China completes the climate circle
A fair bit of the doubt and confusion surrounding next month's UN climate summit has suddenly cleared, with the world's two biggest greenhouse gas emitters - the US and China - announcing pledges on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
As is set out in the Bali Action Plan - the agreement made at the UN summit two years ago - the US pledge takes the form of an actual cut in emissions.
China - whose per-capita emissions are far lower - vows to reduce carbon intensity, the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of GDP, by 40-45% from 2005 levels by 2020.
This is ambitious - more ambitious than many observers had expected.
But it doesn't mean China's emissions will fall - in fact they are still likely to rise, with the rate at which economic growth rises outstripping the rate at which carbon intensity falls.
In fact, the target could be met in a number of ways.
One would be to use all energy more efficiently. Another would be to increase the proportion of energy deriving from low-carbon sources such as wind turbines and nuclear reactors.
A third would be to produce goods of higher value without changing the nature of energy production and use, raising GDP while leaving emissions unchanged.
In practice, the Chinese plan will probably include a mixture of those three elements. As my colleague Roger Harrabin reported from his recent trip to China, energy efficiency is being targeted - certainly in new developments - while investment in renewables is forging ahead.
The possibility had been raised - not least on this blog - that the recent bilateral talks between Presidents Barack Obama and Hu Jintao might prove crucial in allowing these pledges to be put forward, because the politics of the two countries on climate change are wrapped up in several important ways.
Firstly, as the two countries produce about two-fifths of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, they clearly hold the key more than any others to a deal that really will curb human-induced climate change; everyone else knows that these two governments have to be fully on board.
Secondly, as the world's largest historical emitter and one of the largest per-capita emitters, the US is the country that developing nations have most in their sights when they talk about the duty of the rich to lead.
Conversely, China is the country that US senators have most in their sights when they talk about the need for all major emitters to take action.
A related point is that at some point in the future, China will become the main US rival for the title of the world's biggest economy, which brings issues of competitiveness into the mix.
Although details of the talks that Mr Obama and Mr Hu had during the former's recent visit to Beijing remain under wraps, one logical conclusion would be that the two leaders were able to agree on a formulation that would be mutually acceptable - and that here, we are seeing the fruits of that agreement.
China now becomes the latest major developing nation after Indonesia, Brazil and South Korea to pledge a target; and as we approach within touching distance of the Copenhagen summit, virtually all of the major cards are on the table on curbing emissions - though not on other issues such as finance and technology transfer.
Without emission pledges from the US and China, negotiations in Copenhagen would have lacked a large part of the underpinning vital if any kind of deal is to be struck.
But whether developing countries are impressed by the size of the US commitment is another matter.
China itself says it wants developed nations to cut carbon by 40% from 1990 levels by 2020 - and Mr Obama's pledge, at about 3%, is a lot less than that.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
As Kyoto showed national targets are meaningless and worthless.
Complain about this comment
By all means cut down on pollution but to try and influence the world's climate by reducing man made Carbon Dioxide is an utter waste of time and particularly - money. The recent disclosures about temperature 'massaging' by the CRU @ the UEA shows how futile the politicians words are when talking about "Saving the Planet"
Scrap the Copenhagen talks as they are meaningless. Merely Kyoto repetition with nothing to benefit mankind. Scrap any Carbon Offset Trading as that is a Scam and stop any energy production that uses wind, waves and sun and spend the money on Nuclear Power.
Complain about this comment
So richard. Still happy to be reporting on copenhagen given the CRU revelations?
Complain about this comment
"La, La, La"
"I can't hear you!"
Complain about this comment
Harrabin's Notes: E-mail impact
Roger Harrabin defends the man at the heart of the ClimateGate affair, Prof. Phil Jones:
In an interview with the Press Association, Professor Jones said he wouldn't resign. He said the suggestion that there was a conspiracy to alter evidence was "complete rubbish". And he insisted the CRU had never manipulated or deleted data or e-mails.
Sorry, Roger. Several of the leaked emails From Jones mention deleting emails and they encourage others to delete their emails as well.
Just wondering how this will play out. By his own admission there has been severe academic misconduct at UEA.
Complain about this comment
updates-
Aussie mp's resign over climategate. senate plans to block co2 caps
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/
couple that with the US senate investigation. Looks like this isn't going to go away, hey Richard.
Complain about this comment
Nothing to see here, move along now...
Complain about this comment
Richard: You are either displaying an extreme form of cognitive dissonance re Climategate or you are having to obey the BBC edict not to discuss the things that have been going on at CRU.
Which is it?
Google now brings up over 6,000,000 entries for Climategate! Watergate brings up less than 1,000,000.
Complain about this comment
Its a good thing Obama doesn't actually dictate US policy. He can't rule by decree and any treaty he agrees to will require approval of the house/senate.
Without any reasonably priced alternatives at this moment and with construction times/costs so high, any actual attempt to reduce carbon output by 2020 results (in most nations) in a reduction in the economy by whatever amount of the power production that works out to. About the only way the US can meet such targets is to convert coal fired plants to natural gas....which would work but would drive up energy costs.
Hopefully the major press outlets will show some hints of balance and social responsibility and properly break the Climategate story instead of continuing to sit on it...or better yet, be shown to be the useless mouthpieces of big green that they have become by all the secondary news sources and lose much of their credibility.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for link in Jack for what was going to say on the last thread but it would have got lost probably the BBC would prefer things just to blow over.
So Richard and Co it can be quite clearly seen that the official New Zealand temperature record is adjusted and manipulated to a shocking 0.92C average warming,when compared with the raw data (at least theirs was not been deliberately destroyed)which shows a 0.06C rise.
This record was created and maintained by Dr.Jim Salinger. Said Jim was dismissed early this year for unauthorised media interviews he is also a IPCC main author and sectional president of WMO. More interesting between Jan 1980 and Feb 1982 he was a member of staff at UEA CRU working directly with Phil Jones.
As the degree of adjustment and down right dirty tricks can be physically seen between the official gov't data and the actual measurements and now an obvious link to the biggest story on the planet is so easily established WILL YOU NOW REPORT IT.
Global warming is man-made but only by these disgraceful individuals
Complain about this comment
I see that strangely conflicting temperature graphs have jumped across the Tasman sea
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tips_for_thursday_november_26/P220/
See first post on page 12
Complain about this comment
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal, which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
Full story in the Wall Street Journal here:-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
Same old, same old.
Complain about this comment
I've had enough of this. Who do you complain to over the refusal of the BBC to run this story?
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey #13: "Who do you complain to..."
Start here...BBC Complaints
"How does the process work?
The process has three stages, designed to be straightforward to use and to enable us to address your concerns properly. You should normally make your complaint within 30 working days of the transmission or event and our aim is to respond within 10 working days. For full details please read the Guide to the BBC Editorial and General Complaints process."
Should keep you busy for a while...
Complain about this comment
Labmunkey:
Complaining to the BBC doesn't work - see Yertizz comments on the several blogs - and my personal experience. The BBC says the BBC is always right (a statement peer-reviewed by the BBC).
Try your MP (please don't tell me it's one of the Sillybrothers).
Complain about this comment
As a US citizen I am very concerned as to our overall impact to the Human Footprint in both a negative and positive manner. While I hope that clear and realistic measures are developed in Copenhagen, I still have to question the premise of anthropogenic impact as it is currently being pushed in "Global Warming" scenarios and now retrained to "Climate Change". Climate constantly changes, most times, without our hand at the controls. Not enough discussion or data is provided to develop a clear understanding, in general, of a very complex system. Solar, Volcanic, All Gas Emissions, Gas Interactions, Magnetic field decline/reversal, Subsidence due to Tectonic activity, Ground water removal, Erosion control, River damming, building on unconsolidated lithologies, Heat entrainment in the oceans, Acidification of the oceans, over fishing of the oceans, Sea Floor spreading impact due to volcanic emission subsurface, etc. are all important to this issue.
I am glad that you continue to try and inform and I appreciate your perspective in your reporting. I would just suggest that a good Socratic discussion of all issues could help all of us, regardless of country or political affiliations, gain a better understanding of the breadth of the issues involved so that we can find personal, local, regional, national, and global actions to take in solving this very complex problem.
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
care to respond to my post here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/11/copenhagen_countdown_17_days.html#P89027154
ice carves is as much a function of the thickness of the ice as temperature, so i guess NZ is safe.
Complain about this comment
For anyone with a mathematical/code interest, there is an interesting bit of analysis of CRU code:
"From the file pl_decline.pro: check what the code is doing! It's reducing the temperatures in the 1930s, and introducing a parabolic trend into the data to make the temperatures in the 1990s look more dramatic."
and a comment:
"what I think is done is creating a constant level that is used to offset the 1400 to 1933 data, and thereafter the data is offset by a 2nd polynomial to give a gradual, accelerating-style increase. The most interesting finding, however is that the code has 3 modes, controlled by a variable called doadjust
doadjust=1 ; 0=do not, 1=show some more results,
; 2=do go on and produce a new data set with adjustment for decline
Now, I am not certain if this is correct, but my take is that if you set 0, it just calculates and plots data, if you set 1, it calculates and uses the 2nd degree polynomial to offset, then plots, and if you use 2 it calculates and uses the 2nd degree polynomial to offset, then plots and SAVES data to a new file.
If this is correct, then this is a 1-2-3 tool for viewing some data, then adding some hockey-stickiness and finally saving the new data".
Don't you love the names they use: "DOADJUST" - real science at work.
See "http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/26/smoking-gun.html#comments
Complain about this comment
I've complained to the BBC and written to my MP. Lets see if either of them listen. *holds breath*
Complain about this comment
So cutting through all the BS...
China has made a 'binding commitment' to INCREASE it's CO2 emissions.
These conferences are obviously the way forward.
Complain about this comment
My eyes have been well a truly opened, people often talk about BBC Bias and you merely pay them lip service but here it is for all to see.
If this is how they treat the biggest environmental story of the year, what else have the hidden from us?
Complain about this comment
Some facts, people:
-Carbon dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas. This has been conclusively proven. No trends, no extrapolated data, just cold, hard, incontrovertible science.
-Global temperatures are rising. Forget about the fact that 1998 was the warmest year on record (and it was surpassed by 2005 anyway), just look at the trend.
-The only major change in conditions that the earth has experienced over the last twenty years has been elevated CO2 levels. No cataclysmic volcanic events, etc.
-We are experiencing a solar minimum at the moment. I'm not denying that the sun has a major effect on the earth's climate, but for those who say it is the primary driver of the temperature, this data seems to disprove you
-If nothing is done, feedback loops will kick in, causing CO2 to be emitted in vast quantities from the oceans and the ice caps, causing the added disadvantage of reduced planetary albedo (the amount of solar energy reflected back into space).
And the thing is, we do have many credible alternatives.
-I'm opposed to large-scale development of nuclear power due to waste and safety concerns, but there is definitely a place for thorium and depleted uranium-based breeder reactors in the future energy mix.
-Renewables are becoming cheaper almost by the day, as economies of scale kick in, and technology advances. It won't be long before costs are comparable to fossil fuels anyway, as prices are driven up due to scarcity.
-In the UK alone, almost 30% of the energy used could be saved by increased efficiency in domestic heating. That is a staggering figure. That's just installing ground source heat pumps and underfloor heating. No mention of combined heat and power systems, which would drive consumption down further. And this makes great financial sense on both a governmental and domestic scale, climate change or no climate change.
The thing is, it's not difficult or expensive to reduce our emissions. One of the main things stopping us at present is simply ignorance of the options, or simple laziness.
Complain about this comment
Labmonkey, just keep posting and anything they put as a scare report do some very easy google searches and it can be torn apart as rubbish. Anything using a paper related to CRU Jones and Briffa et al can be debunked in exactly the same manner as Real Climate or is that Surreal climate (hat tip to The Daily Bayonet).
We seem to be getting noticed globally for pointing out facts and Auntie ignoring us. When I found this site it was so towing the BS line it was scary, look at the massive change over 90% of post are from Sceptics/ REALISTS.
PAWB46 I'm smelling a rat in paulville over on Pauls site lets see what we can flush out.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Go read http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/3062
Complain about this comment
@19 LabMunkey
Just so you know, you're not the only one here to do this.
Complain about this comment
The game is up, Richard.
AGW has been shown to be the fraud that a lot of people knew it was.
Don't you read the blogs?
Go and get a proper job.
Complain about this comment
What's wrong with coal..... ?
The big issue that still has to bite us up the vernacular is the availability of liquid fuels. Yet, one of the best ways of producing new liquid fuels is to use algae to consume the CO2 and most other stuff that a coal fired power stations produces. In return the algae gives you both an oil and protein. The former can be refined into a range of fuels and the protein goes into animal or fish food..
Importantly the next amount of CO2 released when u burn the fuel produced is about 50% of what it would be if you just released it from the power station..
So none of this madly expensive sequestration lark with all its pipes and pumps and u add real value to the CO2.
There are now a number of very well funded American algae projects and ExxonMobil is investing close a billion dollars in a major R&D programme in the USA...
Here - or to be precise in Scotland - there is now a pilot plant operating at the Glenturret distillery in Perthshire which is dealing with the output from their heating system. It was built by a very small company in Aberdeenshire called Scottish BioEnergy.... take a look
www.scottishbioenergy.co.uk
Complain about this comment
Now that we (i.e. the interested and affected public) have been given access to the work some of the MMGW inner circle have been doing for the last few years it's pretty obvious that something is badly wrong. The scientific method appears tobe totally absent in the way they are working.
Leaving aside the technical errors that seem to be scattered all over the code and data, the requests for professional scientists across the globe to ignore or obstruct FOI enquiries and to delete emails to hide what they were doing would seem to render all work from UEA suspect.
As serious sums of public money have been spent in this university department, will the BBC now put aside its institutional pro-alarmist bias and call for an independent enquiry - that includes none of the MMGW "usual suspects" - to see what value, if any, can be placed on the output from this department? Also, by using fabricated results in their documentation has any fraud been perpetrated in the grant submissions?
Complain about this comment
This now totally stupid how long does it take to Mod a simple post?
I am now at 13 minutes and still waiting, no house rules broken or anything. I feel now that free speech is going to silenced from the BBC.
So what it is not on topic the topic isn't anything it is again utter rubbish.
Sorry Time zones and all I would love to stay I'll see in the morning.
Complain about this comment
@peadar1987 #22
Some facts, people:
Some facts peadar1987
There is no empirical proof that CO2 causes significant warming in real world atmosphere. If you have real proof, please post a link.
Thanks
Complain about this comment
#10 Kamboshigh wrote "So Richard and Co it can be quite clearly seen that the official New Zealand temperature record is adjusted and manipulated to a shocking 0.92C average warming,when compared with the raw data (at least theirs was not been deliberately destroyed)which shows a 0.06C rise."
It's not quite that simple. Seems whoever did that analysis failed to adjust for some recording sites having been moved over time. For example, a site near sea level up to the mid-1920s was moved to 125 meters above sea level from the mid-1920s:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/
Skeptics complain about data being with-held, but when they are given the data then, either through incompetence or deliberate deceit, they draw incorrect conclusions.
Complain about this comment
Right, it's time to take the gloves off. No more Mr Nice Guy.
Richard I am annoyed with you correspondnets at the BBC. Only a few weeks ago you, a BBC environment correspondent, were telling me, a scientist, that the evidence for AGW was, in your opinion, incontrovertible.
Now that the basis for your "evidence" has been shown to be based on fraudulent data and code, created by a small coterie of people (I won't use the word scientists for them anymore) who have broken the law to perpetrate a massive crime against us normal law-abiding citizens, what do you do? Why you go and hide away creating nonsense posts as if nothing has changed.
I cannot tell you how angry I am with you.
Complain about this comment
It's most depressing to read news on climate change. Seeing all these people (the general public) have extremely limited understanding in science making idiotic comments is terribly frustrating. How many of you actually have a degree in science? Even those who do wouldn't have adequate understanding on how scientific research is done.
Quote "PAWB46", "Don't you love the names they use: "DOADJUST" - real science at work."
What kind of comment is that? To me that's the lowest cheap shot anyone can do, it literally has no argument. If you can't find a better argument than this then I suggest you to keep your month shut.
How many of you can solve a differential equation? How many of you understand how peer-review journals operate? Apparently, people who can barely do algebra spend 10-15 min on some blog then come to BBC criticizing professional scientists' work, who have spent years studying the problem full time. This is an abuse of freedom of speech. Define absurdity.
Reading these BBC comments is just like seeing a 4 years old boy criticizing his dad's driving skill.
People without scientific expertises should just stay out of scientific topics.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
To use the phrase beloved of newspapers about the Parliamentary Expenses Scandal: YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!
The TV networks in America, Australia and New Zealand ate buzzing like wasps on speed about Climategate whilst you lot at the BBC have your heads stuck where the sun don't shine.
Just for once, listen to what sensible and rational people are telling you and get on the case.
If you insist on ignoring popular opinion any last shreds of credibility will be shot down in flames!
Complain about this comment
@thankqwerty #34
if people without scientific expertise had not shown an interest, the whole gravy train would still be on track, instead of being exposed for what it really is
Complain about this comment
While I welcome the Copenhagen Summit's attempt to reduce Greenhouse Gases, I hope they concentrate on the largest Grenhouse Gas( Water Vapour) and ignore others which have practically no effect (CO2). The easiest way for this is to encourage every country to plant more forests, these trees will help remove water vapour and also help remove CO2 as well.
Also it would be more beneficial to abandon any more costly wind farms, and replace them with fast growing trees.
Complain about this comment
thankqwerty you say:
This is an abuse of freedom of speech.
I suggest you look in the mirror....LONG and HARD!
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
Richard,
I have said in earlier threads that i think you and the BBC should be given a chance to report about the CRU emails to ensure the report is straightforward and honest. I said that, because Mann seemed to implicate you in a small way (and i am sure you are not involved), that you should be given time.
To post this latest blog appears to be more like doing an ostrich impression than journalism (i know ostriches don't really stick their heads in the sand) and the BBC are giving the impression that you have something to hide by not making this story onto your main news page.
Personally, i just want you to get back to reporting and blogging on the real environmental issues, so we can all forget this AGW nonsense and move on
Complain about this comment
Richard, Just because your long-cherished BELIEFS are coming tumbling down, it doean't mean we won't continue until the BBC shows some balance and some real investigation.
Thankwerty: You've not been here before? Do you know that people here don't like being lectured to by people like you who think they are superior to the rest of us. BSc and PhD in physics for me. OK? Do I have your permission to continue here? Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Thankwerty #34
Just another thought. "People without scientific expertises should just stay out of scientific topics." Are you saying the BBC should stay out of this? They don't appear to have anyone with scientific training or experience.
Complain about this comment
Re #32 Tom,
You need to page down the link to the comment by R2D2 - Richard Treadgold's request for the Hokitika data, and their persistence in only giving out the Wellington data - wonder why?
Complain about this comment
Labmunkey
Don't even bother writing to BBC Complaints Department. Their systems are set up on a Circular Denial basis thus:
1. They deny they are wrong, so then you write again to another person they will nominate.
2. This person will deny their department has done anything wrong and advise you to write to another person.
3. This will happen several times until....
4. You finish up back where you started without a single satisfactory answer to your complaint.
5. Thus the Circular Denial perpetuates!
You should write direct to Mark Thompson, Director General at:
BBC Broadcasting House
Portland Place
London
W1A 1AA
Mark the envelope Private and Confidential.
If you get your MP to do the same thing you will at least get Thompson to respond to him.
Complain about this comment
"People without scientific expertises should just stay out of scientific topics." thankqwerty
How patronising a comment is that?
I will not be silenced, not when you are expecting me to stump up massive amounts of money through my taxes to fund actions that are supposed to solve a problem that cannot even be proved to exist.
Remember correlation does not equal causation.
Show me the (peer reviewed ha-ha) theory that proves the rise in CO2 is directly linked to the changing global temperature. I suspect that if you do there's a Nobel prize in it for you as no-one's managed it yet.
Complain about this comment
When you think it couldn't get any worse - how about changing the sources of temperature data so that they fit global warming?
Manually alterting the data using computer tricks is for amateurs - why not just swap long term temp stations for those near for example beaches to make global warming seem legit?
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
Here's an example
"North America:
This first one has California in the title, and there is an important issue about California in particular in the posting; but the posting is about all of The U.S.A. and uses data for the whole country. (The “issue” is that as of 2009, California has 4 active thermometers in GHCN. 3 on on the beach in Southern California and one is at the airport in San Francisco, we presume waiting for it’s ride to L.A….)
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
This posting looks at changes in Mexico (which is found to have a strong thermometer change bias) but also looks at the “little bits” left over in North America when you leave out Canada, the USA, and Mexico. Thermometers can’t move very far in Belize or The Bahamas… and we find that the temperature record there shows no warming (and even small hints of cooling).
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/ghcn-mexico-a-megathermal-vacation-band/
What is going on here?
Complain about this comment
thankqwerty
Just a couple of small reminders:
1. You are entitled to your freedom of speech however you are not entitled to limit mine.
2. You are not entitled not to be offended, annoyed, depressed etc by what you read.
Complain about this comment
I think that thankwerty may engage brain before hitting keyboard next time. Will there be a next time?
Complain about this comment
#22 peadar1987
spot on (don't worry too much about mango, he's nothing if not consistent).
good to see the usa and china moving ahead on co2 reductions. last week i predicted neither would make a move, how wrong i was. hopefully this is the start of a major push to reduce co2 emissions to virtually zero (eminently achievable) and prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change. something we could all be proud of.
warmist regards,
ross
Complain about this comment
44 Bang on the money!
I know how a peer reviewed paper is supposed to operate but obviously not when it comes to climate change!!
Getting your buddies to review it, knowing well it contains inaccuracies is not the way it works for papers in other scientific areas!
For the BBC not to have this as a major story is really a disgrace!
Complain about this comment
The Richard Black comedy farce continues.
It's like an episode of Fawlty Towers: "Don't mention the emails!"
A week of this massive story and no comment from him.
Thankqwerty: Your comment also made me laugh.
I can assure you that both PAWB46 and I can solve a differential equation.
We both have PhD degrees and several scientific publications.
P, I suggest ridicule rather than getting angry!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Richard Black is pretending that nothing has happened, let's turn to the Harrabin article and discuss that (incidentally, there is someone who would not know how to solve a differential equation, with his degree in English).
"Some climate sceptics hope that the e-mails stolen by a hacker from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) will generate enough energy to undermine the talks in Denmark."
What's the basis for this statement? Has Harrabin spoken to any climate sceptics and heard them say this? Or has he just fabricated the idea?
"many others find themselves in a war of influence against those firms who fund the amplification of the messages of the relatively small number of genuinely sceptical scientists outside the consensus."
Yes this false accusation appears yet again.
"And he insisted the CRU had never manipulated or deleted data or e-mails. "
Except that he himself (Jones) wrote in an email: "About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all."
Complain about this comment
When I said "People without scientific expertises should just stay out of scientific topics.", I mean people should simple stop arguing whether climate change is happening or not, because frankly most of you have no clue whatsoever. It's like I don't argue with doctors about how to treat an illness, or technicians about what's wrong with my TV.
However, you can argue on how important it is for and how much you are willing to do to save the world. For example, if the scientists said there's a 50% chance that half of the major cities by the coast will be destoried by rising sea level. What the public should discuss is not whether this 50% is accruate or not, because they simply have no adequate knowledge. What they should discuss, on the other hand, is how should we deal with this problem, i.e. whether to just leave it to god, or spend 20% of our resources to lower the chance from 50% to 10%.... etc.
@38 yertizz:
"thankqwerty you say:
This is an abuse of freedom of speech.
I suggest you look in the mirror....LONG and HARD!"
What's the difference between this (people have no understanding of science criticizing climate change scientists) and someone criticizing the work of a japanese novel when they don't even speak japanese themselves?
Complain about this comment
@46 JohnRSmith wrote:
At primary school I've learned that right comes with responsibility. People have the right to express themselves, but that comes with responsibility which is only comment on things that they know.
People have the freedom of speech, and that's why they can say whatever they want(pretty much) without breaking the law. But that doesn't mean that I can't question their public deceny if they appear to make irresponsible comments.
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
you forgot to i am correct
Complain about this comment
Thankwewrty:
Keep digging, we love it. Let's all trust the scientists who publish results without showing us how they do it! Good idea. Engage your brain, please.
Complain about this comment
@thankqwerty
and where does that leave those of us that have read up on this subject for many years and have grown to understand that CO2 is incapable of raising the temperature significantly?
are you saying we have no right to speak out?
Complain about this comment
@thankqwerty
You're losing it, bro.
We're from the real sciences and we're angry that these climate punks have been doing cargo cult science for all these years - and worse.
We've done the experiments, weeks in the lab, long hours in the field. And these culters just sat in their offices and made it up.
(Masters in Structural Engineering)
Complain about this comment
@Mango (#31)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=1111311227&_sort=r&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=78fcab11db6d768112726b4e7a905721
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=carbon+dioxide+warming+mechanism&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Took me about 10 seconds to find.
Complain about this comment
thankqwerty,
Your patronising "Qualified Scientist" attitude is typical of the people who got your AGW dreams into trouble in the first place.
Through almost 7 decades upon this speck of dust I have seen crusades, threats and campaigns come and go...crashing to the ground in flames. Those of my age have many years of experience of the machinations of mankind and are therefore in a unique position to transcend the spin, sophistry, obfuscation, mendacity and idiocy which ALWAYS feature in events such as these.
We have the knowledge to understand that: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it IS a DUCK!
From your posts I wouldn't imagine you fall within my generation; if you do, however, you need to lose your infantile naïveté.
Complain about this comment
hmmmmmm, let's be fair to the BBC and Richard
neither ITN, C4 or Sky seem to be reporting on the CRU email story
Complain about this comment
@peadar1987 (RE: CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas)
Its sad that people have been duped into believing the math describing absorption by gases can be treated as a "climate driver"
LOOK IT UP YOURSELVES!
What it is good at doing is figuring out the rough temperature and composition of gases. The outgoing spectrum of the earth clearly shows this...the outgoing spectrum of CO2 is at levels corresponding to the black body curve for about 220k, the temperature of the tropopause. There are a couple of extremely important issues dealing with how the IPCC assumes it will cause warming.
First off, it (supposedly) increases the temperature gradient. It SUPPOSEDLY makes the tropopause colder and the lower atmosphere warmer. The oblivious, brainwashed masses somehow miss an important thing here...cold air sinks and warm air rises. The more you increase the gradient the more powerful the convection currents will become...offsetting any potential "greenhouse" effect. This is also an established scientific fact. RIGHT HERE it tells you it is physically impossible for CO2 to force the full extent of the suggested gradient change. Or are you a denialist, denying physical laws that have been established for even longer than the absorption math?
Then we have the other rather obvious problem that...quite frankly I think you'd have to be retarded to miss. Last time I checked, energy moved from areas of HIGHER concentration to areas of lower concentration. Yes, once again those pesky physical laws are conspiring against the AGW camp. While it is true that a slowdown in energy loss thru the troposphere would increase temperatures below...the bulk of the energy would be added to the coldest region, the tropopause. And why the heck wouldn't it be...the tropopause is the limiting region.
Now here your own absorption math comes back to bite you in the posterior. Since the heat is actually being absorbed by the tropopause and since the energy would tend to travel from warmer to colder regions AND since the convection would assist with the transportation of heat specifically to the colder tropopause...any temperature increase would be disproportionately represented in the tropopause and (ain't it a hoot) if the temperature of that region went up AT ALL it would increase its emissions and offset a great deal of the absorption.
So now mister "settled science" tell me how much forcing CO2 will cause in our dynamic atmosphere once you factor in convection and the fact that the movement of heat to the cold, tenuous tropopause is about 3X higher than the heat it gives back to the lower troposphere.
Complain about this comment
Mangochutney
When the BBC finally has to accept the inevitable, I think ITN, C4 and Sky will be all over them like a rash.
Complain about this comment
Amazing! I've just been listening to today's Material World where Climategate was discussed. Unfortunately Prof Philip Stott pulled his punches compared to his blog (http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/11/26_Independent_Inquiry_Now_Essential.html) and Prof Tom Crowley gave the circle the wagons story. "Phil Jones is one of the most honest people.... and the IPCC report is completely open for....).
What we need is an investigation, not polite talk.
Complain about this comment
Man, it's like Christmas in December !
The NZ records are compromised by invalid "corrections" - Bishop Hill has the story.
Now Australia is compromised by Professor Jones starting and stopping station history to get his hockey-stick shape. Warwick Hughes (no relation) has the details.
Complain about this comment
Good link here , seen it applied to football before , philosophers take on it.
http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/
Complain about this comment
Nicely put poitsplace #60. You can't beat the good old laws of physics (particularly the 2nd law of thermodynamics).
I also wonder why peadar1987 said "I'm not denying that the sun has a major effect on the earth's climate, but for those who say it is the primary driver of the temperature, this data seems to disprove you". So the primary driver of the temperature is not the the sun according to him. I suppose if he went to the north pole in winter he might change his tune. I wonder what he thinks is the primary driver? Perhaps he was born in 1987 and has just been through the good old education system.
I like "The only major change in conditions that the earth has experienced over the last twenty years has been elevated CO2 levels". So the rise in temperature and then the fall in temperature over the last 20 years (relying on satellite data, that's all we have now) are due to rising CO2 levels are they? Anybody spot a good correlation there?
Complain about this comment
26 November 2079
At last, the world's carbon emissions are zero! The World Government told us in its Bee Bee Cee news release today, (which was read aloud to us by a Bee Bee Cee overseer, who was kind enough to come to our huts especially with it), and also said that to celebrate we can all eat one of our offspring tonight! Not only that, we may also be allowed to see some photographs of 'Abroad' if we find and kill all of the Intelligents on the list our overseer gave us.
I think 'Abroad' is quite far away from our huts, near to where the World Government lives. They say that the World Government live in huts just like ours, but one of the Intelligents told me that they actually live in a place called Luxury. I almost believed him, but then he told me what my name, Gullible, meant, and that I was named after my grandfather, who the World Government re-named Gullible Eco-Loon after it took over. He told me what that meant too and I was so angry that I did away with him and gave his head to the overseer and got a potato as a reward.
The World Government stopped the clymit from changing - that was when we all began to live in huts, surrounded by an electrified fence to protect us from 'Outside'. I'm terrified of 'Outside'. The World Government showed us pictures of it once, and there are giant monsters there called Dynasorrs that eat hut dwellers like us for breakfast. It's so good of the World Government to protect us from them.
I wish the World Government had stopped the clymit changing when it was warm, not cold like it's been for as long as anyone can remember.
My friend Imbecile said that an Intelligent told her that it's so cold because we're in something called a Seveer Deepsolar Minimum, but she hates Intelligents because they want us to stop living in huts and to stop the World Government from sending us dead rats to eat, so she put her fingers in her ears and pretended she couldn't hear him, which is something my grandfather used to do a lot....
Complain about this comment
Ok I accept my last post being referred. Obviously a link the mods don't like , or are still laughing at , so for others , look for a website called "cruelmistress"
Complain about this comment
@PAWB46 #65
Erm, think this was O level physics rather than PhD level, but, ignoring the details of poitsplace's example for a moment, I thought the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applied to closed systems. With higher frequency energy including visible light coming in from the sun, and lower frequency energy being radiated out to space, how is the Earth's weather system a closed system?
Complain about this comment
Nice one, Gullible ;)
Complain about this comment
I am really amazed at some of the arrogance on this site and wonder if my compatriot can explain to me exactly what is that a Masters in Structural Engineering qualification is that makes that person an 'X' spurt in climate science?
As I have mentioned before, I am a qualified Chemical Engineer, probably the MOST experienced in my particular field in this country. I too am reasonably well read on the climate topic but in NO WAY does that make me qualified to comment on the science.
Much of what I read here is nothing more (possibly on both sides of the agenda) than good old BS baffles brains.
These last few days the anti-AGW lobby have been having a real "field day"
Why don't we all wait and see what happens in just few days time in Denmark. I am reminded of the song (Kenny Rodgers) "The Gambler".......never count your money while the cards are on the table....
Anyone want to put a years wages on Copenhagen coming up with ..."It's all been a great big scam and we can all go home and do nothing!" ?
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace I read about this non-linear relationship of CO2 absorption and issues of saturation above a certain ppm way back in 1990s. At that time I was a little confused as to how doubling CO2 would produce such a measured global warming effect (as stipulated by IPCC). I guess fluctuations in radiation may be part or other effects.
I did some further research (as you got me thinking), I was assured by reading a (peer-reviewed) paper in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (ok from the 1980s) - that doubling CO2 would produce a 2 degree Celsius rise in ave global temps and run-away global warming would NOT happen due to feedbacks.
Overall I have not found a good explanation for the current hypothesis of the IPCC. There just seems to be no clear answer about the danger of CO2.
Am open to more info as this is a major issue as CO2 is rising - esp. if the new fear is the acidification of the oceans.
Are govts. just taking a pre-cautionary principle?
Complain about this comment
@PAWB46:
"Let's all trust the scientists who publish results without showing us how they do it! Good idea. Engage your brain, please."
Please tell me you have checked the scientific journals.
I would try to speak like you.
Let's all trust the bus drivers, housewifes, nurses, shop keepers who can't do simple mathematics understand some of the most complicated physics. Great idea. Engage your brain, please.
@Jack_Hughes_NZ:
If you've done all that research then you should post links to your papers instead of an article written 30 years ago.
@MangoChutneyUKOK:
Are you saying studying some of the most complicated science in your bedroom in your spare time is the same as doing real research in university?
----------
I would like to believe that global warming is not happening too. But then you'll have to believe that the majority of governments, media and scientists in whole world get together collectively trying to deceive everyone. All those countries, all with very different political agenda, rarely agree on anything managed to pull off the greatest lie. And more remarkably, the only leak from all these collaborations are some hacked emails?
Do you people also believe 911 is an insider job and nobody ever landed on moon too?
Complain about this comment
Tom@32.
The kiwi scientists that did the checking HAD to create their own data because the global warming (tm) scientists refused to share their data.
Mailman
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Thankwerty #72:
Please show me how CRU get from raw data to HadCRUT3 results. Which paper in which scientific journal are all the details provided?
Please show me how some scientists arrive at the conclusion that CO2 drives global temperature (backed up with evidence). Again which paper in which scientific journal?
Complain about this comment
Brilliantly put, thankqwerty, in your recent several posts.
I must tell you that this blog is mostly taken over by the fossil fuel industry proxies, purporting to be this or that person. So don’t worry about the continual circular nonsense they post, especially from the likes of PAWB46, Poitsplace and Mangochutney.
You’re right; of course, they have absolutely no idea about this subject. I have been trying to engage them about facts, figures, volumes and numbers for many a long while but it’s just a moving target.
So you can ignore everything they say. In fact, I’m starting to believe that they are in fact ciphers being generated by some endlessly pointless piece of software. Lately, it’s got much worse and it’s become like some kind of random background noise. I think the ‘sceptics’ have long since bored most people senseless. They’re shooting themselves in the foot 24/7. The BBC guys have certainly given up on them long, long ago.
No wonder Dr Phil Jones of CRU went off line from them many moons ago otherwise they’d just drive you nuts. Nobody really wants to listen to these so called sceptics anymore. They’ll be consigned to the dustbin of history while everyone moves on to new technology and a cleaner world. Maybe, one day we’ll just be able to see one or two of them in the haze of the horizon like some forgotten mirage.
Will anyone miss their pointless rantings, their nudge; nudge; wink, wink, schoolboy one-liners. Not one iota.
Thankqwerty, thank you.
Complain about this comment
Today's crock features Michael Mann - creator of the hockey stick.
It contains this little gem:
"Most climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show that the Earth will respond in an El Nino-like way to global warming.
"But a few of the models do recreate this dynamic "La Nina effect", and suggest that that when you heat the Earth's surface, the climate system tries to offset and cool.
First-up: models do not "show" anything. The models try to predict things. Only measurements and observations can show things.
Then we get this weird idea that most models predict X but some predict the opposite of X. Does this not suggest that many of the models are ... wrong ?
@GrumpyMike - how does this fit with chemical engineering ? Did you ever get models contradicting each other ?
Complain about this comment
BBC Trust [Ed: or should that be mis-trust?]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/index.shtml
BBC Editorial Guidelines
We would like to hear your views on the BBC's Editorial Guidelines which are currently under review.
What do you think the BBC has got right in the draft of the new Guidelines, what do you think it's got wrong and what should the BBC do to improve them?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consultations/departments/bbc/consultation-on-the-bbc-editorial-guidelines/consultation/consult_view
Appeals
If you feel the BBC isn't living up to the highest standards you have the right to complain to the BBC Executive
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/complaints_appeals/index.shtml
How to make an appeal to the Trust
If you have complained to the BBC, or to TV Licensing, or to the Digital Switchover Help Scheme, and you are unhappy with your final response, you can appeal to the Trust. A summary of how you can do this follows. But if you do want to make an appeal we advise you also to read the full Trust guide.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/complaints_appeals/appeal_trust.shtml
How to make a complaint about the Trust
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/complaints_appeals/trust_complaints.shtml
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Please show me how CRU get from raw data to HadCRUT3 results. Which paper in which scientific journal are all the details provided?"
If you want to build an independent instrumental temperature reconstruction, collect the daily station data you feel best cover the globe and construct an algorithm to convert that raw input into temperatures. Hadcrut, GISTEMP and NOAA already do this using their own separate methods, which you can glean an overview of from their respective published papers. You can stick closely to one particular methodology therefore attempting to reproduce that temperature record, or you can decide to use a new methodology of your own to produce yet another independent instrumental temperature record. At the end of either path you can compare the resulting temperature record with the others.
"Please show me how some scientists arrive at the conclusion that CO2 drives global temperature (backed up with evidence). Again which paper in which scientific journal?"
There is no single paper. These days the IPCC report, due to the effort that goes into it, is the best overview of the science.
Complain about this comment
ScudLewis at #71
If you haven’t already read it, this document may be of interest to you:-
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
Go to the ‘full report’ and scroll down to page 36,
Titled ‘2.1 Emission of long-lived GHGs’.
Complain about this comment
poster #60 wants us to ignore climate models scientists have written in favor of the climate model in #60s head
Complain about this comment
Either the "truth" means something - based on verifable data - or we are living in Alice in Wonderland, where anything means whatever you want it to. By adopting ad hominems like "skeptic" (= Greek "Skepsis" = "thought") you boys really show yourselves up as the eco-facists you are. All you can do is throw snow because the game is up. You have been found out. You are finished. All you have left on your side are like-minded liars.
Complain about this comment
A nice easy article for BBC reporters to understand of WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T EVIDENCE OF AGW. Oh and the comments are worth reading too - you mind find something worth reporting on rather than the usual Copenhagen propaganda.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-is-%e2%80%94-and-what-isnt-%e2%80%94-evidence-of-global-warming/2/
Complain about this comment
Sorry - this is the correct link
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-is-%e2%80%94-and-what-isnt-%e2%80%94-evidence-of-global-warming/
Complain about this comment
infinity #80
you refer us to the IPCC report. One of the areas that I have difficulties with is table 2.11 in 4AR. This appears to be a summary of known forcing agents and shows certainties and uncertainties. It also shows a level of scientific understanding (LSU). There are 16 forcing agents and the LSU range is : high, medium, low and very low. Only one scores high – long lived green house gases. There are 2 medium, 2 medium/low, 6 low and 5 very low.
On the face of it, it is difficult to reconcile these scores with the IPCC 90% confidence level.
Can you offer any insight?
Complain about this comment
@soveryodd Thanks for the IPCC link. The part on Ocean Acidification is short - so hopefully some work is being done there to find out more and quick (looks like a serious issue).
Apologies for the continued sceptical tone - but the IPCC report simply states that increased CO2 means increased temp (is it so sure of the mechanism?).
Is the 'evidence' of a non-linear relationship of CO2 absorption and issues of saturation above a certain ppm considered inaccurate or irrelevant?
Again - not being sceptical as reducing CO2 / pollution seems a fantastic idea (for many reasons) - but I hope CO2 / Climate Change is not a Trojan Horse and is being over-sold as a human-only problem or just an issue of CO2. The climate is changing - no doubt about that.
Complain about this comment
AndrewSouthLondon #83
This is what George Monbiot said in yesterday’s Guardian:-
‘.......By comparison to his opponents, Phil Jones (CRU) is pure as the driven snow. Hoggan and Littlemore have shown how fossil fuel industries have employed "experts" to lie, cheat and manipulate on their behalf. The revelations in their book (as well as in Heat and in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat Is On) are 100 times graver than anything contained in these emails.’
I take it you do not believe there is a problem in pumping 38,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 from fossil fuels into the Earth’s atmosphere each year?
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace, #60
Would you not say that if the theory of anthropogenic climate change could be dismissed by simple physics such as that you have postulated, that we wouldn't even be talking about it today. There are several thousand scientists in the IPCC, do you really think that none of them would have noticed this?
The exact mechanism by which CO2 traps heat close to the earth's surface is by absorbing light at infra-red wavelengths after it has been emitted from the earth's surface. It then re-emits this in all directions, meaning a smaller proportion of the heat is radiated into space. This is the scientifically proven fact to which I was referring.
It is true that perhaps this will result in less radiant infra red from reaching the tropopause, possibly reducing it's temperature. This could damp the effect of global warming in the way you describe, but are you really suggesting that you know enough to suggest that these rebound effects will completely cancel out the extra heat trapped by carbon dioxide?
And as for your last question, nobody alive can answer that.
@PAWB46 #65
I was referring to climate in a global sense. I know you're intelligent enough to realise that, so could we please stick to debating the science as opposed to petty one-upmanship with snide one-liners?
And if you look at any graph of average global temperature over the last century, the trend is for a sharp and accelerating rise, in line with CO2 emissions, and bearing no strong relation to solar output, volcanic events, or planetary alignment of any description.
This graph here is from NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
The trend is clearly one of increasing temperature. Starting a line in the anomalously hot year of 1998, and saying that you have proved temperatures are decreasing is simply bad science.
And yes, I was born in 1987. And in response to your ad hominem attack,
UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
STUDYING A MASTERS DEGREE IN SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
Complain about this comment
ScudLewis at #87
Thanks for that.
Have a look at this report:
Working group 1: The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change
At:-
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Particularly interesting in this regard is the section near the bottom entitled:-
‘Uncertainty Guidance Note for the Fourth Assessment Report’
Complain about this comment
soveryodd # 88
a quote from George Monbiot. At the moment George's credbility has taken a bit of a dip. And he has admitted he is not a very good journalist. Apparently he has been putting too much trust in the wrong sort of people.
I would certainly be concerned about that large amount of CO2 that you mention if there was some evidence that it was likely to cause dangerous climate change. Try as I might I cant seem to get anyone to produce that elusive evidence.
as I have said before, if you know what is driving the climate please share it not only with me but with Kevin and Tom
Complain about this comment
Spanglerboy#91
If you read what I said carefully, you’ll see that Monbiot was quoting from a book by Hoggan and Littlemore... ‘who have shown how fossil fuel industries have employed "experts" to lie, cheat and manipulate on their behalf.’
Maybe read their book and see if you agree with them.
As for your second comment, well that’s just part of the circle isn’t it? See post #76.
Also see the excellent post by peadar1987 at # 89. Thanks peadar.
Complain about this comment
Interesting post:
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/new-the-deleted-data/#comments
“
stevemcintyre
I’m having trouble replicating the IPCC Figure even with the digital data.
There’s an interesting endpoint issue : the IPCC figure has been smoothed and has been smoothed to the endpoints. It looks like they substituted “projected” data for actual data in smoothing the Briffa reconstruction.
“
Complain about this comment
"On the face of it, it is difficult to reconcile these scores with the IPCC 90% confidence level. Can you offer any insight?"
The diagram coincidentally has 90% uncertainty ranges on each bar, but I am sure the IPCC 90% confidence level of recent warming being human caused is not soley based on this diagram (if it were it should be higher than 90%)
The LSU's are reflected in the uncertainty ranges given for each bar which cover a 90% confidence range. The 90% confidence range for all the human forcings combined is above the 90% confidence range for the natural forcings. This is easier seen in the diagram in FAQ 2.1
That alone would suggest more than 90% confidence that human forcings have dominated the temperature rise of the past century. At least with what can be quantified.
Complain about this comment
@soveryodd
@infinity
Look, the limiting factor on emissions is in the tropopause. The notch in the outgoing radiation clearly shows this. You and these idiot "scientists" (caught falsifying data and manipulating the peer review system...among other things) are literally claiming that the thing absorbing more energy...WILL COOL! REALLY? You further claim that this cooler region (which BTW will now emit LESS radiation) will somehow "heat" the underlying regions with what will certainly be LESS radiation than it now receives because it's now cooler. You further expect that somehow this heat will build up in these lower levels, increasing their radiant output while AGAIN not warming the tropopause.
I'm sorry if you believe your nonsense but there's just no way the kind of absorption you're talking about is going to work properly. The forcing will be far lower to...non-existent. I'm sorry if you're not able to understand that energy is going to tend to move not from lower concentration to higher but from higher to lower...and if that's just too darned difficult for you to understand, how about "It will tend to warm the layer that's doing the absorbing"
Complain about this comment
@soveryodd
Fossil fuel industry proxies??? You're the one defending an entire clique of scientists that have been shown to be corrupt and admitted the evidence against them is true. You're the one claiming unproven computer models should be trusted more than our own measurements...which show FAR lower sensitivity.
While I actually believe you to simply be a misguided and poorly informed individual...it seems it would be FAR more likely that YOU are a shill of big green since you're saying we shouldn't trust the observational data that your own (corrupt) scientists compiled...apparently because it doesn't show sufficiently alarming warming. No, instead we're supposed to trust models that have already been proven wrong. Yes...you are obviously the most enlightened and honest among us...perhaps you have magic glasses and underwear that allow you to perceive this magically invisible data.
Complain about this comment
Hi I have just popped in for a quick chat because you woke me up with all your arguing,
I am more confused than ever. It looks as if there are some heavyweights in the ring, becoming a bit punch drunk don't you think?
Come on folks, don't be nasty and insulting, just help us ordinary blimps understand this mess, in reasonable language if you please.
OLD GRANNIE WITH A BA(Hons) IN COMMON SENSE
Complain about this comment
@peadar1987 wrote:
Some facts, people:
-Carbon dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas. This has been conclusively proven. No trends, no extrapolated data, just cold, hard, incontrovertible science.
-Global temperatures are rising. Forget about the fact that 1998 was the warmest year on record (and it was surpassed by 2005 anyway), just look at the trend.
-The only major change in conditions that the earth has experienced over the last twenty years has been elevated CO2 levels. No cataclysmic volcanic events, etc.
--------------------end of excerpt-------------------------------------
I'll address the last issue - first, from a natural, environmental perspective, as we really don't understand all the forces and feedbacks associated with Earth's Climate, we really don't know what has changed and what has not, and to what degree any given change affects the climate system.
We do know that in the last 20 years, vast swaths of rainforests have been burned and left to graze cattle or farm palm oil (or various other purposes). Indonesia was almost completely covered with smoke for more than two years - smoke from just burning down the forests for palm oil plantations - to make 'clean fuel'.
The population of the Earth has increased by about 20%, thats a lot more people.
Land use has increased dramatically (see population increase...lol). Take a look at satellite images from 20 years ago and then look at today. Compare what Houston or Shanghai looked like 20 years ago vs. today. Many areas have been used up to the point of desertification. Where there was once empty beaches for miles, there is now hardly a piece of undeveloped land.
A lot of things have changed. To infer that CO2 is the principle driver for climate change is a bit simplistic in my view. Your own statement agrees with the notion that the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperatures is a 'casual relationship', i.e., there is no real proof.
But you go right on ahead believing, if it makes you feel better....
...meanwhile, overfishing will continue, the rainforests will continue to burn, chemical plants in the third world will continue to pollute the environment to the point of being unusable...
...but by all means, carry on...
Cheers.
-Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Richard,
Now the Chinese have come to the table with something real, so ALL the pressure is on the US. Interesting, the Chinese have only promised to reduce emissions on a GDP basis - so their actual emissions will rise, and undoubtedly, they will make gains due to efficiency, just because they are using inefficient and dirty 70's technology - they certainly want to upgrade - they don't like the level of smog they now enjoy.
I think 45% reduction over 2005 levels is a bit optimistic, but in the next dozen years, they should be able to improve efficiencies by 20% - given their starting point. So essentially, they have given nothing - and put the entire onus upon the US for the success or failure of Copenhagen. Very savvy political move.
And as unrealistic and ridiculous as this all is - people like you will eat it up and vilify the US, unless we do exactly what we are told to do by third world dictators and liberals without any concept of the realities of the world.
Good luck with that one mate.
-Kealey
Complain about this comment
Here's the new BBC Editorial Guidelines due to be implemented next year, and you can comment on now here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consultations/departments/bbc/consultation-on-the-bbc-editorial-guidelines/consultation/consult_view
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Check the following:
1.2 EDITORIAL VALUES
1.2.1 Trust
Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our audiences.
1.2.2 Truth and Accuracy
We seek to establish the truth of what has happened and are committed to achieving due accuracy in all our output. Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right; when necessary, we will weigh relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We will strive to be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation.
1.2.3 Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion
Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. We will reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period, so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented. We will do all we can to ensure that ‘controversial subjects’ are treated with due impartiality. We will be fair and open-minded when examining evidence and weighing material facts.
1.2.4 Editorial Integrity and Independence
The BBC is independent of outside interests and arrangements that could undermine our editorial integrity. Our audiences should be confident that our decisions are not influenced by outside interests, political or commercial pressures, or any personal interests.
So, it would seem that pretty much all of the above guidelines are currently being broken.
Please complain to the BBC Trust / your MP.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/complaints_appeals/editorial/index.shtml
Complain about this comment
peadar1987 #89
Given the mess of HadCRUT and knowing that NASAGISS is full of the same sort of "adjustments", I wouldn't put any reliance on that as a source of historical measured temperature. End of theory of CO2 rising in line with temperature.
I assume you have read Prof David MacKay's book "Sustainable energy: without the hot air"? I would get out of the field of "sustainable energy" as soon as possible if I were you, and instead do a quick course in scepticism.
Complain about this comment
Jane #68;
I've neglected you. I didn't realise you were a physicist; now I understand your new-found scepticism! Or have you done a quick course at Wikipedia?
Let's see what our closed system is. It has to include the earth and sun, obviously. The moon and other planets have a second order effect, so we'd better include them. The rest of the universe appears as pretty much close to 0K, so if we put a boundary round the solar system, well there is our closed system. The boundary condition is a black body at ~0K. OK?
Complain about this comment
From denier to sceptic to, now, 'oil-industry' proxy.
Interesting pro... or is it re-gression?
Also interesting how this blog used to be hostile ground to any with simple questions on the religious orthodoxy of total AGW ( I recall a cabal calling for those not subscribing to be jailed for not 'getting with the programme' whilst also feeling a 'temporary suspension' (bless) of democratic process and freedom of speech might be called for, so those who were 'right' could be freed to get on with doing what was/is 'best').
Now it's in danger of swinging to another, equally dogmatic point. I do hope without the irony-failure again of demanding counter-views be suppressed.
Regrettable, but sadly fueled by mostly totally defensive lashing out than any reasoned argument to temper more extreme views that detract from maintaining concern about the future in favour of tribal oneupmanship.
That said, this episode should be a wake-up call to those in the politico-media establishment who until this point seemed to feel their cosy settlement of what they want to be over what is, and steamrollering of public opinion, would suffice over actual mandate. From a public that is 'informed', more and more outside the traditional MSM.
Which makes the lack of interest of an in theory competent, professional (all true or 'explicable' or not, the extent of the revelations must certainly qualify as 'news' vs. much that is subjected to the new water oversight we have been promised) MSM all the more odd.
Such a disconnect, more like bum's rush... or as some call it 'enhanced narrative' , 'interpreting events' (or, currently, ignoring any events have happened in editorial by omission)... are hardly firm foundations upon which to build public trust, especially as a basis for actions that will have massive consequences and will require support.
'What else have you not told us?' is usually not the best way to secure that.
Complain about this comment
I honestly can not believe the Arrogance shown by the bbc in keeping this quite, i want to rip my licence up. I have always stood by this corporation but never ever again.
Complain about this comment
Re: #76. soveryodd
I'm with you -- the above reads like a collective temper tantrum.
I find the BBC's coverage of this issue perfectly appropriate and balanced.
Complain about this comment
michael mann at last discovers the MWP!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8381317.stm
Complain about this comment
Just saw this on a blog...
BBC television licence... £142.50
BBC coverage of climate... worthless
Complain about this comment
@TVGirl #105
BBC accused of institutional 'trendy left-wing bias'
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-bbc-accused-of-institutional-trendy-left-wing-bias.do
..."The report also urged the BBC not to "close down the debate" on climate change, despite the corporation admitting that it no longer felt it necessary to justify equal space being given to opponents of the consensus on the issue."
Complain about this comment
@ thankqwerty #72
Are you saying studying some of the most complicated science in your bedroom in your spare time is the same as doing real research in university?
You make it sound difficult. There are only 2 fundamental questions to study. As I have asked many times on this blog, because there has never been an answer, here are the 2 fundamental questions:
1 Under atmospheric conditions, is CO2 capable of raising the temperature significantly?
2 Based on empirical evidence, is climate sensitivity high or low?
@soveryodd #76
I must tell you that this blog is mostly taken over by the fossil fuel industry proxies, purporting to be this or that person.
Paranoia creeping in there mate. I wish I was being paid by the fossil fuel industry, I could do with a nice holiday!
I have been trying to engage them about facts, figures, volumes and numbers for many a long while but it’s just a moving target.
So answer my 2 fundamental questions and I will go away. Don’t say the ice is melting, therefore it must be AGW, don’t say CO2 has risen, temperature has risen, therefore it must be AGW, give me answers that show empirically that CO2 is able to raise the temperature significantly and climate sensitivity is high. And please do not say the IPCC told you so.
And just so you know, there is empirical evidence to show climate sensitivity is low (Lindzen etc) and the absorption curve of CO2 is for all intents and purposes saturated, which means CO2 cannot produce a significant rise in temperature without climate sensitivity being high.
Mango
CSE GRADE 2 IN WOODWORK
Complain about this comment
@soveryodd #76
I must tell you that this blog is mostly taken over by the fossil fuel industry proxies, purporting to be this or that person
Nope, University of London here, working for department with research including alternative energies, wind-turbine design etc.
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK I echo some of your points. The fact that CO2 is a GHG is not in question, just a bit confused as to research / evidence that states that the relationship between Temp and CO2 is non-linear - i.e. the more you add the less effect it has. Is this correct?
Complain about this comment
scudlewis #111
The fact that CO2 is a GHG is not in question, just a bit confused as to research / evidence that states that the relationship between Temp and CO2 is non-linear - i.e. the more you add the less effect it has. Is this correct?
Absolutely correct. The first 20 ppmv are the most important, each additional 20ppm still adds some warming, but the warming diminishes to follow the logarithmic absorption curve of CO2, up to the saturation point. The thing that raises the temperature significantly, or not, is the feedbacks, which can be positive or negative (climate sensitivity). Observational evidence shows climate sensitivity to be low, not high, as calculated by the IPCC
Complain about this comment
Infinity # 94
Soveryodd # 92
Thank you both for your responses. I hope you do not mind a response to both of you as this relates to the underlying science.
Table 2.11 from 4AR is the uncertainty assessment of forcing agents. I list below the agents and the level of scientific understanding
LLGHGs – high
Stratospheric ozone – medium
Tropospheric ozone – medium
Stratospheric water vapour from CH4 – low
Direct aerosol – medium to low
Cloud albedo effect (all aerosols) – low
Surface albedo (land use) – medium to low
Surface albedo (BC aerosol on snow) – low
Persistent linear contrails – low
Solar irradiance – low
Volcanic aerosol – low
Stratospheric water vapour from causes other than CH4 oxidation – very low
Tropospheric water vapour from irrigation – very low
Aviation induced cirrus – very low
Cosmic rays – very low
Other surface effects – very low
To the lay reader, this gives the impression of a science in its infancy. There appears to be a lot more here that is unknown than that which is known.
As I say I cannot reconcile this stated level of scientific understanding of the forces that drive our climate with a 90% confidence level. And for all we know there may be other forces. Piers Corbyn may, I stress may, have uncovered other forces that drive the climate.
In the very recent past (October 2009) we have seen an exchange of emails between Kevin Trenberth and Tom Wigley in which they allegedly say
‘ Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin’
Tom’s reply
‘Kevin,
I didn't mean to offend you. But what you said was "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment". Now you say "we are no where close to knowing where energy is going". In my eyes these are two different things -- the second relates to our level of understanding, and I agree that this is still lacking.
Tom’
To me this seems to reflect fairly clearly what the IPCC say in their report. The current level of scientific understanding is pretty low.
The fact that the nations of the world are going to congregate in Copenhagen in a few days time to try to agree a global policy to deal with climate change when the level of scientific understanding appears to be so low seems to me to be a little premature.
Complain about this comment
The story that won't go away.
Top Story UK: CLIMATEGATE
Top Story US: CLIMATEGATE
Top Story EU: CLIMATEGATE
Top Story UN: CLIMATEGATE
Top Story China: CLIMATEGATE
Top Story India: CLIMATEGATE
Top Story Australia-NZ: CLIMATEGATE
Top Story Far East: CLIMATEGATE
Top Story Middle East: CLIMATEGATE
Top Story Russia: CLIMATEGATE
Top Story South America: CLIMATEGATE
The BBC fiddles while CRU burns.
Complain about this comment
The BBC ostrich method of (not) reporting a story they don't like. Stick your head in the ground and hope it all blows over.
How can the Richard Black, the BBC's top 'environment correspondent' ever be taken seriously again? How can we trust you Richard, when you just ignore the biggest environmental story for years.
You stated on another thread that it is not the BBCs role to comment but to analyse. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the BBC comments on stories all the time, where is the in-depth analysis of the content of the e-mails? That means all of them, not just a couple.
One of the most shameful ever episodes of bias and non-reporting I have ever witnessed at the BBC (and there is a lot of competition for that honour).
Complain about this comment
vidl @ 78 100
Have you seen my post at 43?
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK Well perhaps the CO2 is having a more in-direct warming effect than direct effect?
The AGW camp (if you can call them that) state a simple case of CO2 rise = Temp rise. Is this just a simplified version of a more complicated situation? I would like the more complicated version TBH - esp. if the simple explanation is just inaccurate.
To me this all lacks the certainty and confirmation of a hypothesis that is required to spend billions. Perhaps I am missing some key point that is more obvious to other (more informed) individuals.
Complain about this comment
105. At 08:18am on 27 Nov 2009, TVGgirl
I find the BBC's coverage of this issue perfectly appropriate and balanced.
Best comment so far. And I find its calibre highly instrumental in informing and persuading my take on points being discussed, in coming to an evolving view.
Tribal adherence and a good put down will trump logic and facts (especially linked ones) in argument every time. You go, girl!
Complain about this comment
ps: Interesting noting this from 'Latest Reporters Blogs" featured quotes top right:
Richard Black:
"A fair bit of the doubt and confusion surrounding next month's UN climate summit has suddenly cleared, with the world's..."
Read on to discover what the cleared doubt and confusion is...
It's all a matter of priorities. Especially those of the guys with the keys to the edit suite, possibly?
Complain about this comment
@scudlewis #117
the indirect warming effect is climate sensitivity.
Essentially the argument is CO2 causes a little warming which is amplified by feedbacks. These feedbacks are either positive (amplify warming) or negative (reduce warming). The combination of these feedbacks is climate sensitivity. Sensitivity has been measured as being low by scientists working in the field and calculated as high by computers.
It's up to you who you believe - real measurements or computers
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK Thanks - a conundrum. As for computer models, they're not very popular at the moment in the media. Oh well - the old wait and see approach. I'll wait for real measurements (if those can be believed? [whole other story I don't doubt!]).
Complain about this comment
@yertizz #116
Yes...I was trying to promote the other option of complaining to the BBC Trust who are meant to be Mr Thompson's sort-of virtual bosses.
I, like you, have experienced the cr*p from the BBC complaints system, for example, when enquiring about the patronising use of logos on some channels. The response was along the lines of "we don't care it ruins your viewing like those other things we do that no-one likes, like credit-squeezing, anyway, we've decided to do it and there's nothing you can do that will make us change our minds, because we are the BBC and we are RIGHT!".
(Bit like AGW bias, then...)
Complain about this comment
What I find interesting from a sociological viewpoint is how people interpret things based on their own belief system.
For example, I am inherently a cynic, and also personally believe that humankind has a tendency to overstate its capability to be responsible for anything good or bad that happens to the world - I suppose that is a natural behaviour and good for the ego, but I find analysis of the natural world shows that we are relatively insignificant (particularly when extended to a universe scale).
Therefore, when presented three major temperature datasets that concur (HADCRU, NASA and the other one whose name escapes me at the moment), and then being presented with evidence that one of the major temperature record datasets has been manipulated to show man-made warming where the instrumental record does not support that (HADCRU), it makes me doubt all of the other temperature record analysis.
This seems logical to me, as either the scientists have manipulated one record to match the others (which is confirmation bias and indicates the records did not match originally), or as many of the people involved are in close working contact with the other authors of the datasets, that all have altered following the same methodology. This fits neatly in with my cynically view of humanity, and also with my belief that these people are naturally trying to impose some sense of human control over what I believe to be an uncontrollable process.
However, to take soveryodd as one example, when presented with exactly the same information they chose to believe that the other two temperature records are still correct, and therefore that overrides the fact that the other one may not be (i.e. they believe the consensus is still there, despite one element being shown to have doubts over its authenticity). This indicates to me that their belief system must be diametrically opposed to my own, and therefore any attempt to convince them otherwise is doomed to failure.
Of course, this is an emotive issue, and the concern for people on either side is that if their viewpoint is proved right, it will be a disaster if we go down the route proposed by the other side (so if the AGW supporters are correct, and we do not take action, the world will become less hospitable to a proportion of the population, whereas if the non-AGW supporters are correct, and we do take action, we could cripple the world economy whilst attempting to prevent the warming that will never happen).
When issues get emotive, the only recourse is to return to the actual evidence - unfortunately the fact that this science is so open in interpretation and so limited in understanding means this evidence is hard to come by.
But if the choice is taking drastic steps to lower CO2 emissions at great cost, on the possibility that the warming can be averted (and also the possibility that lowering CO2 has no effect on the warming anyway as it is natural climate change, not man-made) OR spending that money ensuring that that people can be raised out of poverty, fed and provided with the tools to better their own lives, I know where I would be putting the money...
Complain about this comment
Climategate - The Guilty Indentified
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/crunet.gif
Complain about this comment
Forgetting the dicusssion about who's qualified to make any comment on MMGW, I have one simple question.....
CO2 levels continue to rise but average global temperature plateaued in 1997 and has been falling since 2000. If there is a link between the two, how come?
The inability of the "Global Cooling Sceptics" to answer this question by itself blows the whole MMGW theory out of the water. What we've seen in the last week just shows what lengths they'll go to in order to protect their funding to carry on researching a defunct hypothesis.
Complain about this comment
@minuend #124
Exactly what Wegman said, but in picture format
Complain about this comment
Climategate - Mann's fraud EXPOSED again
From ClimateAudit:
Yet another Upside Down Mann out
by Jean S on November 27th, 2009
Science published today yet-another-Mann-et-al-reconstruction:
Michael E. Mann, Zhihua Zhang, Scott Rutherford, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Drew Shindell, Caspar Ammann, Greg Faluvegi, and Fenbiao N: Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly, Science 326 (5957), 1256. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1177303].
Seems to me that Mann has re-discovered the Medieval Warm Period.
I had a quick look at the paper, SI, and the code. What seems to be done this time is that the proxy network of Mann et al (2008) is processed with a slightly modified screening of Mann et al (2008), and then the reconstruction is done with a slightly modified RegEM CFR of Mann et al (2007)! Now to answer the question that seems to be on everyone's lips: yes, Tiljander series are still used as inverted. This can be seen from the positive screening correlation values reported in the file 1209proxynames.xls. In fact, going quickly through the screening code, it seemed to me that they have really "moved on" from the screening employed in Mann et al (2008): only "two-sided test" is used!
%------------------------------------------------------------------
%% below is for selecting full/screened/1856-1925 screened/1926-1995 screened proxy-network
%% replacing "abs(z(4,i))>=0.165"/"abs(z(5,i))>=0.513" in line 75/84 with the followings for your expected proxy-network
%% abs(z(4,i))>=0 / abs(z(5,i))>=0 (full proxy-network)
%% abs(z(4,i))>=0.162 / abs(z(5,i))>=0.496 (screening over 1850-1995)
%% abs(z(6,i))>=0.195 / abs(z(7,i))>=0.602 (screening over 1896-1995)
%--
This means that if a proxy has a strong inverted correlation to the (two-pick?) local temperature, it gets picked - no matter what the physical interpretation is! Since RegEM doesn't care about the sign, it is now really so that the sign does not matter to them anymore. Anything goes!
I'm speechless.
Complain about this comment
vidl @ 122
I applaud your effort to widen the net, so to speak, but I have tried the Trust route to no avail. They simply say they have no remit to interfere in the day-to-day editorial decisions...then referred me straight to the BBC Complaints Department!
Thus the Circular Denial principle is encouraged by the Trust.
They are only interested in protecting the status quo.
Pathetic!
Complain about this comment
re 123: "and then being presented with evidence that one of the major temperature record datasets has been manipulated to show man-made warming where the instrumental record does not support that (HADCRU)"
No such evidence has been presented. This is why you aren't convincing us.
That GISTEMP and NOAA records (and since 1979 also RSS and UAH satellite records) concur with HADCRUT is actually evidence against HADCRUT being manipulated to show man-made (?) global warming. In the absense of evidence to the contrary, why should we believe such baseless accusations?
Complain about this comment
Re 125: Global temperature didn't plateau in 1997.
Complain about this comment
minuend and mango:
Exactly, Wegman was right (as we knew).
Where is Richard to answer the questions?
I think he (and the BBC) has lost all credibility.
minuend #127:
And the BBC is reporting this earth-shattering cr*p by Mann et al (the usual clique) as science! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8381317.stm by Victoria Gill (science correspondent).
Has the BBC no shame. Do they not do any checking of what they publish?
Complain about this comment
Mind you Victoria Gill was a business correspondent last year!
Complain about this comment
Re 120: "Sensitivity has been measured as being low by scientists working in the field and calculated as high by computers."
Studies trying to dertermine sensitivity, both through empirical evidence and through modelling have overwhelmingly found high climate sensitivity. I don't see the justification in citing one study (eg Lindzen) and dismissing a larger body of studies.
Complain about this comment
@infinity #133
sorry, i must have missed the empirical evidence showing sensitivity to be high - could you cite please?
thanks
Complain about this comment
@infinity #133
Please quote references for where EMPIRICAL evidence has found high climate sensitivity with regards CO2.
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
#120 mangochutney
scudlewis, mango for once makes a valid comment. not about measurements vs computers but about who you believe.
check out the papers in the literature, check out the scientists, check out the major sceptics (singer, mcintyre etc) but take comment board comments with a huge pinch of salt :o)
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #136
i believe the measurements, what do you believe?
also, please cite the papers for us to check
thanks
Complain about this comment
Re 113: "To the lay reader, this gives the impression of a science in its infancy. There appears to be a lot more here that is unknown than that which is known."
You are correct, but there is an uneven spread of certainty and uncertainty which can be used to reach certain conclusions. In this case the recent warming being human caused is more likely than not given the uncertainty. Some people argue the uncertainty itself is a risk.
Re 95: You aren't describing how the greenhouse effect works, so you've disproved an idea that noone is even proposing.
Complain about this comment
"sorry, i must have missed the empirical evidence showing sensitivity to be high - could you cite please?"
I will have to cite tonight as I don't remember the reference - knutti I believe. It's a review of all published sensitivity estimates, including ones derived from empirical data not climate models.
Complain about this comment
@infinity #129
And the first person to respond perfectly proves my point. Despite it being clear that the temperature record has been adjusted for HADCRUT (unless you are claiming the code excerpts that have been released are not authentic, despite yet being denied as authentic by the people responsible for creating them?), you believe that two other temperature records showing the same thing is evidence they weren't adjusted??
If you had responded by saying that they were adjusted, but that the adjustment was statistically valid based on the supported science, I at least might have thought you were basing it on some scientific principles. Instead, you just simply point blank refuse to acknowledge they were manipulated at all...
If the data, code and emails released are genuine, no-one can deny that the HADCRUT data has been manipulated in some way. Prof Jone, Mann and others are apparently claiming that manipulation is supported by their belief that the instrumental record is not correct (this can also be seen in the press release from the NZ NWIA team around their similar data manipulation).
However, the only evidence to support the manipulation is their work on proxy models that have been shown not to match the instrumental record, and therefore their desire to alter the data to show warming is only consistent with their belief that there has been warming, which is pure confirmation bias (i.e. I believe this, the data does not show it so I manipulate the data to support my belief in it).
If the GISTEMP and NOAA records show the same temperature record as HADCRUT, they have therefore either been manipulated in the same way, or they did not have the same base readings as HADCRUT, thus demonstrating that measuring temperature is a difficult business, and that there is uncertainty in the results, uncertainty that may swamp any meaningful analysis. For example, and I am not proposing this is the level of uncertainty, or the actual figures involved (I am using simple numbers to keep the analogy simple), but if I can only measure temperature averages to within 2 degrees, how can I have any meaningful and statistical analysis of that data to say I am 90% certain the Earth has warmed by 1 degree a decade. Based on the uncertainty in my measurements, it could have warmed 3 degrees a decade, cooled 2 degrees a decade or done pretty much anything in between?
This is the crux, I think, of the rational skeptic's argument - that if there is such uncertainty in the analysis (uncertainty that is reflected in the IPCC reports) and if the hacked data shows some confirmation bias on the behalf of a number of the key scientists involved in drafting the IPCC reports, and if as a result of that there may only be evidence to show the Earth's climate is changing, not that we are influencing it, how can anyone be certain the science is settled to the degree that we should spend billions of pounds trying to correct a problem which may not exist?
Of course, none of this is going to matter to you, as you are simply going to pretend my post did not exist...
Complain about this comment
China’s different measurement method is symptomatic of the confused state of thinking by the worlds policy makers. If global warming is anthropomorphic this fragmented approach is very unlikely to control it.
Controlling global warming is an opportunity to fix three major world problems; climate change, third world poverty and population growth. Market forces can produce beneficial effects if the right agreement is made. To work, it's got to be global, simple and fair to all. Since most of the world’s population are emitters of carbon dioxide, emissions are the wrong thing to control. In the same way we fixed the hole in the ozone layer by controlling CFC production, not emissions, we need to control fossil fuel production. A global cap and trade agreement of a quota on fossil fuel production that tapers down to sustainable levels would work. To be fair the quota should be assigned to countries in proportion to their population. The quota would then be traded, distributing wealth to less developed countries. If a country’s future quota was inversely related to its population growth, population reduction would be encouraged. Three world problems fixed.
Complain about this comment
@infinity #133
The field its self (of 'in the field' fame ;) is not showing high sensitivty. Using the 1940's plateau to more recent plateau (To help eliminate the warming/cooling cycle) you find that the rate of warming is somewhere around that which would be expected for CO2 alone. This analysis of course assumes that 100% of the warming was from CO2. It was more likely however that there was also an additional, natural warming component and that CO2's impact was much lower or entirely absent.
Complain about this comment
@rossglory Agreed. The debate seems to be around anthropogenic - I doubt we will ever have a clear answer (well not for 400 years!). Perhaps I am agnostic rather than a GW sceptic - from what you say.
I am concerned about the political hijacking of the debate - on both sides - to meet it's own agenda. Too much of this 'us & them' attitude is not healthy, and at worst makes people too radical / dangerous / angry. I won't play this game.
Perhaps we should all treat Climate Change as real (which it is), modify ourselves accordingly, make moves to a Low-Carbon / Low-Polluting economy (for security and REAL env. reasons) - and perhaps not for the reasons related to scare stories, mis-information or coercion.
Perhaps a little honesty is required?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
How To Paint A Hockey Stick: (In the style of Rolf Harris)
"Heh-hah-heh-hah"
"Just need to make a correction here"
"De-doom-te-doom"
"..and a correction there"
"Wibble-wobble"
"Can You Tell What It Is Yet? No, it's not two little boys!"
"Heh-hah-heh-hah"
"Can You Tell What It Is Yet? No, it's not a tied down kangeroo!"
"De-doom-te-doom"
"There finished. Any guesses? No"
"Wibble-wobble"
"Its a broken hockey stick. The Poor Little Blighter"
Complain about this comment
@infinity #139
I think the paper you are refering to is "The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes" Knutti & Hegerl, 2008.
It's an interesting paper, which has a section on the paleoclimate argument. It cites Hoffert and Covey 1992 and Covey et al 1996, but does not attempt to address the opposing Lindzen articles, other than by dismissal of Lindzen, and clearly doesn't address Lindzen's latest (2009) studies and observational evidnce.
Complain about this comment
Here's a question for those who think the emails between Jones and Mann have been taken out of context.
Exactly what context should the following be taken in?
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
(email Jones to Mann)
Thanks in advance
Complain about this comment
How to make a Hockey Stick: (in the style of Top Gear team)
JC: "Well our challenge this week is to make a hockey stick for less than a fiver"
RH: "Yes, whilst Jeremy makes a hockey blade from a 911 Porsche. Captain Slow and I will look for a bit wood panelling from an old Rover to make a shaft."
JM: "OH C@#K, this wood has got bumps all over it. How are we meant to make that straight?"
Zoom into machine tools.
Sound Effects: Whhhizzzzz, brrrrrrr, saw, saw, chip, chip, hammer, hammer.
RH: "Finished now lets see what Mr Impractical has produced"
Cue JC coming out of a garage with a 6ft blade with go-faster stripes.
JM: "How the hell are supposed to attach that to this piece of wood?"
RH: "Easy, we use a 100 hundred foot roll of duct tape"
A close in shot of the finished hockey stick.
Pan out slowly..........suddenly a Morris Minor falls from the sky and smashes the hockey stick to bits.
JC: ".....and on that bombshell"
Complain about this comment
re 140:
I didn't say they hadn't been adjusted. Of course they have, you have to adjust the raw data to produce a valid temperature records. The raw data contains errors that must be corrected (adjusted). You claimed the adjutments of being incorrect, you didn't present any evidence.
Complain about this comment
# 42.wrote: “You need to page down the link to the comment by R2D2 - Richard Treadgold's request for the Hokitika data, and their persistence in only giving out the Wellington data - wonder why?”
A conspiracy no doubt, and anything that proves overwise must, by definition, be part of the conspricy. That's how conspriacy theories work, right?
Hokitika moved 3 times. Since Treadgold didn’t adjust for the Wellington site moving, he’s not going to adjust for Hokitika either. NIWA methodology was sound, the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition’s methodology was completely flawed and their results fundamentally wrong - comparing apples with oranges.
Isn’t the issue here the scandal of the manipulation of data by the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition? There is more on the scandal here:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise
Complain about this comment
Richard Black writes a piece and invites comment........
148 comments (and counting) and we have no response from Black......
AM I MISSING SOMETHING, HERE?
Complain about this comment
@tom_cripin51 #150
i guess the real truth will emerge when NIWA releases the raw data and show explicitly what has been adjusted, by whom and why, something our very own CRU has failed to do so far
Complain about this comment
Story No. 1 today in the USA: the "discovery" that 40% of food produced, distributed and purchased in the US is wasted -- goes right into the landfill.
Amazingly, this is news to many Americans. The anti-Obama agitators believe this is just a huge fiction, that the White House is planning to spring "Soviet-style Communism and food rationing" on innocent, virtuous Americans...
The link, should you care to read about how much energy could be conserved just by having Americans learn to count & self-regulate:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20091126/sc_livescience/americanstossout40percentofallfood
The story appears on LiveScience.com
I do not need persuasion, because have lived there for decades and watched all this in dumbfounded disbelief...
Complain about this comment
@infinity #149
So the raw data is in error, and the adjustments are correct?
As compared to say, the raw data being correct, and the adjustments being wrong?
Or even the raw data being wrong and the adjustments being wrong, as the error margins are so big and the adjustment factors so uncertain?
Nowhere has actual physical evidence been treated as actual physical evidence. If you believe all the allegations, actual physical data has either been ignored or adjusted based on a set of underlying assumptions.
Now these assumptions may or may not be correct, and that is a worthwhile discussion. However, regardless of context a number of the released emails do seem to indicate that the individuals involved were not certain on the assumptions (most notably the reliability of the proxy assumptions) but went ahead and manipulated the data anyway - or in some cases cherry picked data that supported and ignored data that did not.
Complain about this comment
I like your style Mango,
You made me laugh....keep whittling away and maybe you will go up to a grade I in GCSE Woodwork ;-)
minuend,
Nice bit of carpentry there.
tom-cripins51,
Can you explain your fruit analogy to me please, preferably without any squishing and juicing. I mean.... it has been made to look as if the two graphs fit together quite well when one set of data is manipulated to move into the new graph position. Is that wrong then?
Complain about this comment
There is a great piece about the BBC's lack of reporting the news about Climategate at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018066/bbcs-paleo-news-site-finally-runs-a-real-scoop-story-on-climategates-michael-mann/ Some great comments.
Any reason the BBC is not reporting Climategate Richard?
Has the BBC still got all its heads up its collective place?
Complain about this comment
yertizz (No. 151): Apparently you are new to the process.
Hang in there. The comments are exchanged by the participants.
The Editors are busy doing their essential work, for which we thank them.
Lots of other blogs work this way: New York Times, for example, LA Times, CNN...
Take it easy. Keep reading. Keep thinking.
Complain about this comment
minuend #148:
Who is that Mann?
Some say he can create a hockey stick out of thin air. All we know is they call him the Stig.
Complain about this comment
sensibleoldgrannie
I like your style Mango, You made me laugh....keep whittling away and maybe you will go up to a grade I in GCSE Woodwork ;-)
I've been whittling away at the alarmists for some time now, but they keep denying i'm a pretty good carpenter, even though i am mostly self taught ;)
Complain about this comment
this is interesting:
In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.
A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC....
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.
Written in the Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996:
http://www.congregator.net/articles/majordeception.html
Complain about this comment
@PAWB46 #158
Who is that Mann?
Some say he can create a hockey stick out of thin air. All we know is they call him the Stig.
You have it all wrong, my friend
Some say, he produced warming in the Antarctica out of cooling
Some say, he completely ignored East Antarctica cooling, but relied on a few stations to extrapolate warming
All we know, is he's called The Stieg
lol
Complain about this comment
Ok own up who did it? Who put a picture of Fuzzy Bear on the main page story Past Climate anomalies explained?
Whoops my mistake its Upside Down Mann, superhero with a hockey stick, Now there is a MWP but it was cool? Was that a El Nina effect, LIA but it was warm? due to El Nino
Oh its so confusing, but lets try and guess who the peer-reviewers are should we, posted on WUWT on the same subject:
"A quick one, if Greenland was warmer but the Pacific colder, then one way of doing that is to re-orient the Earth’s rotational axis by an EM (non gravity) interaction by the Earth with an interloper.
The trouble with working out palaeo climates is defining a 3-D benchmark for the Earth’s celestial orientation over time. No one on Earth could have done this, yet we have to physically account for the Egyptian records that report the sun rising in the west while it, before, the east.
I err – Earth based scientists could have by observing astronomical data, but then those observations assume the Lyellian paradigm that since Creation, nothing much has changed".
Complain about this comment
How to make a Hockey Stick: (Blue Peter style)
BP presenter: "Right what you need is two coat hangers, sticky-back plastic and a tortoise..... Down Shep, Down!"
BPP: "First thing is to cut and straighten and twist together the coat hangers with industrial cutters and pliers. Remember to ask your parents permission... Down Shep, Down!""
BPP: "Now using the 12" hunting knife deshell the tortoise. You may need an adult to help you. Split the shell in two..... Down Shep, Down!"
BPP: "Now fix the straighted coat hanger shaft using the sticky-backed plastic to the curved top shell........Down Shep, Down!"
BPP: "To save time here is one I made earlier.......Down Shep, Down!"
Shep jumps up and swallows the befuddled and naked tortoise whole.
BPP: "I'll get shot for that"
Complain about this comment
Mango: You can see that I never was much good at making things up. That's why I became a physicist and not a climate scientist.
Complain about this comment
Has Richard ever gone over 160 posts without a response?
I know the answer. He went 215 posts without responding on the previous thread. Added to this, that makes ~280 posts without a reply.
Where is Richard?
Hello, hello, anyone in at the BBC?????
Anyone heard of Climategate?????
Complain about this comment
How to make a Hockey Stick: (Antiques Roadshow style)
MM: Here's what I dug up, what do you think?
Expert: Interesting, I'm sure my colleagues at the BBC will love it. Unfortunately - (drops to a whisper) don't tell any of my MSM colleagues MSM this, else I'll get blackballed just like that Bellamy bloke - it doesn't look genuine
MM: (accusingly) Why not?
Expert: Well there should be a big bump here (points to middle), yet yours has a big bump here (points to end).
MM: (red-faced) Hummmm.... tell you what, let me have another look.
38 seconds later...
MM: (proud) Look, I've put a bit in the middle now, how's that?
Expert: (Python-stylee) You've just nailed a bit on!
MM: (under breath) Look mate, you've got a Charter to think of. If you don't tell everyone it's genuine, I'll gonna 'ave a word wiv my mate Mr Black and ask him what's going on...
Expert: (leaving) Stuff it, I'm off to the Daily Mail.
Complain about this comment
Bishophill seems to know what's going on
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/27/whitewash-starting.html
Complain about this comment
@everyone who commented at my posts.
thank you. i'm not letting this matter drop, i'm just away at a wedding. normal service will be resumed on tuesday^^.
i'm waiting for the bbc and my MP to respond. I'm also contacting the independant complaints comission.
Re: speaking on scientific matters.
i am a scientist with over 10 years experience of data evaluation. i would say i am fairly well qualified to comment on both the peer review process, data reliablilty and i'ts manipulation.
The 'climategate' thing stinks to high heaven. amusingly though, the IPCC have released a statement saying none of this affects the agw theory, that's comforting to know isn't it....
Richard. Either comment on this issue or resign. Enough is enough. Regardless of your stance, regardless of how this plays out, it is a VERY important story. You are either unwilling or unable to comment (as is the bbc as a whole. you are therefore not doing your job and should resign.
Complain about this comment
Steve Mcintyres first take on Nobbies new tales from Toy Town, from "climate research news"
Steve McIntyre comments:
Seems to me that Mann has re-discovered the Medieval Warm Period.
I had a quick look at the paper, SI, and the code. What seems to be done this time is that the proxy network of Mann et al (2008) is processed with a slightly modified screening of Mann et al (2008), and then the reconstruction is done with a slightly modified RegEM CFR of Mann et al (2007)! Now to answer the question that seems to be on everyone’s lips: yes, Tiljander series are still used as inverted. This can be seen from the positive screening correlation values reported in the file 1209proxynames.xls. In fact, going quickly through the screening code, it seemed to me that they have really “moved on” from the screening employed in Mann et al (2008): only “two-sided test” is used!
This means that if a proxy has a strong inverted correlation to the (two-pick?) local temperature, it gets picked – no matter what the physical interpretation is! Since RegEM doesn’t care about the sign, it is now really so that the sign does not matter to them anymore. Anything goes!
I’m speechless.
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey (#98)
All the factors you list are human factors. If you attribute climate change to them, it's still anthropogenic.
And it's not as if people have just seen temperatures rising, looked for some random variable that roughly correlates to it. There is a well-known mechanism by which CO2 has an insulating effect on planets. When we discovered the ozone hole, correlating with areas of high atmospheric CFC concentrations, when CFC's were known to break down ozone, people didn't tie themselves in knots blaming the effect on solar winds and astrology.
@PAWB46
Criticise the data all you want, but you have to show me proof that NASA's empirical measurements have been doctored, and preferably show me your own "clean" data. Also, please explain why sea ice and glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate worldwide, if the temperature is not increasing.
And I haven't read the book in question, but even without the problem of anthropogenic climate change, we have about 70 years of oil left, 50 years of fissile uranium, 50 years of natural gas, and maybe 100 years of coal, if we're lucky. And they're all going to be getting more expensive as supply drops and demand continues to increase.
Our options are:
-Thorium and U-238 based nuclear breeder reactors, which produce some pretty nasty radioactive by-products, and have safety and public opinion concerns.
-Cross our fingers and hope for nuclear fusion to become technologically and financially viable within the next 30 years.
-Invest in currently-available, rapidly developing (and cheapening) sources of renewable energy, such as solar thermal, solar PV, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, and algal biomass, which could easily cover our energy needs, to many times over the population the earth can support before we are limited by the supply of other resources.
Complain about this comment
"The sceptics' view of AGW"
All actual statements or views posted on the blog this year...
(new 'flimsy' addition at 82)
_0. This list is a load of rubbish!
_1. There is no warming
_2. There is warming but it's not anthropogenic
_3. There is anthropogenic warming but it's not caused by CO2
_4. There is anthropogenic warming by CO2 but not enough to worry about
_5. CO2 has risen but it's not capable of causing warming
_6. CO2 hasn't risen
_7. Arctic ice isn't disappearing
_8. Arctic ice is disappearing but the Antarctic is more important
_9. It gets cold at night so it can't be warming
10. It has been warming but now it's cooling
11. We don't trust the temperature measurements anyway
12. CO2 has always lagged warming in the past so it can't cause it
13. AGW may be real; but it could be a good thing
14. It's all a big con!
15. It's the journalists fault for not exposing the charlatan scientists
16. The Hotspot hasn't been detected so there can't be any AGW
17. All the temperature data has been lost/destroyed
18. Trees do not make good thermometers
19. You can make a hockey stick out of random data
20. The upturn in the hockey stick was cherry-picked data
21. Cycles in the solar wind are the primary driver of climate change
22. The science is not even in, let alone settled
23. Sea level rise has been constant for 100 years, but will never bother us
24. IPCC uses deliberately woolly language to hide it's inaccuracies
25. The politicised IPCC uses cherry picked data & highly suspect models
26. Peer reviewing is a closed shop and worthless
27. Popular opinion still rules and says something quite different
28. Insult alarmists' intelligence, that'll prove we are right
29. Alarmists refuse to answer our questions so they must be wrong
30. The onus of proof is on those supplying the theory, not those trying to debunk it
31. At the IPCC the summary is agreed before the report is finished
32. Consensus counts for less than nothing in science
33. Why should so many scientists support AGW? Follow The Money!
34. Climate scientists change sides when they retire
35. The extra CO2 is good for the plants, isn't it
36. Al Gore is rich so it must be all a lie
37. 1000s of scientists have signed up against AWG; we trust them
38. There's an AGW blog where some questions haven't been answered for 3 years!
39. It's just a plot to tax us more and more
40. Progress and Free Market are more important than AGW theories
41. Al Gore's film is an obvious attempt at brainwashing
42. Alarmists will have us living back in the stone age!
43. CO2 is neither a poison nor pollutant.
44. All we really need to do is make petrol and diesel engines more efficient
45. The UK CO2 contribution is a layer thinner than a human hair in one kilometre
46. We need 5 years to test the climate models and we know now that they are wrong
47. It's ok; with all that rising water, we could at least re-water the Sahara
48. It's not like additional CO2 can cause anything to move into a colder region
49. There are 20 year old predictions that have proved to be wrong!
50. Observation shows CO2 and global temp moving in opposite direction since 1998
51. Observation shows CO2 and global temp moving in opposite direction 1944 to 1976
52. What caused the 33 year long global warming from 1911 to 1944?
53. It's no longer a debate; that alone is evidence that it's not based on science
54. There's data showing temp and CO2 rising together, but that's not proof of a link
55. If there is data that links C02 to temp I can't find it
56. Tree ring growth correlates better with variations in cosmic rays than temperature
57. Global Warming was re-branded Climate Change when predictions failed
58. CO2 was rebranded as responsible for Climate Change, not Global Warming
59. The 'Global Warming Swindle' documentary discredited Al Gore
60. Al Gore's film has been ridiculed and derised
61. Complaints comm'n uphold 4 complaints against Al Gore's film; none on the science
62. Political agenda on AGW really takes hold as new industry emerges
63. The NIPCC review thoroughly discredited the first IPCC report
64. Massive inaccuracies found in IPCC data, satellite & ground data adjusted to fit
65. Antarctica refuses to melt as predicted, gaining MASSIVE amounts of ice
66. Satelite measurements of sea ice/Antarctic loss shown to have errors
67. Sea levels refuse to rise as predicted
68. IPCC have revise their stance to focus on water/food availability
69. Data shows link between sunspot activity and recent temperature drop trend
70. Antarctica data shows steady cooling for over a decade
71. Vienna case study shows HIE has massively skewed the ground temperature data
72. Mean global temperature is cyclic
73. In 5 years time, we will talk about Climate Change as a result of global cooling
74. It's ok; a number of reefs around the world are being brought back from the dead
75. There is observational evidence that climate sensitivity is low not high
76. The government of the Maldives recently pulled a publicity stunt
77. Migrating birds or trees growing further north is not evidence of AGW
78. I'm not some moronic "denier" (thanks to poitsplace)
79. Climate has never shown the sensitivity suggested for the 2C+ scenarios
80. We're better off with the heat we're getting than with sporadic electricity
81. The rabid minds of the AGW Terrorists are totally incapable of accepting anything which argues their absolute bigotry and overwhelming belief that they are right! (yertizz really wrote that)
82. We stole emails and code from CRU and by cherry-picking quotes prove AGW is fake
Enjoy; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Chris Landsea one of the world's leading hurricane researchers leaves IPCC January 17 2005
"It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming."
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
Complain about this comment
How to make a Hockey Stick. (In the style Gordon Ramsey)
Proxy Data: Remove the Medieval Warm Period. Remove the Little Ice Age. Cut off the data after 1960.
Temperature Record: Reduce the temperatures before the 1930s. Add a parabolic function to enhance the temperatures after 1990.
Bringing the ingredients together on the IPCC plate: Take the proxy data and the temperature record and dice & splice until you produce a nicely shaped hockey stick.
SORTED!
Complain about this comment
Peadar1987 Silly question but who actually told you Sea Ice and Glaciers are retreating at an "Alarming Rate". The actual person or paper that states this. I don't want vague guess just were you got that idea from if you would be so kind
Complain about this comment
I think many, on both sides of the issue are missing the real point which the hacked emails and data reveal - the secrecy and lack of transparency which the 'climate scientists' have been allowed to operate under.
Before this 'conspiracy' - as some are calling the email fiasco, I was of the hope that Copenhagen would end up being just another junket for politicians, political appointees and 'political climate scientists' - another get together with no real results. Perhaps a silly bidding war along the lines of 'well, we'll reduce our emissions by 40%, (another guy), yeah, well we'll reduce our emissions by 50%) - nothing but empty promises. Everyone calls it a good start, blames lack of total success upon the US and jets on back home to tinker with their toy models...
Now I would like to see something real and tangible come from Copenhagen - one which I think both 'deniers' (as I am often labeled, even though I am just skeptical) and 'true believers' could all agree upon. I would like to see a demand for scientific rigor and transparency of climate science by all parties involved.
I would like to see an agency set up whose sole purpose is to provide a repository of scientific knowledge regarding climate change. This repository would include all data sets used in published materials - including raw data, corrected data and correction algorithms and methodology. It would include all versions of all models used to produce results (source code required). From this repository it should be possible for any researcher to reproduced the published results of any other researcher. Researchers should not be permitted to publish until their data, their algorithms and models have been provided to the archive, and verified that they are complete an the results reproducible.
If the consequences are as dire as we are led to believe, should not all the research be in the public domain? Who can argue against this? Are the warmists and believers so afraid that the science is so weak it will not stand up to transparency or scrutiny? The same transparency and rigor which is required of all the other hard sciences.
I would like to see the same rigor required of climate science as all other scientific disciplines. With what little is required of climate science, I could write a paper claiming I have the key to cold fusion - but I am not sharing how I claim to have done it. Such a paper would be laughed at by the scientific community and never published - so why do the 'climate scientists' get away with publishing results which are not reproducible?
Please anyone, whether you be on either side of the issue, tell me why we should not demand that published results be reproducible? That all the data, models and assumptions required to produce the results from which the dire conclusions are drawn, should be presented for all to see. If the science is sound, then the skeptics will have little to argue with or speak out against.
During my tenure in academia, the modus operandi was that one would build upon the research of others, advancing scientific knowledge. This is not the case with climate science today.
If the issue is so dire and urgent as we are told, does it not make sense to establish this repository, for the advancement of science? To require full disclosure in the repository in order to publish, or to receive grants, to participate in the advancement of science?
Please, can anyone on either side of the issue put forth a valid argument against establishment of such a repository of knowledge?
That is what I would like to see from Copenhagen. Can anyone (@Richard please, your comments please) argue against such a proposal? Against rigor, transparency and reproducibility of results? It is after all the scientific process which has been used for hundreds of years - those who advance science today, build upon the work of those who came before.
Anyone have a better suggestions before we commit to spending trillions of dollars? Please, whether you are for or against, share your ideas with us - if you have a better idea, I am sure we would all like to hear it.
I realize that as simple and sensible as what I am suggesting is, it won't happen - unless we all demand it, and refuse to publish or believe any results or conclusions which are not backed up with real data, algorithms and models.
I hold no illusions; however, as long as the secretive status quo exists, I will continue to be very skeptical of the 'science'.
Cheers.
-Kealey
Complain about this comment
At last dvablo2, i've missed you!
Complain about this comment
@colonelAgentEnigma
The last IPCC report specifically says that it is not known whether a rise in global temperatures will result in an increase in hurricane activity, but that it has to be considered as a possibility.
I don't see how you could get any more reasonable and measured than that.
Complain about this comment
Richard if your still in a job I have the press release for the big story from Hopenhagen. Sur-real Climate posted on their Al Gore website. Should I write it up for you so you can have a good time over there?
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey #168;
Well said. We won't let you down.
Still no news from Richard. Perhaps he has resigned.
Complain about this comment
@Kamboshigh (#174)
Happy to oblige: Peer reviewed papers.
"Recent variations of sea ice and air temperature in high latitudes"
Chapman and Walsh (1994)
"A rapidly declining perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic"
Comiso (2002)
"Historical whaling records reveal major regional retreat of Antarctic sea ice"
Cotté and Guinet (2007)
"C chronology for ice retreat and inception of Champlain Sea in the St. Lawrence Lowlands, Canada"
Richard and Ochietti (2005)
"Spatial and temporal variability of sea ice in the Laptev Sea: Analyses and review of satellite passive-microwave data and model results, 1979 to 2002"
Bareiss and Gorgen, 2005
Complain about this comment
Well you sceptical chaps all seem to be having fun in the sandpit.
But repeating your suspicions with ever greater fervour does not make them more true. Richard Black has no reason to comment on a lot of conspiracy itch-scratching. And I rather think he has better things to do.
Complain about this comment
118. At 10:35am on 27 Nov 2009, JunkkMale wrote:
Tribal adherence and a good put down will trump logic and facts (especially linked ones) in argument every time.
The problem is the "logic and facts" are viewed on the basis of your starting position and the people you trust. I am convinced by the "logic and facts" presented by Real Climate. The head of the IPCC has made a public statement explaining why the CRU hacked e-mails do not have any impact on the conclusions of the IPCC. It sounded pretty logical to me, and he would have access to the facts better than most. I also personally know several highly respected IPCC contributing authors, and the fact that they lose sleep at night over what is happening with the climate scares me to death.
But I know that these comments will be dismissed out of hand by most of the people commenting on this thread -- so I don't see much point in engaging considering how shrill the tone of the debate is, and in particular the attacks on Richard personally (“reply or resign!" seems a bit childish). I have always found Richard’s reporting and blogs to be well researched and well balanced (including giving voice to opinions I consider far too generous to the sceptic side). I have no reason to believe he has suddenly lost his analytic abilities.
Re #151 yertizz "Richard Black writes a piece and invites comment"
You might note that he didn't write on this topic -- he was inviting comment on his blog about China's announcement. He already said he is not covering the hacked data story, and that others in the BBC are addressing it. Some of us actually consider other topics to be relevant and important, but there doesn't seem to be any space here anymore to discuss them. I can't help but wonder why you don't have this conversation in response to reporting and blogging on the topic elsewhere and let the rest of us discuss on Richard's blog the issues that he is blogging about. And in any case, does it occur to you that the guy might be busy with other things, travelling, or ill?
Complain about this comment
#177 Peadar, because at Hopenhagen a report will be presented that states and I quote:
Sea level has risen more than 5 centimeters over the past 15 years, about 80% higher than IPCC projections from 2001.
This is in complete disregard to the physical evidence, data or observed global measurement which states 3.4mm per decade. It is either fairy tales or out right lies. You decide.
Complain about this comment
I don't know why anyone is surprised by this 'cliamtegate' thing, nor why there is so much talk about this snip or that bit or 'revelation' regarding improper conduct.
It has been reported for a long time, even here on the BBC, that many scientists have felt a great deal of pressure to overstate their confidence in their conclusions and understate their doubts.
As my previous post suggests, it is not that this person did this, or that person did that, but the apparently endemic drift away from the rigorous scientific process which has taken place with regards to climate science.
Instead of focusing upon specific individuals and revelations from the emails, should we not debate and focus upon the underlying issues and 'climate' (pardon the pun) which has allowed for the current environment to evolve and be accepted by the scientific, environmental and political communities?
It reminds me of the UN - a great idea in theory, but horrible in practice. The UN provides a platform for third world dictators who commit atrocities against their own people as well as their neighbors. The UN actually has given the chair to the committee on human rights to nations such as Libya and North Korea. A voice in the UN should only be given to those who are duly elected representatives (or appointees thereof) of the people of their nations - elected through a democratic process which adheres to a minimum set of standards and through elections which are monitored from the outside. Sure, allow other nations to be present - but not have any voice on the world stage, nor benefit from all the UN programs.
It should be the same with the 'climate scientists'. Those who wish to have a voice, must provide transparency in their work. They must contribute to the body of knowledge openly, for the advancement of science.
I do not know the rules regarding dissertations in the UK nor the rest of Europe, but here in the US, a Master's thesis or PhD Dissertation must 'add to the current body of knowledge'. It is the number one requirement. Presenting only interpreted conclusions without all the data required to derive them would never be accepted - so why do we accept this from climate science?
Again, let us not focus upon who said what, or who did what, but what happened which allowed the scientific process to become so corrupted as to allow this to happen.
Thanks for your time - and I hope your thoughts on this subject.
Kindest.
-Kealey
Complain about this comment
Peadar you didn't provide any links do they perhaps use Proxy data from certain individuals?
Due to time zones I'm off but whilst you are so happy with yourself perhaps Professor Don Eastbrooke might give you a more comprehensive over view.
Complain about this comment
@Bryn_hill #181
so how would you describe the contents of the programmers code which explicitely states
"Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures"
"getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.."
"I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates"
"I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless"
I could go on
Complain about this comment
From the Bishophill blog
"2) Foreign Office and government leaning heavily on UEA to keep a lid on everything lest it destabilises Copenhagen."
Does this expain a few things here as well?
Complain about this comment
More BBC climate spin. China's 'target' represents business as usual as projected by the IEA. According to the IEA World Energy Outlook 2009 (p. 350), here are China's GDP and CO2 projections under its BAU "reference scenario" (with GDP in 2008 PPP dollars):
2007 -- 6.1 GtC and $7.6T
2020 -- 9.6 GtC and $18.8T
So China's CO2 emissions increase and the weak minded are fooled by yet more Nohopenhagen window dressing.
Complain about this comment
TVGgirl #182:
Good point, I don't think. Richard has been telling us for ages that AGW is real (he has seen the evidence) and yet now, when the biggest scientific scandal ever breaks and shows that his beliefs are based on a scam, he disappears and won't comment. And the rest of the BBC gives the subject scant coverage (if any).
People are complaining to the BBC and their MPs about this lack of coverage of a momentous event. And the BBC remains silent. We pay our licence fees. We aren't going to let this go away. Richard is our number one point of contact at the BBC on these topics. So we will keep on pestering him (even if he ignores us or is away at Copenhagen or is ill). Does the BBC not have anyone to cover when someone is ill? It is normal good practice to have cover if someone is ill.
Complain about this comment
How To Whitewash A Hockey Stick: (In the style of Lord Rees of the Royal Society)
"This what they showed me at Shrewsbury"
SFX: SPLISH, SPASH, SPLOSH
"This what they showed me at Trinity"
SFX: SPLISH, SPASH, SPLOSH
"This what they showed me at Sussex"
SFX: SPLISH, SPASH, SPLOSH
"This what they showed me at the Royal Society"
SFX: SPLISH, SPASH, SPLOSH
"Can You Tell What It Is Yet?"
SFX: SPLISH, SPASH, SPLOSH
"Yes, correct first time, you can't see a thing. Marvelous stuff WhiteWash"
Complain about this comment
A very good and helpful post [for those familiar with DK - this has no swearing in it]
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/crudgate-why-this-cant-be-swept-under.html
Complain about this comment
@peadar1987
RE:terribly byproducts of thorium
Molten Salt Reactors work out MUCH better in that respect. They end up with waste that's cooled down substantially within a decade and pretty much inert within 400 years (a long time but much more reasonable). Also, there's enough thorium in reserves to last hundreds of years.
RE:change in the hurricane correlation stance
Well of course they had to change their stance...the hurricane activity hit a new low for the modern era. They actually continued their "hotter means more hurricanes" line even as it declined (obviously truncating the graph to hide yet another decline) but its hard to hide hurricane activity. Those things are huge and hard to miss.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/told-ya-so-more-upside-down-mann-in-his-latest-paper/
What happens when your data is useless and you forget to remove the stuff that you're meant to be calling an anomaly.
Bless.
Complain about this comment
@TVGgirl RE:Losing sleep
Well if there's one thing these emails show its that the people actually seem to believe it's true. They're just terrible scientists (hence the falsified data, manipulation of the system, etc). Climate science is kind of...low on the tree of knowledge. I know it sounds bad but not all degrees are created equal. The fact that you can get a degree in certain sciences doesn't mean you're particularly bright. I suspect that since its a relatively young science the bar is set rather low for now and due to political reasons its ranks are filled (and continuing to fill) with people long on ideals and short on ability.
Complain about this comment
Now that the eco-freaks that have been allowed to take control of the BBC's news service have reduced it to the level of a tabloid it is inevitable that people with tabloid level brains will want to come on here to say they belive the BBC has a balanced view of global warming.
I for one say let them get on with it - they'd only be damaging themselves blundering about falling off cliffs or pressing their tongues against electrical sockets otherwise - at least they're reasonably safe with a keyboard.
Complain about this comment
p.s.
Richard, at least try and take your muzzle off.
Complain about this comment
This is really embarrassing.
I mean - really - our state broadcaster is pretending this isn't a story a week on?
It's not like it isn't about one of our own universities research units, is it?
Or some dullard non-issue that 60 countrie are about to attend a global junket about?
Or something that will change the world's taxation, energy and development policies?
Shame Jedward got voted off or perhaps Richard could find time to blog about that instead.
Complain about this comment
@Plato,
Yes the Devils Kitchen coverage is bang on ...
He takes a swipe at the meejah as well:
Slice your average environment correspondent through the middle and you're going to find a left-leaning liberal arts graduate who is utterly out of his/her depth.
Their world view is being swept from underneath them and they are being shown - in ways that they do not really and have never had to understand - that the guys they thought were the goodies are in fact "at it" and that those they have spent a decade disparaging as deniers were in fact spot on.
I would find that hard to report too.
Complain about this comment
Jack:
Excellent stuff. I must save it.
You should have posted the previous para:
Lastly and as a slight aside, why so little from the MSM? That one is easy. You need to have a decent analytical brain just to deal with the chain of events. You need to have a decent analytical brain, a mathematical/scientific mind and a good grasp of some very hard statistics to understand what is being done to massage the numbers and to see how significant it is to the chain of events.
Regards to you in NZ (my son is over there)
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #175 said:-
‘I would like to see the same rigor required of climate science as all other scientific disciplines. With what little is required of climate science, I could write a paper claiming I have the key to cold fusion - but I am not sharing how I claim to have done it. Such a paper would be laughed at by the scientific community and never published - so why do the 'climate scientists' get away with publishing results which are not reproducible?’
Larry, before the banks wrecked the global economy for the average guy, I don’t recall the same level of hysterical disbelief of their economic models. Did anyone ask to see their coding for the increasingly bizarre modelling we now hear about? No, of course not because most of the big guys were making shed loads of cash. They now leave people of average means with no pensions, unemployment and all the social ills that go with it. Greed was the carrot used to convince the little guy they were going to be on the game. And they bought it.
You also say:-
‘Anyone have a better suggestions before we commit to spending trillions of dollars? Please, whether you are for or against, share your ideas with us - if you have a better idea, I am sure we would all like to hear it.’
But Larry! Now the average person, his children and grandchildren are paying trillions of dollars to bail out the banks. No one blew the whistle on this little party. No-one asked to see the ‘codes’. It’s not even science, but everyone pretended it was because they deluded themselves that we’d all get rich!
Now we have people everywhere saying that Mankind must clean up its act (which ought to make a whole lot of sense) and we have the most extreme response about wrecked economies and trillions of dollars.
Kind of ironic don’t you think?
It’s not even as if the lifestyle of the average person is already some kind of wonderful utopia. Sitting in cars, in traffic jams, becoming unhealthy, sitting in an office staring at a screen, sitting at home watching the ‘X’ Factor, while the people orchestrating the world ‘economy’ are sittings on a yacht moored off the Bahamas. And what do you want to turn to for news? The commercial news networks around the world run by the billionaires? Do they have the wellbeing of the little guy at the core of their agenda? They’re all sitting pretty. They won’t have been affected by the credit crunch, rest assured.
So now it seems people posting on here are continually wanting to shut down one of the few remaining sources of independent news. That is why I have said before that a lot of this ‘sceptical’ stuff is being driven by big business. We even had James Murdoch over here trying to marginalise the BBC!!
And it’s not as if big business has been trying to make people feel more secure. Who is it ‘offshoring’ all those jobs and manufacturing to the ‘developing world’? That is, of course, a double whammy. First, job insecurity and lower wages in the ‘developed’ countries and then added carbon emissions from the manufacture and import of this stuff from the developing countries. Meanwhile, their workers suffer poor working conditions.
In all of this, where was the hysterical scrutiny of the ‘economic’ model?
Complain about this comment
#186 Mango
It looks exactly like somebody struggling with complex data from many sources, over most of which they have no control. Which is exactly what it should look like. I see very little of the self analysis in sceptical comment reacting to these emails and programs here that I see sceptics demanding of others.
If you wish to find sculduggery in the frank exchanges of colleagues you will find it, wherever you look. If your granny has just died of hospital-acquired MRSA you will find it in the tense discussions of hospital managers trying to keep a lid on costs while stopping patients from dying. If a child has died in a school canoeing accident you will find it in the exchanges of outdoor-education managers trying to give kids a taste of adventure while keeping them safe. You will find it anywhere there is tension and doubt. In their current, self-congratulatory orgy sceptics would find AGW conspiracy in Winnie-the Pooh. The credulous frenzy of sceptical comment feeds its own paranoia.
We deserve a much better debate. And Richard Black deserves some profound apologies for the rubbish the conspiracy fantasists throw at him.
Complain about this comment
Richard: Nice graph, but it doesn't show the real picture of China's emissions and its "aim"; which is NOT a pledge.
From the IEA World Energy Outlook 2009 (p. 350), these are China's emissions, and emissions per capita (intensity), in 2008 dollars.
2007 — 6.1 GtC and $7.6T
2020 — 9.6 GtC and $18.8T
In other words, they will attain more than 40% "cuts" in emissions intensity, while increasing absolute emissions by 57%. And this is a Business As Usual (BAU) scenario.
China is not promising any cuts at all. They only promise to get richer, and thus reduce emissions per unit of GDP, while VASTLY increasing CO2 emissions.
Complain about this comment
correction to 202:
From the IEA World Energy Outlook 2009 (p. 350), these are China's emissions, and emissions per capita (intensity), in 2008 dollars.
Should be:
From the IEA World Energy Outlook 2009 (p. 350), these are China's emissions, and GDP(in trillions of 2008 dollars).
Complain about this comment
Bryn_Hill #201
Bryn, I second that.
Complain about this comment
soveryodd: I'm not sure what your diatribe against bankers (a rhyming word) has to do with the biggest scientific scam of all time (AGW) paid for with our taxes. We trusted the government to look after the fact that our money was tied up in banks. And what did they do? Why they appointed Lord whatsisname to run the FSA and run the climate change committee. And both enterprises run by the same Lord have completely failed to stop major scams. So much for trusting politicians.
Complain about this comment
Bryn Hill #201
just so we are all clear on this - are you condoning the activities of the people at CRU as disclosed in leaked/hacked emails and other documents?
Complain about this comment
I wonder if this is true?
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/11/hudson-hushed.html
Quote:
Paul Hudson, the BBC weatherman who in October was forwarded some of the Climategate emails (those relating to his article "What happened to global warming?") has been gagged by the BBC.
Very, very disturbing if true.
Complain about this comment
This really has got beyond a joke , who appointed the BBC as arbiter of science ?
Who decide the BBC should spend my money on 35 staff going to the jolly hockeysticks no hope Copenhagen soiree ?
These are the same people who think Russel Brand is funny , who think that the world hangs on their every word , and only what they think matters .
The BBC is not just biased , it is completely corrupt , from the top to the bottom, from RH's outside interests , to RB's gatekeeper status , and the pandering to the current government.
When will this media love in start to report, firstly the truth , and secondly the feelings of your owners the licence payers ?
Copied for posterity , and on it's way to the DG.
Complain about this comment
This has just been emailed, and will be on its way to the DG tomorrow, copied to Brown and Cameron and all the daily papers.
Alistair,
Sorry to say , the story was not "covered" as you put it , it was buried. The issue of the content of the leaks was not covered at all, the BBC take on the story was entirely geared towards the "hacking" .
If the BBC wishes to be taken seriously, it should address the substantive issues of corruption and collusion within the climate change scientific community. Their obstruction to FOI requests, their pressuring of the peer review process, and most important , the poor and manipulated data from the so called models which political decisions are based upon.
My experience of "your" world, is that of having been married to a journalist for 15 years , and a PR professional for the next 15 .
The BBC should return to reporting the truth , rather than trying to make the truth in a way you see fit. The greatly respected BBC is rapidly becoming an annexe of Animal Farm.
Regards
Neil Hyde
PS: To reflect my comments on a Richard Black blog, this will be in writing to the DG.
-----Original Message-----
From: World Tonight [mailto:world.tonight@bbc.co.uk]
Sent: 25 November 2009 22:16
To:
Subject: RE: [BBC Radio4] Contact Us Submission
Dear Neil
The story was covered on Monday by both the Today programme and Newsnight - they are still available to listen to/watch on the iPlayer
All the best
Alistair Burnett
Editor, The World Tonight
BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/worldtonight
Complain about this comment
How To Report Climategate: (In the style of Richard Black)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Complain about this comment
201. At 7:58pm on 27 Nov 2009, Bryn_hill wrote:
#186 Mango
It looks exactly like somebody struggling with complex data from many sources, over most of which they have no control. Which is exactly what it should look like. I see very little of the self analysis in sceptical comment reacting to these emails and programs here that I see sceptics demanding of others
Couldn't agree more! Except that I do agree MORE with your second paragraph!!!!
Complain about this comment
Right. So what about the CRU business and the subsequent fallout? If you look at the latest news on the subject it looks as if those involved in the worst excesses of the man made global warming scam are trying to distance themselves from the fallout. Has the BBC sunk to such a low point that it is prepared to lie and obfuscate in order to put off the backlash in the short term? Wouldn't it be better to follow the example of noted climate scientists and admit that mistakes have been made? The longer the BBC ignores this, the more its reputation will be tarnished.
Complain about this comment
soveryodd #200 and
Bryn_hill #201
Well said!
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
The skeptics are bemused that their efforts to engineer a "climategate" are not working. They are trying hard though.
They really don't seem to understand the reason is that they don't have anything substantial. A reputable news organization is never going to make claims of fraud like the skeptics do without some very good evidence, evidence which skeptics have failed to produce.
Complain about this comment
@Bryn_Hill #201 and the ME TOO'S
It looks exactly like somebody struggling with complex data from many sources, over most of which they have no control.
I think you are being a tad optimistic in your analysis
If you wish to find sculduggery in the frank exchanges of colleagues you will find it, wherever you look.
It seems you wish to find whiter than white in these exchanges, no matter where you look.
Time will tell
@infinity #214
They really don't seem to understand the reason is that they don't have anything substantial. A reputable news organization is never going to make claims of fraud like the skeptics do without some very good evidence, evidence which skeptics have failed to produce.
Again, time will tell.
Complain about this comment
@Bryn_Hill and the ME TOO's
Documentation Of The Successful Attempt By Thomas Karl Director Of the U.S. National Climate Data Center To Suppress Biases and Uncertainties In the Assessment Surface Temperature Trends
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/e-mail-documentation-of-the-successful-attempt-by-thomas-karl-director-of-the-u-s-national-climate-data-center-to-suppress-biases-and-uncertainties-in-the-assessment-surface-temperature-trends/
Please justify / explain
Complain about this comment
So we are to have an independent inquiry, if one can believe BBC correspondents anymore.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8383713.stm
How independent will it turn out to be?
Any news on Richard Black's health anyone?
Complain about this comment
@Bryn_Hill and the ME TOO's
An alamists point of view on ClimateGate:
Dr Judith A. Curry, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology writes an open letter to students and faculty and posts it at Climate Audit
http://camirror.wordpress.com/ 2009/ 11/ 22/ curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/
In my opinion, there are two broader issues raised by these emails that are impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency in climate data, and “tribalism” in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process.
She then goes on to explain what she means by the two issues
Complain about this comment
@PAWB46 #217
A truly independent inquiry should be welcomed, but considering the head of the inquiry will be Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society, leading alarmist and already the co-author of many statements on global warming with the Met Office and other leading alarmists, I don't think it will be truly independent
They have probably already decided the outcome, they just need to make the data fit
Complain about this comment
RE 217. At 07:52am on 28 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:
"So we are to have an independent inquiry, if one can believe BBC correspondents anymore.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8383713.stm
How independent will it turn out to be?"
Not independent at all - Lord Rees appears to be one of the major proponents on AGW
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018144/climategate-the-whitewash-begins/
So more of the whitewash this country has been drowning in for the last decade. What a disgrace!
Complain about this comment
Re. #182. At 4:15pm on 27 Nov 2009, TVGgirl wrote:
"The problem is the "logic and facts" are viewed on the basis of your starting position and the people you trust. I am convinced by the "logic and facts" presented by Real Climate. "
Don't you realise how ironic your comments are. Real Climate is the website set up by this Team in order to trash and smear other views
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=446&filename=1102687002.txt
"In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below)
have recently got together to build a new 'climate blog' website:
RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days at:
http://www.realclimate.org
The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
we can mount a rapid response to supposedly 'bombshell' papers that are
doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
events."
And don't go quoting WIKIPEDIA either - see the list of the Real Climate team on the link - he's mentioned twice!! and is one of the AGW gatekeepers at Wikipedia - responsible for keeping the infamous hockey stick graph on the section about the Medieval Warming Period and ensuring that all articles on Climate Change are skewed towards the AGW point of view.
Read what he does to the real scientists
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx
And then read what one of the real scientists has to say about Mann and Team
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/
He's not the only one - read Roger Pielke SR's blog.
Please take your head out of the sand!!!
Complain about this comment
#216 Mango
Apologies. I have very little time this morning and can´t analyse the Pielke exchange. I would be interested to see your analysis of it if you have time.
#215 Mango
I neither see nor expect to see scientists being "whiter than white". I see the grubby, nitty-gritty of real life. Why would you expect anything else? This is the dirty laundry bin. Why do you expect to find clean socks in it? We are reading the personal exchanges of human beings under pressure. They are imperfect, their data is imperfect, their models are imperfect. But this is the best we have.
Sadly by the time we know the details of AGW it may well be too late to act. Meanwhile, given that oil will run out, and low energy-density generating infrastructure will take a long time to develop, lets get on with the job. You seem like a practical person. I presume we can agree to roll our sleeves up.
Complain about this comment
#216 Mango
For the Piekle piece we will need to have some more background and comments from the other participants. It clearly got messy. Can you give us these? Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Re #223. At 08:58am on 28 Nov 2009, Bryn_hill wrote:
"#216 Mango
For the Piekle piece we will need to have some more background and comments from the other participants. It clearly got messy. Can you give us these? Thanks. "
Try this
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/
Complain about this comment
@Bryn_hill
And Mike Hulmes take on the story:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/uea-climate-scientist-possible-that-i-p-c-c-has-run-its-course/
Complain about this comment
Bryn_hill #222
"Meanwhile, given that oil will run out, and low energy-density generating infrastructure will take a long time to develop, lets get on with the job."
As a physicist, talk of 'low energy density generating infrastructure' implies you don't undestand physics. To get useful energy (the best we have is electricity) from low grade sources of energy, you start with high energy density sources. The highest is nuclear fusion. The next highest is nuclear fission. The next is fossil fuels. Then come things like geothermal, hydro, solar and lastly wind.
So let's roll our sleeves up:
1 Fund fusion research to the maximum possible extent. Don't waste money on low energy density sources.
2 A massive programme of nuclear (fission) power stations. The government has at last partly got the message, but is still diverting resources (wasting money) to fund the worst low energy density source, wind.
3 Use fossil fuels as needed until they become too expensive/scarce by which time fusion and fission hopefully will fill the gap.
4 Use geothermal, hydro and solar where appropriate and competitive.
5 Never waste money on exceedingly low energy density sources such as wind.
Since we know CO2 is not a problem (no evidence at all) but is a benefit to plant growth, then logic says this is the best course of action.
Comments please?
Complain about this comment
182. At 4:15pm on 27 Nov 2009, TVGgirl wrote:
118. At 10:35am on 27 Nov 2009, JunkkMale wrote:
Tribal adherence and a good put down will trump logic and facts (especially linked ones) in argument every time.
so I don't see much point in engaging considering how shrill the tone of the debate is,
Well, that's your perogative.
I actually agree with some of what you subsequently express, but at the moment I am a tad more concerned with editorial stances that seem to career from lock-down to excuses, and considering the treatment meted out on this very blog not so long ago to those merely asking questions about dogma and orthodoxy (usually decried immediately as deniers who should be jailed) I can see how some might feel aggrieved, and vindicated to the point of intemperate counter-reaction. But in the rough and tumble of the blogosphere if you don't find the kitchen atmosphere conducive, it might be best not to try stirring the pot as well.
'..the above reads like a collective temper tantrum.'
Which, in the absence of anything else substantive save a personal opinion, is how that came across to me. If it was not meant that way, I apologise. If not shrill, it certainly hardly qualifies as a right to put other wrongs to rest.
Also, just because you think certain reporting standards have been, are and always will be the bee's knees doesn't mean they are or others have to. Especially when one learns more and more each day, but in certain quarters finds less and less being addressed, even to the barest minimum level expected.
Yes, the CRU episode is but one swallow that does not a summer make. But it still is a pretty big bird in the great 'science is settled' scheme of things punted out and promoted enthusiastically in certain quarters in more clement times.
Hence I think a certain amount of frustration is understandable, especially when the strategy seems to be bunker or 'time for moving on' mode until the whole lot can get to Copenhagen and recover in the company of friends. The spotlight on the calibre of informed analysis from a collection of folk whose qualifications to spot a turkey (on an avian metaphorical roll here) are already in question, will be intense.
And trying to sell dead parrots... won't fly any more.
The BBC may be 'unique'. But that as an excuse for professional competence is wearing thin.
Complain about this comment
Davblo2, Brilliant, absolutely brilliant list! Thank you so much!
Will most certainly circulate this...
Complain about this comment
@PAWB46 (#207)
I fear that commercial fusion generation might prove to be a hole into which people end up pouring trillions for no return. As it stands, we haven't even come close to producing a net energy return on fusion (in a controlled manner anyway!), and it's been "50 years away" for the last 50 years!
Fission reactors are alright, but I'd have major safety concerns about them. I come from Ireland, a country that has managed to mess up electronic voting machines. Imagine if we tried to build a nuclear reactor?! I'm an engineer, and I know I wouldn't trust myself to build something with a 100% degree of confidence that it wouldn't fail in some way, as you would have to be with such potentially risky technology. And then there is the obvious problem of nuclear waste were the technology implemented on a huge scale. I don't trust several politically unstable regimes in the world on both nuclear safety and weapons proliferation grounds either.
I still think renewables are the most sensible way forward
Complain about this comment
PAWB46, have been pro-fusion for a good long time.
Guess who is against? Who has ever been against?
What you say is absolutely on the mark. A few policy tweaks I would add: next-generation nuclear (fission) plants need to be very carefully mapped out; takes time; zoning, etc; waste has to be addressed in innovative ways, as well: can't just go doing things Hanford-style. So not by any means a fix-all.
Wind is not necessarily worthless for certain users under certain conditions. There are parts of Patagonia and even areas in Ventura County, California, where wind power can be a meaningful addition to the power needs of certain types of efforts (viticulture, ranches, nurseries, orchards). In the great scheme of things, these may be minutiae: for an actual household or enterprise, they may facilitate viability in ways that are, indeed, precious.
There is a problem with Carbon Dioxide, whatever anyone else is saying. The problem is oxygen levels go down. No, we do not have the means, the manpower or the money to "plant enough plants to clean the atmosphere." The damage has already been done.
We are facing a collective moment of truth, like the smoker with emphysema. It is time to give it up. We can do it: we can stop. There is no reason to continue. The technology for reducing emissions is already out there.
You can't just wish the dirt that is already in the atmosphere away. It won't all get converted by vegetation into something good for you. If that were the case, we would simply send smokers out to live in dense forest and the lung cancers would disappear. But that does not happen...
Damage has been done to the planetary tissues themselves, to The Biosphere. Step One is ending the harm. Step Two is finding ways of helping it heal itself (if it can: which is very much debatable).
Complain about this comment
@maria-ashot #230
There is a problem with Carbon Dioxide, whatever anyone else is saying. The problem is oxygen levels go down. No, we do not have the means, the manpower or the money to "plant enough plants to clean the atmosphere." The damage has already been done.
Could you provide a citation please?
Complain about this comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRJxafiqHvw
Lists, yes... more lists... must get more lists.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK, since you are not aware, apparently, of the implications of Carbon Dioxide concentrations with respect to the suitability of Air for human respiration, and specifically in the crucial aspect of the Oxygen levels, I shall gladly furnish the data for you.
And also a link to companies that sell both Oxygen Level monitors (for the home or office) and a variety of Portable Oxygen products.
Stay tuned. I have a big dinner meeting tonight, so check back tomorrow.
Try not to breathe too hard. No, I am not joking.
Complain about this comment
@maria-ashot
i'll wait with bated breath, maria
enjoy your dinner
Complain about this comment
@maria-ashot #230 #233
(@PAWB46)
(@MangoChutneyUKOK #231)
OK Maria, your first post looked like it could have been an honest mistake.
But your second post really worries me. You mention oxygen products in an apparent medical context. I hope any such oxygen products you are referring to are conventional ones for the emphysema patients you mention and people with similar lung conditions.
Carbon dioxide is about 0.038% of the atmosphere. Oxygen is just under 21% of the atmosphere. These figures are global averages. Obviously a stuffy room will have significantly higher carbon dioxide.
Global oxygen levels are not currently in any danger of dropping much below 21%. The concern is over current rises in carbon dioxide, and the related greenhouse effect and ocean acidification.
(And before you panic about ocean acidification, the effect is for slightly alkaline seawater to become slightly less alkaline, possibly affecting snails, coral and other life forms using calcium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Possible_impacts )
Complain about this comment
If climate change is a hoax, why is China taking it so seriously? They do have their own scientists and universities. Or is it being suggested they have they fallen for a western plot to curb their growth?
Complain about this comment
Some are complaining the UEA story was not covered on the BBC. It was on the news last Friday, 20/11/09 and Saturday, 21/11/09.
Complain about this comment
@GeeDeeSea (#236)
There is no East and West. Only the New World Order. And the Lizard People. ;)
Complain about this comment
@peadar #238. I found my way back. Lizard people. Don't jest. My boss is one!
Complain about this comment
@peadar #238. I also discovered the other day that if you travel east, you arrive in the west. I'm still trying to get my head round it.
#;+)
Complain about this comment
@maria-ashot
can i breathe yet?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS