Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml en-gb 30 Thu 18 Dec 2014 01:26:02 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml amostadenier http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=99#comment182 Having read the Guardians Fred Fearce's expose on what Phil Jones got up to re the Chinese temp data........well! PS I wish the BBC had done something on it rather than merely go with an article giving Jone's rebuttal 9a rebuttal that did nit in fact address ANY of the main points raised by pearce, christ Monbiot even has come out in favour of him being sacked) Wed 03 Feb 2010 13:44:35 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=98#comment181 Barry,I think I do understand........ although I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make immediately above!With respect, carbon dioxide IS a pollutant because of its effect on the pH of water. There are already indications that falling pH in the oceans is having adverse effects on marine ecosystems - as someone who claims to be green, I would have thought you would be concerned about such things.I guess we'll have to agree to disagree over Realclimate...... but they do link to detailed science-based rebuttals of pretty well every argument you have put forwards....... and they are climate scientists, which is more than you and I are!Paul Mon 01 Feb 2010 17:22:23 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=98#comment180 Paul you miss understandI am as green as they come, recycle - reuse, low energy consumption, solar thermal energy great idea. just the whole co2, carbon credit, carbon tax, carbon trading, is not the solution, ebven if you believe in the problem.co2 is not a pollutant, which is fortunate, as when you burn bio fuels, youget LOTS of the stuff.I love real climate it is simple hysterical reading!as do some of your musings now.Big oil companies will make lots of money out of it. They have safely jumped on the agw bandwagon.Shame about the loss of the rainforests. bio diversity, food poverty, etc.Oil giants destroy rainforests to make palm oil diesel for motoristshttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6796876.ece"..Fuel companies are accelerating the destruction of rainforest by secretly adding palm oil to diesel that is sold to millions of British motorists. Twelve oil companies supplied a total of 123 million litres of palm oil to filling stations in the year to April, according to official figures obtained by The Times. Only 15 per cent of the palm oil came from plantations that met any kind of environmental standard. Much of the rest came from land previously occupied by rainforest. "etc Mon 01 Feb 2010 16:50:18 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=97#comment179 With respect, Barry, you are completely missing the point here!Note that the IIGCC has members with ASSETS totalling 4 trillion Euros - that's very different from saying that anyone is going to MAKE that kind of money out of AGW!Of course the EU is trying to encourage companies to invest in low carbon technology. Even if you don't believe in AGW you must surely be able to see a benefit in that!A small number of individuals and companies stand to make money out of low carbon technology (although some energy recovery projects might save individual companies a lot more in simple efficiency terms).However, as I've pointed out before, the scientists who have undertaken the research into AGW are independent of the IPCC and have not benefitted financially from their efforts. The scientists simply do not have the vested interest you are claiming.Conversely, the oil-funded campaign against AGW has a very clear vested interest. Here's a further relevant article:http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.htmlNow turning to Realclimate, AGW sceptics certainly paint it as being a propaganda machine, but that is because it relies on sound, peer-reviewed science, of which there is a distinct lack in the sceptic argument - no wonder the scpetics don't like Realclimate!Paul Mon 01 Feb 2010 12:59:43 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=97#comment178 Lots of vested interests!from the telegraph/indy blogs today.4 trillion euros!This might help explain the AGW bias of the BBC, the Environment Agency, some Governments and some Universities.http://www.iigcc.org/index.aspx“The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4trillion. A full list of members is available on the membership page”. Did you catch that: FOUR TRILLION EUROS!Carbon markets need urgent changes in order to encourage institutional investment and the development of a low-carbon economy, the Institutional Investor Group on Climate Change says.The group is calling for strong price signals and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand.IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said: “The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.””Catch that: “IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe…” The BBC is the Chair of this Carbon Trading driven investment scheme!I would say that the BBC has a major non-Scientific reason for their AGW Bias. Mon 01 Feb 2010 11:20:47 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=96#comment177 paul come on!!And the agw zealots, don't spin/put a gloss on at all!!!!Real climate is renowned for spin and propogandaWhat about William connolley exploitsWIKI has been controlled by AGW zealots for a while, it is becoming a bit of a joke...In theory, Booke should be allowed to amend/edit his own article on wiki. I doubt it!!!!William connolley, re-wrote 5000 wiki articles, he deleted over 500 (you are SUPPOSED to have different point of view allowed on wiki)., he is also a founder of real climate (the agw propoganda site)http://www.climatechangefraud.com/politics-propaganda/5950-wikipedia-how-william-connolley-beat-a-climate-change-enemythis story was dec 23, it has been reported in the MSM a number of times since then as well Mon 01 Feb 2010 11:14:34 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=96#comment176 This type of propaganda, Barry:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=3&emc=eta1You'll note that the Global Climate Coalition continued to campaign even after its own scientists stated:"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied" ..... and you'll also note that the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers continue to fund the same activities.Nobody in the scientific community would condone a deliberate attempt to mislead (on either side), but you continue to hark back to the glacier problem as though it discredits all of the science, which it does not....... and yet again, like Anthony Watts, in Christopher Booker you have selected a source who is known to put his own gloss on things scientific (even though he's a historian):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_BookerI think his exploits speak for themselves. If you want me to take your arguments seriously, you'll have to come up with more objective and reliable sources than that!Paul Sun 31 Jan 2010 19:33:05 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=95#comment175 Whose propoganda would that be?The media would appear to be on the turn!!!!A story, the glacier mistake and IPCC knowing about it (denied by its's chief - recently). 5th Decemeber 2009UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8468358.stmWhich the times new about 2 months ago, as did the bbc.Appeared today on the FRONT page of the Times.January 30, 2010Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.eceTelegraph website this evening:Amazongate: new evidence of the IPCC's failureshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7113582/Amazongate-new-evidence-of-the-IPCCs-failures.htmlIt doesn't realy matter what anyone says here...If Rupert Murdoch changes his mind on man made climate change - We will be hearing about it soon. Sat 30 Jan 2010 21:06:02 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=95#comment174 MATT,I confess that as a scientist I am deeply troubled if the guy who made the claim about the glaciers did so deliberately (especially when the REAL date of 2350 would have been compelling!). If it is true then Dr. Pachauri should indeed resign.Here is a slightly different perspective on the same story:http://news.globaltv.com/technology/story.html?id=2487264As Dr Weaver points out himself, there is no question mark over the central part of the IPCC report:"Weaver says the vast majority of the science in the IPCC reports is valid, and that the glacier revelations —"one small thing," in a 3,000 word document, as he calls it — shouldn't be used to discredit other parts of the report."There is not a global conspiracy to drum up false evidence of global warming," he says."Sad to say, this important point is very likely to be lost in a mass of propaganda.Paul Wed 27 Jan 2010 22:35:55 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=94#comment173 Paul HudsonYou asked originally"I also asked if there was a possibility that after such a long run of warmer than average years, could it be that the Hadley supercomputer had developed a warm bias"I close my posting on this track with the comment that I agree with you that there seems to be a definite warming bias . The heat was turned up prior to Copenhagen and their credibilty, in the eyes of the public switched off as well The average global warming rate for the past 150 years according to their own data[HADCRUT 3gl] was 0.004/ year. Their new prediction is 0.08 /year [ 4C BY 2060]. This is 20 times a faster rate than in the past 150 years. With a possible cooling spell coming over the next 20-30 years[ or until 2040 ], the warming rate would have now have to rise to 0.2C/year or 50 times the past rate. Unless we get at least two more suns , the warming biased prediction has no credibilty of any kind in my judgement and seems to have been an exaggeration to brainwash and pressure the world leaders and the public prior to Copenhagen . Wed 27 Jan 2010 19:26:12 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=93#comment172 Paul #172The good ship IPCC/AGW is filling with water and sinking fast. The crew are abandoning ship. No need to defend her anymore.http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/26/terence-corcoran-heat-wave-closes-in-on-the-ipcc.aspx Wed 27 Jan 2010 18:48:21 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=93#comment171 MATT,"There is plenty of other possible unscientific practices by these same AGW scientists. If you have not read about them, Paul, there are six investigations underway concerning the activities of CRU and associated climate science including, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UK Met Office, East Anglia University in Norfolk in the UK, Penn State in the U.S., and the Norfolk police, with the assistance of Greater London’s Metropolitan Police and the Science & Technology Committee of the UK House of Commons."Having said that I wouldn't make another post, I felt I should just say that I have only seen mention of two of these investigations....... I'll obviously have to go looking more carefully! All I ask of you is that you bear in mind the points raised by the New Scientist and Realclimate, which provide perfectly rational and innocent explanations of what the emails may actually have been about. I think it would be a mistake to jump to conclusions before the findings of the various investigations are made public.It's also important to bear in mind that someone committed an offence to hack the emails and then held onto some from over 3 years ago to make sure they were made public to coincide with Copenhagen!You will have gathered that even as someone who was convinced of AGW early on because of the empirical science, I do not subscribe to the worst case scenarios being plucked from the IPCC report - I don't believe that the models offer sufficient certainty when it comes to predicting rates of warming. My own expectations of what will happen lie somewhere between yours and the IPCC's core prediction.Paul Wed 27 Jan 2010 16:24:40 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=92#comment170 Paul # 170You said “So where does this leave us? Well, I think it's fair to say that the politicians have "hyped" the science and actually undermined its credibility in the eyes of the public...... and yes, recent events have made matters worse. However, there's also no question that the sceptics are deliberately trying to talk up the problems, crying "scandal" and "conspiracy" where no real evidence of either exists. Also, when you take a close look at the sceptic arguments, few, if any stand up to close scrutiny....... and some are clearly intended to deceive the unwary!”It is more than politicians who hyped up the global warming alarmism and constant doom and gloom predictions. The AGW scientists were just as guilty by exaggerating the global warming threat and including non-reviewed science papers in the IPCC reports, parading them as sound science, just to brainwash the mind of the politicians. Yet they failed to tell these facts to the public and it took the public to uncover these deliberate deceptions. Also it was the skeptical non-agw scientists who uncovered many parts of the flawed AGW science like the flawed hockey stick temperature curve , the flawed Yamal temperature proxy , the apparent manipulated global and US temperature data, just to name a few . There is plenty of other possible unscientific practices by these same AGW scientists. If you have not read about them, Paul, there are six investigations underway concerning the activities of CRU and associated climate science including, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UK Met Office, East Anglia University in Norfolk in the UK, Penn State in the U.S., and the Norfolk police, with the assistance of Greater London’s Metropolitan Police and the Science & Technology Committee of the UK House of CommonsThese are not the usual characteristics of sound science. It is a pity that you can so clearly see the sand in the eyes of the non-agw skeptical scientists but completely ignore the dirt in the eyes of your fellow AGW supporters.Having said I want to thank you for your intelligent comments and thoughtful reflections. Let’s agree to disagree on some of the topics. I think we each learned something from each other. I know I did.. Tue 26 Jan 2010 19:36:42 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=92#comment169 MATT,I'm going to have to make this my final post on this thread, as I have other things I should be doing instead!! Also, I'm not sure that we're going to reconcile our different interpretations.I don't doubt what you say above about the natural cycles, but the cycles are also taken into account by the climate scientists, who clearly believe that they were not sufficient to explain all of the cooling. You only need to cast your mind back to the terrible smogs we used to get before the clean air act to get some impression of the potential for the problem to impact on climate. However, I don't think the 2 processes are mutually exclusive.Now returning to the main theme of the discussion.......There's no question that the main science underpinning AGW is empirical. Carbon dioxide is known to absorb some frequencies of IR radiation and then re-radiate the radiation in all directions. As such, it is by definition a greenhouse gas and would be expected to reduce the amount of IR radiation lost to space. This has been confirmed by satellite data collected several years apart which showed the decreased emissions of IR in the part of the spectrum associated with carbon dioxide. So there's little doubt that carbon dioxide has SOME warming effect on the planet.Having looked at all of the data and considered all of the different processes, both Man-made and natural, the vast majority of climate scientists have concluded that only carbon dioxide can account for the gradual trend of increased global temperature which started with the industrial revolution. I fully appreciate that a small number of scientists believe the warming process is a natural one, but unless they can come up with a convincing mechanism for natural warming and produce data to support it, they are unlikely to be taken seriously by the scientific community as a whole.Setting aside whether or not you believe in AGW for the moment, the IPCC report is clearly based on the assumption that it is a real phenomenon. That being the case, if the rate of emissions of carbon dioxide accelerates, you would expect the rate of warming to accelerate as well. This certainly accounts for some of the difference between Prof Easterbrook's projections for natural warming and those of the IPCC.I, like you, am not convinced that we will get from the present situation of zero (or almost zero) warming to the temperature increases projected by the IPCC. However, if you read the executive summary of the report, it actually states that the most probable temperature rise by 2100 is a far more modest 3 Celsius (assuming that we take no steps to control emissions):http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-6-4-2.htmlSo the much higher figure is most likely politicians quoting the worst case scenario!In truth, it's far more complex than I suggested above, because if you read the IPCC report, it is clear that the models take into account all sorts of other variables. There are also important feedback processes which come into play: as the oceans warm, their capacity to absorb more carbon dioxide will fall, further speeding the rise in atmospheric levels; as the Earth warms, the vapour pressure of water will also increase and the extra vapour pressure will reinforce the warming effect; methane presently trapped in permafrost in the sub-arctic is likely to be released as the warming continues, again reinforcing the greenhouse effect; there is also the question of aerosols and clouds..... and in this case it is not entirely clear whether the effect will be positive (ie warming) or negative (ie cooling).Most of the above are difficult to quantify accurately and this is why, in my opinion, the models are unlikely to be wholly reliable - but they are the best available model at present. It's also important to point out that there is a great deal of leeway built into the projections, so, with the error limits built into the models, the actual temperature rise by 2100 could be less than 2 Celsius....... which is quite believable in my view.In hindsight, I think one of the greatest weaknesses of the IPCC report is that the tempterature projections are only shown in the form of 10 year mean figures. This is why the graphs appear as smooth curves. It is easy to see why members of the public might presume that this precludes any possibility of cooler periods. Perhaps the IPCC would have been better producing a separate graph of the central temperature projection corrected to allow for the natural cycles - this would have people to understand that it is quite possible for temperatures to fall as well as rise.So where does this leave us? Well, I think it's fair to say that the politicians have "hyped" the science and actually undermined its credibility in the eyes of the public...... and yes, recent events have made matters worse. However, there's also no question that the sceptics are deliberately trying to talk up the problems, crying "scandal" and "conspiracy" where no real evidence of either exists. Also, when you take a close look at the sceptic arguments, few, if any stand up to close scrutiny....... and some are clearly intended to deceive the unwary! There is also clear evidence that parties which stand to lose out financially if the science of AGW is accepted are interfering in the debate for their own selfish reasons. Doubt is indeed their product and a sceptical public lap it all up as though it is gospel truth! Meanwhile, the internet speeds all of the nonsense on its way, totally overwhelming serious scientific discussion.Finally, even if you don't believe in AGW, don't forget that there are still good reasons for reducing carbon emissions - to conserve dwindling fossil fuel reserves and protect marine ecosystems from acid pollution.See you on some of Paul Hudson's other excellent blogs!Paul Tue 26 Jan 2010 18:08:58 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=91#comment168 #168 PAULYou said"If you were to be standing on the "peak" in 1940 and saw the World start getting cooler, you would automatically assume that AGW was nonsense. In fact, the cooling between 1940 and 1970 is believed to have been due primarily to sulphate aerosols from industrial emmissions (before they started "scrubbing" out sulphur dioxide)."Sulphate aerosols may have played a part but below is my analysis of the last cool period 1962-1987 that affected Europe. Again it is the natural planetary cycles that played the major role . Europe winters only [Dec, Jan, Feb], 1962-1987 last cool periodTotal # of years 26Years temperature anomaly below norm 18[69%]Years AO negative 16 [62%]Years AMO negative 16 [62%]Years where both AO and AMO negative same time 14 [54%]Years NAO negative 10 [38%]Years PDO negative 8[31%]Years El Nino 10 [only 3 El Niño’s seemed to raise temperatures above norm]Years El Nino present during below norm years 7Years La Nina present during below norm years 5Years where AO negative all 3 months of winter 9Years where highest AO level was in Jan 9Years where AO levels were high [in the range of 2-3 index level] 8Years where negative AO levels continue from winter to spring [March, April, May] 9Years where negative AO levels fluctuate well into summer 12Summary observations For 2/3 of years, weather was below norm during that cool cycle Negative AMO and AO were the weather makers 16/26 or 60 % of years Negative NAO was a factor about 10/26 about 40 % of years Negative PDO and La Nina seem to be present less frequently 20-27 % of yearsEL Nino’s, unless they are strong or high moderate, are not a f actor 70% of years A strong negative AO dominates 9/26 [35% of years] of years for the whole winter A strong negative AO in JAN can result in negative AO to March/April 9/26 [35%] of yearsFluctuating negative AO into the spring /summer is an indication of possible cool summer and spring?Possible implications for the 2010 winter forecast based on the above [for EUROPE only]More negative AO periods are very likely[already a second cold AO cycle is in effect] A cooler winter could extend to March-April [or a cool and late start for spring] Cool summer and all of the year?[like the "2009 summer that was not" ]Crop growing could be affected in Europe and Asia Tue 26 Jan 2010 15:11:32 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=91#comment167 Bonn1e,I think the best way to illustrate this is to look at a graphical representation:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-6.gifIf you were to be standing on the "peak" in 1940 and saw the World start getting cooler, you would automatically assume that AGW was nonsense. In fact, the cooling between 1940 and 1970 is believed to have been due primarily to sulphate aerosols from industrial emmissions (before they started "scrubbing" out sulphur dioxide).It is only when you plot the smooth line which bisects the various fluctuations that you see that the general trend is upwards. If we do get another drop in temperature due to ocean cooling cycles, it will only be once we come out of those cooling cycles that we will be able to see for sure whether the general trend has continued to be upwards.I hope that makes it a little clearer.Paul Tue 26 Jan 2010 12:53:12 GMT+1 scepticatheart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=90#comment166 IPCC/BBC/climate change research scientists comments on global warming are akin to the ONS's announcement this morning that we are out of recessionie on closer inspection not worth the paper its written due to the polticial pressure put on to come up with the 'required' answer Tue 26 Jan 2010 12:07:29 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=90#comment165 PAUL # 164You said"If at the end of any extended cooler period the Earth does not return to a higher temperature than it is now, then I think we can fairly safely say that the scientists got it wrong."I dont think that anyone doubts that the temperatures will continue to rise at some time in the future . Where i think the AGW scientists may have got it wrong is the rate of expected global temperature rise[ 10 times faster than in the last century] and what is the primary cause of this rise . We don't have to wait 30 years to find this out. The scientits who have the best handle on this, say that we are not going to warm anywhere near the rate projected by IPCC because of the cooling effect of the natural cycles. The evidence will be here shortly[ during the next few years ] Europe and Asia which are just starting to feel this cooler weather will be feeling it unmistakenly over the next few years too. In North America we have had the early signs of the cooler period since 2006 already. A prudent scientist can recognize the early signs of a period of sustained cooling. I very much doubt the agw scientists have a good handle on this cooling side because their entire focus was on global warming only and they are going to experience the black swan of global cooling unfortunately. Tue 26 Jan 2010 01:34:39 GMT+1 Bonn1e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=89#comment164 Thank you very much for answering Paul. Although, I am still not quite sure how it works! If we were to have a period of, say, 10-15 during which the global temperature falls slightly, i.e. the 'cooler period' you mention and then the cooler period ends, (which would presumably be indicated by a rise in temperature, otherwise how could you tell the coooler period had ended?) After this, temperature starts to rise again. So then we wait, what, another 10-15 years while it rises until it has returned to today's temperature (that is, we repeat the rise experienced between 1985 and now). And then what? Would it just need to remain constant from there onwards for another 10-15 years or so before we could 'fairly safely say they got it wrong'? I fully appreciate that it is all about underlying trends over time. But at this rate it could drag on for centuries!! Tue 26 Jan 2010 01:18:10 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=89#comment163 Bonn1e,"We are repeatedly told that 'weather is not climate' or '2 cold winters are insignificant' or that 'periods of cooling are to be expected' and that Global Warming has not 'gone away'. So, and this is a genuine question, does anyone here have any idea how the 'end of global warming' might be recognised if it came about? i.e. what would need to happen which would cause the 'consensus' of climate scientists to believe that such a threat was no longer likely?"The important thing to understand is that global temperatures fluctuate around an average figure due to entirely natural processes. If AGW is correct, then over time, the average global temperature will rise. So a few cold years don't prove that it has stopped any more than a few hot years prove that it exists. This is why it is so important to look at long term trends - only these can separate out the effect of AGW from the natural factors.Matt has pointed out that quite a number of scientists are predicting a cooler period over the nexr few years. I'm not actually in disagreement with him over that (nor, as far as I can tell, are the climate scientists). If at the end of any extended cooler period the Earth does not return to a higher temperature than it is now, then I think we can fairly safely say that the scientists got it wrong.Paul Mon 25 Jan 2010 23:58:43 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=88#comment162 MATT,I did point out that I couldn't open some of the documents, so I'm in no position to comment on them all. My comments related primarily to the ones I mentioned. I'll admit that, given the context of your post, I presumed that the others used broadly the same argument, so if they did not then I apologise for that. Certainly, the papers by William Gray and Prof Easterbrook would never have made it into a mainstream journal such as Nature for the reasons given above."Peer review as practiced for the IPCC report and as documented by the CRU “climategate” documents shows a deeply flawed and biased system. There is a criminal investigation about some of the activities that went on. There is also a government hearing pending about some of the science."I have not seen any mention of a criminal investigation and, as has been pointed out by others, the emails certainly do not prove that anything questionable has happened:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.htmlhttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/Unless and until investigations prove wrong doing, it is premature to criticise the IPCC in that way. Furthermore, although not all of the documents attached to the IPCC report were peer reviewed, the scientific literature underpinning AGW itself certainly was. The documents now the subject of the new "scandal" were quite clearly there for information and did not in any way shape the projections of future temperature or the recommendations. Including additional information of this type in a major report is quite normal and the sheer volume almost certainly accounts for any mistakes that were made.Of course climategate has damaged public confidence in the science, but that was, of course, the whole idea - especially given the timing.Paul Mon 25 Jan 2010 23:35:50 GMT+1 Bonn1e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=87#comment161 We are repeatedly told that 'weather is not climate' or '2 cold winters are insignificant' or that 'periods of cooling are to be expected' and that Global Warming has not 'gone away'. So, and this is a genuine question, does anyone here have any idea how the 'end of global warming' might be recognised if it came about? i.e. what would need to happen which would cause the 'consensus' of climate scientists to believe that such a threat was no longer likely? Mon 25 Jan 2010 21:17:43 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=87#comment160 I haven't been on an airplane for 9 years!UN climate chief jabs back at allegations of financial impropriety - but fails to land a blowA seven-star Dubai backdrop as Rajendra Pachauri awards $1.5m prize to Toyota won't help the climate science causehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/20/pachauri-personal-attacksGiven the CO2 footprint of a 7* hotel, Dunbai. and an award for Toyate, see the previous connections..Forgive me for commenting on the hypocracy..Why not just post it to them.170 private jets for copenhagen.1500 limos for copenhagen.15 THOUSAND delegates (lots of hangers on)Don't forget the joys of lithium mining, for all those hybrid batteries (not a pleasant process, or metall, environmentally) Mon 25 Jan 2010 20:12:01 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=86#comment159 PAUL re #155I would think twice before holding up peer review as a guarantee of sound science.Peer review as practiced for the IPCC report and as documented by the CRU “climategate” documents shows a deeply flawed and biased system. There is a criminal investigation about some of the activities that went on. There is also a government hearing pending about some of the science. You are probably aware that the IPCC AR4 report is not all based on peer reviewed papers but includes reports, beliefs and opinions of groups like World Wild Life Fund, just to name one. Yet you seem to discount beliefs and opinions as non science when non–agw scientists use them. Recently it has been reported that the paper that claimed the premature melting of Himalayan glaciers was knowingly not peer reviewed but still included in the IPCC report just to put pressure on the politicians. I often find more exaggerations than science in some of this mountain of AGW documents that you claim to be so lily white.So Paul, I find little evidence that AGW /IPCC report and science is based on sound science and proper peer review process. Every day new revelations come out that tell me quite the opposite. Mon 25 Jan 2010 17:15:33 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=86#comment158 PaulPaul # 155You said "As far as I can tell, there is a presumption in all of these papers that any warming that has been seen is natural rather than Man made, yet they don't seem to provide any convincing evidence to support this. The bottom line is that they are not peer-reviewed and as such are really just statements of the scientists' own beliefs - this is the key difference between them and the mountain of scientific literature supporting AGW."You are generalizing without wanting to do any homework yourself. Suggest that you do a review of the papers, these scientists have written before you judge so quickly.One cannot post all of these works or references on this track, nor should we . By the way at least 3 of the scientists that I noted in post#61 are agw scientists so when you reject their belief's and their work as well, you are now rejecting every body both AGW and non-AGW .Do you know something that the rest of the world does not about climate science. Mon 25 Jan 2010 14:55:37 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=85#comment157 This post has been Removed Mon 25 Jan 2010 14:13:41 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=85#comment156 Barry,Your total lack of balance in reporting these things really shouldn't surprise me by now....... but it still does!It hardly comes as a surprise to read sceptical comments about AGW coming from the chief climate negotiator of the World's leading oil producer!As for China, it is moving rapidly towards being the World's largest economy and has a huge dependence on the burning of coal, so AGW is bound to be something of an irritation! In fact, I think the developing countries have a point when they say that the West needs to do more - that is surely what "flat-earther Brown" as you call him is trying to do.Politicians whose countries stand to lose out financially if AGW is tackled will inevitably put their own gloss on things....... just as you invariably do! At least they are not claiming that it's all a conspiracy!Paul Mon 25 Jan 2010 12:34:46 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=84#comment155 Today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7067505/China-has-open-mind-about-cause-of-climate-change.htmlIt is a shame it has been given so little space in the Telegraph, and why no mention of the 'climategate' scandal?James Delingpole, Charles Booker, Gerald Warner, et al will be most upset... At least it is in print though, so a small well done to the Telegraph..Maybe those indian glacialogists, that were called 'voodoo' by the head of the IPCC will let the indian government know about climate gate scandal...After all the Saudi's lead negotiator knew about it as well, back in December BEFORE copenhagenBBC - Science and Environment (not front page news?)December 03, 2009Climate e-mail hack 'will impact on Copenhagen summit'http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8392611.stmSaudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator. Mr Al-Sabban made clear that he expects it to derail the single biggest objective of the summit - to agree limitations on greenhouse gas emissions."It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News. "Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not human-induced reasons. "So, whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the climate's natural variability."After all I'm sure the chinese have been looking intensly (with an 'open' mind - the irony as google would not autocomplete climategate for over 3 weeks) at the FOIA2009.zip file, all the emails, the code, the harry_read_me.txt file, and drawn their own conclusions.... The west will be given more than enough rope, so that the current generation of western polticians, obama, EU Gordon 'flat-earther' Brown, David 'greenwashed' Cameron will look like fools in front of their democratic electorates.. Mon 25 Jan 2010 11:53:56 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=84#comment154 MATT,I hadn't picked up on your post at #61. I've now been back to take a look at them, although there were some that I was unable to open.The paper by William Gray looks impressive, but it lacks real data to back up what is essentially a pet theory. You will see what Realclimate make of his reasoning here:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/Returning again to Prof Easterbrook's arguments, I've now found the following rebuttal which picks up on my own concerns and adds some more:http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/easterbrook-and-the-coming-global-cooling/As far as I can tell, there is a presumption in all of these papers that any warming that has been seen is natural rather than Man made, yet they don't seem to provide any convincing evidence to support this. The bottom line is that they are not peer-reviewed and as such are really just statements of the scientists' own beliefs - this is the key difference between them and the mountain of scientific literature supporting AGW.Paul Sun 24 Jan 2010 23:13:32 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=83#comment153 Barry,"It must have been an inside job, ie whistleblowing, very much in the public interest, and has many protections..."Your opinion, obviously, but I see no evidence to support it. Also, it is only in the public interest if someone is proved to have done something wrong."Didn't see the whistleblower getting prosecuted for the MP's expenses leak".There was a clear breach of public trust in that case, whereas, as I keep stressing, no wrong-doing has yet been shown in the case of "Climategate".Paul Sun 24 Jan 2010 22:19:03 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=83#comment152 MATT,In one of your posts, you mentioned the fact that the IPCC's temperature projections are basically smooth curves. I suspect that this is because, although the model is based on existing data, the actual projection shows the average cumulative effect. I don't think the IPCC would claim that the graph accurately reflects what will happen to global temperatures on a year by year basis - there are always going to be some cooler and warmer periods.Paul Sun 24 Jan 2010 20:00:36 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=82#comment151 given the nature and content of the 'hack'...It must have been an inside job, ie whistleblowing, very much in the public interest, and has many protections...Didn't see the whistleblower getting prosecuted for the MP's expenses leak Sun 24 Jan 2010 19:58:38 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=81#comment150 MATT,When it comes to rates of warming, aren't the IPCC's future projections based on the fact that carbon dioxide emissions are growing almost exponentially? This surely accounts for the discrepancy between their projections and those of people such as Prof Easterbrook.Paul Sun 24 Jan 2010 19:31:50 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=81#comment149 MATT,There are a number of points which come out of Professor Easterbrook's paper.First of all, it is important to point out that he is approaching this from the point of view of a geologist who is sceptical of AGW. I'm quite sure that a climate scientist would interpret the same data in a very different way.Prof Easterbrook claims that global warming has ended, based on an apparent cooling during 2008. Yet this cooling was almost certainly due to a strong La Nina event in the Pacific. 2009, by contrast, was the second warmest year ever.... and I'm not clear about where he got the idea that 2007 was cold.Looking at the data as a whole, the warming process has at best paused, but is certainly extremely premature to say that it has ended!The projections the Prof makes are similar to those used by the IPCC, based on a mass of data already in the public domain. Is it not the case that the IPCC already take these natural cycles into account in their projections? Also, the IPCC has found that it is only when you combine the models for natural processes with those for greenhouse gases that you get a really good correlation between modeled and actual global temperature.As you know, I don't have the same confidence in the future projections as the IPCC appears to have, but I confess that this is based on gut instinct rather than sound science. The IPCC dataset and analysis in its latest report is by far the most comprehensive attempt ever undertaken to figure out what will happen next. Certainly, there are still uncertancies, but I am convinced that the general trend of warming will continue due to Man's activities.Paul Sun 24 Jan 2010 19:20:50 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=80#comment148 Bonn1e,I don't agree with you when you say the scientific soundness doesn't matter, as sound science is surely the only way of uncovering the truth. Sound science has given us cures to serious medical conditions, electricity...... in fact pretty well everything we take for granted today!I also don't agree that the scientists are disdainful of the masses, but I'm quite sure that they are frustrated.I've made this analogy before elsewhere, but I think it is especially relevant here:If you are ill, you go and see your doctor, because your doctor (who is a scientist) is far better qualified to diagnose your condition and effect a cure. Yet in the debate over AGW, every Tom, Dick and Harry suddenly believes that they know more about the science than people who have been studying it all of their working lives!The science of AGW and climate change is hugely complex, with multiple interrelated processes going on side by side and feedback mechanisms - much the same as specialist medical research. I studied some meteorology as part of my Environmental degree and then went on to do research to PhD level and beyond and even I don't pretend to grasp all of the nuances of what the scientists are saying. So what chance does the average member of the public, with no formal science qualification, have of differentiating between what is sound science and what is not? This is not intended to be patronising, it is just plain common sense!The bottom line is that you actually need to be studying climate science to fully understand all of the intricacies of AGW, so it is the views of the climate scientists which have the greatest scientific credibility. Yet it is people other than climate scientists who keep coming up with all of the objections...... and many of the sceptics are not even scientists at all!I appreciate that you didn't approve of the tone of the New Scientist "Guide for the Perplexed", but it does provide an excellent summary of most of the arguments put forwards by the sceptics and explains in layman's terms why they do not represent sound science:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.htmlOne final thought.......A couple of recent polls have shown that around 97% of climate scientists believe that Man's activities are warming the planet. The overwhelming majority of them also believe that greenhouse gases are the main causal factor. I can tell you that this represents an almost unprecedented level of consensus amongst research scientists! Yes, there are 3% who maybe don't agree and the propaganda machine set in motion years ago by the Oil Industry makes sure that their views get disproportionate coverage, but this 3% are clearly not coming up with any scientific evidence to support their views - the 97% are!Paul Sun 24 Jan 2010 18:41:06 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=80#comment147 Well I've certainly got you all going! ;)Barry,A number of points......Regarding the new "controversy" about the IPCC linking AGW with catastrophic weather events, you should note that there is no SIGNIFICANT link between the two. This actually means that when statistics were applied to the data, the probability of the 2 being linked was not high enough to be certain (in scientific research 95% confidence limits are normally used). However, it does not mean that there is no link at all - the probability of a link could actually be as high as 90%.This is exactly the same problem the medical researchers faced in trying to prove a link between smoking and dangerous diseases - all of the noise due to the natural variability in weather makes it very difficult to achieve a high statistical significance.I would also draw to your attention the final paragraphs of the article you linked to:"Some researchers have argued that it is unfair to attack the IPCC too strongly, pointing out that some errors are inevitable in a report as long and technical as the IPCC's round-up of climate science. "Part of the problem could simply be that expectations are too high," said one researcher. "We have been seen as a scientific gold standard and that's hard to live up to." Professor Christopher Field,director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution in California, who is the new co-chairman of the IPCC working group overseeing the climate impacts report, said the 2007 report had been broadly accurate at the time it was written. He said: “The 2007 study should be seen as “a snapshot of what was known then. Science is progressive. If something turns out to be wrong we can fix it next time around.” However he confirmed he would be introducing rigorous new review procedures for future reports to ensure errors were kept to a minimum."Regarding the glaciers "scandal", Dr Pachauri, who provided all of the data, was clearly not diligent enough. I understand that it was the WWF who initially used the data and that it was then quoted by the IPCC as a small part of their massive report. Yes, someone at the IPCC should have checked the data more carefully (as it should have been obvious that it couldn't be correct), but we are talking about human beings here. Quoting again from the report you linked to, Prof Cogley, who spotted the error, states:“I am convinced that the great bulk of the work reported in the IPCC volumes was trustworthy, and is as trustworthy now as it was before the detection of this mistake”, he says.In other words, there is no question mark over the main bulk of the report....... except in the eyes of those who don't like its conclusions!Also, as I've pointed out to you before, the key point is that the Himalayan glaciers ARE receding, although some of the reporting appears to ignore this fact!Turning to the "Climategate" "scandal", you will note that I've linked elsewhere to a couple of well argued documents which effectively dismiss "Climategate" as a non-entity. As there is obviously a thorough investigation ongoing, it is mischievous nonsense to pre-empt its findings. In my mind a far more pertinent question is "why did these hacked emails appear when they did?" Hacking is an offence and it raises far more questions about those behind it than it does about the emailers!Paul Sun 24 Jan 2010 18:00:36 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=79#comment146 #142 PaulYou said"I certainly wouldn't dispute Prof Easterbrook's observations regarding cycles, but personally I don't see why they preclude AGW. Climate scientists would surely argue that even if the Earth does undergo a period of cooling in the next few years, if we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current (and ever increasing) rate, once the cooling period ends, the additional warming effect from greenhouse gases will make the Earth warmer than ever.""If the climate scientists have got it right, using a temporary colder period as a justification for doing nothing about AGW would be a serious mistake."The argument is one of degrees of warming , the rate of warming and the underlying cause. The non-agw scientists do not accept the projected rates of warming 10 times faster than during the past decade and the past century. The science to support this is just not there at this time in my opinion. This rate warming is particularly unlikely in the near term. Yet the agw camp continues to predict unprecedented warming[see IPCC forecast of 0.21C per decade for the next two decades or 4C by 2060 per the Met Office].They are panicking the world in the wrong direction because global cooling is more likely in the near term. Yes, natural warming will return after the cool period ends. No one denies this. If human generated carbon dioxide is not the major cause of global warming [ the % human caused seems to dropping all the time in the news], then why would anyone want to panic the world into trillions of dollars of wasted expenditures for a problem that does not exist in way it was first presented or at the least is not as serious as first believed.[ and which can be dealt more gradually in a more rational and organized way.] There are much bigger world problems at this time like Haiti just to name one where our limited resources are needed much more. Sun 24 Jan 2010 16:14:19 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=79#comment145 143 PAULYou said"The point I was actually making is that the sceptics cannot win the scientific debate because their arguments are not based on sound science"Paul you cannot just generalize this way . Most of the non-agw scientists that I know are using just as sound science as the agw group. Over 450 papers have been published by them. Many are much more qualified than those included in the IPCC group. I listed some in my post #61. It is their science that is turning out to be more correct in the near term while the agw science seems to be seriously floundering every day . The most recent one that I read about is that all the temperature data at NOAA has been altered to reflect higher temperature stations mostly . Is this sound science in your judgement? It was the science of the non-agw scientists that uncovered the ever growing daily list of serious scientific errors of the IPCC group. Just because one disagrees with the yet unproven and untested AGW science does not mean that he or she is using unsound science . The opposite may be true. I am surprised that you would even state this . Sun 24 Jan 2010 15:32:12 GMT+1 Bonn1e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=78#comment144 143. Paul Briscoe Well this just goes to show that I am as likely to get hold of the wrong end of the stick as anyone else! Poor Mr Black, I do apologice!So Paul, I must address my comments to you! Although such a remark is rather different, when made in the context of a blog post, than it would be in an article written for a wider audience.I am not at all sure whether the 'scientific soundness' really matters anymore. There has been great emphasis placed upon the scientific 'evidence' by both sides but unfortunately the proponents of AGW have very often adopted a disdainful and superior attitude towards 'the public'. I think this is very clearly shown to begin with the actual scientific community involved (e.g. in the tone of many CRU emails - 'ignorant masses' etc) and spreads right down through gvernment officialdom, to the rather ridiculous rantings and assertations which exist on some blogs. I say 'unfortunate' because such an attitude has inevitably resulted in a 'backlash' which may swing to the other extreme and prove equally unhelpful. But it is my belief that the course of history is rarely dictated by clever science or reasoned debate but rather is carried on a great tide of 'public opinion', which is constantly formed and reformed by numerous circumstances. If the AGW proponents want things to go their way, they need to start being a whole lot nicer to the 'ignorant masses' for it is they who pay the piper at the end of the day. Sun 24 Jan 2010 11:48:29 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=78#comment143 The IPCC and sound science?Glacier experts pointing out the IPCC was incorrectSea level experts pointing out he IPCC was incorrectHurricane experts pointing out that the IPCC linking to global warming announcements were weak, and then withdrawing them completely.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ecehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100023468/four-more-himalayan-howlers-revealed-in-official-climate-report/As usual the comments section are quite revealing, indicating the public is not that gullible.These were the sceptics, deniars, but scientists Involved in the IPCC process! (All known months years ago, but only now reported in the main media..)Of course the BBC new about the glacier (breaking news story) a mere 6 weeks ago, and buried it in the south east asia section... (copenhagen time)And of course climategate, emails, code, data..Anybody, layman included, who has read harry_read_me.txt for themselves, will shall we say, have one or 2 concerns about how the leading ground temp dataset, were handled.. Sun 24 Jan 2010 09:22:01 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=77#comment142 Bonn1e,Sorry, I missed your post too!"Of course, it is the failure of the sceptics to come up with sound scientific evidence for what they are saying which has led them instead to make an assault on public opinion........ which is less discerning!"That was actually my statement, not Richard Black's! It was certainly not intended to be patronising.The point I was actually making is that the sceptics cannot win the scientific debate because their arguments are not based on sound science. Instead, therefore, they are relying on swaying the opinion of the public who, for the most part, do not have sufficient understanding of the science to spot the major flaws in their arguments. The public also, by and large, don't want to believe in AGW and will therefore be especially receptive to anything which appears to contradict it!Paul Sat 23 Jan 2010 23:51:19 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=77#comment141 MATT,Sorry, my internet connection has been running very slowly and I just didn't spot your new link to Prof Easterbrooks's paper....... perhaps this thread is just getting too long!I certainly wouldn't dispute Prof Easterbrook's observations regarding cycles, but personally I don't see why they preclude AGW. Climate scientists would surely argue that even if the Earth does undergo a period of cooling in the next few years, if we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current (and ever increasing) rate, once the cooling period ends, the additional warming effect from greenhouse gases will make the Earth warmer than ever.If the climate scientists have got it right, using a temporary colder period as a justification for doing nothing about AGW would be a serious mistake.Paul Sat 23 Jan 2010 23:38:28 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=76#comment140 MATT,Just to add to the above, I've now found the following poll of scientists taken in 2008. If you look at the histogram towards the bottom of the page, you will see that the vast majority of climate change scientists consider carbon dioxide to be the primary driving force (options 5, 6 and 7). It is only a relatively small proportion of scientists who feel that the IPCC is overstating the importance of carbon dioxide:http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1184&tstamp=Paul Sat 23 Jan 2010 22:34:31 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=75#comment139 MATT,"As you may be aware the scientific jury is still outand will be for some time about what are the various factors that cause most of the global warming."My understanding is that the majority of scientists active in this field DO believe that the enhanced greenhouse effect is primarily responsible for the warming trend which has accompanied the burning of fossil fuels over recent times. Certainly, the main emphasis of research and of IPCC reports seems to be on this. I appreciate, though, that you do not agree with this assessment.What is clear, though, is that scientists believe that Man is primarily to blame:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change.htmlhttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/Paul Sat 23 Jan 2010 22:14:28 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=75#comment138 Paul#136You said "it implies that the Earth is always going to be getting warmer. A more accurate term is "enhanced greenhouse effect" As you may be aware the scientific jury is still outand will be for some time about what are the various factors that cause most of the global warming. That discussion should wait for another track. Personally I think that it is not the "enhanced greenhouse" effect that is going to do the prime warming.But I understand the point that you were making futher down in your post Sat 23 Jan 2010 20:24:25 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=74#comment137 Paul I hope that this posts betterThe attached reference shows Professor Easterbrook’s projected curve indicating global cooling beginning about 2005 ± 3-5 years until about 2030, then renewed warming from about 2030 to about 2060 (unrelated to CO2—just continuation of the natural cycle), then another cool period from about 2060 to about 2090.I don,t know if you have heard of the term "black swans" These are are totally unexpected major events that are unpredicable but once experienced we try to explain them away and we say that we knew about them previously. Predicting more accurate temperatures 100 years ahead than in the short term just does not fly with me , Paul. There are just too many unknowns.If the science and the models both prove to be wrong or off only 50%, they totally void your 100 year more accurate projection.http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783 Sat 23 Jan 2010 20:10:00 GMT+1 Bonn1e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=74#comment136 132. Paul Briscoe Richard Black - 'Of course, it is the failure of the sceptics to come up with sound scientific evidence for what they are saying which has led them instead to make an assault on public opinion........ which is less discerning!Is Mr Black not a member of the public then? This statement ranks pretty high in the list of condescending pronouncements made by media commentators and if the 'less discerning public' find the 'sceptics' more attractive, I suggest he has only himself to blame. I think whatever the science may be, it will be public opinion, discerning or otherwise, which ultimately dictates the course. May I suggest that he, and all others like him, start addressing people with a little more respect and courtesy if he really wants to win his argument? Sat 23 Jan 2010 19:59:24 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=73#comment135 MATT,There's obviously a problem with the link you posted. Was it a pdf document (I fell foul of that a bit further back up the thread)?I am, however, aware of the planetary cycles you mentioned and yes, they are bound to have an impact.I think part of the problem with people understanding the concept of AGW lies in the term itself - it implies that the Earth is always going to be getting warmer. A more accurate term is "enhanced greenhouse effect" - - it is exactly that - a warming EFFECT which increases with concentration. As the concentration is only increasing by around 3ppm per year, the small additional warming effect each year is bound to be more than offset in the short term by larger changes due to natural processes. Consequently, it is only by plotting the average global temperature figures over many years, spanning all of the natural cycles several times, that you can get a clear picture of how much warming effect the carbon dioxide is having. This is surely the reason why climate scientists say that the models are more likely to accurately predict global temperatures in the second half of the 21st century rather than the first."The US EPA has declared CO2 a pollutant and dangerous to human life which is totally wrong in my judgement."In the short term, clearly, carbon dioxide is not going to present any direct toxic risk to mankind. It does, however, pose a serious risk to marine ecosystems because of its effect on pH. In the recent past, any changes to carbon dioxide levels have been small or slow enough for marine life to adapt. This is not now the case with fossil fuels being burned at an unprecedented and ever increasing rate.Paul Sat 23 Jan 2010 19:04:37 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=73#comment134 #133 BOLESLAYou may very well be right . I don't think anyone yet knows what the final figure will be. Science cannot yet give an accurate figure in my opinion. Many of us feel that the impact of CO2 is not as significant as touted by AGW . There is a lot more study required before we can explain the true impact of CO2 on climate. The US EPA has declared CO2 a pollutant and dangerous to human life which is totally wrong in my judgement . It was their way of getting around Congress which opposes any regulation of CO2 and cap and trade rules in my opinion. Sat 23 Jan 2010 15:10:33 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=72#comment133 #130 paulPaulThe reason non-AGW scientists are predicting a significantly lower rate of future global natural warming is that the planetary natural cycles favor more cooling than warming during the next 100 years. These natural cycles have slightly different cycle lengths and some are less predictable than others but some key ones like AMO, PDO, NAO and AO seem to cycle or cluster around 60 years for a complete cycle [30 years warm, 30 years cool]. We just had the warm peak and the next warm peak will probably be around 2058. There will only be one warm cycle but two cool cycles during the next 100 years. There are also more warm ENSO events during the warm cycle. So the majority of the warming will come from one warm cycle only and my guess is that it may raise global temperatures by about 0.4C. Here are some of the past warm peak years and trough cool years to illustrate these past climate cycles.COOL TROUGH 1850-1860WARM PEAK 1870-1880COOL TROUGH 1910-1920WARM PEAK 1935-1944COOL TROUGH 1970 1980WARM PEAK 1990 -2000 Also see my post # 61 and the reference for the professor SYUN AKASOFU slides and slide # 8 which shows the future warm and cool cycles [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] Sat 23 Jan 2010 14:52:28 GMT+1 Boleslas_Broda http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=72#comment132 MATTI suspect your estimate of 10% of warming caused by manmade GHGs may be high at present.The problem is that it appears to behave, at least when tested by common statistical methods, cumulatively.Which, combined with the rate of growth of manmade GHG emissions, is the troubling part.We're never going to see two suns in our sky.We don't expect a regular doubling in the rate of volcanic events.The one sun we have isn't showing indications of regularly increasing its output by irreversible steps.There's only one current progressive factor with significant evidence of increasing the heat in the biosphere globally; this is man-made GHG emission.Sure, there's some room for doubt, especially if one strives to bend all evidence and analyses and reasoning far enough, and use enough methods of persuasion and sophistry, that manmade GHG emissions are a danger.But then, I'm not convinced of the need to prove the danger.It's enough for me that I'm a stakeholder in this shared resource, with an equal personal share in the stewardship of the biosphere's GHG budget, that I ought stand fast for preserving the historical levels credibly proven to dominate for the entire history of our species.What possible incentive could I, or anyone with this shared right, this mutual responsibility, find worth trading it on the sayso of anyone who pretends to the claim that they can substitute their judgement for mine in my legacy, my family's future health, and the security of my country in days to come, without so much as asking me if I agree?I'm a huge fan of scepticism, especially the even-handed sort so little practiced these days.The arrogance of those who tell me what is and isn't good for me and mine, that's what I don't like. Sat 23 Jan 2010 04:07:46 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=71#comment131 I hadn't bothered to read Richard Black's blog before, but I can certainly see why you don't like him Mailman! In fact, he speaks a great deal of sense.I thought the following passage from his latest blog was especially pertinent:"What some in the sceptical camp do not appear to appreciate is that published, peer-reviewed science is not only the sole way of establishing and improving theories; it's also, now, the only route to the policymakers they want to influence.Modern-day ministers and their scientifically-qualified advisers are absolutely not going to listen to half-developed, unpublished theories or complaints about fraud and conspiracies."Of course, it is the failure of the sceptics to come up with sound scientific evidence for what they are saying which has led them instead to make an assault on public opinion........ which is less discerning!Paul Fri 22 Jan 2010 23:59:53 GMT+1 mailmannz http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=71#comment130 theskyisfalling @110.You are right, Richard Black's blog is a waste of time. Far too many pro-mann made global warming (tm) supporters over there doing their best to copy the wikipedia guy (by drowning out anyone who DARES commit heresy.Mailman Fri 22 Jan 2010 22:42:48 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=70#comment129 MATT,I fear that I will be long gone before we know for sure who's right! I am certainly more confident in the evidence for AGW than you appear to be.... and I have not excluded the possibility that the models could prove right looking further ahead.However, as Paul Hudson has pointed out, there are reasons to think that we could be in for a cooler period (although this doesn't by any means disprove AGW). I guess that we'll know that soon enough!Paul Fri 22 Jan 2010 22:17:46 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=69#comment128 Paul In my judgement the natural warming will continue but only after the current cool spell is essentially over in 10-30 years . The average global temperatures will only rise by about 0.5C -0.7C by the end of this century [not 4-6C] . I also think that when more of this global warming science is properly shook out, carbon dioxide will be found to be a minor component and at the best only 10% of the factors causing warming. If it had been higher there would have been much better and clearer evidence by now. The impact of natural planetary cycles will be found to be much more significant in comparison to carbon dioxide. Fri 22 Jan 2010 19:12:14 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=69#comment127 MATT,My own take on this is actually not that different from your own.I do believe that AGW is a real phenomenon, as I don't believe existing data can be properly explained in any other way - the overwhelming majority of scientists have reached the same conclusion and for the same reason.However, I don't believe that the models of future trends can be relied upon, because it's impossible for the models to include all possible variables. I AM convinced that the warming process will continue (assuming that natural processes such as an ice age don't intervene!), but suspect that the warming will be slower than predicted by the models. I certainly don't have confidence in the more alarmist predictions, which I think have probably come about because of the interference of politicians!The problem with this is that if the warming is slower than the models predict and we simply forget about AGW, the much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the oceans will probably leave us with a real headache later on - lower pH, which will damage ecosystems...... and then potentially runaway AGW if the pH falls far enough to solubilise carbonates.Paul Fri 22 Jan 2010 17:55:32 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=68#comment126 Bonn1e,I think the New Scientist article was deliberately written the way it was to make it accessible to people with little understanding of science - hence the title "A Guide for the Perplexed". Maybe some people will see this as patronising, but it is also clear from much of what I see written on this subject online that it needs to be kept simple!You are quite correct to point out that it does not cite the source literature used, but I think that was probably deliberate in this case because referencing everything would have made it far more difficult for people to read.Certainly, if you read more typical New Scientist articles, they do carry references to the source literature...... what matters is that there ARE peer-reviewed papers to back up what the article is saying.Paul Fri 22 Jan 2010 17:36:01 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=68#comment125 #124 PaulI agree with some parts of the article that you noted except that long term warming is due to greenhouse gases and that model predictions for 2050-2100 are more reliable than those for 2015.I don’t think anyone disagrees that there is an underlying natural global warming happening since the most recent cold trough of about 1600. [Most recent long term warming is at about 0.4C in about the last 158 years]. There is a 1500 year long term climate cycle and we happen to be in the warming phase of that cycle for about several hundred years more.Where I think non-AGW scientists disagree is the rate of warming predicted for the next 100 years and the claim that this accelerated warming will be primarily due to manmade greenhouse gases. The amount of warming most recently attributed to manmade greenhouse gases that I have noted in the news is now down to about 40% and this percentage has been dropping steadily. The real impact of water vapor was underestimated by AGW science in my opinion. Where we also disagree is the frequency and impact of future regular cooling phases which will tend to significantly flatten the predicted warming curve. [I already blogged on this earlier in this track and do not wish to blog further on this]Models currently have limited credibility in my estimation as most are still in the early development phase and cannot deal effectively with complex natural cycles, other complex climate variables or what really happens to the carbon dioxide on our planet.To me credibility is where I loose most AWG scientists. The no more snow forecast example is just one of many such illustrations. Other original claims made by AGW science have proven to be flawed or exaggerations to catch media attention as I have observed them on the news.The current warm winter forecast, the record warm forecast for 2010, the record warming forecast for the next decade and the even higher record forecast of 4C by 2060 [or 10 times faster than the lat 100 years] are all suspect in my judgment. The warming rate has flattened for the last 10 years now and natural cycles are likely to dwarf any extra warming for the next 1-3 decades so how can there be the unprecedented warming [or 10 times faster than the last 10 years] for the next several decades.If you cannot help mankind to deal with weather in the short term with credible and effective forecasts, you have no credibility in the 100 year forecast, neither in my opinion, nor in the opinion of the general public. Would you invest with an investment broker for the long term, knowing that his portfolio has lost money the last four or ten years? The 100 year forecast may be fine as computer simulation case for hypothetical situations but not for world wide public policy formulation in my judgement. Fri 22 Jan 2010 14:07:26 GMT+1 Bonn1e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=67#comment124 124.Paul BriscoeThe article you have linked to is rather patronising don't you think? Also, it does not even quote it's own sources correctly - but then we believe what we wish to believe I guess! Fri 22 Jan 2010 09:34:49 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=67#comment123 Matt,You should have a read of the following article from the New Scientist which gives a fairly straightforward explanation for the phenomenon you're describing:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17808-climate-myths-any-cooling-disproves-global-warming.htmlThe one point I can't see in the article is that we are also currently at a solar minimum.You have to look at global temperature data in the context of ALL variables - the point is that the warming effect of carbon dioxide is only increasing gradually whilst other effects produce comparatively large short-term fluctuations in temperature.Paul Fri 22 Jan 2010 08:12:59 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=66#comment122 I recently read this news clip made in 2000. These are the same scientists who are predicting unprecedented global warming in the long range at rates 10 times faster than the last century..” According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". He even repeated this claim just a couple of weeks ago I went back and checked the actual snowfall record since 2000 and found Dr Viner was wrong for 8 of the last 10 winters between 2000 and 2010. [Only 2002 and 2008 had no snow] So now these same scientists are saying that we will have unprecedented global warming until 2100. Global warming science sure is on solid ground? Fri 22 Jan 2010 00:49:00 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=66#comment121 If my recollection serves me correctly, Margaret Thatcher (love her or loathe her) was a rare commodity amongst Prime Ministers - a scientist!Paul Thu 21 Jan 2010 23:10:11 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=65#comment120 sorry to post it twice (albeit with an addition) though I was on another article.finish for today with something a bit more light hearted:The ultimate proof that AGW theory is discredited is BROWN theory:Whatever G Brown Attaches himself to with Moral authority, will embarrsingly quickly be shown to be the exact opposite of truth...The sceptics have the best jokes you see, is another theory, which will indicate the way 'consensus' an awful word in science, is going.Sadly, David Cameron, seem to be more greenwashed than Gordon( after all the tories formely known as the 'nasty' party would not dare to be seen as not greener than green)GREEN is good by the way, strip out all the AGW links to everything,and I would endorse pretty much what Richard Black and the BBC is saying...divesification of energy supplies, etc (if only for energuy security)ie deforestation, poluution (non co2), bio-diversity, over population, etc,etc. Irony is I haven't even been on an airplane anywhere for 9 years. (not even for a green conference) I've got green relatives that fly off for a protest at the drop of a hat, and would have been in the streets of copenhagen, bar the weather! Thu 21 Jan 2010 20:27:58 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=65#comment119 This might sum up the political problem.. (ie political science)Ithink they ment the 'political' science was settled!For balance I put it on a labour and conservative website. found on the bbc:This would be amusing, if it wasn't also very disturbing!!!Maybe the Tory Party can get hold of a transcript/verify it/I do know of some people who hear it as well..found in the comments section of a BBC website:(no 8)http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/12/bbc_news_coverage_of_copenhage.html“Did anyone hear Milliband on Simon Mayo yesterday (Radio 5Live)? (dec 7, 2009)First caller, first question, “As a percentage, how much greenhouse gas is man made?”Milliband: “Well, er… um… the science is in”.Caller: “You must’ve discussed it, as a percentage, how much greenhouse gas is man made?”Milliband: “Well… um… All of the C02, all of the CO2 is man made.”The guy knows nothing, think about that for a while…----------------------------------------------------Added: Minister of State - Energy and Climate Change.Bio:Ed Miliband is the Labour MP for Doncaster North andSecretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.He was previously the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Social Exclusion as well as holding the position of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.Before taking a ministerial post in the Cabinet, Ed was Minister for the Third Sector and Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office. In 2005-06 Ed was Chair of the All Party Group on Young People.Prior to being elected to Parliament in May 2005, he was a special advisor to the Treasury and was Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors.Ed was educated at Corpus Christi College, Oxford where he read philosophy, politics and economics, and at the London Schools of Economics.In 2003, he was a visiting lecturer at the department of government at Harvard University and visiting scholar at the Centre for European Studies.----------------To make it fair to labour this little piece of info...More seriously:When hopefully the labour party is in opposition.How quickly do you think the LABOUR party will start to say the CO2 taxation policy is wrong?Especially when the unions realise (ie corus closure example) that big corporations can relocate industry to abroad (outside the EU) and then claim tens, hundreds, of millions of punds in carbon credits, to sell to other polluters (ie they have reduced emission here- but don't worry the CO2 will now be pumped out in India, at 3 new steel plants)After allit was all MAGARET THATCHER fault (the labour party like to say that..FRONT Page of cheif AGW theory supoprting website:The Hadley Centre:http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/"Three events occurred in 1988 that assisted greatly in bringing the issue of man-made climate change to the notice of politicians:•A World Ministerial Conference on Climate Change in June hosted by the government of Canada.•A speech in September by Margaret Thatcher where she mentioned the science of anthropogenic climate change and the importance of action to combat climate change.•The first meeting of the IPCC in Geneva in November 1988. Delegates from many countries agreed to set up an international assessment of the science of climate change, together with its likely impacts and the policy options.In December 1988 the UK Government announced it was committed to extending its influence internationally to provide information about climate change and to supporting appropriate research. Discussions were held with the Department of the Environment to strengthen climate research at the Met Office. This led, in November 1989, to an announcement of a new centre for climate change research in the Met Office — then called the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research"TALK about unintended consequence, she wanted to break the power of coal, and bring in gas/nuclear...30 years on we get the IPCC, UN governmentand CO2 taxation!!!Even now, Miliband has started saying, I'm not a climate expert, but the scientists are telling me...Looking for an escape route? Thu 21 Jan 2010 20:20:33 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=64#comment118 Barry,Re post #114.Rather than trying to discredit the entire IPCC because of one silly blunder, you should read the following from the bottom of the first article you linked to:"This is one of the most complex regions on earth, and there are confusing local variations, such as in the Karakoram, where glaciers are advancing. But this anomaly does not alter the overall picture of retreat that affects 80% of the region's glaciers, a retreat recorded by the Chinese Academy of Science's extensive inventory.The people of the region know that climate change has long-term implications for their water and food security. In the short term, it threatens the energy supplies of all the nations that rely on hydropower to fuel their economies.Farmers in Nepal are already ­reporting new pests and diseases. ­Kyrgyzstan, scientists predict, will lose 80% of its water supply. Pakistan and India's great rivers may become seasonal, and their monsoons erratic. The Yangtze and ­Yellow rivers will lose volume. The pace and pattern of ­glacier retreat is urgent, and needs to be ­understood through science – not ­dismissed by ignorant sceptics."Now, regarding Dr. Morner...... if you read the following you'll see that even the scientists he used to work with don't actually agree with his views:[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]...... and of course other scientists who have studied sea level changes have invariably found that sea levels ARE rising....... and they don't all use satelitte data!:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/slr/Paul Thu 21 Jan 2010 18:27:14 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=63#comment117 Oldgifford,"Paul how do we know the present increased carbon dioxide levels are self-evidently due to Man's activities?"If they are not, I think you need to ask yourself the question "where are all the emissions from Man's activities going?". As I said in my previous post, if you calculate the amount of carbon dioxide released by the fossil fuels burned so far, it is actually sufficient to raise levels far higher than those we see at present.Also, if you look at the abstract from the original paper you quoted (Knorr W., 2009), it is actually studying the proportion of "anthropogenic" (ie Man made) carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere. One of the quotes you posted states that emissions are now "35 billion tons per year" - so I think your own literature confirms what I am saying.Now turning to the central finding of the paper, it actually states that the proportion of carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere has remained pretty well constant at around 40% TO DATE, but that does not mean that it will remain so. As the solubility of carbon dioxide in water conforms to an equilibrium, I would actually expect the proportion in the atmosphere to remain fairly constant UP TO A POINT. However, we are already seeing signs of damage to marine ecosystems due to falling pH from the extra carbon dioxide. The point where the pH falls low enough to dissolve inorganic carbonates will be reached quite suddenly. Also, as the oceans warm, the balance will gradually shift in favour of airborne carbon dioxide....... but as it takes several hundred years for the oceans to fully respond to higher air temperatures, this change will be barely perceptible in the short term.Paul Thu 21 Jan 2010 17:50:23 GMT+1 QuaesoVeritas http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=63#comment116 #114 - Barry Woods"What the theorists must do is show, the natural effects of climate change strripped out from any man made...If they say sea levels are going to rise by x amount by y year...What proportion is natural and what part man made (if any) AND show how they have come to their conclusions, with the data, assumptions and evidence, so it can be accurately peer reviewed."What they also must do is stop including the "apparent" sea level rise, due to the land sinking, as is the case in southern England, which is often the case. It's good to hear that Nils-Axel Mörner is still active. Thu 21 Jan 2010 17:13:37 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=62#comment115 This would be amusing, if it wasn't also very disturbing!!!He has started saying: I'm not a climate scientists, but the tell me.....Escape route?Maybe someone can verify it/get a transcript, but it was found on a bbc forum1.found in the comments section of a BBC website:http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/12/bbc_news_coverage_of_copenhage.html“Did anyone hear Milliband on Simon Mayo yesterday (Radio 5Live)? (dec 7, 2009)First caller, first question, “As a percentage, how much greenhouse gas is man made?”Milliband: “Well, er… um… the science is in”.Caller: “You must’ve discussed it, as a percentage, how much greenhouse gas is man made?”Milliband: “Well… um… All of the C02, all of the CO2 is man made.”The guy knows nothing, think about that for a while…----------------------------------------------------Added: Minister of State - Energy and Climate Change.Bio:Ed Miliband is the Labour MP for Doncaster North andSecretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.He was previously the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Social Exclusion as well as holding the position of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.Before taking a ministerial post in the Cabinet, Ed was Minister for the Third Sector and Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office. In 2005-06 Ed was Chair of the All Party Group on Young People.Prior to being elected to Parliament in May 2005, he was a special advisor to the Treasury and was Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors.Ed was educated at Corpus Christi College, Oxford where he read philosophy, politics and economics, and at the London Schools of Economics.In 2003, he was a visiting lecturer at the department of government at Harvard University and visiting scholar at the Centre for European Studies. Thu 21 Jan 2010 16:04:34 GMT+1 MATT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=62#comment114 #114 Barry Woods You made some excellent points. I was also amazed at the lack of better scrutiny of the IPCC and AGW science stories and claims by the main stream media. The essence of good journalism is the discipline of verification. Yet some of the scientific claims made by IPCC and other AGW supporting scientists which have since been shown to be incorrect were instantly accepted and quickly published without ever checking the science for even the basics of facts. Even when presented with scientific proof that the science story in question was perhaps incorrect or a gross exaggeration of facts in order to get public attention prior to Copenhagen, they would rarely publish the corrected science story. They seem to do it for other news stories and get a dozen other viewpoints if it is a political issue but they seem to do zero checking of scientific stories. They even accepted the false claim that global warming science was settled. That is like accepting the story about the fox saying we are only interested in protecting the chicken house and the story is settled. Recently however I am seeing more and more newspapers and TV networks presenting both sides of the story and seeking out the opinion of other scientists with different slant of the science in question.[ recent correction of the false Himalyan glacier retreat claim] A recently released e-mail from the CRU climategate shows the IPCC scientists saying that, “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”... [Referring to the last 10 years of no unusual global warming of the planet and the warming that did take place was entirely due to natural cycles like El Nino’s. Even the IPCC scientists are admitting that they are not sure of the global warming science . So why is the public being told otherwise by all their governments. Bad scientific advise or a good reason to tax the people more? Global warming science is far from settled and I hope the media will tell the future science news unbiased and fairly. Thu 21 Jan 2010 15:21:28 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=61#comment113 From the other side:How about this as a source, is it allowable for the agw theorists, just by mentioning james delingpole, seem to result in instant dismissal. Regardless of what he may say.the comments section of this guardian article...http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jan/20/real-scandal-himalayasA bit of a sea change (to many puns)seems to be appearing...Of course the masses, have been programmed to think climate change = MAN MADE climate change... Which the BBC uses interchangeably.What the theorists must do is show, the natural effects of climate change strripped out from any man made...If they say sea levels are going to rise by x amount by y year...What proportion is natural and what part man made (if any) AND show how they have come to their conclusions, with the data, assumptions and evidence, so it can be accurately peer reviewed.otherwise I'm going with this guy (or is the fact it was published in the spectator measn - instant deniar status) of course as we have seen getting any science published that might dent the consensus is difficult. Even if you were part of the IPCC process yourself, and this was your field.http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5595813/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking.thtml"...Before I continue, I should perhaps state my credentials. I have been a sea-level specialist for 40 years. I launched most of its new theories in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. I solved the problem of the gravitational potential surface, the theory that it changes with time; the rotation of the earth, how it affected the redistribution of the oceans’ masses — and so on. Last year, I was awarded a prize from Algarve university for my ‘irreverence and contribution to our understanding of sea level change’.Yours,Nils-Axel MörnerA former lead reviewer for the IPCC, Nils-Axel Mörner was head of Geodynamics at Stockholm University until his retirement in 2005."Of course the IPCC have now change their minds and it is NOW 2m.of course present, data, evidence, assumptions and methodolgy for peer review to confirm this... Or was it just another phone call, reported somewhere, and borrowed from the wwf , style of peer review.And no doubt, someone will come along and say he is senile, or in the pay of, etc. And totally ignore what has been said.Nearly a year ago: (of course if you have been labelled a deniar - as booker has been - instantly - the agw believers will ignore it)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html"...Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner. One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend". When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria. "As a mere member of the public, I get a lot of my news from the mainstream media and the bbc. If they won't discuss it, I cannot see how anyone can just keep dismissing all the other scientists, just because they are 'deniars' an appaling use of the word, with the obvious intention in it's use to close down debate..... A scientific theory, that needs support, by comparing people who disagree with a theory (and it's predictions do keep changing), with the fact the 6,000,000 people were murdered because of their religion. Thu 21 Jan 2010 10:33:39 GMT+1 Bonn1e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=61#comment112 109 - MarcusThank you for your generous compliment! However, I do feel I am drifting horribly off topic and perhaps proving rather tiresome to many who want to argue the specifics! To these I offer my apologies! We can of course make best guesses about future events, and as you point out, we do this all the time. We acknowledge these as gambles, but we must remember to consider not only the odds that our best guess is correct, but also the direct losses we incur in placing our bet, the opportunity cost involved, the potential for the 'unknown' and our own personal experiences. Please allow me to re-phrase your train analogy to illustrate my point: Some very professional park rangers have informed me that there it is almosr certain that some people are going to walk in front of my train. They, and I, cannot see them because they are around the bend, but they have years of experience and specialist equipment which show footprints leading directly towards the line. They have shown their findings to some other park rangers and they are all in agreement. Some ‘leading psychologists’ add that they know these people and have diagnosed them as seriously depressed and very likely to attempt suicide. A group of blind people seem sure that they passed them in another location altogether, whilst some deaf people have noticed that the people often walk towards the line but they always wait for the train to pass. The park rangers and psychologists say that the blind and deaf people are not at all qualified to make such statements and they are just confusing matters. Time is pressing and I must make my decision – all the ‘best qualified’ experts are certain that I will hit the people unless I slam on the brakes pretty pronto. As it stands the choice is straightforward – I must stop the train or very probably kill the people. But, and now it becomes more tricky, if I slam on the brakes, the people in the coaches I am pulling will, without doubt, be very seriously injured. I am also aware that the week before, a group of ‘eminently qualified’ doctors stopped the train because they had ‘overwhelming evidence’ that a virus lurked around the corner and the week before that, some of the ‘world’s best computer scientists’ insisted my train be dismantled and each piece examined, because turning the corner would surely cause my train to disintegrate. Not only that – a pending investment in lineside safety will be lost, because the funding is dependant upon me adhering strictly to the timetable. When we throw in the outside possibility that, just around the corner, a new set of points have been installed which will send my train down a different track altogether, it is clear that ‘all the available evidence’ does not necessarily indicate that stopping is a good idea! Thu 21 Jan 2010 10:33:32 GMT+1 oldgifford http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=60#comment111 Paul Briscoe wrote: "the present increased carbon dioxide levels are self-evidently due to Man's activities - extra carbon dioxide is being added to the system at an unprecedented rate."Bristol University Research:“New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.”Paul how do we know the present increased carbon dioxide levels are self-evidently due to Man's activities?Al Gore’s graph surely shows massive increases in CO2 so how large would these be compared with man’s activites?But of course this begs the question what is the contribution to climate change by CO2. We have lots of peer-reviewed studies saying we are all doomed and others that say we are barking up the wrong tree. I still don’t see proof and yes I am a sceptic, as if CO2 is so dangerous why do we now have cooling, a travesty that we cannot explain why? Thu 21 Jan 2010 09:47:19 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=60#comment110 Oldgifford,"An interesting note on CO2 and temperatures. The Al Gore CO2/Temperature graph shows the CO2 rises following temperature by about 800 years, and it’s just about 800 years after the Medieval warming period so perhaps our recent CO2 rises are explained."That is actually an old argument. You'll see a reproduction of much of it here:http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruthIt all looks very convincing and, in fact, it fits in well with basic scientific principles....... AS FAR AS IT GOES.The reason why you get a release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when the Earth warms is that the warming shifts the equilibrium solublity of carbon dioxide in water, releasing more into the atmosphere. There is a lag because the huge bulk of water takes a long time to turn over completely, whilst both heat and gaseous exchange take place at the surface. It is important to note that in this scenario, the actual amount of carbon dioxide in the system remains roughly constant.The problem with the above argument being used to explain the present situation is that it completely fails to take account of one hugely important point - the present increased carbon dioxide levels are self-evidently due to Man's activities - extra carbon dioxide is being added to the system at an unprecedented rate. In fact, it has been calculated that if it wasn't for the oceans absorbing a good proportion of the carbon dioxide we've released, the atmospheric concentration would now be at least 500ppm (instead of the 387ppm we see)...... so far from releasing carbon dioxide, as in previous warming periods, the oceans are actually absorbing it.Unfortunately, the oceans do not have the capacity to absorb all of the carbon dioxide that Man produces - hence the reason why atmospheric concentrations continue to rise. Also, as the above process continues, the oceans' capacity to absorb more carbon dioxide will fall: the warming of the oceans will reduce the solubility of carbon dioxide, forcing more back into the atmosphere. Also, carbon dioxide reacts with water to produce carbonic acid, reducing the pH - this in turn will ultimately release yet more carbon dioxide from insoluble carbonates.So whilst the above model fits previous warming periods very well, the same processes are actually likely to exacerbate Man-made global warming.Paul Thu 21 Jan 2010 00:29:08 GMT+1 theskyisnotfalling http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=59#comment109 PaulMaybe you could comment on this or ask Richard Black to follow up/update:http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/10/climates_magnetic_attraction.htmlQuote:During the meeting, Mr Corbyn made concrete forecasts relevant to the UK; here they are. The period from 17-19 November, he says, carries an 85% probability of a storm surge in the North Sea. This will probably lead to snow and blizzards in Scotland and northern England, perhaps a few days later. There are likely to be coastal flood warnings for East Anglia and Holland. The UK winter, he forecasts, is likely to be cold with some very cold spells. His bete noire, the Met Office, says in an "early indication" that temperatures are likely to be near or above the recent average (3.7C for December), though there is a one in seven chance of a cold one. So there you are. The forecasts are out; let battle commence.'I tend to stay away from Richards blog as there seems to be a fair few trolls and debate is made impossible by the amount of 'got you with that one' type rhetoric.Old giffordFound your article 'Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection' very interesting. Thank you. Wed 20 Jan 2010 20:34:55 GMT+1 Marcus Garvey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=59#comment108 Bonn1e - by fatalistic I meant that you seem to view the future as unknowable and unchangeable. In a general philosophical way you are of course correct, it's impossible to accurately predict what people will know, do, feel or think a hundred years from now. Just as all predictive models are by their very nature incorrect. But that doesn't mean that we can't make best guesses based on the evidence that we have, and act upon them. I'm absolutely sure that you do so in your own way every day, as do we all. You believe that we have no way of knowing what events will unfold, and your right there will be very many surprises, yet I just dont understand why you discount all of the available evidence that shows we can have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen. A crude analogy is that of a train driver who has been told there are people on the line round the bend, and who can brake in time to prevent at least some of the damage, but who refuses to do so because he doubts whether it is possible to know what is round the corner until he arrives there in person.I don't know where you get the idea that I claim that rising CO2 would extinguish life on earth. Armageddon is not a word that I would use. Some things will infact thrive, and I'm quite sure that humanity will persist. But the question is how many, where and what sort of quality of life will they enjoy. If you feel that a bleak future awaits if all factors remain the same then why are you opposed to attempts, based on the best evidence we have, to change those factors.Oh and dont be shy, feel free to use up as much more space on this blog as you like. I may not agree with you, but you're a heap more interesting to debate with than most folk here. Wed 20 Jan 2010 17:27:17 GMT+1 Paul Latham http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=58#comment107 My response to comment(106)from Marcus Garvey.I am not aware on any academic institution that has totally accepted the arguments about global warming and closed the book on the subject without question.The CRU at East Anglia University where Professor Phil Jones attempted to do so no doubt because he has a de facto input with the IPCC (and of course funding). This has backfired with the recently leaked e mails.I do not feel that I have to justify my comments by citing an institution which is against the hypotheses. Why ? because academics and scientists are trying to uncover the truth with continuing and extensive research and analysis into climate, CO2 emissions, green-house gasses, water vapour and the suns radiation and irradiation effects, and no doubt many others.I have stated this before on this website and to restate it now 'I am not a climate change denier'. I wish the debate to remain open with input from every quarter.My own interest is derived from policy. I do not wish to see decisions and commitments being made into the future when the debate is still open. Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband would have us believe otherwise and commit the taxpayer to unjustified increases in green taxes.It will be almost impossible to reduce CO2 emissions by spending vast sums of money. No doubt man will have added something to the atmospheric levels by burning fossil fuels in the past century, however it is yet to be proven to be the cause of the warming. Wed 20 Jan 2010 14:47:55 GMT+1 oldgifford http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=57#comment106 Roger Harrabin may be in a spot of bother. Piers Corbyn writes on his website "I demand that you forthwith publicly apologise for, compensate for, and retract your false and gratuitously damaging claims which are directed against me personally (you say: mistrust Mr Corbyn himself) as well as our forecasting technique or I may have to take the matter further." He goes on to say that he has furnished Roger with proof of the accuracies of his forecasts. Mr. Corbyn has recently revealed the principles behind his forecasting method but of course he will not give the details, as he would no longer have a business. Some bloggers are encouraging Mr. Corbyn to sue for libel.I note Roger does not criticise anyone involved with the CRU emails for the alleged attempts to hide their data and methods, whereas others have been scathing about scientists hiding their data, so why is he so anti Mr. Corbyn?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8377465.stmA forecast example from Mr. Corbyn.Issued 30th NovemberPlease Circulate this free forecast to Copenhagen summit delegates and media… WeatherAction releases free long range forecast for Copenhagen Climate Summit 7th -18th Dec 2009 & warns: Climate summit to be hit by blustery deluges, probably turning to snow or blizzards and icy blasts in the region at times - especially heavy when President Obama visits Denmark & Norway 8-10th.If you look at the long-term climate data over 500,000 years, you see regular patterns of cooling and warming with some very sharp transitions. Interestingly according to Dr. Achim Brauer, the Younger Dryas cooling may have occurred as quickly as one year. http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/world/Last-Ice-Age-happened-in.4351045.jpThis suggests we don’t know much about the causes of climate change, who’s to say it is not going to happen next year? An interesting note on CO2 and temperatures. The Al Gore CO2/Temperature graph shows the CO2 rises following temperature by about 800 years, and it’s just about 800 years after the Medieval warming period so perhaps our recent CO2 rises are explained. Apparently Mr. Corbyn’s and Joe Bastardi’s long term forecasts are much more accurate than the Met Office, so why are we tax payers funding the Met Office at all? Wed 20 Jan 2010 11:35:16 GMT+1 Marcus Garvey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=57#comment105 104. Paul Latham - you can call me rabid if you like, however I did back up my claim that academies of science endorse the evidence of AGW with specific examples. You claim that this is false - can you back that up with a single example of an academy of science that rejects AGW? Wed 20 Jan 2010 11:25:32 GMT+1 Bonn1e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=56#comment104 99. Marcus I do not consider my viewpoint to be fatalistic, unless you mean in the sense of being philosophical. I am not pessimistic or defeatist, but I do try to acknowledge both the strengths and the shortcomings of our species and recognize our limitations. You have asked what I think the consequences of a combination of climate change, peak oil and population growth will have in this century. As this question stands I can answer with conviction that I have absolutely no idea. We have no way of knowing what unknown events will occur or how they will unfold. But I think what you mean to ask is, what do I think the consequences would be if all other factors remained unchanged, and that those alive then viewed the world exactly as we do now. Because this will give you the answer which you seek – total desolation and misery. But all else will not remain the same, the unforeseen will happen and those who live in 2100 will not view the world as we do today. Before you proclaim that if we do not stop putting CO2 into the air, there won’t be anything living by then, I suggest that, in it’s cruellest form, your own beliefs about the future do not permit this. As life begins to expire, so the root cause to which you have attributed it’s demise will reduce. In this worst case scenario which you envisage therefore, some will remain, albeit in very different circumstances to our own. Although this vision of Armageddon would of course also ‘solve’ problems 2 and 3 on your list, I should stress that I do not propose it as a way forward!I could offer a lengthy and detailed essay of my opinions. I could demonstrate how our views are completed shaped by our own individual circumstances, how mankind cannot possibly foresee the future (Hedgehogs on Hebrides?) and why bringing hardship now to pay for a 'better future' may not be a particularly good idea. But I think I have already taken up more than my fair share of space in this blog and shall leave it to return to it's original topic of whether the Met Office long range forecasts should be investigated! Wed 20 Jan 2010 11:03:45 GMT+1 Paul Latham http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=56#comment103 Comment (101) Marcus Garvey clearly does not wish academic or scientific people to keep an open mind about climate change.This I am afraid is fairly typical of the rabid-type arguments put forward by those who have reached a position and are unwilling or unable to modify their views in the light of new data and the re-interpretation of existing data. I regret to say that the scientific community and the 'academies of science' do not all accept that the argument is over. Many if not most are still sceptical about many of the published papers.A high proportion of which are third rate despite appearing in respected journals.Do you attend a university with a leading environment centre ? If you do you will aware that peer review is constantly taking place about climate change predictions and carbon cycle models.Among British public opinion about 5 out of ten people do not accept that climate change is happening, 4 out of 10 do not give a damn and 1 in 10 are prepared to accept all the arguments presented to them in favour of it.The pro-lobby have a big job to do to modify the opinion of the so called 'man-in-the-street' despite the best efforts of Al Gore et al and the BBC. Wed 20 Jan 2010 10:47:11 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=55#comment102 FergalRGraphs of the type you linked to mean nothing if you don't also link to the scientific paper that relates to them. To be properly interpreted, all data has to put in proper context.In fact, you only have to read some of Paul Hudson's most recent blogs to see good reasons why global temperatures have temporarily stopped rising.You are at least partially correct - we COULD enter another ice age, but scientific data for the past century or so, taken as a whole (rather than just looking at a few years) shows a trend of warming. Is it really sensible to presume that an ice age might come along and "save" us from Man made global warming?Paul Wed 20 Jan 2010 08:01:51 GMT+1 FergalR http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=55#comment101 Well, if they did consider natural drivers of climate then they did a terrible job since they have no explanation for why global temperatures have been flat for a decade. Simple fact is that they don't have a clue.They can't explain why the world warmed and cooled in the past and now the wheels have come off of their CO2 wagon.Honestly, if you'd never heard the theory of global warming via anthropogenic carbon dioxide would you think there was anything unusual or dangerous happening?http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics/tempplot5.gifIf the magical but inconstant properties of CO2 could prevent us from slipping into another ice age then that would be great. Unfortunately many signs point to another round of - let's hope temporary - cooling. It's a disgrace that who knows how many thousands of IPCC workers can claim to be Nobel laureates. Wed 20 Jan 2010 01:31:06 GMT+1 Marcus Garvey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=54#comment100 87. Paul LathamWhos disputing that climate has changed in the past? Its central to the evidence of AGW:http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htmI agree it's important to keep an open mind, but too open and your brains just dribble out through your ears. Poor analogy, but all I'm saying is that not all claims are of equal quality. Theres a reason why climate scientists (i.e. the people who have put years into studying how the climate works) support the theory of climate change. Theres a reason why the academies of science from the UK, Germany, USA, China, France, India and many others endorse the theory of climate change. Theres a reason why organisations like the Royal Society, The American Meteorological Society, NASA, the Met Office and many others all come to the same conclusion. Theres a reason why all of the organisations best able to make sense of the evidence all come to the same conclusion.Do you seriously think that they have not considered the natural drivers of climate? Tue 19 Jan 2010 23:56:42 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=54#comment99 Barry,You certainly know how to pick your sources!I note that James Delingpole claims to be "right about everything"! Seeing as he is a global warming sceptic he obviously presumes that he must be right about that too. However, when he says that Dr Husnain "invented a problem that doesn't exist" he is utterly wrong, for the reasons stated above.Marcus has hit the nail right on the head with these sentences:"Theres no consensus on wiki? That's really no surprise, anyone with an opinion can participate. Theres barely any dissent from the consensus position in the peer reviewed literature, where the real scientific debate takes place. That's because unlike blogs, newspaper opinion columns, talk radio shows and the like, if you try to publish your work in a reputable scientific journal you have to be able to back up your claims with evidence."It is that last sentence which is key and it is all the more important in the light of the obvious interference of business interests in the debate.Paul Tue 19 Jan 2010 23:54:55 GMT+1 Marcus Garvey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=53#comment98 88. Bonn1eI'm not a climate scientist either. I'm a biologist/ecologist, and I can say that the living world is responding in way that is consistent with climate change theory. Surely you realise that the genuine scientific debate and the debate on wiki talk pages are very different things. Theres no consensus on wiki? That's really no surprise, anyone with an opinion can participate. Theres barely any dissent from the consensus position in the peer reviewed literature, where the real scientific debate takes place. That's because unlike blogs, newspaper opinion columns, talk radio shows and the like, if you try to publish your work in a reputable scientific journal you have to be able to back up your claims with evidence.That's not to say that public debate isn't worthwhile, in fact its fundamental given the wide ranging implications of the evidence of climate change. However, those who feel they have something to lose by action to mitigate climate change know that they cannot win the debate based on evidence. Therefore the tactic is instead to attack the integrity of the messenger, to muddy the waters by making misleading claims in the knowledge that the average person is not able to weigh the quality of one claim against another. And by doing so they ensure that no meaningful action is taken. I dont agree with your fatalistic attitude to human suffering. If we have evidence of the harm that we are doing then it is important that we act. Can I ask you, what do you think the consequences will be of a combination of these three factors in this century:1 climate change2 peak oil3 population growth Tue 19 Jan 2010 23:11:55 GMT+1 Bonn1e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=53#comment97 BarryBut how 'important' was the speed of melting glaciers in the Himalayas in the overall context of the report? I do not know how much significance this holds, do you? Would it have resulted in decisions being made which, had it said 2350 instead of 2035, might not have been? Of course if other 'little mistakes' like this start to appear it would become obvious that all was far from above board, but I am not sure this conclusion can be drawn yet. Tue 19 Jan 2010 22:51:58 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=52#comment96 Do you really believe this...This was at the time of wall to wall doom/gloom scare stories in the run up to Copenhagen. Particularly on the BBC.Where have al those stories gone now. 50 days to save the planet and all that. The glacier story, would have neen BIG news then. I do not accept it was a mistake, maybe a very flawed BBC editorial policy (ie the trust has said they could treat climate change, differently from total impartiality)http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022694/syed-hasnain-rk-pachauri-and-the-mystery-of-the-non-disappearing-glaciers/So, to recap: in the course of a garbled phone conversation a scientist accidentally invents a problem that doesn’t exist. This gets reported as if gospel in an influential Warmist science magazine and repeated by a Warmist NGO, before being lent the full authority of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report which, as we know, can’t be wrong because it is vetted by around 2,500 scientists. Then, on the back of this untrue story, the scientist gets a cushy job at the institution whose director is also in charge of the IPCC.Nice work if you can invent it, eh?" Tue 19 Jan 2010 22:34:47 GMT+1 Bonn1e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=51#comment95 93. Paul 'I'm sure that William Connelly would say that it was to remove entries with serious scientific discrepancies - and from my experience he is very likely to have been correct' I think that may not be stictly true! Tue 19 Jan 2010 22:31:18 GMT+1 Bonn1e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=51#comment94 BarryI accept what you are saying and feel that in all probablility the story was not given much prominence at first for the very reason you have given. But if that is the case, then perhaps we have only ourselves to blame. It is, after all, only 1 rather minor error and if we jump and down with glee and shout 'it's all lies' because it has been discovered, then it is unsurprising that those who are trying to maintain a 'balance' should not make headline news with it. Please do not think that I condone the 'suppression' of information in any way, simply that I believe that we must try and remain as objective as possible. If bigger mistakes surface, or if more and more little mistakes become apparent, then we may indeed start to cry 'Foul', but this particular item seems to be little more than a typo! Tue 19 Jan 2010 22:16:28 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=50#comment93 Barry,As discussed previously, the Himalayan glaciers ARE still receding..... like pretty well every other glacier around the World. It was a silly mistake (nearly as silly as the one in "Watts up with Science"!), I grant you, as it should have been pretty obvious that glaciers of such a scale at high altitude would never disappear so quickly...... but they are shrinking and if they do disappear will leave large parts of India without water for much of the year.Paul Tue 19 Jan 2010 21:58:12 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=50#comment92 Barry,It's all a matter of perspective. Global warming sceptics will inevitably claim that it's all to surpress the sceptic arguments. However, I'm sure that William Connelly would say that it was to remove entries with serious scientific discrepancies - and from my experience he is very likely to have been correct.I'm sure you'll be aware of my last post on the previous blog, which was a response to the "Watts up with Science" article you posted - an article which sensationally claimed that the IPCC had deliberately misrepresented data on water resources to overstate the future impact of global warming. You'll also be aware that a closer inspection of the original data, placed in its proper context, showed that the IPCC analysis was quite correct. At best, the author of the article presented on "Watts up with Science" lacked the scientific competence necessary to properly evaluate the data, in which case he had no business to be writing such an article. At worst he deliberately sought to deceive so as to discredit the IPCC.These are just the types of practices that people who I shall henceforth describe as "professional sceptics" (as opposed to objective scientists) use to discredit the entire science underpinning global warming. The problem is that people such as yourself lap them up without question. Meanwhile, the REAL science gets brushed under the carpet.Paul Tue 19 Jan 2010 21:50:55 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=49#comment91 Have you heard about the glaciers mistake?Only today on the bbc website:UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciershttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8468358.stmNewspapers at the weekend/yesterday:Telegraph:UN report on glaciers melting is based on 'speculation'An official prediction by the United Nations that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 may be withdrawn after it was found to be based on speculation rather than scientific evidenceSunday TimesWorld Misled over Himalayan Glacier meltdownUN report that said Himalayan glaciers would melt within 25 years was all hot air http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1243963/UN-science-report-stated-Himalayan-glaciers-melt-25-years-guess.html#ixzz0d62cw8GuGiven that their was excessive TV coverage of the glaciers, long tv news articles, with journalists pointing at glaciers in the himalayas and chatting to locals.Do you think there is going to be as much TV coverage reporting this (ie GOOD climate news)Of course this is the SECOND time the BBC re-(someother word)-ported this story.....They had this story on the 5th of December 2009 here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/838773...Wonder why it was buried away, in the south east asia section of the website.NOT reported in the main news, tv or otherwiseNot reported on the Science sectionNot reported in the Copenhagen sectionsurely this was GOOD news.It surely could not by some be perceived to be because it was the WEEK BEFORE Copenhagen.No one might think that they hid something that might damage the BBC belief in the man made climate change. And quite probably impact on Copenhagen.After all a mere 6 weeks later, this is quite big NEWS Tue 19 Jan 2010 21:43:18 GMT+1 Bonn1e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=49#comment90 89. BarryI do agree with you though, there seems to be a very unhealthy amount of attempted gagging going on all over the place. Tue 19 Jan 2010 21:08:17 GMT+1 Bonn1e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=48#comment89 89. Barry Haha, yes indeed! I have read all about the infamous William Connolley. He of course disputes the claims, so who knows what was going on. Interestingly however, if you look at the raging debate on the talk page I mentioned above, you will find that oddly enough, WMC seems to be the lone voice of sanity on the whole page! Tue 19 Jan 2010 20:58:02 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=48#comment88 bonnie are you aware of the chap, that re wrote about 5000 plus wiki pages regarding climate, subject to a number of complaints:A founder of realclimate: a pro agw websitehttp://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspxhttp://climateaudit.org/2009/12/19/climategatekeeping-wikipedia/Their is a big difference in being pro a side of the debate, and surpressing a side of the debate."...Climategatekeeping: WikipediaLawrence Solomon has an interesting column in the National Post today on William Connolley’s climategatekeeping role at Wikipedia. See also an article last year. Connolley was one of the nine realclimate founders, but posted little at realclimate. This has notoriously not been the case at Wikipedia. Solomon reports that Connolley “created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles” and that Connolley was granted a senior editorial and administrative status at Wikipedia that enabled him to delete “over 500 articles” and “barred” more than 2000 Wikipedia contributors who “ran afoul of him”. Particular areas of interest for Connolley were the Hockey Stick debate " Tue 19 Jan 2010 20:39:32 GMT+1 Bonn1e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=47#comment87 Marcus & Paul Because I am not a ‘climate scientist’ it is not possible for me to say whether or not a ‘consensus’ exists amongst fellow workers. I am not even sure that climate scientists themselves can answer this with 100% certainty! Have you had a look at some of the wiki ‘talk’ pages? Argument and debate rages there; there is a particularly illuminating one going on behind the ‘List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming’ article. Everything from the title of the article itself to the definition of what actually constitutes ‘a scientist’ is chucked backwards and forwards. ‘Consensus’ has, I think, become the most overused word of the decade! However, as you rightly point out, the debate is way out in the wide world now, and not just in the media but in blogs and forums, in pubs and schools, in government buildings and parliaments, in the corner shop and around the dinner table. I believe this is as it should be as it is us, after all, who are affected and we must battle it out as best we can. At the end of the day perhaps the soundness or otherwise of the ‘scientific’ argument is almost irrelevant. Some may face poverty through excessive taxation, some may profit from ‘green’ business enterprise. Some may suffer in floods and some may farm new lands. Some may die in wars and some may thrive in adversity. Isn’t that mankind has always done? Tue 19 Jan 2010 19:10:42 GMT+1 Paul Latham http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=46#comment86 Comment (22) by Marcus Garvey cites the World Glacier Monitoring Service as stating that glaciers are shrinking and that this is evidence of global warming. But which warming?Glaciers have been advancing and receding since the last ice age.For example in Switzerland there have been 12 such advances ans retreats over the last 10,000 years [Joerin,Stocker & Schluchter, 2006] Also, one of the best studied glaciers in Norway, the Bjornbreen, was entirely absent for 3,000 years over two periods, about 7,000 years ago, and over the last 10,000 years has reformed from a marginal state six times [J.A. Matthews et al, 2005].This glacier was observed to have been at a maximum around 1800.In 1750 it is estimated that glaciers around the world were at a maximum than at any time since the ice age 12,000 years ago. This coincides with the end of the 'little ice age' of the period 1520 - 1750.What the scientists have been monitoring is how the climate has warmed back to a former level since around 1750 and not how a new global warming has occurred. The correct interpretation of data is vital otherwise the wrong conclusions will be made.Keep an open mind Mr Garvey, time will show that Earth's climate moves in cycles with CO2 levels increasing in response but with a delay and not driven because of CO2 increases. Tue 19 Jan 2010 18:05:37 GMT+1 Marcus Garvey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=46#comment85 Bonn1e, I appreciate your thoughtful contribution. And I understand that it is tempting to apply the usual dialectic to a debate, assuming that both sides have something useful to contribute and that the truth can perhaps be found in the synthesis. However, it's worth noting that in this case the debate over the validity of anthropogenic climate change is almost exclusively in the realm of the media. Thats not to say that there never was a scientific debate, just that the evidence that has accumulated is so overwhelmingly one sided that few credible scientists working in the field now question it. The scientific debate has long since moved on to how much, where and when and what can we do about it. Tue 19 Jan 2010 17:45:14 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=45#comment84 Bonn1e,With regard to the final paragraph of your post, it is important to point out that the scientific community HAS by and large reached consensus on this issue. This consensus is based on real and properly validated scientific data collected over many years. It is NOT based on models of what will happen in the future.The problem, of course, is that predictions of where global warming will take us next ARE based on models which may or may not be totally reliable...... and the sceptics will always be able to sieze on this. However, there is little doubt that the Earth will continue to warm up and this will almost certainly make it more difficult to feed a growing population. In my opinion we owe it to our grandchildren to take steps to counter the worst effects as soon as possible. Is it really worth taking the risk that we MIGHT be wrong? I would also point out that dwindling fossil fuel reserves dictate that we will have to become less reliant on them to generate power in the future, so combatting global warming will benefit us in other ways as well.Paul Tue 19 Jan 2010 17:26:34 GMT+1 Paul Briscoe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/long-range-forecasts-roger-har.shtml?page=45#comment83 Bonn1e,I agree with some of the points you make. Certainly scientists can tend to get on their hobby horses and argue their competing theories. However, most decent and honourable scientists will, in my experience, generally acknowledge that they have been mistaken once clear scientific evidence emerges which backs up the alternative view.The difference in the case of the scientists described in "Doubt is their Product" is that they are being paid to undermine science rather than to prove an alternative theory of their own. Close scrutiny of what they are saying generally reveals that they are cherry picking certain details from scientific research and then presenting those details out of proper context so as to mislead - the target audience is not the scientific community, which can see right through what they are doing. The real target is the public who do not understand the science and are unable to differentiate between real scientific research and this "pseudo science".Paul Tue 19 Jan 2010 16:22:51 GMT+1