Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html en-gb 30 Mon 04 May 2015 15:27:46 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html LarryKealey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=99#comment235 #227 SheffTimNote, that this winter, the waters of the Gulf of Mexico ranged from 6-9F below normal...upside down winter, perhaps, but much of Canada was very cold indeed (which is where all the cold weather in the US came through...;)Cheers.Kealey Mon 29 Mar 2010 22:17:28 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=99#comment234 Compare and contrast 4 months. (both links bbc)Pre - Copenhagen - 24th Nov 2009Gulf stream failing due to climate change (scare)Post climategate - TodayNo it isn't fine, natural variability (experimentation/observation)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Weaker Gulf Stream -http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8369236.stm"A rise in temperatures around the world due to carbon emissions since the industrial revolution means many icecaps and glaciers are steadily melting. Rising temperatures have also caused ocean waters to expand - the main cause of sea level rise in the 20th Century. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected a likely sea level rise of 28-43cm this century, but it acknowledged that this was probably an underestimate, as not enough was known about how ice behaves. "The fact that sea levels are rising is a major reason for concern and it's a combination of the global average rise together with the natural variability leading to larger regional rises," said Dr John Church, from Australia's government-funded science and research body, the CSIRO. The weakening of the Gulf Stream coupled with the gravitational effects of being closer to the North Pole mean waters in the northern hemisphere are experiencing the biggest rise. "--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now: (less than 1 Hour ago)Gulf Stream 'is not slowing down' By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News Data came from the global network of Argo floats in the oceans The Gulf Stream does not appear to be slowing down, say US scientists who have used satellites to monitor tell-tale changes in the height of the sea.Confirming work by other scientists using different methodologies, they found dramatic short-term variability but no longer-term trend. A slow-down - dramatised in the movie The Day After Tomorrow - is projected by some models of climate change. The research is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The stream is a key process in the climate of western Europe, bringing heat northwards from the tropics and keeping countries such as the UK 4-6C warmer than they would otherwise be. It forms part of a larger movement of water, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, which is itself one component of the global thermohaline system of currents. Between 2002 and 2009, the team says, there was no trend discernible - just a lot of variability on short timescales.The Atlantic overturning circulation is still an important player in today's climate Josh Willis, Nasa The satellite record going back to 1993 did suggest a small increase in flow, although the researchers cannot be sure it is significant. "The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle," said Josh Willis from Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California. "The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling." Mon 29 Mar 2010 09:42:06 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=98#comment233 he lost me at this point "Scientists need to be prepared to argue about their ‘considered opinions’, to embrace consensus "as i've pointed out repeatedly. consensus means nothing in science, except to those without good data perhaps.a more accurate interpretation would be to not make predictions on things you don't understand. But then i supopse that isn't politically viable now is it. Fri 26 Mar 2010 10:00:16 GMT+1 Vic Smith http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=98#comment232 Mike Hulmes view of the scientific method;"The problem is that in areas of science which are seeking to understand the behaviour of large complex systems which can’t be replicated in the lab, it is very hard if not impossible to apply the scientific litmus test of falsification through experimentation. And climate change is one such area of science. We have scientific theory, we have empirical observations. What we haven’t got are lots of different Earths that can be experimented on in controlled conditions. Virtual climates created inside computer models are the best we’ve got.All of this means that climate scientists frequently have to reach their conclusions on the basis of the partial, and sometimes poorly tested, evidence and models available to them. And when their paymasters - elected (or non-elected) politicians - ask them for advice, as in the case of the IPCC, opinion and belief become essential for interpreting facts and evidence. Or rather, incomplete evidence and models have to be worked on using opinions and beliefs to reach considered judgements about what may be true. This approach is a well recognised for evaluating some forms of scientific evidence, and quite sophisticated procedures have been established to make it work. Bayesian statistics and expert elicitation are two such methods, and they both lend themselves to consensus-making.But these ‘consensus methods’ don’t suit everyone. For some scientists, statements that commence with ‘We believe ...’ sound much too close to religious creeds or political manifestos to be accredited as reflecting scientific knowledge. I have heard scientists of many stripes – both those accepting the scientific orthodoxy about climate change and those disputing it – say “it’s not about belief, it’s about evidence”.Reaching consensus about climate change, recognising that these statements emerge from processes of deliberation and discussion rather than from pure observation, experimentation and falsification, can therefore be an uncomfortable thing for scientists and public alike. Scientists need to be prepared to argue about their ‘considered opinions’, to embrace consensus but without closing down argument or suggesting that matters are settled. And the public need to recognise that sometimes consensus is the best that science has to offer about a topic, especially when decisions need to be made by politicians – even if the decision is to do nothing." Thu 25 Mar 2010 15:43:41 GMT+1 lburt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=97#comment231 @Paul Butler #230 who wrote..."That depends, though, on the assumption that we aren't close to a tipping point and we just don't know that that is the case. The fact that we are at a glacial minimum with rapidly rising concentrations of greenhouse gases is itself unprecedented within the glacial cycles."No, that depends on the assumption that CO2 at these concentrations is the primary force maintaining the temperature gradient of the atmosphere...and that is incorrect. Latent heat and convection are the dominant movers of energy across the troposphere (as opposed to the energy that simply passes straight through it).==================="Specifically, for example, we have loss of sea ice albedo"We've had no significant loss of sea ice worldwide and it is ENTIRELY plausible that the loss of sea ice in the northern hemisphere is a result of the same natural warming/cooling cycles visible in the proxy records going back thousands of years.Ignoring the southern hemisphere entirely and just working with the loss of sea ice in the northern hemisphere...let's run through the figures, shall we?The arctic ocean (and ice extent) is approximately 14million square kilometers (2.7% of earth's surface) but dwindles down to 5-6 million. Only half of that at most is ever really facing the sun. It only receives about 1/3 the energy of equatorial regions due to the latitude. The albedo of ocean water at higher latitudes is higher due to the higher angles while albedo of summer ice however is significantly lower due to melt water ponds and the general color of the ice. You're left with a theoretical maximum feedback of about .15% to .2% of earth's energy budget...assuming the arctic ocean went from current levels to never having ice at all....oh, and it would require that the arctic warm up so much that it would be spewing far more energy than that...energy that has to come from elsewhere on the planet.==================="or the release of methane clathrates to consider as well as the very uncertain influence of the water vapour cycle."Since this has not happened withint the temperature ranges you're suggesting (like during the previous interglacial or the holocene optimum) it is ludicrous to suggest that it will help to CAUSE the temperatures you're suggesting.==================="the possibility of a runaway feedback is sufficiently high (in the context of the magnitude of potential damage) for us to adopt the precautionary principle"You haven't even shown that CO2 can significantly impact temperatures. While you claim high feedbacks you can't actually demonstrate them...and the ice core record clearly indicates a DRASTIC reduction in the potency of feedbacks. The temperatures are not and never have gone up at a rate high enough to hit the outrageous figures you NEED to even consider evoking the precautionary principle. Then to top it all off there are no ACTUAL signs that warming does harm. Warmer ages seem to have been fantastic for mankind and wildlife alike. All indications are the Africa and Australia will get greener, the frozen north would become a MUCH more viable habitat...again, not that you've shown any good reason to believe we could even hit those most likely harmless temperatures.==================="(b) the steps that need to be taken to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions are in any case desirable for other reasons (most obviously to anticipate the peak oil scenario, but also to trigger technological improvements in building design and transport and to move away from dependence on a small number of often unstable countries for energy supply."LOL, it is only because of the self imposed CO2 restrictions to stop this imaginary threat that we face any significant issues. We've got plenty of coal and could right now be converting it at a significantly lower cost...into a substance like crude oil. I believe China has already started on this. Thu 25 Mar 2010 10:41:44 GMT+1 Dave_oxon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=97#comment230 @Cariboo, #228D_O: "So your argument boils down to your opinion"C: "Yes and I did not make any claim otherwise, I was careful not to claim anything as science fact. So this begs the question, your point is? "My point was that your post #197 appeared to be making a scientific argument and therefore a stronger claim than just an opinion. Take for example this condensed version of your paragraph 5:"[from this simplistic calculation] I come to the conclusion... that the heating effect of this increased back radiation is so small that it is irrelevant... [so] we are not responsible for any warming."This unfortunately reads as a stronger claim than just an opinion - I would like offer my apologies for mis-interpreting it as such and would also like to thank you for your openness during our discussion on the matter. Thu 25 Mar 2010 08:48:49 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=97#comment229 poitsplaceI don't think I'd argue too much with that, and there's no doubt that glacial maxima combined with the orbital cycles have constituted tipping points for the climate over the past 2Ma.But you are presumably saying that there is no scope right now for feedbacks triggered by rises in greenhouse gases (which may by themselves have only a small effect). That depends, though, on the assumption that we aren't close to a tipping point and we just don't know that that is the case. The fact that we are at a glacial minimum with rapidly rising concentrations of greenhouse gases is itself unprecedented within the glacial cycles. Specifically, for example, we have loss of sea ice albedo or the release of methane clathrates to consider as well as the very uncertain influence of the water vapour cycle. I'm not saying that the models used by IPCC have got it all right, and I'd hope that they will continue to be improved as real world data is added and time series are extended.For the moment, though, I'd take the view that (a)the possibility of a runaway feedback is sufficiently high (in the context of the magnitude of potential damage) for us to adopt the precautionary principle and (b) the steps that need to be taken to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions are in any case desirable for other reasons (most obviously to anticipate the peak oil scenario, but also to trigger technological improvements in building design and transport and to move away from dependence on a small number of often unstable countries for energy supply. Thu 25 Mar 2010 08:41:05 GMT+1 lburt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=96#comment228 @Paul Butler #226 who wrote...I'm not trying to catch you out, since I'm sure there are valid reasons for your assertions. I just wonder how robust they are. For example we all know how much uncertainty there is about water vapour feedbacks - so what are "REAL water vapor feedbacks?"I'm just referring to the fact that the most potent feedbacks would be found in the glacial-interglacial transitions. Currently there just isn't a lot that adding more water vapor to the atmosphere will do. The glacial earth however is very cold and dry place...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum#Glacial_climateThere are many interesting twists and turns the climate takes in glacial-interglacial transitions that most people are simply unaware of. Seriously...have you ever considered the impact of lower sea levels on albedo? How about the potential feedback from having warmer (due to low circulation) tropical oceans but with ice sheets sitting on the continental shelf where it can be melted much more rapidly once the climate starts a transition? How about desert albedo verses grassland/forest that springs up as soon as there is some actual rainfall?It is accepted that feedbacks are incredibly powerful and the various climate features are set in a very precarious state by the glacial maximum. The theoretical maximum "forcing" from CO2 is tiny compared to the feedbacks and the feedbacks have a far more rapid reaction time...especially once you realize how unstable the configuration becomes once the milankovitch cycles change the energy distribution of the planet. The changes to the distribution likely have a far greater impact than the "forcing" by the milankovitch cycles. Thu 25 Mar 2010 04:46:31 GMT+1 Cariboo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=96#comment227 224. Dave_oxon@Cariboo, #214you wrote:So your argument, though initially based on a fine thought experiment, essentially boils down to your opinion.Yes and I did not make any claim otherwise, I was careful not to claim anything as science fact. So this begs the question, your point is? Wed 24 Mar 2010 16:53:22 GMT+1 SheffTim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=95#comment226 “We did just have the coldest winter for 30 years, is this autumn/winter going to be hotter than the summer??!?!?!?” #201It has been a cold & snowy winter in parts of northern Eurasia and in the USA – yet for Canada it was the warmest and driest on record.http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/777975--warmest-driest-winter-ever-in-canadaThe Arctic also had an unusually warm winter.http://arctickingdom.com/blog/2010/01/scientists-report-an-unusually-warm-arctic-winter/This unusual state of affairs was called the ‘upside down winter’ by some US forecasters.http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1432In 2010 the tropical Atlantic waters were the warmest on record for a February and the 2nd warmest anomaly for a month since 1948.http://www.examiner.com/x-4053-Raleigh-Weather-Examiner~y2010m3d15-Very-warm-atlantic-ocean-and-weakening-el-nino-could-lead-to-actice-hurricane-seasonAlso bear in mind it wasn’t cold everywhere – even in the northern hemisphere. In Crete on New Year's Day the temperature reached 30°C (86F), a new all-time record for Europe in January.On Feb 20th 2010 in Niger a temperature record of 44.3 C (112 F) was recorded, the second warmest temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere in a February.In Australia Perth recorded the joint-hottest summer (December, January & February) in its110-year record whilst Rio de Janeiro in Brazil experienced temperatures of 46.3 degrees Celsius in February 2010 in the worst heat wave to hit Rio de Janeiro in 50 years.Overall January and February were abnormally warm globally. The climate sceptic Roy Spencer ‘double checked’ NASA’s figures and found them correct.http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-72-deg-c/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03/february-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-version-5-3-unveiled/We had a highly unusual winter, due to a rare combination of events; a strong El Nino in the pacific, the Arctic Oscillation in its most negative phase in 60 years and so on. This resulted in a shift in position of both Jet Streams in the N. Hemisphere, warm air rushing into the Arctic causing cold air to move southwards over Europe and the USA and so on. El Nino helped generate exceptional snowstorms as well as floods and droughts elsewhere in the world.This site has a detailed overview of the 2009-2010 winter: Impacts and causes.http://sites.google.com/site/whythe2009winterissocold/ Wed 24 Mar 2010 13:31:47 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=95#comment225 poitsplace #225As a matter of interest, can you give a citation for your statements thatthe ice, dust, desertification and REAL water vapor feedbacks available during the glacial-interglacial transition are entirely adequate on their own to explain ALL of the glacial-interglacial transition amplification. They also respond far faster.and[the model ] is actually an extremely poor fit within the ice core record. The glacial/interglacial transition temperatures simply fluctuate too rapidly and show no actual signature of CO2's influence...the only signature is of temperature on CO2.I'm not trying to catch you out, since I'm sure there are valid reasons for your assertions. I just wonder how robust they are. For example we all know how much uncertainty there is about water vapour feedbacks - so what are "REAL water vapor feedbacks?" Wed 24 Mar 2010 11:42:47 GMT+1 lburt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=94#comment224 @Paul Butler #158 who wrote..."That's an interesting plot you linked to, though. Look how the holocene warm period is already significantly longer than any of the other interglacials. There's one hypothesis (due to Bill Ruddiman) that human intervention (mainly deforestation) has already prevented the slippage into a new ice age."OR there's the fact that this interglacial has long been suspected of being similar to the MIS-11. Feel free to look that up.===================="The issue, though is that concentrations of greenhouse gases are unprecedented in the past 400,000 years and are known to be involved in substantial amplifying feedback loops, especially in the warming direction."This isn't known at all. This is simply assumed.====================RE:these things cannot be explained AT ALL"but that's not entirely true. There are models that do a reasonable job of explaining the glacial-interglacial transitions, and they tend to involve feedbacks including greenhouse gases."I didn't say the glacial-interglacial transition, I said the holocene fluctuations (within the interglacial). And again, the ice, dust, desertification and REAL water vapor feedbacks available during the glacial-interglacial transition are entirely adequate on their own to explain ALL of the glacial-interglacial transition amplification. They also respond far faster.Also the more important factor of the milankovitch cycles is not that they provide a "forcing" but that they actually change the very nature of the feedbacks so they favor either warming or cooling.And of course once again, just because you can force a model to work with something doesn't mean that's how it actually works. Its actually an extremely poor fit within the ice core record. The glacial/interglacial transition temperatures simply fluctuate too rapidly and show no actual signature of CO2's influence...the only signature is of temperature on CO2. Wed 24 Mar 2010 10:23:23 GMT+1 Dave_oxon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=94#comment223 @Cariboo, #214you wrote:"I suspect that any effect that CO2 has concerning back radiation has long since reached piratical equilibrium.""I think more than enough time has passed to reach piratical equilibrium."(emphasis mine)So your argument, though initially based on a fine thought experiment, essentially boils down to your opinion.You claim that you cannot do the calculation, that's fair enough, but unless you can understand the methodology of those who have attempted the calculation (see, for example, the paper linked in one of my previous posts on the subject), your opinion remains simply that: an opinion. Wed 24 Mar 2010 10:20:32 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=94#comment222 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8583308.stmmore overexaggerations. Wed 24 Mar 2010 09:27:19 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=93#comment221 ADMac #220I'm sure there are plenty of good scientists who don't publish for all the reasons you mention. However, the conclusions of IPCC have to be based on what is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Can you imagine what people would say if they made some statement then said the research underlying this is commercially confidential so we can't actually give a citation that will allow you to read it?So whatever points Gray was making, they will only be considered if they are backed by published research. Wed 24 Mar 2010 09:08:39 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=93#comment220 Cariboo #218Well, Michael Mann continues to defend the hockey stick, and there have been a number of other reconstructions of global temps during the past millennium which give basically the same result. While I'm not entirely convinced by it, since as you go back in time the proxies become fewer in number and less reliable, that doesn't make it, as you seem to think, a 'porky'For the umpteenth time, AGW theory does not depend on the hockey stick. So to try to maintain it is false because you think you've found a flaw in the hockey stick is itself dishonest. And I'm sure you know it. Cariboo #219You would accept or dismiss a person based published papers. What you are really saying is that anything that I or any one else have learned during their life is of no value unless they have published a peer reviewed paper.You know as well as I do that I wasn't saying that!For comments about Vincent Gray, see my post #219 and associated links. I'm obviously not saying you can't have an opinion if you haven't published. But IPCC reports have to be based on the science (look what happens to them if they get it wrong!). So if somebody wants to set themselves up as an expert reviewer and comment on IPCC drafts, they need to make their submissions on the basis of published science (whether by themselves or somebody else).Of course, I haven't read Gray's submissions, but I would be very surprised if they said anything that was both (a) in the scientific literature AND (b) the IPCC lead authors were unaware of.I've just had a quick look at his article 'Spinning the Climate'. There actually isn't any science in this, but there is a section entitled 'Environmental Religion' which ends with the remarkable paragraph "The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development ... in Rio 3-14 June 1992 was organized to launch an attack on all forms of "Development" on the grounds that they destroyed "The Environment". A major purpose of the Conference was to launch the greenhouse theory, once more, and this time to convert it into a weapon for a campaign to impoverish the world" (!!)People (including Gray, evidently) like to flag up agreement with the AGW theory as some kind of religion. And then they come up with a demented statement such as the one I've just quoted!! Wed 24 Mar 2010 09:01:57 GMT+1 ADMac http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=92#comment219 Paul Butler @217The idea that a scientist needs to publish peer reviewed papers to be credible is utter nonsense.Often the best science graduates are head hunted by big corporations or other major industry players where usually research activity is not published for reasons relating to commercial confidentiality.We have already seen commercial confidentiality in climategate. There are many climate scientists who are not in academia but are civil servants who publish peer reviewed papers who were possibly unsuccessful in obtaining more lucrative employment elsewhere.Its also worth remembering that there is likely to be government sponsored climate related research which will have restricted access and will not be published in the public domain and usually done by people who are regarded as the most gifted scientists. Wed 24 Mar 2010 01:16:47 GMT+1 Cariboo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=92#comment218 @217. Paul ButlerWitness your attempt to argue that the IPCC should spend its time dealing with the opinions of a retired coal chemist, one Vincent Gray (see my post #209 above), who has never published in the field of climate research. I have no idea who Vincent Gray is or what he has to say but I would point out that knowledge is knowledge no matter how it was obtained.You would accept or dismiss a person based published papers. What you are really saying is that anything that I or any one else have learned during their life is of no value unless they have published a peer reviewed paper. Well I not published a reviewed paper so I guess my life is a complete waste of time and all I have achieved in my life is just taking up space.So unless you have a published and peer reviewed paper, by your own standards I will dismiss you. Tue 23 Mar 2010 22:15:39 GMT+1 Cariboo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=91#comment217 @217. Paul ButlerProblem is, any informed scientist who knows about the field will accept the basic premise of the AGW theory, because all the peer reviewed literature accepts it.Ah yes, that brings to mind the hockey stick. Medieval warm period negated. Little ice age negated.Peer revived and thus is accepted fact. Later found to one big “porky”.In my view the Michael Mann (made global warming) is either incompetent or a charlatan. Why the man still has a job in science is beyond me. As for the peer reviewers, the same applies. And then to defend the indefensible just adds insult.Just because some learned fellow says something and other learned fellows agree does not make it so.It all comes down to the integrity of the learned fellows. Some have it some do not. The problem is weeding out those who's integrity is lacking and those who are incompetent.Lack of knowledge does not = incompetence. Lack of knowledge can be corrected. Incompetence = unsuitability. Tue 23 Mar 2010 21:58:23 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=91#comment216 Barry #211Any attempt to convey complex science to the non-scientific public will be a lie by your definition. Why? Because important caveats, uncertainties, details will have to be left out. Because precise scientific language will have to re-expressed in less precise, maybe even misleading, 'ordinary' language.Any school science textbook must be full of what you would describe as 'lies' because otherwise it would be incomprehensible to its intended audience.Most scientists hate any attempt by the mainstream media to report their findings because they always get it wrong. But they still have to let it happen, because one way or another they'd usually like their research to be known about.Barry #212Problem is, any informed scientist who knows about the field will accept the basic premise of the AGW theory, because all the peer reviewed literature accepts it. So selective sceptics will be able to criticize pretty well anyone qualified to assess whatever -gate they're supposed to be assessing this week.The trouble is, the selective sceptics are fighting a dirty war, in which the scientists have to be above board and unimpeachable at every turn, while facing a barrage of uninformed criticism, zombie arguments and downright lies whose only intent is to damage a part of science whose conclusions the selective sceptics don't like, but which they can't argue against scientifically. Witness your attempt to argue that the IPCC should spend its time dealing with the opinions of a retired coal chemist, one Vincent Gray (see my post #209 above), who has never published in the field of climate research. Tue 23 Mar 2010 20:51:39 GMT+1 Cariboo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=91#comment215 @213.Bonn1e As a member of 'the public' just how much more 'aware' of climate change does the government wish me to be? I am sick to death of hearing about it as it is. And what, precisely, does it expect me to do about it? Lie awake worrying? I'm sorry, I have far better things to do with my three score years and ten thanks.Thats how politics works. 1) Define a goal.2) Manufacture a suitable and imaginary problem.3) Make the general public (peasants) aware of how big and devastating the problem is.4) Solve the problem by passing legislation that achieves the initial goal. 5) Laugh while pushing the political wheelbarrow to the bank, fooled them again.Now when a real problem occurs you find yourself stuck up effluent creek.The politicians can be readily identified, they have you paddle. They are ducking and weaving and casting the blame and or consequences on you whilst beating a headlong retreat to the bunker. Tue 23 Mar 2010 20:18:03 GMT+1 Cariboo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=90#comment214 @202. Barry WoodsActually, sorry cariboo, I think my above reponse, should have been directed to thinkforyourself, multilple quoting each other gets confusing sometimes.That's OK. You just proved you are human and as fallible as the rest of us. Tue 23 Mar 2010 19:31:36 GMT+1 Cariboo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=90#comment213 @205. Dave_oxon As far as I can interpret this result, you have simply confirmed the greenhouse effect (albeit at a somewhat exaggerated level with a 50% feedback factor).Yes, to deny the greenhouse effect would be a stupid stance. I chose 50% feed back because few iterations are required to demonstrate that feedback is (self) limited and that the feedback can never be more than the initial source. In an idle moment I thought it would be interesting to write a small scale computer model to simulate the interaction of IR with CO2, just a programing exercise. If CO2 were in a static position at all times and was evenly dispersed it would be possible. However convection comes into the equation. A moving target, I quickly realized I could not write a program where a target is moving to who knows where, a bit like pushing a rope. One of the first things about programming is that if you cannot do it by hand you cannot write a program to do it. Another important thing I learned is that fudge factors at best hide a programming error and at worst come back and bite you later on. In short, don't do it. I think I have just described the programming screw ups in climate modeling.This model will never show an exponential thermal runaway, as you have mentioned, but it will ALWAYS reach an equilibrium with a higher surface irradiation than direct radiation alone (which would probably result in a higher surface temperature)Yes that is what I wanted to show. I do not stand as an advocate for this, I relay do not know but I suspect that if back radiation has an effect then this back radiation has to have a warming effect. I suspect that any warming effect has long since ceased to be a factor in global temperature due to the long time that the process has been going on. I suspect that any effect that CO2 has concerning back radiation has long since reached piratical equilibrium.hence for a feedback of 99.9%, new total irradiation =1000unitsWould this not be thermal runaway?Fortunately, we're talking about a greenhouse effect that is much weaker than the simple one you have shown with a 50% factor, but it is still theoretically enough to increase the atmospheric energy content over time.I think more than enough time has passed to reach piratical equilibrium.By how much, and what effect this would have on us living at the surface, these are the big questions which the science is attempting answer.Yes and it seems to me that there is much grasping at straws in the scientific and political world, not to mention some of the general public. May be I am one of them. Tue 23 Mar 2010 19:27:28 GMT+1 Bonn1e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=89#comment212 As a member of 'the public' just how much more 'aware' of climate change does the government wish me to be? I am sick to death of hearing about it as it is. And what, precisely, does it expect me to do about it? Lie awake worrying? I'm sorry, I have far better thins to do with my three score years and ten thanks. Tue 23 Mar 2010 18:34:23 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=89#comment211 No it is not a good idea to remain dependant on fossil fuels...Doesn't mean we should blindly follow every daft idea, even George Monbiot has criticsed solar, and wind farm at 10% capacity or less.I don't see how that has got anything at all to do with being seen to be impartial though..Does the establishment not see, it would BENEFIT the debate, if the enquiry could be seen to be totally impartial..Someone who could be accused as having such an obvious direct financial interest and a very strong pro AGW position in maintaining the consensus view, is just fodder for the sceptics, and does not help the advocates at all. Tue 23 Mar 2010 18:33:29 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=88#comment210 simplified to a lie.This approach will always backfire eventually..Iwouldn't probably have even noticed or become very sceptical...excpet the blatant manipulation of an alarmist message, prior to Copenhagen, raised my sceptical radar..Why, if the science is so strong do they need to do this... Tue 23 Mar 2010 18:15:02 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=88#comment209 Barry #208 Still no answer from Paul, whether he approves of the use of cgi spin,propaganda scare tactics, as described above, to further the AGW agendaNot sure if you mean me or Paul Briscoe, but let's pretend you mean me.You're begging the question by referring to "cgi spin,propaganda scare tactics". What goes on in science is one thing, what goes on in political lobbying quite another. If the science suggests that there is a risk of some unwanted or catastrophic development in the future, then people who think we should adopt the precautionary principle are at liberty to stress the undesirable outcome, even if the science is not saying this outcome will definitely happen but is only saying there is a significant chance that this outcome may happen and we can describe with reasonable confidence a chain of events that will result in this outcome and we can also say that if fossil fuel emissions are reduced this chain of events is less likely to happen.The science itself always has to be simplified in such cases (doesn't matter what 'side' the argument is coming from). The scientist in me doesn't approve of that, but the pragmatist in me appreciates that this is how political discussion and lobbying is carried out. In this case, the AGW 'side' has the upper hand because all peer-reviewed science supports it. The complacent 'side' is faced with the task of showing that postulated scenarios of amplifying feedbacks leading to temperature rises of several degrees are impossible or virtually impossible. There is no peer-reviewed science that can show that, simply because there are too many uncertainties right now. Now Barry, you answer the question I've asked you twice now in connection with your view of Falck Renewables. Do you think its desirable to remain dependant on fossil fuels until they run out, or do you think we should be investing in new renewable technologies right now so we are ready for that eventuality Tue 23 Mar 2010 17:40:06 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=88#comment208 Barrie Woods #206 "(pdf link, so you need to find it yourself. 'IPCC Spinning the climate' should find it, by Vincent Gray"Would you care to list the peer-reviewed papers on climate science by Vincent Gray?The fact is, anybody can volunteer to be an 'expert reviewer' for the IPCC. All it means is that the person asked to see the draft report.The IPCC had indeed rejected a lot of comments in this section, but 90 per cent came from a single reviewer: NRSP insider Dr. Vincent Gray, a New Zealand chemist and coal expert who has never published peer-reviewed work on climate science and whose last peer-reviewed publication on any topic appeared 17 years ago. And a large number of rejections came because the input was grammatically or logically insensible. Tue 23 Mar 2010 16:21:59 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=87#comment207 Paul Briscoe says:"There's no doubting that Climategate has damaged the reputation of AGW scientists........ but that was, of course, the whole idea of it!"And you point is?In much the same way the MP's expenses leak/hack/whistleblowing then....The reputation can only be damaged because of the CONTENT, has been shown to be devastingly damaging..The move along here, nothing to see, just a few silly claims(silly emails) catch that naughty hacker, did not work when parliament tried that line...Their has been lots of warnings as well about AGW, CRU, IPCC...Phil Jones famously unscientific "why should i give you the data (to replicate work, the core of all science) you just want to find holes in it"And of course, they did get it, and did find 'flaws' shall we say (climateaudit)Just one 'of many' above warnings(I'll start posting more if you'd like)...Vincent Gray (IPCC expert reviewer) July 2008:"I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be its abolition."Still no answer from Paul, whether he approves of the use of cgi spin,propaganda scare tactics, as described above, to further the AGW agenda (no response from Richard Black, Roger Harrabin, and the BBC trust yet either, on that exact issue.) Tue 23 Mar 2010 14:48:42 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=87#comment206 @Paul Briscoe@oldterry2@infinity@LarryKealeyOK. Concerned.There seems to be a debunk meme doing the rounds in the blogosphere for Venus's greenhouse as an example of a planetary greenhouse. This seems to be partially because the role of the lapse rate in planet scale greenhouses is left out of the basic greenhouse explanations. The lapse rate, whereby temperatures decrease with altitude, or increase with depth, is an essential component of a planet scale greenhouse. If Venus's atmosphere was completely transparent to its infra-red emissions then the infra-red emissions would be from the surface, the lapse rate could not contribute to a greenhouse effect and Venus would be substantially cooler. But with the actual Venus most of the infra-red emissions come from high in the atmosphere (precise altitude smeared out), so a large proportion of Venus's lapse rate contributes to its greenhouse, making its surface temperature very hot.I am not sure of the precise role of the clouds in Venus's greenhouse, except that they do increase Venus's albedo (cooling) as well as contributing to the greenhouse (warming).A point on the definition of a "runaway greenhouse". The definition of "runaway greenhouse" is not temperature based, it is chemistry based. All Venus's potential greenhouse gases are in its atmosphere (or lost to space). It would take an extremely long time for Earth to emit a volume of carbon dioxide comparable to that in Venus's atmosphere as much of Earth's carbon dioxide has been locked away in carbonates. Also some carbon based fossil fuels are too awkward or hidden to extract.Finally a reminder. Sceptics don't need to debunk Venus.Venus being an extreme example of a planetary greenhouse does not affect those elements of AGW central to debate1. Climate sensitivity to anthropogenic greenhouse gases (including certainty). (Why don't you sceptics trust your fellow sceptic MangoChutneyUKOK on this?)2. Impact of temperature changes.3. Potential fixes. Tue 23 Mar 2010 14:46:18 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=86#comment205 From Spinning the climate.A expert reviewer of the IPCC wrote an article back in July 2008:(pdf link, so you need to find it yourself. 'IPCC Spinning the climate' should find it, by Vincent Gray, last part he says:MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.I have been an “Expert Reviewer” for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,878 comments on theFinal Draft of the current 4th Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library ofreprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, abook, and in my occasional Newsletter the current number being 157.I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematicalprinciples. Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion thatfor significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be its abolition.Part 4 of the book is a description of the scientific publications of the IPCC and how they have been used to distort climate science to make false claims for the proposition that human greenhouse gas emissionsare harming the climate. By drawing attention to these obvious facts, I have found myself persona non grata with most of my local professional associations, as I am questioning the integrity of these award-winning scientific leaders of the local science establishment.I somehow understood that the threshold had been passed when I viewed “The Great Global Warming Swindle” Channel 4 documentary. Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle, The IPCCfrom the beginning was given the license to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide “evidence” that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation ofdubious data and using peoples’ opinions instead of science to “prove” their case. The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is that the world will slowly realise that the “predictions” emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any “global warming” for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phoney. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.------The BBC of course, complained about he Great Global Warming Swindle!Would they like to interview this chap, find out more? Tue 23 Mar 2010 13:02:53 GMT+1 Dave_oxon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=86#comment204 @Cariboo,#197The thought experiment you've proposed here is an interesting exercise but I think you may have mis-interpreted the result.Your simple model is tending towards (at iteration infinity) 1 unit of back radiation + 1 unit of direct radiation. This means that, due to the greenhouse effect you are attempting to model, the planet's surface is receiving, at each time step, 2 units of radiation (1 direct + one back radiation from CO2) instead of 1 (direct radiation, no back effect). As far as I can interpret this result, you have simply confirmed the greenhouse effect (albeit at a somewhat exaggerated level with a 50% feedback factor).This model will never show an exponential thermal runaway, as you have mentioned, but it will ALWAYS reach an equilibrium with a higher surface irradiation than direct radiation alone (which would probably result in a higher surface temperature) i.e. total irradiation=1/(1-factor)hence for a feedback of 99.9%, new total irradiation =1000unitsfor a feedback of 0.1%, new total irradiation =1.001 unitsFortunately, we're talking about a greenhouse effect that is much weaker than the simple one you have shown with a 50% factor, but it is still theoretically enough to increase the atmospheric energy content over time. By how much, and what effect this would have on us living at the surface, these are the big questions which the science is attempting answer. Tue 23 Mar 2010 11:43:08 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=86#comment203 Denying Email DeletionPhil Jones, Dec 3, 2008:About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all. Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009 GuardianWe’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. Tue 23 Mar 2010 10:57:50 GMT+1 Vic Smith http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=85#comment202 The deliberations of the Scientific Assessment Panel looking into the CRU will yield no indication for us of the validity, or otherwise, of climate-change research.This is not its function.It is similar to a disciplinary body investigating whether a doctor has been carrying out good practice. It is only necessary to demonstrate that the doctor has acted as most doctors would, in the same circumstances, to avoid censure.If the panel decides that correct procedures were followed at the CRU, this cannot be interpreted as saying that climate-change research is a science in the way that physics is.Fortunately, we will all be left to make up our own minds on that point. Tue 23 Mar 2010 10:22:06 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=85#comment201 Actually, sorry cariboo, I think my above reponse, should have been directed to thinkforyourself, multilple quoting each other gets confusing sometimes. Tue 23 Mar 2010 10:03:37 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=84#comment200 Cariboo:"@168. thinkforyourself‘It is nearly certain that a new record global temperature will be set in 2010’I am 100% certain that new global temperatures will be set each and every day in the future of the earth. "WHAT all through, Spring, Summer - Autum, Winter as well!!!!!We did just have the coldest winter for 30 years, is this autumn/winter going to be hotter than the summer??!?!?!?Breaking all sorts of snow extent and amounts, for decades across the northern hemisphere as well(but of course, evrything the weather does, cold/hot, drought/flood can be said as evidence of 'climate change' despite zero proof)Wow.Well of course, satellites record began 30 years ago, human temperature records 150 years ish.The UK government website, planet warming since records began, highest temp since records began..(1850 - just after the frost fairs on the Thames - ie at natural cold low) This is called 'cherry picking'All, economically with the truth - 'true'However, since records began, is a selected starting point..Not quite the same, as Is it the highest temp in earth history?Is it even the highest temp in human history?If you start measuring temperture, and quoting figures, on an up cycle of natural warm/cool cycles... surprise surprise, it gets warmer...Or as Paul Briscoe, famously said in an earlier post, pre history doesn't matter.. (ie mediavel warm period, minoan, holocene, little iceages)which left me lost for words...Just throw away all the evidence, that shows nothing is unprecedented, everything we have seen, is within the realms of natural variability...purely because it is 'prehistory'...Thier is a flood point in henley over a 100m from the river, wast height, good 9-10 feet above the river level..Of course no one in living mememory, remembers it (couple hundred years ago) If it happended now, of course it would be held up as proof of 'climate change' more extreme weather events, etc,etc. Just like Cockermouth.. where as a wag noticed, oh look (at an aerial photo in the paper) all the old mediavel buildings are high and dry.And another article, showing the current 'climate change' flood high on a wall. Sharp eyed reporters missing the higher flood lines from the 1800's in the same picture...Keep on believing, fact are one thing, belief is another..the bbc needs tokeep on believing.. 8 billion pounds invested in 'green' pension investments.Hopefull the mods, are diversifying thei portfolios, with this inside information..Bill Clinton can see which way the 'wind' is blowing politically now..http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7495834/Bill-Clinton-pokes-fun-at-Al-Gore-during-Gridiron-dinner.html"He also targeted Al Gore, noting that it was spring: "otherwise known to Al Gore as proof of global warming." Looks like Cariboo works in a climate science department? Tue 23 Mar 2010 10:00:37 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=84#comment199 Paul Briscoe: I'm not aware of any small children being scared by such films.(well I do,)Is it OK for the BBC to treat the public like children, the BBC know that was CGI fiction, do you agree or not that clip was 'alarmist' fiction?This is not the Guardian.(you know what you are going to get there)The BBC have a duty to inform. Actually, that is not what is going to happen (59cm in 90 years does not a tidal wave make), even if you believe the IPCC's own computer projections..So do you and the BBC think it OK to pass on uncriticised this fiction, (propaganda) used to close down the debate, all in the name of the greater good.I'm still waiting for Richard Black's and Roger Harrabin's answer to that question as well. Tue 23 Mar 2010 09:40:36 GMT+1 Cariboo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=83#comment198 Incandescent light bulbs are not energy efficient at producing light, most of the energy going into a light bulb is converted to heat. On the surface it seems that compact florescent bulbs will save us money (and give us a poor quality light).Where I live there are very few days of the year that when it is dark and and hot. Mostly when it is dark it gets quite cool. Most of the days a little extra heating would be welcome. On those days an incandescent light bulb is 100% efficient, I am getting the (good quality) light and a bit of extra heat.On quality of light. In my workshop I have florescent tube lighting. This provides enough light so I do not trip over stuff or bump into things. I need to read a vernier scale, frequently and the quality of florescent light is just not good enough for my aging eyes. I have to use an incandescent light.When it comes to temperature, one mans hot is another mans cold. I went on a winter holiday to Mexico. It was well below zero at home and nearly 30 in Mexico. Needless to say I was sweating profusely. While on a taxi journey the driver was complaining about it being cold. Not thinking I protested that it was very hot. The taxi driver pointed out that it was winter for him. If I had thought I would have recalled all the days that I was cold in Malaya, shivering wrapped up in a blanket. Those times would be during the rainy season when it would bucket it down for about an hour each day. While was raining the temperature would drop from 35C to 20C. As soon as it stopped raining the temperature shot back up again. Tue 23 Mar 2010 09:23:45 GMT+1 Cariboo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=83#comment197 @168. thinkforyourself‘It is nearly certain that a new record global temperature will be set in 2010’I am 100% certain that new global temperatures will be set each and every day in the future of the earth. I think that you did not think and what you wanted to say was that, "It is nearly certain that a new record global temperature record will be set in 2010"When you mentioned this in another blog it was 50% sure. What a difference a few days can make to your ever increasing optimistic view.One thing I am 100% certain about. If the next ice age happens in your lifetime, you will blame it on global warming. Tue 23 Mar 2010 08:51:04 GMT+1 Cariboo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=83#comment196 Hopefully the climate scare mongers realize most of the IR frequencies that react with CO2 also react with water vapor. That water vapor trumps CO2 to the extent that the role of CO2 in the shared frequencies is to all intents and purposes, irrelevant. Only a narrow band of IR frequency's can be claimed as CO2 specific.Using a very simple model of 1 CO2 molecule and 1 IR short pulse of a given intensity. Assume that the back radiation of CO2 is 50% (0.5 of the outward bound IR energy). The next IR pulse has to be 1.5 as intense as the first because the energy budget has to be maintained. The back radiation is now a 0.75, 50 % of 1.5. The next IR pulse is at 1.75 etc. Lets try a table it will be cleareriteration outward back radiation.1 1 0.51 1.5 0.753 1.75 0.8754 1.875 0.93755 1.9375 0.968756 1.96875 0.9843757 1.984375 0.99218758 1.9921875 0.996093759 1.99609375 0.99804687510 1.998046875 0.9990234375We all know this is very simplistic and in the real world IR being re radiated by CO2 is chaotic but this does demonstrate that the heat increase that CO2 can be responsible for has to be less than 1 unit when the heat source is providing I unit. Diminishing returns as outbound heat reaches toward 2 units. If this were not the case then it would not be a subject for discussion because thermal runaway would have fried the earth long long ago.The sun has been pouring energy at the earth for a longer time than I can imagine and for much if not all that time CO2 has been playing its back radiation game. With this in mind I come to the conclusion that the earth has absorbed nearly 1 unit of heat but not quite and never will be 1 unit in excess. That increasing the CO2 content has to increase the amount of back radiation that gets back to earth. That the heating effect of this increased back radiation is so small that it is irrelevant and that thermal runaway is impossible while the sun has fuel left to burn. Because energy can neither be crated or destroyed, unless some one can magic up some other source of energy, there is nothing to worry about, we are not responsible for any warming.Another thing I have noticed is that conduction seems to transport more heat than IR. Here is one of the reasons why.I have a stainless steel vacuum flask. I always pre-heat it with boiling water. Twice I have had the outer flask fail and let in air. The conducted transfer of heat to the outer flask is very quick, you can feel the outer flask get to hot to hold in less than a minute. When the flask is working with the vacuum intact heat can only escape by conduction, through the stopper and via IR. The contents of the flask are still good and hot after 8 hours. Considering that the bulk of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen and the tremendous amount of heat that is conducted into these gasses and then convection carries the heat upwards to escape into space, this must be the main way that the earth is cooled, not IR. Sounds a bit like the daily weather to me. Tue 23 Mar 2010 08:41:05 GMT+1 LarryKealey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=82#comment195 187. At 5:47pm on 22 Mar 2010, infinity wrote:Re 178. Paul BriscoeFurthermore venus is warmer than mercury, which is of course the closest planet to the sun.____________________________________-@infinity - that is an apples to oranges comparison - Venus is slightly warmer than Mercury - which has almost no atmosphere to speak of - just two trillionths of the atmospheric pressure on Earth. A Day on Mercury is about 54 earth days (a year on Mercury is 88 days) - on the side facing the sun, the temperature is about 800F. The temperature on Venus is about 870F - not much difference there.Its also a bad comparison with Earth. The atmosphere of Venus is 97% CO2 AND the surface pressure is 92 bars - or 92 times the surface pressure of the Earth. A whole lot of very different dynamics going on there. It is also completely covered in clouds of sulfur dioxide. Very very different from Earth, and no proof that even increasing Earth's CO2 level by ten fold would cause run-away warming.CheersKealey Tue 23 Mar 2010 03:44:06 GMT+1 ADMac http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=82#comment194 andrew9999 @ 194"The Institute of Physics recently submitted a response to a House of Commons Science and Technology Committee call for evidence in relation to its inquiry into the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia which has become the focus of media hype.We regret that our submission has been seized upon by some individuals to imply that IOP does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.IOP’s position on global warming is clear: the basic science is well established and there is no doubt that climate change is happening and that we should be taking action to address it now."The Institute of Physics have chosen their words very carefully to effectively tell us very little about their position on global warming.Virtually everybody agrees that CO2 contributes to warming to a greater or lesser extent. IOP does not indicate how much they think it contributes to global warming.They said their position on global warming is clear, but said that there is no doubt that climate change is happening. They didn't say that there is no doubt that global warming is happening. They will be aware that a complete understanding of all factors relating to the climate requires more than an understanding of the basic science.They are clearly hedging their bets and also trying to be all things to all people. Tue 23 Mar 2010 00:46:21 GMT+1 andrew9999 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=81#comment193 @barry woods#171You said "He knows, I know, the Institute of Physics know, that AGW theory is a delusion"Is this the same Institute of Physics which said this:http://www.iop.org/Media/Press%20Releases/press_40680.html"The Institute of Physics recently submitted a response to a House of Commons Science and Technology Committee call for evidence in relation to its inquiry into the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia which has become the focus of media hype.We regret that our submission has been seized upon by some individuals to imply that IOP does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming. IOP’s position on global warming is clear: the basic science is well established and there is no doubt that climate change is happening and that we should be taking action to address it now." Mon 22 Mar 2010 21:32:04 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=81#comment192 Barry Woods #191So I guess by your inuendo/smear that makes their research suspect?No innuendo/smear meant or implied. You critically quoted what looked like a perectly reasonable mission statement from Falck Renewables. I asked whether you'd be happy to sit and watch as fossil fuels became scarce and expensive rather than have us move to lose our dependance on them asap. That question, you haven't answered. How do you feel Paul about the use of CGI propaganda with no basis in the science, being used to scare small children?I'm not aware of any small children being scared by such films. Mon 22 Mar 2010 21:03:23 GMT+1 Smiffie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=80#comment191 CO2 is dead in the water but biofuels are still the way to go if we want freedom from energy controlled by regimes that despise us and that finance those who bomb us. Further the use of food crops for biofuel production will go some way to containing the population bomb that is about to go off in some parts of the world. Mon 22 Mar 2010 20:44:18 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=80#comment190 I have no shares in any oil company..The Climate Research Centre, has received major funding from Oil companies... Lot's of climategate emails from P.Jones and company seeking it...So I guess by your inuendo/smear that makes their research suspect?How do you feel Paul about the use of CGI propaganda with no basis in the science, being used to scare small children?On a lighter note:Bill Clinton makes a 'Climate Change' (man made ) joke..http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7495834/Bill-Clinton-pokes-fun-at-Al-Gore-during-Gridiron-dinner.html"He also targeted Al Gore, noting that it was spring: "otherwise known to Al Gore as proof of global warming." Bill has sharp political radar, I guess he sees the direction of the wind has changed in the poltical 'climate'...... Mon 22 Mar 2010 20:32:36 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=80#comment189 So a novel definition of independent enquiry, with no vested financial interest has just been discovered..... Mon 22 Mar 2010 19:03:48 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=79#comment188 Barry Woods @ #184"Maybe you shoud have looked at the comments section of that Guardian article. I cannot imagine as may sceptical comments 4 months ago.."Personally, I don't normally bother reading the bloggers' comments as many of the posts tend to be merely assertions rather than statements of fact. It was obviously the content of the articles themselves that was important in this case.There's no doubting that Climategate has damaged the reputation of AGW scientists........ but that was, of course, the whole idea of it!Regarding the rest of your post, the various enquiries were always on a hiding to nothing where the sceptics were concerned, as whoever had been chosen to sit on the panels would have been criticised for not being impartial enough....... and few sceptics are going to accept the findings of the enquiries unless they go along with the gross misrepresentations which have pervaded the entire internet!Paul Mon 22 Mar 2010 18:15:36 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=79#comment187 Falck Renewables’ mission is to help expand the global use of wind energy. This mission supports the European Council’s goal of having 20% of total energy consumed from renewable sources by 2020. Falck provides technical solutions for a future with reduced dependence on fossil fuels and fewer greenhouse gas emissions, which has been identified as the cause of global warming and is a major threat to our planet.Falck’s development of wind energy is consistent with what is prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol. Once in operation, wind farms are a virtually emission free energy source, providing clean and sustainable energy. Falck works to be actively involved in all key phases of wind farm development, finance, construction, and operationSo what's wrong with that, Barry? Except that 20% by 2020 sounds lower than it should be.Do you really want us to continue to be dependant on fossil fuels. How soon before they actually run out do you think we should start looking for alternatives?Or do you have shares in the oil companies, who seem to turn over a nice profit when the price goes up ... Mon 22 Mar 2010 18:11:22 GMT+1 infiniti http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=78#comment186 Re 178. Paul BriscoeFurthermore venus is warmer than mercury, which is of course the closest planet to the sun. Mon 22 Mar 2010 17:47:59 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=78#comment185 "Falck Mission Statement:Falck Renewables’ mission is to help expand the global use of wind energy. This mission supports the European Council’s goal of having 20% of total energy consumed from renewable sources by 2020. Falck provides technical solutions for a future with reduced dependence on fossil fuels and fewer greenhouse gas emissions, which has been identified as the cause of global warming and is a major threat to our planet.Falck’s development of wind energy is consistent with what is prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol. Once in operation, wind farms are a virtually emission free energy source, providing clean and sustainable energy. Falck works to be actively involved in all key phases of wind farm development, finance, construction, and operation." Mon 22 Mar 2010 17:01:47 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=77#comment184 yes, back to the topic, is a good idea.Does anyone have a comment about the copenhagen conference video, of a 59cm rise in 90 years, tidal wave (or is it the 2 m projection now) engulfing a small child, running screaming across the land, that gave my child a nightmare..of course I told her, a tidal wave of .00006km a YEAR (or 0.00022km a year, respectively) gives you plenty of time to get out of the way..Is that back on topic.Any comment about that CGI fiction, used to scare people and attempt to close down debate.The BBC, ran it uncritically, and Richard Black has refused to answer my concerns that BBC let this go uncritically. Which surely they have a public duty to inform, on patently false propaganda, in the name of someones agenda.Richard just said, in an email to me, it was not 59cm, but in fact a 2m IPCC projection in 90 years(yet my IPCC editor friend is sticking to 59 cm) Not exactly answering my concern about scientifically unjustified CGI, being propped up by the BBC Mon 22 Mar 2010 16:25:03 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=77#comment183 Maybe you shoud have looked at the comments section of that Guardian article. I cannot imagine as may sceptical comments 4 months ago..of course the criticism have not been withdrawn (and no pressure from the establishment possible!)After all they know how to pack enquiries, with people with finacial vested interests in AGW theory.Nice to see another greenwash coming:Royal Society panel announced Mar 22, 2010 The Royal Society panel that is going to examine the scientific aspects on the Climategate affair has been announced. This is the press release from UEA (via a reader - it doesn't appear on the UEA website at the moment).Lord Oxburgh FRS, a former chair of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, is to chair an independent Scientific Assessment Panel to examine important elements of the published science of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.His appointment has been made on the recommendation of the Royal Society, which has also been consulted on the choice of the six distinguished scientists who have been invited to be members of the panel.http://bishophill.squarespace.com/Oxburgh's conflict of interest Mar 22, 2010 Commenters are also noting the background of Ron Oxburgh, the chairman of the RS panel. Lord Oxburgh is:President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association Chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables A member of the Green Fiscal CommissionSo we have a chairman with a direct financial interest in the outcome. I'm not sure this is a surprise. Mon 22 Mar 2010 16:15:57 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=77#comment182 Barry Woods @ #179Barry,I presumed that you had read about the question marks over the IOP submission:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/climate-emails-institute-of-physics-submissionYou'll note that the IOP was forced to issue a clarification explaining that it did in fact support the basic science of AGW:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/02/institute-of-physics-emails-inquiry-submissionPaul Mon 22 Mar 2010 15:01:48 GMT+1 seasambo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=76#comment181 There is certainly a great deal of uncertainty about future climate change and its impacts. However, these two recent publications in Nature and Science show how bad the situation potentially is. Now we are starting to calculate the impact of positive feedback effects on climate change and the picture is far more complex, uncertain and dangerous. The paper in Nature shows that the release of carbon dioxide as a positive feedback to 1 degree of warming from northern peatlands could offset all carbon reductions for Europe under the Kyoto protocol! That doesnt even take into account the potential methane feedback from the Arctic reported in the second paper! The situation without positive feedbacks is potentially bad enough. Add positive feedbacks into the mix and the situation is surely not worth the risk. I wonder how that compares to the governments adverts?http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7255/full/nature08216.htmlhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304142240.htm Mon 22 Mar 2010 14:09:40 GMT+1 LarryKealey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=76#comment180 The topic at hand is 'climate change ads' - and given all the 'half truths' and sheer falsehoods we see on tv - it is certainly worth debate.It is disappointing that this blog tends to always deteriorate into these very specific scientific details and guesses around sensitivities and feedbacks and the like - which there is much argument about in the scientific community and for which it seems there is no purpose in arguing here - as it won't change the state of the science.So, what about 'climate change ads'?? Does anyone have comments?Cheers.Kealey Mon 22 Mar 2010 13:46:48 GMT+1 772sdr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=75#comment179 Whether AGW is happening or not, I don't know because I'm not a climate scientist and seeing as everyone in the media has some kind of bias, most of the things we hear is extreme one way or the other. The problem is that cutting carbon emmissions through carbon trading is the worst possible way to combat global warming even if it is happening. If we want to save polar bears why don't we make it illegal to shoot polar bears? If we want to stop people dying from flooding in south east asia why don't we improve flood defences like in the Netherlands. When was the last time some one died from flooding in Holland? The point is that there are much much cheaper and more effective ways of helping people than cutting carbon emissions which may or may not have an effect in a hundred years time but if we want to stop people from dying now this isn't really soon enough.Of course this raises the question of Global Warming getting worse (if its happening at all and if the consequences are harmful) due to more carbon emissions while we concentrate on other things. But this won't be a long term problem because humans will progress and develop. Research and development funding for renewables and clean energies such as hydrogen fusion reactors must increase and as these technologies get better and better we will change towards them. Partly because of the environment but also because they are simply better for energy security because they have a much longer life span than the finite reserves of fossil fuels. And as such they will be much cheaper for consumers.Add that to the fact that the IPCC doesn't predict any major disasters in the next 1 hundred years (The Ipcc's predictions for sea level rises are not the alarmist and extreme predictions that make a good news story. Although their predictions can be very conservative) and that the link between extreme weather events and global warming is shaky at best, we have got time to catch our breath and think about what the best solutions really are and how we should be helping really poor people now rather than spending loads of money to help people in 100 years time who will be rather well of anyway (growth in the global economy suggests that people in poverty now will probably be almost as rich as those in the west currently are in 100 years time). Mon 22 Mar 2010 12:44:05 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=75#comment178 Actually Paul, those sceptics, are professors of physics....Real climate, was set up by the 'hockey stick' team. Mon 22 Mar 2010 09:49:29 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=75#comment177 Oldterry @ #175"Though you neglect to mention that the CO2 in venus's atmosphere is at 935000ppm (ie 2400 times the CO2 presence in our atmosphere). But I suspect that the fact that venus receives about twice the solar energy that we get has a fairly significant part to play."It's important to bear in mind that Venus is surrounded by a thick layer of cloud which would keep it much cooler than Earth, despite being closer to the sun, if it wasn't for the high level of CO2 in the atmosphere:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lessons-from-venus/...... and many sceptics are still claiming that at 390ppm CO2 is already at saturation with respect to trapping IR radiation!Paul Mon 22 Mar 2010 09:32:07 GMT+1 Dave_oxon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=74#comment176 @Shadorne, #164, #170:It seems that you don't accept the idea of "thermal inertia"... then consider this:When I light a gas-flame under a pan of water on my stove, I have created a system that is not in thermal equilibrium, the flame adds heat to the water steadily, the pan of water loses heat to the surrounding air via the usual processes (conduction/convection/radiation). After some minutes the water will approach* a new equilibrium in which, if the flame is hot enough, the water will be boiling. The minutes in between lighting the flame and the pan boiling are equivalent (in a very simplistic sense) to the "climate inertia" Paul Briscoe has mentioned.Unless water boils instantaneously in your kitchen I put it to you that you must consider this effect in any of your claims. Furthermore, the best calculations we can muster put a characteristic timescale on this effect ~100years. Unless you can show calculations that put the timescale an order of magnitude lower then, again, your claims do not hold up.*even this system must employ a set of interlinked differential equations that take into account such things as nonuniform heating effects across the pan, conduction convection radiation from the flame, the same from the water, conduction and convection within the water (water is a poor conductor of heat) and the water/steam phase change to come up with a realistic estimate of the temperature vs time of our pan of water. Mon 22 Mar 2010 08:58:10 GMT+1 oldterry2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=74#comment175 Those pro AGWs (though I still prefer the phrase COOers for those who believe it is all down to CO2) and who are relying mightily on the computer models that have CO2 driving global warming, might like to note that the IOP has a web lecture with the title 'A Crack in the Code: Why software fails in scientific research, and how to fix it.'Part of the abstract reads "In the 60 years since the invention of the digital computer, millions of lines of code have been developed to support scientific research. Although an increasingly important part of almost all research projects, most research software is BARELY FIT FOR PURPOSE compared to equivalent systems in the commercial world. The code is hard to understand or maintain, lacking documentation and version control, and is continually ‘re-invented’ as the code writers move on to new jobs." Yep, been there, done that, which is why I am very suspicious about computer models. Mon 22 Mar 2010 00:54:54 GMT+1 oldterry2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=73#comment174 in 173. Paul Briscoe wrote:"...... and I have just seen the third episode, Barry, in which the same Professor Brian Cox explains how a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus, caused in large part by CO2, led to all of the water boiling away!"Though you neglect to mention that the CO2 in venus's atmosphere is at 935000ppm (ie 2400 times the CO2 presence in our atmosphere). But I suspect that the fact that venus receives about twice the solar energy that we get has a fairly significant part to play. Mon 22 Mar 2010 00:46:38 GMT+1 oldterry2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=73#comment173 in 118. thinkforyourself wrote:"2010 so far from UAH satellite record.‘Hottest January, second hottest February. Now March is busting out’http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/17/global-cooling-hottest-january-february-march-uah-satellite-data/ "Yep, that's what climateprogress says - however the NOAA report it links too says as its first point: 'The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for February 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F). This is the SIXTH warmest such value on record.' So not quite as earth shattering as you would have us believe. Mon 22 Mar 2010 00:32:02 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=72#comment172 Barry Woods.."He knows, I know, the Institute of Physics know, that AGW theory is a delusion, of man's insignificance...."...... and I have just seen the third episode, Barry, in which the same Professor Brian Cox explains how a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus, caused in large part by CO2, led to all of the water boiling away!...... and of course there are many within the Institute of Physics who are convinced that AGW IS happening and didn't agree with the submission to the Parliamentary commission (which I'm presuming you're referring to).Paul Sun 21 Mar 2010 23:29:48 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=72#comment171 Shadorne @ #170"Preposterous."No! Not at all. If you have some peer-reviewed scientific literature you can point to which refutes the 2 papers I linked to then fair enough, but the response you have given thus far doesn't come anywhere close!In fact, climate inertia makes perfect sense if you think about it rationally and objectively. Here's some more information showing how heat is indeed building up in the oceans:http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm..... which is the main reason why sea levels are rising:http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htmThen there's the empirical scientific evidence for AGW:http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htmClimate sensitivity to CO2 has been extensively evaluated?!:http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htmThere are lots more peer-reviewed references in there for you to refute! This being a debate about science, it is only reasonable for me to expect you to be able to come up with a similar array of peer-reviewed literature to support what you're saying.Paul Sun 21 Mar 2010 23:20:56 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=72#comment170 I just watched the first episode of Wonders of the Solar System on iplayer: The SunThe bit when Professor Brian Cox, describes the wonderfully simple scientific experiment, to calculate the suns energy released per second.All with a tin of water, a thermometer, and an umbrella (shade until water is brought up to ambient tempereature...Later, he is talking about how suns energy is essential to all life on earth, and how plants capture the sun's energy, using the red, blue part of the spectrum, and reflecting the green...All the while very, very, very, VERY carefully, NOT mentioning carbon dioxide, which is the other component of photosynthesis essential to all life on this planet...Plus the bit, where he is talking about how the sun effects the earths climate, and describes shear amount of energy required from the sun, that drags the water into the atmosphere over the andes to create the vast rivers of the Amazon.Then talks about how these Rivers have cycles of flow, one particular river with flows measured since 1904, then looking at them with a bit of physics, showing graphs with peaks of flow three times, in that period...How can that be?Then he lays a graph of the sun's energy intensity, over the river flow graph, and they match precisely...He knows, I know, the Institute of Physics know, that AGW theory is a delusion, of man's insignificance....A fantastic program, which the programs makers and physicists slipped passed, the BBC's Man made co2 is the dominant force in acceerated global warming radar, and the sun has only a minor role!!!Hope they bring the whole series out on DVDExplaining the institutes of Physics, submission to the climategate enquiry...Fantastic program, all 'climate scientists' should watch that episode..Brian Cox, Professor of Physics, works at Cern. Probably could tell a few climate scientists about the SKY and CLOUD experiments.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist) Sun 21 Mar 2010 22:01:37 GMT+1 Shadorne http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=71#comment169 Paul Briscoe: So the bottom line is that the temperature rise we have seen thus far does not represent anything like the full climate response to the 100ppm increase in CO2 levels there has been since the pre-industrial age.Despite the complete lack of evidence, you alarmists really do like to grasp at every straw in order to cling to the thermageddon end-of-the-world doomsday scenario. This is just speculation - we don't know what inertia there might be, however, all one can say is that observations show that in higher latitudes it can get darn cold in winter and darn hot in summer...so much for there being a huge climate inertia!!! Preposterous. Sun 21 Mar 2010 21:22:58 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=71#comment168 Shadorne @ #164I don't have time to get bogged down in an in-depth debate, but there is one other issue which you may wish to consider - "temperature or climate inertia". It is discussed in the following papers:http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/1wl.htmlhttp://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.htmlThe point is that although any increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would be expected to have a warming EFFECT straight away, it takes the Earth as a whole a very long time to respond fully to the warming. The main reason for this is that it takes many years for the huge bulk of the oceans to catch up. Hence, it has been estimated that even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, temperatures would continue to rise for many years and would finally equilibrate at a temperature around 0.6 Celsius higher than we are seeing now.So the bottom line is that the temperature rise we have seen thus far does not represent anything like the full climate response to the 100ppm increase in CO2 levels there has been since the pre-industrial age.Paul Sun 21 Mar 2010 19:21:04 GMT+1 thinkforyourself http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=70#comment167 ‘It is nearly certain that a new record global temperature will be set in 2010’NASA.http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/19/nasa-giss-james-hansen-global-warming-record-hottest-year/#more-21468 Sun 21 Mar 2010 19:14:10 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=70#comment166 My concern is the BBC appears to have gone a step to far, and become an advocate of AGW, not a reporter of it..Plus, it would appear that AGW theory is a complete delusion. Sun 21 Mar 2010 19:05:31 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=69#comment165 Barry,I can't help but wonder what you will do if, as seems likely, the enquiries into Climategate find that the key allegations made by yourself and others against the scientists are false.Having taken a look at the "evidence" from the emails, which is claimed to show fraudulent activities, all I have seen is evidence of anger and frustration. If the scientists are guilty of anything, it is ignoring FOI requests....... but given that the Climateaudit website had a template posted encouraging bloggers to post FOI requests for data from random countries (data that was, incidentally, already publicly available from other sources), I have huge sympathy for the scientists.Turning to Paul Hudson, I think you may be reading too much into his blog asking where global warming had gone. He did, sadly, only discuss the HADCRUT data and failed to mention all of the other available data sets, which DO show warming since 1998, albeit at a reduced rate....... and of course 1998 was a strong El Nino year, so it was frankly a silly year to use as a starting point for any comparison! However, if you read his article more carefully, you'll see that he provides explanations for the slow down in warming which are entirely consistent with the pro AGW argument.In fact, Paul Hudson has made his views on AGW very clear in the past:http://www.coolkidsforacoolclimate.com/Climate%20Change%20News/Hudson.htmOther things he has said live on air more recently lead me to believe that he hasn't changed his mind!Finally, I have to ask what is wrong with Michael Mann expressing concern to colleagues over the BBC's coverage of the debate? Do you not think that sceptics do the same in their private emails? ....... and why shouldn't Realclimate respond to misrepresentations of the facts which pervade so much of what is posted on the internet? Somebody has to! At least the articles on Realclimate are backed up by peer-reviewed scientific literature......... and before you claim that Climategate proves that the peer-review process is flawed, you should watch the following video, which shows that it does no such thing:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRoIn fact, most of potholer54's videos are worth a watch.Finally, the BBC was correct - there are actually very few climate scientists who disagree with AGW. You named some of the key ones (although you also mentioned some who are not scientists at all!).Paul Sun 21 Mar 2010 18:48:34 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=69#comment164 The BBC might be thought by many in a similar vein as these government adds.Can anybody imagine Richard Black (or the environment team) writing an article about a sceptical viewpoint on man made global warming.Like Paul Hudson's: Whatever happened to Global Warming?In response to a complaint I made, the BBC said:"The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientificexperts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longerjustifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. Butthese dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should,because it is not the BBC's role to close down this debate. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution."This was a few years ago now.Who are these scientific experts...(the sceptical scientists, there are many, appear not to have been invited to the meeting!)The BBC has refused to say... even after FOI requests.If the BBC can make the descision based on their advice,it is only appropriate for the public to know who these people were.If you only invited those who are now implicated in the 'climategate scandal 'If you only listen to one side, you will only hear of one 'message'..In light of recent events, IPCC, climategate, copenhagen failure,etcAnd an acrimonous political 'climate' where :Gordon Brown, says 'Flat earther', 'anti science',Ed Milliband, says 'climate sabatouers'Perhaps it is time for the BBC to reconvene this meeting,and invite those scientists that are sceptical, not just self selecting group of 'climate scientists' but those from other fields, astro physicists, statisticians, geologists, etc..(which in fact all people in climate science are a mere subset of, as it is a cross discipline problem of great complexity)To verify if it is still a valid position.Steve Mcintyre, Ian Plimer, Lindzen, Spencer, etc might be good candidates.Lord Lawson might be a respectably mediator from the sceptics side, or even Lord Monckton. For every activist/journalist like George Monbiot, you might invite someone like Christopher Booker.I do believe the BBC have gotten far to close to the issue to be considered impartial. Would they perhaps reflect on the possibility that they have been captured by the IPCC 'groupthink' and are considered to be the 'useful idiots' by the AGW (man made global warming) advocatesRichard Black (and the BBC) is clearly considered to be onside, by thoseimplicated in the climategate scandal'As a climategate email demonstrates.The BBC's Paul Hudson, writes a fairly obscure article on the BBC website.Whatever happened to Global Warming:And those involved, at the centre of IPCC/CRU. immediate response is to get in contact with the BBC/Richard Black.Who do a good job forthe cause and is clearly considered to be on 'message'----------------------------------------------------------------------From: Michael Mann mannxxxxxxxxx.xxxTo: Stephen H Schneider shsxxxxxxxxx.xxxSubject: Re: BBC U-turn on climateDate: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:00:44 -0400Cc: Myles Allen allenxxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter stott peter.stottxxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Philip D. Jones" p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Benjamin Santer santer1xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley wigleyxxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas R Karl Thomas.R.Karlxxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt gschmidtxxxxxxxxx.xxx, James Hansen jhansenxxxxxxxxx.xxx, trenbert trenbertxxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer omichaelxxxxxxxxx.xxxextremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?mike-------------------------------------------------------------------------Michael Mann, P Jones, James Hansens, etc in this email are KEY individuals in promoting an AGW poltical agenda and are at the centre of the controversy. These are the Key very small group of scientists at the heart of the IPCC.Please note that this email is from, Michael Mann, whose 'hockey stick' graph, used by the IPCC, Al Gore's 'Inconevenient Truth to promote the AGW cause to many millions of people, has been completely discredited scientifically as worthless.It shows that Real Climate is the PR machine of the 'hockey stick team' including honourary member Phil Jones. It would appear that the BBC is considered a part of the advocacy of AGW by the team.Has Richard and the team had any emails from Michael Mann recently?Do the speak to Professor Plimer, Lindzen, etcThe BBC are too close to see they are part of the climategate scandal.They are advocates, not reporting it Sun 21 Mar 2010 14:10:50 GMT+1 Shadorne http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=69#comment163 160. At 4:33pm on 20 Mar 2010, SR wrote: Shadorne @159 When you say 'all the evidence suggests man-made CO2 is having a small and possibly negligible effect on surface temperatures', you are making a statement that is completely at odds with what the vast majority of experts say. Why you have come to this conclusion is still a bit of a mystery,I look at the temperature record and I see only a small change in temperature measured in tenths of a degree. This is small. This is a fact. The IPCC suggested possible changes of up to 6 degrees per century change (upper limit) and we simply are NOT seeing anything like that rate of change. The effect of ma-made CO2 MUST be small unless you believe there is some kind of tipping point (but why invent a tipping point unless you WANT there to be a catastrophe).As someone else wrote on these forums, it is very sad and concerning to see that alarmists all seem to WANT a catastrophe. Even in the absence of anything unprecedented or unusual in our temperature records, alarmists WANT man-made CO2 to cause catastrophic effects.I think you all need to ask yourself WHY do you choose this highly improbable alarmist "thermageddon" position and keep insisting on it - even in the face of a severe lack of evidence to support this belief? Sat 20 Mar 2010 21:51:26 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=68#comment162 Jack Hughes #162Perhaps we're both 'alarmists' in one way or another. But I don't think we have to stop the world economy. We just need to shift its sources of energy to sources that are not going to run out. Let's face it, little Johnny isn't going to get to hospital in an ambulance if there's no fuel to power it. Its so easy right now to say that renewable energy is rubbish on economic grounds. Its under development and it needs to be subsidised. But ultimately that will be the way forward. Our response to the potential (but perhaps unlikely) threat of catastrophic climate change will help move the world economy through the period of peak oil with less trauma than if we leave the response to the last minute. That would be the case even if catastrophic climate change wasn't going to happen anyway (and I really would prefer it to remain a hypothetical possibility that was avoided rather than see my scientific view proven correct) Sat 20 Mar 2010 19:28:15 GMT+1 Jack Hughes http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=68#comment161 Hi Paul, and thanks for joining in the debate.I'm not sure about your "plane" analogy.It's more like a bus called the world economy. The bus is already moving.Some people want a change. Some of the changers want the bus to stop and everyone get off and walk. Other changers want to drive the bus themselves while everyone else has to get off and walk. I am looking at Al Gore, Raj Pachauri, Prince Charles.I have no respect at all for these people - they are hypocrites. I do respect the people who have already got off and are walking. They are wrong but I respect their integrity of walking the talk.I sometimes wonder if they will stick to their principles when the chips are down. Imagine a child breaking an arm: will these enviros walk to a wind-powered hospital with little Johnny - or will they cheat and call an ambulance? Sat 20 Mar 2010 18:33:03 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=67#comment160 #159 Shadorne "There are just too many unknown feedbacks."Isn't that the whole point though. We know that there have been significant periods of rapid warming coming out of glacial periods that are driven by amplifying feedbacks involving greenhouse gases (mostly water vapour I think, but also CO2). We also know that the CO2 concentration is considerably higher than it has been for the past 400,000 years (see SR's posts and the link by poitsplace #153). I'm sure you'll also agree that there is a lot of argument about the extent to which water vapour will be an amplifying or stabilizing feedback in the future (see this piece and surrounding discussion on Pielke's site)The current state of the science says that there is a high enough chance of significant amplifying feedbacks in the future for us to be concerned about the amount of CO2 we emit. Not necessarily just because of the CO2 itself, but because of the effect of even a small amount of warming on (for example) methane emissions, sae ice albedo and water vapour. I may not think the severest predictions are likely. But I don't have to. If I was getting on a plane and the pilot told me I'd probably get to my destination but there was a 1-in-100 chance the plane would crash, I wouldn't get on that plane. Would you? Sat 20 Mar 2010 16:45:55 GMT+1 SR http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=67#comment159 Shadorne @159When you say 'all the evidence suggests man-made CO2 is having a small and possibly negligible effect on surface temperatures', you are making a statement that is completely at odds with what the vast majority of experts say. Why you have come to this conclusion is still a bit of a mystery, but I think it is in part due to a misinterpretation of the science. The 800 year lag between CO2 and temperature simply shows that CO2 is not the initiator of the first part of the temperature rise, but subsequently amplifies it in a positive feedback mechanism. Without CO2 and the enhanced greenhouse effect, the magnitude of the glacial and inter-glacial cycles would be smaller. Remember, the natural cycle is slow - of course it would take a lot of time for CO2 to be liberated from the ocean and other sinks. The maximum rate of release is something like 6ppm per century in the natural cycle, compared to 100ppm per century now. It's all consistent with CO2 and the enhanced greenhouse effect.With your view on absorption being logarithmic - the scientific community already know this, and have done for several decades. You say it as if it's something 'missed out' for convenience. Even with the lower absorption at higher concentrations, the effect is still powerful because of the link with water vapour. This part of the puzzle is actually quite well understood (i.e, absorption of CO2), the bits we are really uncertain about is how far water vapour will respond and whether clouds will be apositive or negative feedback, but this uncertainty is not enough to change the overall conclusion - this is the leap of logic you're taking that really you should not. Anyway, this is the expert's view. Science is self correcting over time but there's still no sign of the consensus view changing - if anything, it's getting stronger. Sat 20 Mar 2010 16:33:58 GMT+1 Shadorne http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=66#comment158 SR Write: CO2 going to 384ppm when it hasn't been above 280ppm for the entire 400,000 year ice core record is not unusual? I guess you can go on about the correlation between CO2 and temperature in the ice core record, but the most important reason to treat AGW as a credible theory is the evidence, old and new, that shows causaility - CO2 absorbs certain bands of radiation and enhances the greenhouse effect. Without this knowledge, a lot of what's happened in the ice core record would make no sense - no sense at all - the variation in solar irradiation by itself can not explain the full extent of cycles and no other viable explanation can explain it. Also, the models, which are really just mathematical representations of our current knowledge in atmospheric physics, cannot explain the recent warming. Pieces in a puzzle....I agree about it being a puzzle. However, correlation is not causation - especially when temperatures change on average some 800 years before we see a change in CO2. The simplest explanation is that oceans warm up and release CO2 like a warm can of cola on a hot day. This makes a lot more sense than a scary CO2 monster.As for the greenhouse effect, I am sure nobody would deny that CO2 is an infrared absorber. However small increases above 280 ppm to 384 parts per million are only going to change the infra-red optical depth. Rather than increase absorption it will change where the absorption occurs - bringing absorption a little lower in the troposphere. (You need to understand atmospheric physics to know this is true - there is a logarithmic effect - a 30% increase does not translate to 30% more absorption - and this is where laypeople can become alarmed by meaningless numbers) Since we know that water vapor is a much bigger greenhouse gas and we know that the the troposphere is unstable (heated air rises) and we also know that there is a huge influence by clouds....well you get the picture...as Richard states it is COMPLEX....so what the actual temperature do and where the actual rain falls or does not fall and where teh actual winds blow or don't blow due to these small changes in atmospheric compostion and absorption is simply UNKNOWN.You can speculate all you like that there is a potential catastrophe in the offing, however, all the evidence suggests that man-made CO2 is having a small and possibly negligible overall effect on surface temperatures - there are simply too many other things going on in our churned up and dynamic climate system to make the simplistic argument that X increase in CO2 = Y increase in global temperature. There are just too many unknown feedbacks. Sat 20 Mar 2010 15:45:45 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=66#comment157 poitsplace #153""...the climate goes into a much smoother sort of behavior...but there are still fluctuations of about 2C all through the holocene. None of these fluctuations are explainable by climate scientists. The only thing that would be odd is if it DIDN'T fluctuate. During the glacial period the spikes are often twice or three times as large. It is quite clear that during the interglacials the feedbacks are much weaker.""That's an interesting plot you linked to, though. Look how the holocene warm period is already significantly longer than any of the other interglacials. There's one hypothesis (due to Bill Ruddiman) that human intervention (mainly deforestation) has already prevented the slippage into a new ice age.The big amplifying feedback loops, however, are those that switch between glacial and interglacial conditions, especially the rapid warming (forced initially by orbital cycles but then amplified by feedbacks involving greenhouse gases) that takes us out of glacial conditions. The major concern is the very rapid increase in CO2. You can see in the the top plot that CO2 concentrations are now 25% higher than they've been at any time in the past 400,000 years. The temperature difference between glacial and interglacial periods is ~10C. Yet a rise of just one-fifth of that is considered a cause of concern.The problem is, we're facing a new scenario. The temperatures right now are probably not unprecedented during the holocene. The issue, though is that concentrations of greenhouse gases are unprecedented in the past 400,000 years and are known to be involved in substantial amplifying feedback loops, especially in the warming direction.You said in your post"The problem again is that these things cannot be explained AT ALL"but that's not entirely true. There are models that do a reasonable job of explaining the glacial-interglacial transitions, and they tend to involve feedbacks including greenhouse gases.The models may not be as good at predicting the future, since the concentration of CO2 really is unprecedented. But I don't think that's a cause for complacency. Quite the opposite. Sat 20 Mar 2010 15:32:38 GMT+1 Korrigan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=66#comment156 As our family have given up TV to reduce our carbon footprint (along with tumble dryer, freezer, lawnmower, iron, vacuum cleaner and soon dishwasher) we are blissfully free of nursery rhyme propaganda. The debate, as this blog demonstrates, generates too much heat and complexity to be reduced to a soap ad. Will my little solar powered laptap be the last thing dropped from my hands as I walk off into the wastelands? Space Odyssey 2001 in reverse... Sat 20 Mar 2010 14:07:03 GMT+1 SR http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=65#comment155 shadorne@149 said"I see nothing unusual at all in the recent temperature variation record which has modest temperature increases no different to what we saw 80 years ago and smaller than other natural effects seen historically."CO2 going to 384ppm when it hasn't been above 280ppm for the entire 400,000 year ice core record is not unusual? I guess you can go on about the correlation between CO2 and temperature in the ice core record, but the most important reason to treat AGW as a credible theory is the evidence, old and new, that shows causaility - CO2 absorbs certain bands of radiation and enhances the greenhouse effect. Without this knowledge, a lot of what's happened in the ice core record would make no sense - no sense at all - the variation in solar irradiation by itself can not explain the full extent of cycles and no other viable explanation can explain it. Also, the models, which are really just mathematical representations of our current knowledge in atmospheric physics, cannot explain the recent warming. Pieces in a puzzle.... Sat 20 Mar 2010 13:28:57 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=65#comment154 @rossglory #145i used to do the same when i thought the climateaudit type sites were really on to something, but gave up.Don't give up, I think you are better off understanding the opposite side of the argument to try understand your own argumenti think you, bowman et al really get the impression we (pro-AGWers) have totally closed minds,Some have - on both sides of the argument. Manysummits is a clear example, although he won't think sogood luck with your new adventure but i'm sure you'll be back here to have a whinge at richard every now and then. You say i'm whinging, I say I'm trying to correct AGWers misconceptionspoe-tah-toe / poe-tar-toebut believe it when I say, the majority of people who come here and question the science part of AGW are legitimate sceptics, not deniers or contrarians or any other derogatory term that AGWers can dream up. Being sceptical in science is part of the system. Recognise that and you will be half way understanding where we are coming fromWarmist regards ;)/Mango Sat 20 Mar 2010 12:56:22 GMT+1 Dave_oxon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=64#comment153 @Shadorne, #150"You can call this "inductivism" if you like but where I come from this is simply common sense."...and therein lies the crux of the problem concerning communication of scientific ideas: so much of science is non-intuitive that common-sense, inductivism and Occam's razor cannot be used as a guide - only the scientific method will do. Sat 20 Mar 2010 11:52:50 GMT+1 lburt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=64#comment152 @infinity #151 who wrote..."It's not obvious at all, in fact the image doesn't provide any support for your claim. There's nothing notably different in the variation between the interglacial and glacial periods. The interglacial periods are far to short to compare with the glacial periods anyway. And this idea doesn't fit at all well with the idea that the medieval warm period was many degrees warmer than today does it? That would suggest a problem for negative feedback as negative feedback should prevent such large changes."Actually if you'll look...http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/images/charts/vostok-ice-core.jpg...the climate goes into a much smoother sort of behavior...but there are still fluctuations of about 2C all through the holocene. None of these fluctuations are explainable by climate scientists. The only thing that would be odd is if it DIDN'T fluctuate. During the glacial period the spikes are often twice or three times as large. It is quite clear that during the interglacials the feedbacks are much weaker.As for negative feedback preventing such shifts in climate...I'm perfectly open to this idea. The problem again is that these things cannot be explained AT ALL. With or without positive/negative feedback it appears the climate just warms and cools because of something as yet unknown or at the very least, not well understood. The most obvious candidate appears to be the ocean cycles...something that has indeed been found to be changing during these most recent warming episodes. Sat 20 Mar 2010 09:31:28 GMT+1 TeaPot562 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=63#comment151 @Simon-Swede #131; Compare the new nuclear plants being built in France and Japan to the number built in the USA in the last thirty years. An application by a utility to build a new plant at any site in the US has to run an obstacle course of local, county, state and Federal regulators, with litigation sponsored by the environmental lobby. The last time I saw a figure on delays, the estimate exceeded five years in the best case from date of submission of a plan to the date of being able to "break ground" for the new plant. In some legal jurisdictions, California, e.g., the probable delay is infinite. No private company can afford to have the capital needed to build a plant tied up in litigation for a large number of years. The economic lack of feasibility is directly tied to activities of the Green lobby, which doesn't like CO2 in the atmosphere, but lobbies (in the US, anyway) against a logical power source that generates little or no CO2 in operation.TeaPot562 Sat 20 Mar 2010 04:37:31 GMT+1 infiniti http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=63#comment150 "Actually this is where you missed my point. If you'll look at the ice core record it's obvious that there has been a change to the sensitivity. Just grabbing any old ice core record at random, you can see that the fluctuations during the glacial-interglacial temperature ranges are far larger than during the glacial periods."It's not obvious at all, in fact the image doesn't provide any support for your claim. There's nothing notably different in the variation between the interglacial and glacial periods. The interglacial periods are far to short to compare with the glacial periods anyway. And this idea doesn't fit at all well with the idea that the medieval warm period was many degrees warmer than today does it? That would suggest a problem for negative feedback as negative feedback should prevent such large changes. Fri 19 Mar 2010 23:23:55 GMT+1 infiniti http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=63#comment149 Re 148. Richard: "Global Warming which has now become climate change"Here's a quick quiz for you:Question 1. What does the CC in IPCC stand for? Question 2. When was the IPCC formed? Taking into account the answer to quesiton 1 & 2, when are you proposing "global warming" was changed to "climate change". Fri 19 Mar 2010 23:18:14 GMT+1 Shadorne http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=62#comment148 144 Dave_Oxon: My claim at point 3 is as invalid as your claim about the man-made component being small in comparison to the natural variation. It is pure inductivism.Huh? I look at the record of natural temperature variation records before man-made CO2 was even a factor. I look at the recent temperature variation record (natural + some "supposed" or "expected" or "hypothesized" man-made effect).What do I see? I see nothing unusual at all in the recent temperature variation record which has modest temperature increases no different to what we saw 80 years ago and smaller than other natural effects seen historically.Therefore using "Occum's razor", I assume that man-made CO2 has a small impact - otherwise we would have seen something that stands out as different.You my friend, are doing everything you can to try to see a catastrophe in the data - going as far as to assume natural variations have caused temperatures to decline rapidly if it were not for a bigger positive offset due to man-made CO2.Frankly, you can speculate all you want about a CO2 Monster but until there is need for alarm I will continue to criticize alarmists. "Occum's Razor" principle is that we do not need to resort to a catastrophic CO2 Monster to explain what looks like absolutely perfectly normal natural climate behavior.You can call this "inductivism" if you like but where I come from this is simply common sense. Fri 19 Mar 2010 23:14:19 GMT+1 Richard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=62#comment147 "Global Warming which has now become climate change" call it what you will, the whole thing is a scandal. Fri 19 Mar 2010 22:17:29 GMT+1 lburt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=61#comment146 @Paul Butler #141 who wrote..."Remember, the concentration of greenhouse gases is continuing to increase quite rapidly, and it isn't going to stop increasing for several decades at least. So the rate of warming due to greenhouse gases alone is likely to increase from its present level."Ah, but the rate of increase for the amount of CO2 emitted is falling short. The reason is that solubility increases faster than the warming can offset. Basically, no matter how much CO2 we put in the air, the oceans will soak up about half of it. It is quite likely that there isn't enough commercially viable coal/oil on the planet to more than double CO2 levels...and that's assuming we burn it all.It is highly unlikely that we would burn ALL of the fossil fuels. Within a decade or two some FAR more viable alternatives will be available. Thorium reactors are far safer (and therefore cheaper) and produce waste with a MUCH shorter sequestering time (400 years). Fusion will likely be viable in another couple decades. Incredibly cheap solar cells based on roll to roll processes should be available. Newer storage systems will be available.Within a few decades the transition away from fossil fuels will happen naturally. No need to crush the economy with the tens (possibly hundreds) of trillions of dollars in up-front costs on the current batch of immature renewable tech. Remember, the up-front costs mean whatever it costs to produce, you're locked into those rates for DECADES. If we try to transition now, we'll be stuck paying those high electrical rates for over a decade.---------------------------"And some of the feedbacks can be estimated from how they worked during the glacial-interglacial cycles. "Actually this is where you missed my point. If you'll look at the ice core record it's obvious that there has been a change to the sensitivity. Just grabbing any old ice core record at random, you can see that the fluctuations during the glacial-interglacial temperature ranges are far larger than during the glacial periods.http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/images/charts/vostok-ice-core.jpgThe case for high feedbacks during the interglacial is weak if you use either the behavior captured in the ice core record or just the current temperature record. They can claim anything they want...but its just not happening. I didn't start this critical of AGW. I just started looking into the data and found that there's no way you can shoehorn the idea of substantial, dangerous, anthropogenic global warming into the real world data. Fri 19 Mar 2010 21:44:16 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=61#comment145 my comment of yesterday has been refereed to the mods for 36 hours now..If there is something wrong that does not comply with house rules, let me know and I'll correct it. Fri 19 Mar 2010 20:19:41 GMT+1 rossglory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=61#comment144 #143 mango"it's not a question of like or dislike, it's a question of what the papers tell us, if you only read papers that support your view, you will never be able to challenge yourself. This is the reason I read RC - to challenge any preconceptions that i may have"i used to do the same when i thought the climateaudit type sites were really on to something, but gave up. maybe i should look at one or two (i did read the summary of the pinker one you linked to). i think you, bowman et al really get the impression we (pro-AGWers) have totally closed minds, bowman even thinks i'm religious. but the truth is i've always (back to teh 80s anyway) been concerned about co2/agw but really didn;t want to believe it, so spent a lot of time on blogs looking at the contrarian 'killer' articles/papers looking for einstein's one expt (as you put it). i never found it.having spent the past 7 years studying with the ou i'm having a break. it's a great uni but i'm worried about the govt funding. i hope they can keep the standards and breadth of study high.good luck with your new adventure but i'm sure you'll be back here to have a whinge at richard every now and then. Fri 19 Mar 2010 18:11:24 GMT+1 Dave_oxon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=60#comment143 @Shadorne, #142You have missed the point I'm attempting to put to you. I can illustrate it another way:1. You accept large natural variabilty on the scale of up to, say, 10 degrees (these levels are shown in the graphic you linked to in post #74, on some of the timescales).2. You accept there is probably a man-made component.3. What if I said I believed the natural variability in recent times was a cooling of 10 degrees and the currently observed, small, TOTAL warming in the last few decades/ last century (time-period is immaterial) therefore proved the man-made component is positive and greater than 10 degrees. (Please note this is NOT what I am claiming - it is merely a hypothetical illustration).My claim at point 3 is as invalid as your claim about the man-made component being small in comparison to the natural variation. It is pure inductivism.This can be further illustrated by comparison to the standard "swans" example:I see some white swans therefore all swans are white.Compare this to your claim:I see large natural temperature variation therefore all large temperature variation is natural.It just doesn't hold up. An attempt must be made to separate the natural and anthropogenic components which is an extremely complex task. Unless you can point to some literature that attempts this separation and concludes an insignificant anthropogenic component, you have NOT supported your claim. Incidentally, if you are interested, I am still debating this point of inductivism with Bowmanthebard and JaneBasingstoke on Richard's previous blog. Fri 19 Mar 2010 15:26:10 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=60#comment142 @rossglory #137but you wont study too many of the papers you like i'm afraidit's not a question of like or dislike, it's a question of what the papers tell us, if you only read papers that support your view, you will never be able to challenge yourself. This is the reason I read RC - to challenge any preconceptions that i may havethis is why the blog I have found is written by an AGWer who happens to think people with an alternative view should be heardoh and btw, I know a lot more about the OU than you could possibly imagine - how do you think i gain access to most papers? ;)/Mango Fri 19 Mar 2010 13:45:16 GMT+1 Shadorne http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=59#comment141 135 @Dave: Not only is your claim unsupported, you even contradict yourself... I ask again, would you care to present something that actually supports your position?Huh? Are you referring to another as yet unknown global temperature set? The data I am referring to is the recent one that the IPCC uses as well as looking further back in distant history through ice cores, in this data sets the natural variations in temperature dwarf any supposed CO2 warming response therefore it is logical to describe the effects of man-made CO2 as SMALL (lower end or possibly even much less than IPCC range of predictions). Clearly, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.Are you talking about Venus perhaps? I was referring to Earth. Fri 19 Mar 2010 13:20:59 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=59#comment140 poitsplace #140Yes, I see what you mean. I started at the bottom of the first cycle and went to the top of the next cycle, whereas you went from the top of the first cycle to the top of the second cycle which is a better guesstimate of the underlying trend.So we've got a trend of ~0.4C since 1940 (70 years) equivalent to ~.06C per decade, or .6C per century. And the IPCC best case scenario predicts a rise of 1.8C over the next century (ie three times the rate over the past 70 years). That's a big increase (although the uncertainty band (1.1C-2.9C) is quite high as well), and your confidence in those figures will have lot to do with how much faith you put in the models which are driven by assumptions about climate sensitivity and future feedbacks. Well, we know the models are uncertain, and there is quite a lot of debate within climate science about how they can be improved. That will only happen with more research and the accumulation of more data. As a scientist myself, I prefer to trust the established and peer-reviewed science (while remaining aware of how much is not known and of how great some of the uncertainties are). Remember, the concentration of greenhouse gases is continuing to increase quite rapidly, and it isn't going to stop increasing for several decades at least. So the rate of warming due to greenhouse gases alone is likely to increase from its present level. And some of the feedbacks can be estimated from how they worked during the glacial-interglacial cycles. Fri 19 Mar 2010 12:43:29 GMT+1 lburt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=58#comment139 @Paul Butler #136 who wrote..."I had a quick look at that. It looks like a rise of the order of .6C (from ~-.2C to +0.4C anomaly) since 1960, which is double what you say it is. Can you go back and tell me what you think?"That's odd, for some reason the link didn't work properly. It was supposed to zoom in on that period. Anyway, the temperatures at the end of the last warm period were about .05C and the recent plateau of this warm period is at about .45C. If you'll paste the original link into your browser you'll see what I mean.http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/mean:12GISS shows similar results. Its a little higher but then Hansen keeps tweaking his to make it show more warming and increased linearity every few years.http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1940/mean:12 Fri 19 Mar 2010 11:30:11 GMT+1 rossglory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=58#comment138 #125 kev"And the problem is that these green policies are going to mean massive rolling blackouts in a few years time."that's not a problem with green policies, that's a problem caused by not implementing them soon enough. reading this blog you get the impression there's been a massive wave of green initiatives forced on an unwilling public in the west.....but look out the window and you'll see that next to nothing has been done and that is why c02 emissions are still growing exponentially. Fri 19 Mar 2010 11:07:09 GMT+1 rossglory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=58#comment137 #131 simon-swede"Spin, science and climate change" - not a fan of the economist but may look out for this edition, thanks. i was reading elsewhere about a journalist who interviewed a respected scientist about the possible link between la nina and this winter's weather. apparently his editor wanted to know 'who would give the other side?'. seems much of the media want everything to be a debate, fight or sports match now. ho hum. Fri 19 Mar 2010 11:00:20 GMT+1 rossglory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_far_from_divine.html?page=57#comment136 #79 mango"They argue the science and the papers and, mostly, seem to have a healthy respect for opposing views on both the AGWer side and the sceptic side. It's enlightening and I'm learning lots about things that I didn't previously know"i'm sure you'll be back. but i think you're missing the point a bit. there isn;t pro-AGW science and anti-AGW science.....there is just science. just because the papers you dig out that appear to be anti-AGW are discussed by people does not mean they have a significant impact. i'm glad you're learning new things, 7 years of study with the OU certainly opened my mind to a lot of things and I would thoroughly recommend it........but you wont study too many of the papers you like i'm afraid :o( Fri 19 Mar 2010 10:53:16 GMT+1