ramped up evenly from 0 150 years ago.

    Total human output:

    5x10^14kg.

    Total mass of the earth's atmosphere:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

    5x10^18kg.

    CO2 in ppm of that:

    10^6x5x10^14/5x10^18

    ...Cancel the five, add the powers, subtract the divisor power...

    100ppm.

    Hmmm.

    Didn't do maths at school?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 498. At 7:40pm on 06 Jan 2010, Paul Levy wrote:

    To Peter 317 #493. CO2 levels didn't stay constant. That's the point about CO2 being a feedback to previous, natural changes in the earth's climate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 499. At 7:41pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Peter, did you read that link you gave?

    http://www.whrc.org/carbon/images/MaunaLoa.gif

    Complain about this comment

  • 500. At 7:41pm on 06 Jan 2010, Jack Frost wrote:

    459. At 5:09pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427

    Fake person wrote


    Then why is Canada seeing winter temperatures so far above average?

    _____________________________________________________

    Edmonton Registers Record-Low Cold Weather
    http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017265526

    Sask-atoon's deep freeze is likely the longest streak of low temperatures below -25 C that has numbed this city since record-keeping began in 1892.
    http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/story.html?id=e25537cf-e677-4c20-a61c-8584a406604d


    More records being broken all the time.

    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.