Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Also it's probably worth pointing out that this isn't a visible causal signal identified in global climate data, it's signal attribution via a modelled approach which in essence looks to reproduce the corrupted surface data (trend) via supposed anthropogenic warming and natural cycles in combination though UHIE and LULC changes are acknowledged and that will also rile the faithful. Overall it's still something of a gift to agwists due to the conclusion saying "Moreover, because the 60-year natural cycle will be in its cooling phase for the next 20 years, global temperatures will probably not increase for the next few decades in spite of the important role of human emissions". So politicians will see cause to keep taxing and controlling during the interlude before the main show resumes. However as mentioned previously, in reality getting a headline grabbing variable to match up isn't the fat lady in full song.
It will be very interesting to see how this is stage managed.
It will be very interesting to see how this is stage managed.
Just thought this might silence a few of you 'THE BBC ARE MMGW PROPAGANDA PEDDLERS!' types.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our...
Independent report that claims there's 'undue attention to marginal opinion'... So they actually talk too much about the alternatives theories on MMGW.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our...
Independent report that claims there's 'undue attention to marginal opinion'... So they actually talk too much about the alternatives theories on MMGW.
Frankeh said:
Just thought this might silence a few of you 'THE BBC ARE MMGW PROPAGANDA PEDDLERS!' types.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our...
Independent report that claims there's 'undue attention to marginal opinion'... So they actually talk too much about the alternatives theories on MMGW.
Independant? The BBC paid for it FFS! Oh and Jones is an arch warmist so 'independance' is on a bit of a sticky wicket there too. Oh, and he studies snails.http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our...
Independent report that claims there's 'undue attention to marginal opinion'... So they actually talk too much about the alternatives theories on MMGW.
Frankeh said:
Just thought this might silence a few of you 'THE BBC ARE MMGW PROPAGANDA PEDDLERS!' types.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our...
Independent report that claims there's 'undue attention to marginal opinion'... So they actually talk too much about the alternatives theories on MMGW.
Silence? Too much about alternatives? That's neat humour! Not to mention the irony. As you point out the report calls for more propaganda peddling, not less, so it's far from a silencing act.http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our...
Independent report that claims there's 'undue attention to marginal opinion'... So they actually talk too much about the alternatives theories on MMGW.
A quick scan on this thread will show that several posts since Ace-T's on Sunday covered that paid-for BBC report written by a BBC personality. Some of us were wondering what a specialist in the genetics of snails who got rich after an invitation from the BBC is doing reviewing BBC policy and practice in another subject area i.e. climate science, for the BBC, and receiving a nice fee for it.
Anything which aims to close down debate is by nature unscientific so a report from a scientist which gives the appearance of supporting closing down debate even further is curious to say the least.
As EY just said basically but I type slowly
Further to this:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafe...
It does what it does and well enough but there are still fundamental questions within the assumption that carbon dioxide is doing anything measurable.
- the issue of saturation has been controversial so to avoid argument if we take any figure A% (which will be high nineties minimum) for the amount of long wavelength IR radiation absorbed within x metres of the surface, then doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will result in the same absorption level in a distance x/2 and a shorter distance isn't an automatic bulk temperature increase for the troposphere
- considering the high altitude desaturation argument, as we have on several occasions, even within the warmist view there's the same shorter distance not being an automatic bulk temperature increase
- if re-absorption at altitude is warming the lower regions of the atmosphere and the surface there's still the matter of rewriting the Second Law
- the troposphere isn't warming more and faster than the surface and it should in MMUGWT
- there's no sign of the anthropogenic warming fingerprint of a tropical troposphere hotspot
Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, (2009). "An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere." J. Geophys. Res.
Christy, J.; Herman, B.; Pielke, Sr., R.; Klotzbach, P.; McNider, R.; Hnilo, J.; Spencer, R.; Chase, T. et al. (2010). “What Do Observational Datasets Say About Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends Since 1979?”. Remote Sensing 2 (9) 2148
Advocacy blogs concerned with this agwism failure claim that model output with a tropical tropospheric hotspot (not seen in the data) isn't a fingerprint of AGW and that this actually should be taken as troposphere warming alongside stratosphere cooling. We've been there recently on this thread, and such a diversion simply won't do.
Also, for completeness, there are papers where the authors' gymanstics attempt to explain away the missing hotspot fingerprint by trying to infer its presence from upper tropospheric wind data, this is very dubious methodology since it relies on an assumption which is very weak in the tropics; or by emphasising outlier data with poor quality, shades of YAD061.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafe...
It does what it does and well enough but there are still fundamental questions within the assumption that carbon dioxide is doing anything measurable.
- the issue of saturation has been controversial so to avoid argument if we take any figure A% (which will be high nineties minimum) for the amount of long wavelength IR radiation absorbed within x metres of the surface, then doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will result in the same absorption level in a distance x/2 and a shorter distance isn't an automatic bulk temperature increase for the troposphere
- considering the high altitude desaturation argument, as we have on several occasions, even within the warmist view there's the same shorter distance not being an automatic bulk temperature increase
- if re-absorption at altitude is warming the lower regions of the atmosphere and the surface there's still the matter of rewriting the Second Law
- the troposphere isn't warming more and faster than the surface and it should in MMUGWT
- there's no sign of the anthropogenic warming fingerprint of a tropical troposphere hotspot
Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, (2009). "An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere." J. Geophys. Res.
Christy, J.; Herman, B.; Pielke, Sr., R.; Klotzbach, P.; McNider, R.; Hnilo, J.; Spencer, R.; Chase, T. et al. (2010). “What Do Observational Datasets Say About Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends Since 1979?”. Remote Sensing 2 (9) 2148
Advocacy blogs concerned with this agwism failure claim that model output with a tropical tropospheric hotspot (not seen in the data) isn't a fingerprint of AGW and that this actually should be taken as troposphere warming alongside stratosphere cooling. We've been there recently on this thread, and such a diversion simply won't do.
Also, for completeness, there are papers where the authors' gymanstics attempt to explain away the missing hotspot fingerprint by trying to infer its presence from upper tropospheric wind data, this is very dubious methodology since it relies on an assumption which is very weak in the tropics; or by emphasising outlier data with poor quality, shades of YAD061.
New paper published this week.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak. “At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.
Hmmm.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak. “At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.
Hmmm.
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 on PH I said:
The data shows that an already warm atmosphere has more degrees of freedom than climate models account for, and can lose energy to space at a faster rate than models predict.
And that was a repeat of what I've been saying for over 20 years, though others have been saying it as well. Where's the 'told you so' smiley Another reasonably new paper.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1466-...
'So long manmadeup warming and thanks for all the fish'...and although the conclusion is phrased as a double negative to lessen the impact, the meaning remains clear - that natural warming increases marine fish biodiversity.
It's hilarious to see the rhetorical gymnastics that, presumably, reviewers insist on with the wording in situations like this that go off-message.
What was published: "These results do not support the hypothesis that low-connectivity areas are less likely to see increases in species richness in response to warming."
What it says: "These results do support the hypothesis that low-connectivity areas are more likely to see increases in species richness in response to (natural) warming."
Pathetic.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1466-...
'So long manmadeup warming and thanks for all the fish'...and although the conclusion is phrased as a double negative to lessen the impact, the meaning remains clear - that natural warming increases marine fish biodiversity.
It's hilarious to see the rhetorical gymnastics that, presumably, reviewers insist on with the wording in situations like this that go off-message.
What was published: "These results do not support the hypothesis that low-connectivity areas are less likely to see increases in species richness in response to warming."
What it says: "These results do support the hypothesis that low-connectivity areas are more likely to see increases in species richness in response to (natural) warming."
Pathetic.
We've had discussions about those gazillions of top dollar IPCC 'scientists' once or twice. Even though we examined in detail the author list of a particular SPM where the political appointees were glaringly obvious, it looks like we need to move on and refer to twenty-ish grad students and a motley crew of green activists with the rest shipped in to fill diversity quotas. No wonder the science in each report in turn has been increasingly hailed as the work of collective genius, such is its match with the data.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/07/27/how-the-...
Remember, SPMs drive the science content not vice versa.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/07/27/how-the-...
Remember, SPMs drive the science content not vice versa.
Just found this;
Slashdot said:
"The BBC is reporting that the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, target of 'ClimateGate,' has released nearly all its remaining data on temperature measurements following a freedom of information bid. Most temperature data was already available, but critics of climate science want everything public. Following the latest release, raw data from virtually all of the world's 5,000-plus weather stations is freely available. Release of this dataset required The Met Office to secure approval from more than 1,500 weather stations around the world. The article notes that while Trinidad and Tobago refused permission, the Information Commissioner ruled that public interest in disclosure outweighed those considerations
Climate Audit: Osborn - “I don’t have any core measurement data and therefore have none to give out!”
Steve McIntyre
In yesterday’s post, I discussed the inconsistency between the climate community’s desire to rebuild trust and CRU/East Anglia’s continuing refusal of FOI requests, most recently for the 2006 version of the Yamal regional chronology. The moral of that post was that providing such information – even if they didn’t “have” to – was the sort of small concession that the community should willingly make as a means of “rebuilding trust” as opposed to the polarization caused by refusals that merely lead to further FOI appeals.
Given their refusal to make even the smallest concession voluntarily, today’s post is going to be more pointed and will directly address issues of hypocrisy and mendacity that are directly raised by the most recent CRU/East Anglia refusal.
Climate Audit readers are well aware that CRU fought the archiving of measurement data of Taimyr, Yamal and Tornetrask for years and were ultimately brought to heel only by Phil Trans B, a journal that had broader interests than climate and required them to archive measurement data.
After arguing for years against the archiving of measurement data, CRU now claims, at least for FOI purposes, that a regional chronology is “incomplete” without accompanying metadata (such as measurement data) and that they are thus entitled to EIR exemption 12(4)(d) for “incompleteness”.
I absolutely agree that a chronology is incomplete without accompanying measurement data. Indeed, I tried unsuccessfully to get CRU to archive measurement data for their most important chronologies (Taimyr, Tornetrask, Yamal), but CRU resolutely refused to archive the measurement data. One thing that is definitely “complete” is the hypocrisy and two-facedness of CRU and the University of East Anglia.
Their hypocrisy obviously invited the re-examination of their past refusals of measurement data, on which I’ll report below. The re-examination of their past excuses is infuriating, to say the least. But worse, unfortunately, is that re-examination of these refusals, in my opinion, reveals outright lies by Tim Osborn of CRU (also an IPCC AR5 Lead Author) both to Sciencemag and to me. In particular, Osborn’s claims that he was not in possession of the requested measurement data are contradicted by Climategate emails, Climategate documents and, most recently, by information in the FOI refusal itself.
The validity of the Yamal chronology and its use in multiproxy reconstructions has been core CA issue and has been discussed in many CA posts over the years...
More on what McIntyre sees as UEA CRU mendacity and hypocrisy here
Steve McIntyre
In yesterday’s post, I discussed the inconsistency between the climate community’s desire to rebuild trust and CRU/East Anglia’s continuing refusal of FOI requests, most recently for the 2006 version of the Yamal regional chronology. The moral of that post was that providing such information – even if they didn’t “have” to – was the sort of small concession that the community should willingly make as a means of “rebuilding trust” as opposed to the polarization caused by refusals that merely lead to further FOI appeals.
Given their refusal to make even the smallest concession voluntarily, today’s post is going to be more pointed and will directly address issues of hypocrisy and mendacity that are directly raised by the most recent CRU/East Anglia refusal.
Climate Audit readers are well aware that CRU fought the archiving of measurement data of Taimyr, Yamal and Tornetrask for years and were ultimately brought to heel only by Phil Trans B, a journal that had broader interests than climate and required them to archive measurement data.
After arguing for years against the archiving of measurement data, CRU now claims, at least for FOI purposes, that a regional chronology is “incomplete” without accompanying metadata (such as measurement data) and that they are thus entitled to EIR exemption 12(4)(d) for “incompleteness”.
I absolutely agree that a chronology is incomplete without accompanying measurement data. Indeed, I tried unsuccessfully to get CRU to archive measurement data for their most important chronologies (Taimyr, Tornetrask, Yamal), but CRU resolutely refused to archive the measurement data. One thing that is definitely “complete” is the hypocrisy and two-facedness of CRU and the University of East Anglia.
Their hypocrisy obviously invited the re-examination of their past refusals of measurement data, on which I’ll report below. The re-examination of their past excuses is infuriating, to say the least. But worse, unfortunately, is that re-examination of these refusals, in my opinion, reveals outright lies by Tim Osborn of CRU (also an IPCC AR5 Lead Author) both to Sciencemag and to me. In particular, Osborn’s claims that he was not in possession of the requested measurement data are contradicted by Climategate emails, Climategate documents and, most recently, by information in the FOI refusal itself.
The validity of the Yamal chronology and its use in multiproxy reconstructions has been core CA issue and has been discussed in many CA posts over the years...
More on what McIntyre sees as UEA CRU mendacity and hypocrisy here
I now have a copy of the Spencer and Braswell paper 'On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance', but have been searching in vain on the BBC website for mention of it, even in the Science & Environment section. Have I missed something here? 
Darwin And Galileo Would Fail The BBC’s Science Test
Science cannot be a popularity contest like Strictly Come Dancing. The correct approach for determining whether minority views are reported or ignored is first to examine whether the consensus opinion is as solid as its spokesmen claim and then to examine rigorously the arguments and evidence of the minority. They should not be dismissed simply because they are in a minority. The guiding principle should be the motto of the Royal Society, “nullius in verba”, which roughly translates as “take nobody’s word for it”.
Andrew Turnbull, The Sunday Times, 31 July 2011
If the BBC is determined to follow unscientific recommendations then the result is bound to fail the Turnbull Test, as per the tenet seemingly abandoned by the Royal Sorcery itself. Given the context, any lack of understanding of the scientific process appears to be wilful.
Science cannot be a popularity contest like Strictly Come Dancing. The correct approach for determining whether minority views are reported or ignored is first to examine whether the consensus opinion is as solid as its spokesmen claim and then to examine rigorously the arguments and evidence of the minority. They should not be dismissed simply because they are in a minority. The guiding principle should be the motto of the Royal Society, “nullius in verba”, which roughly translates as “take nobody’s word for it”.
Andrew Turnbull, The Sunday Times, 31 July 2011
If the BBC is determined to follow unscientific recommendations then the result is bound to fail the Turnbull Test, as per the tenet seemingly abandoned by the Royal Sorcery itself. Given the context, any lack of understanding of the scientific process appears to be wilful.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff