Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
Lost_BMW said:
Ali G said:
Can't provide and opinion about the book, since I don't own a copy, but if its covering the above, then it should be fine.
It's available in the UK from Amazon iirc. A good read that makes a very technical subject seem less technical and mysterious to us (genuine) laymen!Lost_BMW said:
Oh, dear, oh dear, oh me!
Just for the benefit of the hard of thinking, finally, my posts about FF and his disingenuous behaviour (repeated, as valid) is not opportunist and shows no indignation, faux or otherwise (dream on . . .) but is simply a point fit to make.
That he quoted material he hadn't - at that time - read, yet alone understood, to argue against and contradict others' views; others who had researched and did know something of what they wrote. Through asking (secretively until outed) for help from people on a different forum, (and in so doing, what with his posting back and forth set up ridicule and unwarranted criticisms for PH and its regulars from his new pals). I'm not indignant at all, not even over the later point, but do think his pretence rather shabby and that we have a right to say so.
Personally I would not comment on anything here , either way, using links from any source unless I had at least read it first. Just seems like common sense as well as honesty to me.
But be offended if it makes you feel better!
Me offended? nope and not sure how you got there.Just for the benefit of the hard of thinking, finally, my posts about FF and his disingenuous behaviour (repeated, as valid) is not opportunist and shows no indignation, faux or otherwise (dream on . . .) but is simply a point fit to make.
That he quoted material he hadn't - at that time - read, yet alone understood, to argue against and contradict others' views; others who had researched and did know something of what they wrote. Through asking (secretively until outed) for help from people on a different forum, (and in so doing, what with his posting back and forth set up ridicule and unwarranted criticisms for PH and its regulars from his new pals). I'm not indignant at all, not even over the later point, but do think his pretence rather shabby and that we have a right to say so.
Personally I would not comment on anything here , either way, using links from any source unless I had at least read it first. Just seems like common sense as well as honesty to me.
But be offended if it makes you feel better!
I wasn't just referring to you, but you have gone out of your way to paint as lurid a picture as possible when asked for a re-cap of events, repeated untrue claims, and exaggerated a lot. It just comes across as ungenerous, piling-on and bullying. There's no slack cut for FF being invited onto the thread and him making a good effort to maintain a dialogue whilst trying to catch up on a 500 page thread and small wonder he seeks help from elsewhere, but this is just another reflection of the small minded point-scoring nature of the so called debate here.
Anniversary Of Prof. Jones' interview with Roger Harribin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm
A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
F - Sceptics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) suggest that the official surface record paints a different story from the actual station records. To restore trust, should we start again with new quality control on input data in total transparency?
First, I am assuming again that you are referring to the surface record from both land and marine regions of the world, although in this answer as you specifically say "station" records, I will emphasise the land regions.
There is more than one "official" surface temperature record, based on actual land station records. There is the one we have developed in CRU, but there are also the series developed at NCDC and GISS. Although we all use very similar station datasets, we each employ different ways of assessing the quality of the individual series and different ways of developing gridded products. The GISS data and their program are freely available for people to experiment with. The agreement between the three series is very good.
Large numbers of the CRU e-mails were posted on the web
Given the web-based availability of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), which is used by both NCDC and GISS, anyone else can develop their own global temperature record from land stations.
Through the Met Office we have released (as of 29 January 2010) 80% of the station data that enters the CRU analysis (CRUTEM3).
The graphic in the link below shows that the global land temperature series from these 80% of stations (red line) replicates the analysis based on all 100% of stations (black line).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/...
The locations of the 80% of stations are shown on the next link in red. The stations we have yet to get agreement to release are shown in grey.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/...
I accept that some have had their trust in science shaken and this needs the Met Office to release more of the data beyond the 80% released so far. Before all the furore broke we had begun discussions with the Met Office for an updated set of station temperatures. With any new station dataset we will make sure we will be able to release all the station temperature data and give source details for all the series.
G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D.
I - Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?
No - see again my answer to D.
J - Are there lessons to be learned for society or scientists about the way we see uncertainty and risk?
Yes - as stated by Sir John Beddington - the government chief scientist. And this doesn't just apply to climate science.
K - How much faith do you have - and should we have - in the Yamal tree ring data from Siberia? Should we trust the science behind the palaeoclimate record?
First, we would all accept that palaeoclimatic data are considerably less certain than the instrumental data. However, we must use what data are available in order to look at the last 1,000 years.
I believe that our current interpretation of the Yamal tree-ring data in Siberia is sound. Yamal is just one series that enters some of the millennial long reconstructions that are available.
My colleague Keith Briffa has responded to suggestions that there is something amiss with the Yamal tree-ring data. Here is his response:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal20...
L - Can you confirm that the IPCC rules were changed so lead authors could add references to any scientific paper which did not meet the 16 December 2005 deadline but was in press on 24 July 2006, so long as it was published in 2006? If this is the case, who made the decision and why?
This is a question for the IPCC.
M - What advice did you seek in handling FOI requests?
The university's policy and guidelines on FOI and the Environmental Information Regulations are on our website and the information policy and compliance manager (IPCM) takes responsibility for co-ordinating responses to requests within that framework. We also have colleagues in each unit and faculty who are trained in FOI to help in gathering information and assessing any possible exceptions or exemptions.
I worked with those colleagues and the IPCM to handle the requests with responses going from the IPCM. He also liaises with the Information Commissioner's Office where necessary and did so on several occasions in relation to requests made to CRU. Where appropriate he also consulted with other colleagues in the university on specific issues.
N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
O - Can you tell us about your working life over the past decades in climate science. Paint a picture about the debate with your allies and scientific rivals etc.
I have been at CRU since November 1976. Up until 1994, my working life was almost totally in research. Since 1994, I have become more involved in teaching and student supervision both at the postgraduate and undergraduate level. I became a Professor in 1998 and the director of the Climatic Research Unit in 2004 (I was joint director from 1998).
I am most well known for being involved in the publication of a series of papers (from 1982 to 2006) that have developed a gridded dataset of land-based temperature records. These are only a part of the work I do, as I have been involved in about 270 peer-reviewed publications on many different aspects of climate research.
Over the years at scientific meetings, I've met many people and had numerous discussions with them. I work with a number of different groups of people on different subjects, and some of these groups come together to undertake collaborative pieces of work. We have lively debates about the work we're doing together.
P - The "Climategate" stolen emails were published in November. How has your life been since then?
My life has been awful since that time, but I have discussed this once (in the Sunday Times) and have no wish to go over it again. I am trying to continue my research and supervise the CRU staff and students who I am responsible for.
Q - Let's talk about the e-mails now: In the e-mails you refer to a "trick" which your critics say suggests you conspired to trick the public? You also mentioned "hiding the decline" (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?
This remark has nothing to do with any "decline" in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.
The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.
This "divergence" is well known in the tree-ring literature and "trick" did not refer to any intention to deceive - but rather "a convenient way of achieving something", in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.
I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time - an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report.
The misinterpretation of the remark stems from its being quoted out of context. The 1999 WMO report wanted just the three curves, without the split between the proxy part of the reconstruction and the last few years of instrumental data that brought the series up to the end of 1999. Only one of the three curves was based solely on tree-ring data.
The e-mail was sent to a few colleagues pointing out their data was being used in the WMO Annual Statement in 1999. I was pointing out to them how the lines were physically drawn. This e-mail was not written for a general audience. If it had been I would have explained what I had done in much more detail.
R - Why did you ask a colleague to delete all e-mails relating to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC?
This was an e-mail sent out of frustration at one FOI request that was asking for the e-mail correspondence between the lead authors on chapter six of the Working Group One Report of the IPCC. This is one of the issues which the Independent Review will look at.
S - The e-mails suggest you were trying to subvert the process of peer review and to influence editors in their decisions about which papers to publish. Do you accept that?
I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions. I undertook all the reviews I made in good faith and sent them back to the editors. In some e-mails I questioned the peer-review process with respect to what I believed were poor papers that had appeared. Isn't this called freedom of speech? On some occasions I joined with others to submit a response to some of these papers. Since the beginning of 2005 I have reviewed 43 papers. I take my reviewing seriously and in 2006 I was given an editor's award from Geophysical Research Letters for conscientious and constructive reviewing.
T - Where do you draw the line on the handling of data? What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice? Do you accept that you crossed the line?
This is a matter for the independent review.
U - Now, on to the fallout from "Climategate", as it has become known. You had a leading role in a part of the IPCC, Working Group I. Do you accept that credibility in the IPCC has been damaged - partly as a result of your actions? Does the IPCC need reform to gain public trust?
Some have said that the credibility in the IPCC has been damaged, partly due to the misleading and selective release of particular e-mails. I wish people would spend as much time reading my scientific papers as they do reading my e-mails. The IPCC does need to reassure people about the quality of its assessments.
V - If you have confidence in your science why didn't you come out fighting like the UK government's drugs adviser David Nutt when he was criticised?
I don't feel this question merits an answer.
W - Finally, a personal question: Do you expect to return as director of the Climatic Research Unit? What is next for you?
This question is not for me to answer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm
Article said:
A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
F - Sceptics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) suggest that the official surface record paints a different story from the actual station records. To restore trust, should we start again with new quality control on input data in total transparency?
First, I am assuming again that you are referring to the surface record from both land and marine regions of the world, although in this answer as you specifically say "station" records, I will emphasise the land regions.
There is more than one "official" surface temperature record, based on actual land station records. There is the one we have developed in CRU, but there are also the series developed at NCDC and GISS. Although we all use very similar station datasets, we each employ different ways of assessing the quality of the individual series and different ways of developing gridded products. The GISS data and their program are freely available for people to experiment with. The agreement between the three series is very good.
Large numbers of the CRU e-mails were posted on the web
Given the web-based availability of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), which is used by both NCDC and GISS, anyone else can develop their own global temperature record from land stations.
Through the Met Office we have released (as of 29 January 2010) 80% of the station data that enters the CRU analysis (CRUTEM3).
The graphic in the link below shows that the global land temperature series from these 80% of stations (red line) replicates the analysis based on all 100% of stations (black line).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/...
The locations of the 80% of stations are shown on the next link in red. The stations we have yet to get agreement to release are shown in grey.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/...
I accept that some have had their trust in science shaken and this needs the Met Office to release more of the data beyond the 80% released so far. Before all the furore broke we had begun discussions with the Met Office for an updated set of station temperatures. With any new station dataset we will make sure we will be able to release all the station temperature data and give source details for all the series.
G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D.
I - Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?
No - see again my answer to D.
J - Are there lessons to be learned for society or scientists about the way we see uncertainty and risk?
Yes - as stated by Sir John Beddington - the government chief scientist. And this doesn't just apply to climate science.
K - How much faith do you have - and should we have - in the Yamal tree ring data from Siberia? Should we trust the science behind the palaeoclimate record?
First, we would all accept that palaeoclimatic data are considerably less certain than the instrumental data. However, we must use what data are available in order to look at the last 1,000 years.
I believe that our current interpretation of the Yamal tree-ring data in Siberia is sound. Yamal is just one series that enters some of the millennial long reconstructions that are available.
My colleague Keith Briffa has responded to suggestions that there is something amiss with the Yamal tree-ring data. Here is his response:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal20...
L - Can you confirm that the IPCC rules were changed so lead authors could add references to any scientific paper which did not meet the 16 December 2005 deadline but was in press on 24 July 2006, so long as it was published in 2006? If this is the case, who made the decision and why?
This is a question for the IPCC.
M - What advice did you seek in handling FOI requests?
The university's policy and guidelines on FOI and the Environmental Information Regulations are on our website and the information policy and compliance manager (IPCM) takes responsibility for co-ordinating responses to requests within that framework. We also have colleagues in each unit and faculty who are trained in FOI to help in gathering information and assessing any possible exceptions or exemptions.
I worked with those colleagues and the IPCM to handle the requests with responses going from the IPCM. He also liaises with the Information Commissioner's Office where necessary and did so on several occasions in relation to requests made to CRU. Where appropriate he also consulted with other colleagues in the university on specific issues.
N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
O - Can you tell us about your working life over the past decades in climate science. Paint a picture about the debate with your allies and scientific rivals etc.
I have been at CRU since November 1976. Up until 1994, my working life was almost totally in research. Since 1994, I have become more involved in teaching and student supervision both at the postgraduate and undergraduate level. I became a Professor in 1998 and the director of the Climatic Research Unit in 2004 (I was joint director from 1998).
I am most well known for being involved in the publication of a series of papers (from 1982 to 2006) that have developed a gridded dataset of land-based temperature records. These are only a part of the work I do, as I have been involved in about 270 peer-reviewed publications on many different aspects of climate research.
Over the years at scientific meetings, I've met many people and had numerous discussions with them. I work with a number of different groups of people on different subjects, and some of these groups come together to undertake collaborative pieces of work. We have lively debates about the work we're doing together.
P - The "Climategate" stolen emails were published in November. How has your life been since then?
My life has been awful since that time, but I have discussed this once (in the Sunday Times) and have no wish to go over it again. I am trying to continue my research and supervise the CRU staff and students who I am responsible for.
Q - Let's talk about the e-mails now: In the e-mails you refer to a "trick" which your critics say suggests you conspired to trick the public? You also mentioned "hiding the decline" (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?
This remark has nothing to do with any "decline" in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.
The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.
This "divergence" is well known in the tree-ring literature and "trick" did not refer to any intention to deceive - but rather "a convenient way of achieving something", in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.
I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time - an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report.
The misinterpretation of the remark stems from its being quoted out of context. The 1999 WMO report wanted just the three curves, without the split between the proxy part of the reconstruction and the last few years of instrumental data that brought the series up to the end of 1999. Only one of the three curves was based solely on tree-ring data.
The e-mail was sent to a few colleagues pointing out their data was being used in the WMO Annual Statement in 1999. I was pointing out to them how the lines were physically drawn. This e-mail was not written for a general audience. If it had been I would have explained what I had done in much more detail.
R - Why did you ask a colleague to delete all e-mails relating to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC?
This was an e-mail sent out of frustration at one FOI request that was asking for the e-mail correspondence between the lead authors on chapter six of the Working Group One Report of the IPCC. This is one of the issues which the Independent Review will look at.
S - The e-mails suggest you were trying to subvert the process of peer review and to influence editors in their decisions about which papers to publish. Do you accept that?
I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions. I undertook all the reviews I made in good faith and sent them back to the editors. In some e-mails I questioned the peer-review process with respect to what I believed were poor papers that had appeared. Isn't this called freedom of speech? On some occasions I joined with others to submit a response to some of these papers. Since the beginning of 2005 I have reviewed 43 papers. I take my reviewing seriously and in 2006 I was given an editor's award from Geophysical Research Letters for conscientious and constructive reviewing.
T - Where do you draw the line on the handling of data? What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice? Do you accept that you crossed the line?
This is a matter for the independent review.
U - Now, on to the fallout from "Climategate", as it has become known. You had a leading role in a part of the IPCC, Working Group I. Do you accept that credibility in the IPCC has been damaged - partly as a result of your actions? Does the IPCC need reform to gain public trust?
Some have said that the credibility in the IPCC has been damaged, partly due to the misleading and selective release of particular e-mails. I wish people would spend as much time reading my scientific papers as they do reading my e-mails. The IPCC does need to reassure people about the quality of its assessments.
V - If you have confidence in your science why didn't you come out fighting like the UK government's drugs adviser David Nutt when he was criticised?
I don't feel this question merits an answer.
W - Finally, a personal question: Do you expect to return as director of the Climatic Research Unit? What is next for you?
This question is not for me to answer.
Part of a Jones reply from the interview.
Jones' reply said:
I accept that some have had their trust in science shaken and this needs the Met Office to release more of the data beyond the 80% released so far. Before all the furore broke we had begun discussions with the Met Office for an updated set of station temperatures. With any new station dataset we will make sure we will be able to release all the station temperature data and give source details for all the series.
Has the Met Office released the data mentioned here by Jones? Are the discussions ongoing? Or was this a bluff?turbobloke said:
There is no visible human signal in global clinate data with established cause and effect to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Any model which assumes that carbon dioxide is causing climate change cannot be getting the result it does for the right reasons. I've already explained in full how climate modelling is totally inadequate. Complex and expesnsive yes, accurate and valid no. You appear to lack an appreciation of what goes on in the modelling process and remain wedded to the outcome which ireflects, as I say and as you notice, gigo.
So your point about modelling isn't valid.
I'm not talking about the cause of warming at the moment TB. I'm just asking why you think the IPCC's 1990 temperature predictions came true 17 years later and continue to come true. Long-winded posts about why modelling should be wrong don't address the fact that in this case, they were clearly right. It's almost like it's a blind spot in your reasoning - does your brain refuse to process that this paper exists?So your point about modelling isn't valid.
turbobloke said:
Incidentally, Yankee Rose, what your predecessors have done - and which was illustrated clearly by Hairykrishna with a memory problem (or more likely the PH search function not doing its job well back then) was to ignore the substantive content of a post which wasn't fully understood anyway, and demand the reference.
I don’t recall demanding references of you. I’m not “ignoring” your posts, I'd just rather not get too far off my primary question until you actually answer it - if you believe climate modelling is so inaccurate, why do you think the IPCC got their predictions right?Globs said:
Yes, but I'll have a go as Yankee Rose is still here, and his questions are easy:
Ahem. “Her” questions. Yes, women exist on the internet, even on car forums.Globs said:
I don't think they do get the modelling right, Trenberth himself says that. Additionally none of the IPCC models allow for clouds or solar events, they are modelled in 2D not 3D and none get the mean temperature of 14deg either.
Yet without modelling “in 3D” (whatever that means), they did get it right. Perhaps you have a hard time reading the graphs? The dashed lines are their predictions from 1990, the solid lines are the actual average temperature between 1990 and 2007.Globs said:
Despite 100 years of exponentially increasing CO2 output there is no sign of any warming.
Aaaah, you’re one of those people who don’t even believe the earth is warming. I’ve given up on discussing whether the earth is actually warming or not. If we can’t agree that temperature can be accurately measured, you don’t have anything to base this discussion on – we wouldn’t know if it’s 1 degree warmer than 100 years ago or 5 degrees colder. It’s like trying to discuss whether vaccines prevent epidemics with someone who doesn’t think viruses cause diseases (yes, people like that do exist).My my my Blib, you sure get cranky if you don’t get attention. I dare to take an extra day to reply, and you turn into a great big sook.
Since you asked, I do have criteria that would change my mind about AGW. But you haven’t actually answered mine – how many more years of warming before you would change yours? Or perhaps you have a different set of criteria that would change your mind?
Blib said:
I'm surprised that that Good Ole Boy Yankee Doodle didn't return overnight to put us right.
Believe it or not, my life does not revolve around arguing on the internet. It’s entertaining and all, but it’s just a hobby.Blib said:
He can't get to "significance" even with his and his team's shall we say somewhat "creative" methods.
So, Yankee Rose, I ask you, How many more years does this lack of a warming trend have to continue before you, personally, would believe that the IPCC may actually not know what they're doing? 10 more years of no significant sign of warming? 20? 50? Or perhaps never??
Over to you, cowboy.
There’s nothing particularly “creative” about assessing the statistical significance of trends. You can even do a simple version in Excel. The more samples in the trend (in this case, years) the easier it is to determine whether a trend is significant. But I’m not talking about warming since 1998, I’m talking about warming since the IPCC’s original modelling in 1990. So, Yankee Rose, I ask you, How many more years does this lack of a warming trend have to continue before you, personally, would believe that the IPCC may actually not know what they're doing? 10 more years of no significant sign of warming? 20? 50? Or perhaps never??
Over to you, cowboy.
Since you asked, I do have criteria that would change my mind about AGW. But you haven’t actually answered mine – how many more years of warming before you would change yours? Or perhaps you have a different set of criteria that would change your mind?
Hmm.
A couple of interesting 'happened upons'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/13/barack...
The next proposed US budget would seem to be somewhat challenging for some aspect of social development - "Severe cuts are expected to many programmes that have previously had the president's support. Home energy assistance for low-income families would be halved, ....." which probably won;t go down well with anyone affected by Obama's stated policy of making electricity, notably coal, too expensive to use.
The article also mentions that the Republicans have deeper and wider cits in mind.
"The cuts are unlikely to appease the Republican opposition, which is already calling for $100bn in budget cuts for this year alone. Law enforcement, environmental protection, renewable energy, transportation and housing grants would all be cut severely under its proposals."
Interesting.
And then there is this - though caution required since it is from an industry specific promotion group.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf77.html
The article suggests that a number of the concepts being worked on are related closely to the outputs best suited to generating/separating hydrogen for fuel use. Which sort of makes a lot of sense.
In conversation yesterday it was suggested that Nuclear 'Generation V' could be even better all around. Not likely to be seen in my lifetime of course BUT the Gen IV and Gen V developments could provide viable answers to the worst greenie fears in timescales that would still provide solutions for all but the most extreme (and unrealistic) warmist scenarios related to CO2. (Perhaps no surprise that James Hansen is a strong Nuclear supporter?).
The only tricky to solve downside, so I was told, is that there are some severe problems dealing with the residues (Very low volumes but tricky to stop them breaking out of containerisation) from some of the Gne V processes. Apparently there is a solution to this worked out by some Brits using ideas plucked from similar high reactivity (in that case reactivity not radioactivity) problems that are not uncommon in the pharmaceutical compound industries. Great! Lateral thinking in practice! Except that the main expertise in all things Nuclear seems to be with the French at the moment and they are not keen on 'not invented here' solutions. Especially not from Brits.
Science in action? Puts the Jones 'Why should I share my data ...." comments into perspective I suppose.
One can maybe understand why the most politically motivated warmists are so keen to make the earliest impact they can on wide ranging and deeply affecting policies before alternative solutions pull the rug from under them.
'The science' may still be important - just not 'the science' we currently get sucked into disputes about.
Note that some of the above may be conjecture and should not be relied upon for long term 'investment' of any sort.
A couple of interesting 'happened upons'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/13/barack...
The next proposed US budget would seem to be somewhat challenging for some aspect of social development - "Severe cuts are expected to many programmes that have previously had the president's support. Home energy assistance for low-income families would be halved, ....." which probably won;t go down well with anyone affected by Obama's stated policy of making electricity, notably coal, too expensive to use.
The article also mentions that the Republicans have deeper and wider cits in mind.
"The cuts are unlikely to appease the Republican opposition, which is already calling for $100bn in budget cuts for this year alone. Law enforcement, environmental protection, renewable energy, transportation and housing grants would all be cut severely under its proposals."
Interesting.
And then there is this - though caution required since it is from an industry specific promotion group.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf77.html
The article suggests that a number of the concepts being worked on are related closely to the outputs best suited to generating/separating hydrogen for fuel use. Which sort of makes a lot of sense.
In conversation yesterday it was suggested that Nuclear 'Generation V' could be even better all around. Not likely to be seen in my lifetime of course BUT the Gen IV and Gen V developments could provide viable answers to the worst greenie fears in timescales that would still provide solutions for all but the most extreme (and unrealistic) warmist scenarios related to CO2. (Perhaps no surprise that James Hansen is a strong Nuclear supporter?).
The only tricky to solve downside, so I was told, is that there are some severe problems dealing with the residues (Very low volumes but tricky to stop them breaking out of containerisation) from some of the Gne V processes. Apparently there is a solution to this worked out by some Brits using ideas plucked from similar high reactivity (in that case reactivity not radioactivity) problems that are not uncommon in the pharmaceutical compound industries. Great! Lateral thinking in practice! Except that the main expertise in all things Nuclear seems to be with the French at the moment and they are not keen on 'not invented here' solutions. Especially not from Brits.
Science in action? Puts the Jones 'Why should I share my data ...." comments into perspective I suppose.
One can maybe understand why the most politically motivated warmists are so keen to make the earliest impact they can on wide ranging and deeply affecting policies before alternative solutions pull the rug from under them.
'The science' may still be important - just not 'the science' we currently get sucked into disputes about.
Note that some of the above may be conjecture and should not be relied upon for long term 'investment' of any sort.
kerplunk said:
Me offended? nope and not sure how you got there.
I wasn't just referring to you, but you have gone out of your way to paint as lurid a picture as possible when asked for a re-cap of events, repeated untrue claims, and exaggerated a lot. It just comes across as ungenerous, piling-on and bullying. There's no slack cut for FF being invited onto the thread and him making a good effort to maintain a dialogue whilst trying to catch up on a 500 page thread and small wonder he seeks help from elsewhere, but this is just another reflection of the small minded point-scoring nature of the so called debate here.
Oh . . . away with you. You'll dutifully defend anyone with a warmist slant - done it repeatedlyI wasn't just referring to you, but you have gone out of your way to paint as lurid a picture as possible when asked for a re-cap of events, repeated untrue claims, and exaggerated a lot. It just comes across as ungenerous, piling-on and bullying. There's no slack cut for FF being invited onto the thread and him making a good effort to maintain a dialogue whilst trying to catch up on a 500 page thread and small wonder he seeks help from elsewhere, but this is just another reflection of the small minded point-scoring nature of the so called debate here.
Lurid? Huh. Bullying? My arse. Exaggeration? It's all there to see. He played dirty and got caught out. Point out any untrue claims I've made and if that's the case I'll retract them. If not you retract that.
Just grow up. FFS.
EDIT: Oh, just read down and seen that Guam had got there 1st with a similar comment - no collusion, I hadn't seen his post, so obviously the impression we're gaining from you!
Edited by Lost_BMW on Monday 14th February 01:15
Guam said:
Here we go again with the "bullying" meme, what is this? Have we all suddenly regressed to Primary school or some such??
Didnt see you rushing to others defence so rapidly when FAR WORSE was done to others on this side of the debate?
Time you Grew UP KP, and accepted Insults, and slurs (Like the bullying one) wont wash in here anymore.
PP was a watershed for all of us, make your case with the facts and with your own rationale (not debating by proxy) and one would be fine in here, continue on in the way your side has done for the last few years and the results will no longer be as anticipated I suspect!
You had no shortage of defenders I think. I don't have much understanding of what went on there but if you want a retrospective condemnation of PP's extremely personal sounding remarks you got it.Didnt see you rushing to others defence so rapidly when FAR WORSE was done to others on this side of the debate?
Time you Grew UP KP, and accepted Insults, and slurs (Like the bullying one) wont wash in here anymore.
PP was a watershed for all of us, make your case with the facts and with your own rationale (not debating by proxy) and one would be fine in here, continue on in the way your side has done for the last few years and the results will no longer be as anticipated I suspect!
Lost_BMW said:
Oh . . . away with you. You'll dutifully defend anyone with a warmist slant - done it repeatedly
Lurid? Huh. Bullying? My arse. Exaggeration? It's all there to see. He played dirty and got caught out. Point out any untrue claims I've made and if that's the case I'll retract them. If not you retract that.
Sure:Lurid? Huh. Bullying? My arse. Exaggeration? It's all there to see. He played dirty and got caught out. Point out any untrue claims I've made and if that's the case I'll retract them. If not you retract that.
Lost BMW said:
Even more amazing was that he stayed around after being outed but then showed a darker side by posting comments made by Guam and TB over there - despite being asked not to...
"despite being asked not to" except this is not the right order of events as has been well explored already - he desisted after he was asked not to (and I see no Guam posts over there?). Facefirst said:
Dear All,
(snip)
I still don't buy the arguments that this is a global conspiracy, and I still think prudent use of natural resources is the correct way to proceed.
There. I said it. Carry on and keep up the good work.
FF
Agree 100%(snip)
I still don't buy the arguments that this is a global conspiracy, and I still think prudent use of natural resources is the correct way to proceed.
There. I said it. Carry on and keep up the good work.
FF
That is what pisses me of the most about the whole man made global warming s
t.Is the message that if you own a car you are a planet killing kitten raping b
d who is single handedly causing the planet to turn into a giant ball of fire. This message normally comes from some exceedingly rich tt who has just flown half way round the world to tell me this.Treat us like frightened children and we will rebel and buy the biggest thirstiest car we can get. Sadly we also turn against other environmental issues like pollution deforestation etc.
If you treat us like adults and say let's reduce our oil consumption I will agree completely with you.
Carry on with the whole planet will burn s
t and I will treat you like the idiots you believe me to beGuam said:
thinfourth2 said:
Agree 100%
That is what pisses me of the most about the whole man made global warming st.
Is the message that if you own a car you are a planet killing kitten raping bd who is single handedly causing the planet to turn into a giant ball of fire. This message normally comes from some exceedingly rich tt who has just flown half way round the world to tell me this.
Treat us like frightened children and we will rebel and buy the biggest thirstiest car we can get. Sadly we also turn against other environmental issues like pollution deforestation etc.
If you treat us like adults and say let's reduce our oil consumption I will agree completely with you.
Carry on with the whole planet will burn st and I will treat you like the idiots you believe me to be
No one can disagree with that and I dont think anyone on this thread ever has, thats not what this scam is about though unfortunately.That is what pisses me of the most about the whole man made global warming s
t.Is the message that if you own a car you are a planet killing kitten raping b
d who is single handedly causing the planet to turn into a giant ball of fire. This message normally comes from some exceedingly rich tt who has just flown half way round the world to tell me this.Treat us like frightened children and we will rebel and buy the biggest thirstiest car we can get. Sadly we also turn against other environmental issues like pollution deforestation etc.
If you treat us like adults and say let's reduce our oil consumption I will agree completely with you.
Carry on with the whole planet will burn s
t and I will treat you like the idiots you believe me to beCheers
It's still junkscience and gigo whatever the wider abuses are.
Yankee Rose said:
My my my Blib, you sure get cranky if you don’t get attention. I dare to take an extra day to reply, and you turn into a great big sook.
Since you asked, I do have criteria that would change my mind about AGW. But you haven’t actually answered mine – how many more years of warming before you would change yours? Or perhaps you have a different set of criteria that would change your mind?
Your question is moot as, according to Jones, there is no warming. Blib said:
I'm surprised that that Good Ole Boy Yankee Doodle didn't return overnight to put us right.
Believe it or not, my life does not revolve around arguing on the internet. It’s entertaining and all, but it’s just a hobby.Blib said:
He can't get to "significance" even with his and his team's shall we say somewhat "creative" methods.
So, Yankee Rose, I ask you, How many more years does this lack of a warming trend have to continue before you, personally, would believe that the IPCC may actually not know what they're doing? 10 more years of no significant sign of warming? 20? 50? Or perhaps never??
Over to you, cowboy.
There’s nothing particularly “creative” about assessing the statistical significance of trends. You can even do a simple version in Excel. The more samples in the trend (in this case, years) the easier it is to determine whether a trend is significant. But I’m not talking about warming since 1998, I’m talking about warming since the IPCC’s original modelling in 1990. So, Yankee Rose, I ask you, How many more years does this lack of a warming trend have to continue before you, personally, would believe that the IPCC may actually not know what they're doing? 10 more years of no significant sign of warming? 20? 50? Or perhaps never??
Over to you, cowboy.
Since you asked, I do have criteria that would change my mind about AGW. But you haven’t actually answered mine – how many more years of warming before you would change yours? Or perhaps you have a different set of criteria that would change your mind?
Article said:
Harribin: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Jones: Yes
What part of the word "Yes" would you like me to explain to you?Jones: Yes
So, how long a period of no warming would you need to change you mind?
Edited by Blib on Monday 14th February 10:16
I've been mulling the challenge oft repeated here, namely to show a:
'source of credible observational global climate temperature data with a visible human signal that carries established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.'
I was wondering, in all of the historic data that we have, do we have ANY causal signal for ANY drivers of previous changes? I guess I am wondering what such a signal - from any source - might look like. The thing is, I'm not so sure this will ever be shown regardless, due to the complexity of the system. We cannot do a controlled experiment on the Earth, using a 'control' Earth where we have static CO2 for comparison, so where does that leave us? Where does that leave attempts to understand past climate change data?
Comments, as always, most welcome - I bloody love it, see.
'source of credible observational global climate temperature data with a visible human signal that carries established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.'
I was wondering, in all of the historic data that we have, do we have ANY causal signal for ANY drivers of previous changes? I guess I am wondering what such a signal - from any source - might look like. The thing is, I'm not so sure this will ever be shown regardless, due to the complexity of the system. We cannot do a controlled experiment on the Earth, using a 'control' Earth where we have static CO2 for comparison, so where does that leave us? Where does that leave attempts to understand past climate change data?
Comments, as always, most welcome - I bloody love it, see.
Blib said:
As the system is so very complex, are you satisfied that the present models are accurate enough to predict future changes in the climate, FF.
If not.........?
Undecided to be honest, I mean it does seem impossible to my limited mind to model such a complex system accurately.If not.........?
EDIT: Not impossible, just difficult.
kerplunk said:
...but this is just another reflection of the small minded point-scoring nature of the so called debate here.
Well given that you post here on PH I see that more of a reflection of yourself than the regular anti-AGW posters here.I genuinely believe very little of the debate on PH climate threads is about point scoring, in fact certainly in the back room discussions and emails that swap back and forth between members here I have never read anything to suggest that that was the intent.
I think that if a poster arrives on a thread of this proportion and starts citing papers giving the impression that they are well read and versed in the science, and who then turns out to be nothing more than a proxy, they should expect to receive some flak.
It's a massively complex field of science, if it wasn't we wouldn't be having the discussions.
If you feel you're (or other people) are being bullied or taking cheap shots please feel to take your ball and go play somewhere else.
Facefirst said:
I was wondering, in all of the historic data that we have, do we have ANY causal signal for ANY drivers of previous changes? I guess I am wondering what such a signal - from any source - might look like.
Yes we have - the sun. http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/a...I'd suggest a little homework before using "too complicated" tag line. Chaos has it's own patterns - just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we can't discount anything.
Damnit TB was faster.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff