Same as always - can we rely on Harrabin' report that the various quotes of Phil Jones are correct? I had once with Harrabin to do, and he had a somewhat liberal attitude in this respect, I remember. Any chance to verify independently the quotes? Hans
Someone should ask the BBC what form the interview took. There are rumours flying around that Harrabin DID do a recorded interview, but panicky high level meetings took place and a decision was taken not to use the recording because Jones didn't sound good.
I just looked up Phil Jones' interview in the Sunday Times. I didn't know about this. He says that he thought about killing himself, and that he is receiving death threats. Here the story:
Before you go on the next Phil Jones hunt, please keep in mind that this is all happening in the real world with real people. Anonymous posters, I think it is not too much to ask that you post with your full names in this case.
Your concern for Phil Jones is admirable, but who says he really has received death threats? I don't actually believe him. I can believe he may have contemplated suicide, as he has been exposed as doing something quite terrible on a vast scale over many years with very serious repurcussions.
For him to draw parrellels with between himself and Dr Kelly beggars belief. Dr Kelly died in suspicious circumstances having exposed a government lie.
By contrast, Phil Jones has been exposed for coniving and assisting in government deceit.
This is also a man, don't forget, who was cheered by the news of someone else's death (as revealed in one of the leaked emails.)
In the unlikely event that he has received death threats, I suspect they would have come from his own fellow travellers, furious at the recent turn of events.
If he feels remorse for what he has done, that's good and if it leads to him giving an honest aacount of what's been going on, then he will earn my sympathy and forgiveness.
The Times has this story, which makes me curious, not about the story, which is not new, but about the Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
Could you give us a short account of how do you see the UK main papers (say Times, Guardian, Independent and Telegraph) on the global warming issue and whether there has been a re-adjustment of their positions in the past month or so ?
Honestly, could you find a way to get rid of those blood-thirsty letshavethetruth demagogues. They would never accept any explanation that would not fit in their conspiracy worldview. And they know exactly that they would not give Phil Jones any chance to explain himself. And they would never forgive. By the way your anonymous forgiveness is the least thing he needs. You probably do not even know what forgiveness is. Otherwise you would not offer such false deals.
PS: This is not a defense of Mr. Jones but a defense of basic rules of human decency. Even if they would know everything and would be totally right this behavior is not acceptable.
I think this blog should discuss possible solutions and not add just another forum for those idiots.
Falk Schützenmeister: I cannot see what on earth I wrote that has provoked such an extreme response from you.
Going back to the BBC, someone really should ask Harrabin if there was a recorded interview and why it wasn't used. I have it on good authority that there was, and it wasn't.
I did not respond to you but to letshavethetruth. Sorry, if you took the word anonymous personally. Even if I do not appreciate anonymity, your comments are totally fine.
Seems like death threats (I want to put the term in quotation marks but this is probably improper) are becoming a regular thing for some of the key players in this controversy. This is certainly unfortunate, but maybe a sign of what happens when scientists meet heated debate on the internet. Lack of accountability + fervent passion = stupid harmful statements on the internet. If you'd like a slightly more comedic take on what threats can do to an expert in the GW debate check this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGfyFw5LI30 The persecuted expert shown is well-known for anyone following the Canadian climate debate.
Eduardo As you can imagine, so far there is no systematic work done and all I can give are impressions. The Independent does not stand out as a big player in this. Not surprisingly perhaps, the conservative press has latched onto climategate immediately while the Guardian is trying to come to terms with it. Telling that Fred Pearce has the main job and not those who were signed up to the cause. They have censored comments since December heavily (including my own). But now that we get human drama, they are coming back like any paper that needs to sell copy. Still, you get the sunday stories in the Telegraph and Times, not the Observer. Here is a source about the pre-2004 situtation Carvalho, A., & Burgess, J. (2005). Cultural circuits of climate change in UK broadsheet newspapers, 1985–2003. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1457–1469. Blackwell Publishing. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00692.x.
@eduardo: Considering the position of newspapers in the UK, while I do not follow them closely, I can make a few comments about the ownership of The Times.
"The Times" (of London) is owned by News Corporation.
Other ventures owned by News Corp. are - Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox News, USA) - Dow Jones, publisher of "Wall Street Journal" - News Limited (Daily Telegraph, Sydney)
All of which are a platform for climate change deniers. CEO and founder of News Corp. is Rupert Murdoch.
"All of which are a platform for climate change deniers. CEO and founder of News Corp. is Rupert Murdoch."
I just get a kick out of those who are so bankrupt of argumanets and get so frustrated that all they can do is resort to sophomoric name-calling and throw labels like "climate change deniers".
So I ask myself, just who are the the real climate change deniers?
Ironically it is the hockey stick manufacturers and their religious followers themselves. They're the ones who insist the climate is normally steady, and that it normally does not change much unless humans get involved. Look at how they insist the climate had not changed during the hundreds and thousands of years before humans embarked on industry. Indeed it is the warmists who believe that without humans the climate would continue going on being constant...much like Mann's 1000 years before industry appeared.
In reality, us so-called "climate change deniers" (sceptics) are the true believers of climate change. We believe that climate changes, that it always has and that it always will. Us "climate change deniers" (sceptics) have said this all along. So, we all know who the real "climate change deniers" are.
hm, also interesting is what newspapers like the Daily Mail (unfortunately often quoted here) made from the interview...
from " 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."
they come to "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995". What do you think about this? In the best case, the journalists were totally incompetent. In the worst case: they are dishonest.
Story: http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/journalism.html or http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/daily_mail_caught_in_another_l.php
Exactly such behavior I call "censored" "censored" (censored by me). It is normal in our time, but I do not have to accept it and I will not accept it. And I will name it... maybe in a more appropriate tone in the future.
@P Gosselin: The comment about Murdoch I added to put a face to "News Corp", since the company name is rather unprecise.
Actually the case Rupert Murdoch is interesting, because he himself says that he wants his companies to be CO2 neutral. Which is 180 degrees opposed to the way in which they cover the topic of climate change and AGW.
Noone says that climate isn't changing without human influence. It just takes longer without humans digging out coal and oil and burning it and putting CO2 into the atmosphere, thus creating GH-Effect (and acid in the oceans), thus melting glaciers, thus less albedo (and higher water level), thus more temperature rise, thus permafrost melting(?), thus more Methan in the atmosphere thus more GH-Effect... &c.
These are the facts. Religion has nothing to do with it. Religion is about belief, not about measurement, empirical analysis and proof.
These are not facts. They are hypotheses and they have yet to be supported by any data. And there is absolutely no consensus that says otherwise. The notion of consenus was also a big fantasy and I'm glad you seem to have come to terms with that, as you did not bring it up. Even Jones now admits the temp increase of 1979 - 1998 is no different than the increases in the past. They've known this for years, which is precisely why they went out and made bogus hockey sticks and sexed up the IPCC 2007 Report with phoney tree-hugger reports. If the data had been there, that would not have been necessary. Now, Pachauri is under fire.
Temperature fluctuations have been much more dramatic at many times in the past. This is well documented. Climate changes.
We are all waiting for data that shows CO2 is doing the things you claim above. If you have that data, then by all means show it. If you don't, then it's all faith-based and has nothing to do with science.
I have a simple challenge for you: Please explain the temperature increases during the interglacials and those of the PETM, as well as the temperature of the earth a few hundred million years after its inception *without invoking any warming effect by CO2*.
Now try it *with* CO2 forcing, and then explain us why the current increase in CO2 is nothing to worry about.
Oh, and just one minor hint as to climate changes in the past: those have in several cases resulted in major changes of the earth's surface, as well as many a mass extinction event.
An OT layman question for the combined climate wisdom on this esteemed forum.
It seems that the (AGW) climate science reached the consensus that man can control the Earth thermostat by controlling human CO2 forcing (+2 degrees max, remember?)
But...what can we do in a more likely and much more devastating scenario when Climate decides to take a U-turn and instead of warming it will cool the Earth. It has happened before. What can we do about this? Increase human CO2 forcing? Or will the answer be as usual: warming is human instigated, cooling is natural?
And could we agree that warming of the planet (to a reasonable degree) will actually be more prefable than cooling?
@itisi69: We know what the main cooling forcings are: 1. solar output significantly diminishing 2. Milankovitch cycles. The latter we know so well that there is no danger of significant cooling for thousands of years. The former is one that is more tricky: we have no evidence of long-term (many centuries) lower solar output in the past. We do have strong indications that the sun will get brighter and brighter and brighter. That's a very slow process, though. In short, the danger of cooling lies at best many thousands of years ahead.
Regarding the warming "to a reasonable degree": what *is* a "reasonable degree"? Equally important: where and how would it be better?
@P.Gosselin: - Humans dig out oil and coal and burn it (fact) - burning oil and coal produce CO2 (fact) - Glaciers are melting currently (fact) - less Glaciers lead to less albedo (=energy reflection) (fact) - less glaciers lead to rising sea levels (theory, sea levels are rising = fact)
So all that is left is whether CO2 leads to rising temperatures. While it might be a theory, it is theory so profound that without it the measurments of a lot of data from ice cores, maritim cores &c. do not make sense. Take a look at the Bjerknes Lecture by Prof. Richard B. Alley at the AGU last December: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
The facts are there, the fact are known. The theories are supported by the facts. The global events are consistent with the theories.
Too bad there is no data to support the hypothesis. No data - no fact. CO2 has pretty much exhausted its greenhouse effect at its current concentration. The effect that it is having is hardly measureable. Even Jones says there's been no warming for 15 years - "a travesty!".Indeed only about 45 of the last 110 years have shown warming - so no correlation. There's a huge difference between having a minor effect and being a major driver. It has never been any kind of major driver in the past. Again, show me the data, and not some half-baked hypothesis in a believer's ppt presentation. If it is a fact, then the data ought to be there. We're still waiting to see it. Anecdotes like one year of low Artic sea extent is not "data". You'll have to do better than that.
This is a distortion of reality. Jones says that from 1995-2010 there is a warming trend, but the trend is not significant. Which is exactly the opposite of "there's been no warming for 15 years".
And when NASA measures the hottest decade ever... well that is probably because of the cooling trend. http://is.gd/8qmq3
Flin "The global events are consistent with the theories." "consistent with" does not win the science argument. It may convince people to mitigate agains GHG emissions as part of a political project. Many things can be "consistent with" the theory, hotter and colder periods, more rain or draughts, etc. Have a look here http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/beyond-consistent-with-canard.html
Milankovitch cycles are hihly speculative and not really accepted in climate science I believe.
"In short, the danger of cooling lies at best many thousands of years ahead." Pure speculation and btw you haven't answered my question; can we control cooling?
o There is no direct connection between CO2 emission and climate warming. This is shown by the fact that these two physical quantities have displayed an entirely different time behaviour in the past 150 years. Whereas the mean global temperature varied in a quasi-periodic manner (mean period = 70 years), with temperature maxima in 1870, 1940 and 2006, (see Fig. 2.1 of www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm), the CO2 concentration - after having essentially remained constant for centuries - increased exponentially with the onset of massive hydrocarbon burning in the1950's.
In contrast, there is a close correlation between mean global temperature and the geomagnetic aa-index which reflects the effect of energetic solar eruptions on the Earth's magnetic field. The solar activity leads the terrestrial temperature by some 6 years. These facts prove that climate change is not man-made but is driven by solar activity.
o There exists an extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean global temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth in the past 150 years (see Fig. 2.2 of www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm) - two, within present teaching, unrelated physical quantities. (Present physical theory is unable to explain the magnitude of the observed LOD changes.) This close correlation clearly shows that a) these two physical quantities are driven by a common extraterrestrial agent, and b) a new physical theory is required to identify this common agent. Note that rotational velocity leads terrestrial temperature by some 6 years.
o The author has developed a new theory of gravitation that not only covers the well-known Einstein effects but also shows up a number of post-Einstein effects that are substantiated by geophysical and astrophysical observations. This new physical theory is, in contrast to Einstein's theory, based on quantum mechanics. It is called Seaon Theory and is explained in the post of September 19, 2008 in www.pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/a-new-book-elucidates-the-life-and-work-of-Dr.-Abdus-Salam
o The following paragraphs (see next comment) give a physical explanation for the strong correlation between fluctuations of the rotational velocity of the Earth and solar eruptions on the one hand and the corresponding retarded changes of the mean surface temperature of the Earth on the other hand.
*Physicist. Recipient of the Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics. Conveyor of a super-Einsteinian Theory of Gravitation that explains the continual climate changes and the associated, closely correlated fluctuations of the rotational velocity of the Earth, as well as the triggering of devastating earthquakes as the result of the action of galactic vacuum density waves on the Sun and the Earth.
Seaon Theory, a new theory of gravitation based on quantum mechanics that was developed eight decades after Einstein's corresponding Theory of General Relativity, not only covers the well-known Einstein-effects but also shows up half a dozen post-Einstein effects that occur in nature. From a humanitarian standpoint, the most important super-Einsteinian physical phenomenon is the generation of small-amplitude longitudinal gravitational waves by the motion of the supermassive bodies located at the center of our galaxy, their transmission throughout the Galaxy, and the action of these waves on the Sun, the Earth and the other celestial bodies through which they pass. These vacuum density waves, which carry with them small changes in the electromagnetic properties of the vacuum, occur in an extremely large period range from minutes to millennia.
On the Sun, these galactic waves modulate the intensity of the thermonuclear energy conversion process within the core which is highly sensitive to small changes in the permittivity of the vacuum, and this has its effect on all physical quantities of the Sun (this is called solar activity). This in turn has its influences on the Earth and the other planets. In particular, the solar wind and the solar magnetic field strength are modulated which results in large changes in the intensity of the cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. Cosmic rays produce condensation nuclei so that the cloud cover of the atmosphere and the Earth albedo also change. A mere 1% reduction in cloud cover explains most of the temperature increase of the past 150 years.
On the Earth, the steady stream of vacuum density waves produces parts-per-billion changes in a large number of geophysical quantities. The most important quantities are the radius, circumference, rotational velocity, gravitational acceleration, VLBI baseline lengths, and axis orientation angles of the Earth, as well as the orbital elements of all low-earth-orbit satellites. All of these fluctuations have been measured. The modulations of the Earth's circumference (in the decimeter range) trigger large earthquakes. By closely monitoring the foregoing geophysical quantities, the approach of a devastating vacuum density wave can be detected in time for a global earthquake warning to be issued. Such a global earthquake warning system has to be supplemented with local earthquake alarm systems and suitable human protection devices.
Further evidence (in addition to the LOD-temperature-correlation) for the existence of super-Einsteinian gravitational waves and of their action on all celestial bodies of the Solar System is provided by the fact that all orbital periods of the planets of the Solar System are very close to integer fractions and integer multiples of the periods of the Hale and the Gleissberg solar cycles. (See the post of September 26, 2009 in www.pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/a-new-book-elucidates-the-life-and-work-of-Dr.-Abdus-Salam )
@plazamoyua: Thank you for the providing the link.
@Dr. Grundmann: I do not intend to link weather to climate. All I am saying is that the measured events concerning temperature, glaciers, sea-level etc. correspond to the models that say: Global Warming. At least this was a key finding at Copenhagen Conference.
@anonymous: The sun. Who would have thought of that?
@Falk: "Honestly, could you find a way to get rid of those blood-thirsty letshavethetruth demagogues."
It seems demagogue is the new word since "denier" has been declared not PC.
Not sure what you consider to be demagogic, but for me the latest rant in The Guardian by Joss Garman (Green Peace) certainly covers this very well:
"We climate activists need to ask ourselves how this whole incongruous state of affairs came about. The most zealous deniers, a subculture of outlandish paranoid conspiracy theorists, claim to speak for independent thinking when in truth they're the shock troops for a choking and insidious form of censorship, blotting out the truth with the ideology and interests of the world's most powerful Big Carbon corporates."
nice quote and absolutely true... but still, just pointing on others is wrong.
some nice story how deniers like Monckton or Peiser (all achgut.de reader know him) are working: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html
one remark: many books of so called skeptics which write about so called climate alarmism misquoted Sir John Houghton. Every so called skeptic in the article claimed: he read it in many skeptical(!) books about climate alarmism. Nobody checked the original source. NOBODY. That is strange, isn't it? It comes from people who are claiming they are skeptics and all others are just believers of the church of Al Gore.
@itisi69: Milankovitch cycles not believed in climate science? What planet do you live on? It's a central concept in paleoclimatology of the ice ages!
@ghost: With 'hilarious' comments at the end. Despite the article clearly noting that the false quote is *not* 15 years old, but only used since 2006...the first commenters repeat the claim it is already 15 years old blabla etc. Psychologists must have a real field day studying such behavior. Anyone know the term for this behavior?
ghost & marco: If Sir John now is claiming that sentence never passed his lips, there are others ready to take his place. Here's Stephen Schneiders take on the issue;
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
To me that's indicative of the way Stephen and sir John H thinks (nota bene: this is the full quote, so you can't claim it being missrepresented). He "hopes" it means being both, but if it doesn't it's okay not to tell the truth. This is markedly different from mr. von Storchs assertion that climate scientists simply conveying the science and letting others worry about policy - thus avoiding scientists becoming advocates alltogether!
Tobias there is nothing wrong with individual scientists being advocates (on both sides). Many feel they have a moral responsibility and cannot afford to take a relaxed attitude. This is not a problem. It becomes a problem when a) individual scientists oversell their science, play down the uncertainties, etc. b) scientific institutions engage in stealth advocacy.
@tobias W If Sir John now is claiming that sentence never passed his lips,
I am sorry to interrupt here: it was claimed, John Houghton wrote it in his book, and not it passed his lips or so. Show me the quote in his book. It should be easy. If you show me the quote there, I will apologize and rot in the climate hell. At least.
@Reiner It becomes a problem when a) individual scientists oversell their science, play down the uncertainties, etc. b) scientific institutions engage in stealth advocacy.
yapp, that must not happen.
Stephen Schneider has a good site (but quite old site), explaining his quote and his views: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/MediarologyFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html
it is not so easy to act in the public, but should scientists should just shut up? I think not.
"Milankovitch cycles not believed in climate science? What planet do you live on? It's a central concept in paleoclimatology of the ice ages!" I was talking about the current climate which (at least acc MBH99) counters a millennial-scale cooling trend which is consistent with long-term astronomical forcing. That's what I meant to say with not popular ("believed was the wrong wording) with the AGW advocates.
Now, as you seem to know all, could you kindly answer my question?
Who said : "As a climate scientist who has worked on this issue for several decades, first as head of the Met Office, and then as co-chair of scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a "weapon of mass destruction" . . . . . (John Houghton http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jul/28/environment.greenpolitics)
a) if Dr. Jones is really receiving death threats, the perpetrators should be investigated and if necesssary, prosecuted for their threats
b) if Dr. Jones is suicidal, I would hope his friends, family, and colleagues get him the appropriate care, instead of just using it for a sympathy ploy in an interview
c) The Daily Fail and the Torygraph are hardly credible news sources; so if you discount the Guardian as "too liberal" you should just as easily discount the others as "insanely conservative"
Does anyone still take Stephen Schneider seriously?
Craig Bohren: "In particular, Steven (sic) Schneider, now at Stanford, previously at NCAR, about 30 years ago was sounding the alarm about an imminent ice age. The culprit then was particles belched into the atmosphere by human activities. No matter how the climate changes he can correctly say that he predicted it. No one in the atmospheric science community has been more successful at getting publicity. NCAR used to send my department clippings from newspaper and magazine articles in which NCAR researchers were named. We'd get thick wads of clippings, almost all of which were devoted to Schneider. Perhaps global warming is bad for the rest of us, but for Schneider and others it has been a godsend."
Might be I havent read the interview attentively but what exactly is the big deal about what Jones said? Or what is somehow in contrast to what he said before his mails were stolen?
@yarmy "In particular, Steven Schneider, now at Stanford, previously at NCAR, about 30 years ago was sounding the alarm about an imminent ice age."
really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4XUAM8A9bo
okay, the text is from 2006, one can argue what 30 years ago means.
In fact, Rasool & Schneider published this paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/173/3992/138.pdf in 1971. It is interesting... but 8 years of new insights and research may change the view of a young man.
@georg there is nothing special from my point of view... but special (maybe not) is how the usual suspects spin their stories...
Reiner: Fair point, although as it seems almost impossible for scientists such as say Michael Oppenheimer, Stephen Schneider et al to give correct statements on the impacts, and seeing global warming wherever they go, I would suggest they should instead keep quiet. I saw just weeks ago Oppenheimer claiming that both Hurricane Katrina and the iceloss at the arctic 2007, etc, was due to "climate change" (i.e. global warming), when the peer reviewed papers say they can't establish a link between the events and global warming. That is advocacy, and it is his stature as a scientist that makes the viewers believe him. But I suppose these go into your two categories.
ghost: I thought my point was that quite clear; if as he claims he never said or wrote it, there are still plenty of scientists (read above) that have no scrouples in doing exactly what the "Sir John quote" stated. I will not say that he ever made it, and now it is up to the ones that has used this quote to find it, or apologise. Mind you I think Sir J should apologise for his pathetic "WMD" metafor as well.
However it is quite interesting to see how a quote or a reference can get a "life of it's own" far beyond the original source. That is in fact a technique that warmists have used for years; someone says the world is warming ever more rapidly, or that the arctic ice is melting faster than ever before, that is then replicated ad infinitum. It becomes the truth even though it had no merit to begin with: "if you repeat a lie often enough people believe it."
I'm serously thinkin of taking you up on that rotting in climate hell business though, but I think I will wait untill the Green Party leader gives me the same opportunity:-).
@Tobias W: I quote here directly from Michael Oppenheimer: "Katrina was not caused by global warming, and we will never know whether, or how much, the greenhouse gases contributed to its intensity." (Note, the following link is a pdf) http://tinylink.com/?mIT7eFF670
Now, could you please link to *your* evidence that he said the contrary? Make sure it is a direct quote. We already know how 'trustworthy' newspapers are in reproducing what scientists say.
the facts are hard: it was said, the quote is from the book. Show me the quote in this book, and I will be silent.
The dishonesty of some parts of the media can be seen in the case of Jones' BBC interview. Daily Mail, Times, other conservative medias, "skeptic" blogs distorted the Jones' answers. Everybody could see it clearly. I think, some parts of conservative media are not credible in the climate debate at all. Hm, but that is not a shockingly new insight.
If you compare the tone and message of the Jones interview to the alaramist tone and message of some parts of the IPCC report (and other statements such as the Copenhagen Diagnosis) you will see a a big shift. Scientists like Jones have started to hedge their bets. It is only natural that the media are interpreting this as a signal. A signal that there was some overstatement. And a feeling of betrayal and loss of trust. So don't blame everything on the 'dumb' media, or their 'agenda because of ownership'. Of course, some have been known to be on one side of the fence. But I know of no study that has investigated such biases on the level of detailed reporting in any systematic way. Commentators on this blog sometimes seems to know it all, making sweeping assertions. But as in the case of climate, with regard to society and the media you need to do your research first.
@Reiner Any chance that you can provide us examples of the tone of Phil Jones before and after stealing his mails? So where do you see another tone in this interview compared to the IPCC as you claimed. The BBC interview is full of precise and scientific questions (significance and stuff). He had few occasions to have a "tone". We can start however killing his dog and then his mother-in-law. And see if this again changes his tone. Interesting experiment.
I am not comparing Jones before/after but Jones now to alarmist statements before. Here is another such example which has signalling function, this time from former IPCC chair Robert T. Watson who says about the recent spade of exposed IPCC errors: "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."
Any chance that you can provide us examples of the tone of Phil Jones before and after stealing his mails?
Yes:
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.
That seems to be a pretty European problem that I sometimes encountered in my own interviews with climate researchers.
In the US there are strict data release policies for publicly funded projects (e.g. NASA, NSF). After a short time data has to be transferred in the public domain. And it is pretty amazing what you can get. The situation with weather data is similar. In the US they are in the public domain in Europe they are commercial products. US climate researchers are often upset about this asymmetric situation. In addition, the code of some climate models is in the public domain as well (I know at least two).
Of course, that does not make the data collection and processing per se more transparent. The scientific users of the data often do not know a lot about the generation process, they speak simply about "products". They trust their colleagues and they have to (at least if they want to describe the whole Earth as a single complex system).
I do not say this is perfect. But it is an institutional setting that would be go start to begin with. It probably does not serve the general public. But young scientists can use the data without personal contacts to the big shots in the field.
quote mining is stupid, the interview was about his belief in God, and he is showing why he said good policy needs a disaster. I do not agree with him, but maybe he is right. Many security and safety improvements and regulations were made after disasters. That is a pretty different meaning to the other quote.
But a problem is: Climate change is slow, inert, but long lasting. If we really see many climate change related disasters, then we have a huge problem.
PS: oh, Prof von Storch has nice interview about climate change and Donaldism... let me dream a bit: new IPCC head thinking Donald is real. Should we trust a crazy scientist? (http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/Media/interviews/091005.taz.pdf) (fand das Interview sehr entspannt und sympathisch, leider bin ich der DDR aufgewachsen, kein Donald mit 8)
marco: You're on top of things as usual. I went back and checked and in fact he didn't say anything about either hurricanes or Katrina (I was playing the sceptic's newspaper:-). What he did say was this:
”…before this episode occurred [glaciergate] we knew the earth was warming, sea level was rising, glaciers are melting, the ice is retreating, the ocean is becoming more acidic, all due to the buildup of greenhouse gases.”
The fact is that the earth was warming without anthropogenic greenhouse gases being attributable (need I really quote Dr. Jones, or can we just state that clearly). He knows this.
Sea level, to my knowledge at least, started rising in the 19th century, before the IPCC report claims that anthropogenic global warming had anything to do with it. He knows this.
The fact is that the reason for melting glaciers are really situational, as the example of Kilimajaro shows where it is loss of precipitation from deforestation that has actually caused most of the glacierretreat, not global warming. He knows this.
The ice in the artctic was retreating in 2006 and 2007, this was attributable to unusually warm winds and currents sweeping up across the artcic, hence not caused by global warming. Equally he made an "IPCC-special" by leaving out that allthough sea ice is retreating in the greenland and the antarctic (I'm guessing this is what he's refering to), the glaciers are actually getting thicker, and that the sea ice in the antarctic actually was declining from it's top notation. He knows this.
Finally, something that he is correct of is ocean acidification, although it really is hard to see whether this actually is as bad as is inferred.
Are these impacts: "all due to the buildup of greenhouse gases" as he claims? I think not, and he knows this, hence he is lying. Why? - Because he is advocate first and scientist second.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oxFx41nE1c
ghost: Here is the quote attributed to him: "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen."
Here's what he actually said: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
Much difference? I don't think so. But he is right, it wasn't from his book, it was from an interview which he didn't dispute then (1995), and hasn't yet today.
the difference is, the actual quote is a simple observation, because the quote is longer (did bishop hill not give the complete quote... interesting, who ever had thought that). Many people noticed that.
The other, fabricated quote, hints an evil plan to make up disasters. Such a plan may evolve from the first quote, but that is your task to prove it.
I know, you will see it differently, but I really do not care.
Tobias W: I see you decide to move the goalposts, and come with more distortions. Yes, we have seen previous warmings, but that of the last 35 years can not be explained by any natural variation. In fact, the natural variation points *downward*, which you would have been able to read in Phil Jones' interview. Funny how you read one thing, and completely overlook the other. Also, glaciers *all over the world* are melting. Interesting that that everywhere is to be explained by local events, and supposedly has nothing to do with warming. You can learn something here: http://tinylink.com/?AfcvEcMLRl
And I wonder whether you ever looked at arctic sea ice extent: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Please do take a firm look at the trend. Down for 31 years already (it's not just the January, but I could not find the annual this fast).
Oppenheimer knows the only plausible explanation for all these observations is CO2 forcing. He's not lying, he's saying what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying. I guess they are all liars, in your opinion. Do note that that includes our hosts here, so tread carefully.
"Yes, we have seen previous warmings, but that of the last 35 years can not be explained by any natural variation" Act of God. Really how do you know all climate forcings are known? Your blind faith in AGW is touching. Reminds me of people when being asked "can you prove God exists?" they answer "can you prove that he doesn't exist?"
Now Ghost, what do you think about Houghton's WMD quote (see above link)?
We must live on different planets, the one I live on is a planet which has been cooling (however slightly) for the last decade or so, and have had no statistical increase in temperatures since 1995. I also live on a planet where the word "all" means that there is no other explanation, and when someone knows there are other explanations, saying this, it means they are lying.
I'm repeating myself but note the word "all", that's what makes him a liar, not that he claims that they (the impacts) are somehow connected to a warming trend caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which seems to be mainstream within climate science. So, please, don't put words into my mouth.
You say: "Yes, we have seen previous warmings, but that of the last 35 years can not be explained by any natural variation." Phil Jones said: "...we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing." Both you and he makes the assertion that all natural variabilities are known, and therefore can be discarded. But, if all natural variations are not known, then this means that this assumption would be wrong no matter how expensive computers is being used.
And by the way if it is only the last 35 years that can be attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then how could all these processes begin, sometimes ,100 years before this time, yet "all" be attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing? As you say: "Oppenheimer knows the only plausible explanation for all these observations is CO2 forcing." That really doesn't make any sense at all. But I guess you'll have your take on this from that parallel world that you inhabit.
And by the way where are those "hotspots" in the atmosphere that everyone was talking about all that time ago. It was one of those things that would prove that anthropogenic greenhouse gases produced extra heating, if I am not entirely mistaken. Well, that to me seems like falsifiable; are they or are they not there? Or maybe this was a falsifier cleverly put into the theory, like a trojan horse, by those nasty sceptics so that they could disprove the theory...?
And about the arctic ice, well, as both you and I know there were reports of an icefree arctic in the 1930s. That would actually make the last 80 years an upward trend - hurray (if you love ice anyway)! And the incredibly marginal decline in arctic ice since the satellite measures began in 1979 (year correct right?), actually shows a very stable arctic, with a very slight reduction in winter ice. And since the 2006-07 decline, caused by winds and currents not anthropogenic global warming, the ice has once again stablilized and regained almost all of the lost ice. Is this a catastrophic trend to you, on your planet?
@Tobias W: I guess I live on Earth and you...well...somewhere else.
I urge you to do the analysis yourself, and check my claims, but HADCRU gives about a 90% confidence that the earth has warmed since 1995. In other words, there is a 10% chance that the warming is 'not real'. Taking the last decade is reducing the confidence of the trend significantly. In short, your claim of a "cooling trend" is vastly less significant than your pounding on the slightly less than 95% confidence that we have had warming since 1995.
And while we may not know any and all natural forcings, all those we *do* know point downwards. And yet the temperature goes upward. Do you really put your faith in an unknown natural forcing that just happens to be upward? And no, GCR does not work (as I have understood it also would yield a cooling bias over the last two decades, assuming the hypothesis is correct).
The IPCC AR4 WG1 attributes quite nicely the most likely causes of warming of the first half of the 20th century. But they don't explain the current warming, and thus cannot explain all the observations we currently have.
Your comments on the arctic ice are getting laughable. First you point to "ice-free" in the 1930s. Was it? Well, let's get the evidence: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg Hmmmm....1930s and an ice-free arctic? The data doesn't fit the claims! Also note the downward slope since the 1950s. The annual ice cover, has dropped by about 20%! (and I corrected for the 'upward trend' of the last two years). "Incredibly marginal"?
Regarding hotspots, start here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/ Note also, if it isn't there, there is no warming. This would invalidate both the satellite measurements and land and ocean measurements.
Marco, regarding the ice data: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
did you read the description of the dataset:
Please note that large portions of the pre-1953, and almost all of the pre-1900 data is either climatology or interpolated data and the user is cautioned to use this data with care (see “Expert user guidance”, below).
And the Expert User Guidance: The temporal and spatial inhomogeneities in the data sources that went into the construction of this dataset require that any historical analysis of the data is done with caution and an understanding of the limitations of the data.
and the more detailed information about the 3 fundamentally different periods in the data set: There are three periods for which the sources of the data change fundamentally:
1972-1998: Satellite period - hemispheric coverage, state-of-the-art data accuracy 1953-1971: Hemispheric observations - complete coverage from a variety of sources. The observational reliability varies with each source, but is generally accurate. 1870-1952: Climatology with increasing amounts of observed data throughout the period.
Guess you should be a bit ore critical when rejecting critical comments from ´skeptics´. Guess you did exactly what was not supported by the dataset.
It also well illustrates, that the strategy to hide these informations in an expert user guide instead of putting it front up in the graph is really misleading, the general public and even the educated public-
Thread is drifting OT, but re Artic Sea Ice extent loss, the air temperature might not the (only) cause, there's a new research here: "Team finds subtropical waters flushing through Greenland fjord" http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=69134&ct=162.
And BTW, Marco, have you seen the Antarctic Sea Ice extent lately (+40% since 1980)?
And BTW, Marco, have you seen the Antarctic Sea Ice extent lately (+40% since 1980)?
it is wrong... http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=75&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=12&config=seaice_extent_trends&submit=Refresh&hemis0=S&img0=trnd&hemis1=S&img1=plot&mo0=02&year0=2010&mo1=03&year1=2010
either way, it is really idiotic how "may be intelligent people" try to quote mine. Even Reiner Grundmann. Quote mining is pretty much worthless. Even more worthless is, if the quotes are distorted and shortened.
Fact is: Akerman fabricated a quote and the source for it. Peiser and all the skeptics copied the fabrication. I am sorry, that I do not believe that a journalist tracks down the quote from a newspaper interview, changes it accidentally, and put totally accidentally a wrong source for it. WTF.
BTW: Fact is: Prof Jones was misquoted by the Daily Mail and the Times. It is fact because everybody with a little bit brain can read it for herself.
How nice, Corinna, that you attack me for using scientific data that has a disclaimer, but don't scold Tobias W for making a claim *without any evidence*.
The data DOES support what I said: there is *no evidence* that the amount of arctic ice was less in the 1930s.
@itisi69: Please provide a reference to your claim. My reference indicate at best a few percent increase (and it's almost completely seasonal). Start here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-overview-of-Antarctic-ice-trends.html where you will also see the land ice *decrease*.
So when the surface temperature measurements shows this was the warmest decade on record (even though it has been getting cooler), and the modells say that should lead to more water vapor and therefore more warming, it actually reduces the water vapors, which in turn reduces the temperature. This shows the modells are wrong. Wow, an internal natural variability not known by the scientists - who would have known... By the way this proves that your assertion "And while we may not know any and all natural forcings, all those we *do* know point downwards" is wrong. Or does it not?
And now that we are at it: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/abs/nature08769.html
Wow, constraints on the climate sensitivity of the atmosphere which suggest 80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming than the climate modells projections. But, but, this means the modells are wrong... Who would have known? And here I was thinking the science was settled!
And as to the arctic sea ice I said: "with a very slight reduction in winter ice." That is the most important, since it regains almost all the ice lost during the "unstable" summers. And if you take in the regained winter ice extent of the last two winters it's quite close to where the records started in 1900 on the chart. Therefore not 20% lost, since almost all is regained. And as to the ice free antarctic of the 1930s, well let's just say that I "spiced" it up a little - like your green friends claiming the warm winds over Vancouver is due to anthropogenic global warming. But certainly there are interesting reports of the 1930s arctic being warmer than today:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2003)016%3C2067:VATOAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1 Quote: "In contrast to the global and hemispheric temperature, the maritime Arctic temperature was higher in the late 1930s through the early 1940s than in the 1990s." Who wuold have known?
Regarding hotspots it was even taught in schools when I grew up, that's how settled the science was, that if there was anthropogenic global warming there would be hotspots in the atmosphere over the tropics. The "Teams" avoidance of this fact and their revisionism is quite astounding, even coming from them. And if there are no hotspots would it really invalidate the satellite measurements? It's not untill after they are calibrated against the surface temperatures that they show warming. Or am I wrong?
So, Marco, I would say that I live on planet earth were all is well, and you, well... you live on planet "Greenie Kaos" where every disaster known to man is, well, caused by man. But you can allways take comfort in the fact that if you're right I will die a horrible death on planet earth due to my own excesses. However, I will take my chances since every other dystopia being thought up by the environmentalists turned out to be complete bollocks.
I'll leave the last reply to you so you can say how "laughable" my arguments are getting. This thread is getting a tad long, and extremely OT.
@Tobias W, I'm glad you already added your own qualification to your claims. The natural variability that you refer to (Solomon et al) is a *cooling* forcing at the moment. Are we now to believe that it has been a *warming* forcing for, oh, say 30 years prior, without any evidence? Also note that it refers to stratospheric water, which is completely different from the expected trend in *tropospheric* water content.
That you learned in school that the tropical hotspot was solely related to AGW is a failure of your educators. It's not. It's a feature of warming. The 'AGW' fingerprint is a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere. And lo' and behold, this is what is observed!
Your reference to the Frank et al article shows again that you get your information in all the wrong places. The amount of feedback amplification from CO2 is rather low compared to the actual decadal anthropogenic contribution to CO2. That is, the CO2 feedback amplification expected from AGW may be up to 80% lower (depending on the model), but that does not mean warming may be much lower. It's max 80% of a maybe 10-20% contribution to warming. And please tell us which climate models have this amplification in their modeling and are thus wrong.
Finally, if you claim winter arctic ice has hardly decreased, I really wonder where you get your info. It is also significantly down (10% over three decades). And that's sea ice extent. Volume is even more reduced.
Marco: Jeeez, you crack me up! Michael Oppenheimer is still a liar by the way, and the fact that it's warming at equal pace to other rises in temperature in the past makes me feel pretty assured that I will live forever, no matter what.
And by the way, the only thing that is being proven by the fact that climate scientists can't explain the warming since 1950, is that they don't know any other answer, not that the answer given is correct. I don't know any other answer to B, so it must be A. Sorry, but that just won't wash. Anyhow it wouldn't even matter if it did, because we (in the west) are not prepared to stop our way of life, and the people in the third world will never wan't anything less then what we have, and they really don't care what we think of that. That really is undisputable, and no green treehugging scarecrow is ever going to be able to do anything about that. Sorry!
@Tobias W: nice that you forget all the physical science we know. It's quite simple: we *need* to use the radiative forcing of additional CO2 to explain the warming. Without it, we can't. The radiative forcing of CO2 is basic physics. Unless you wish to deny the existence of the greenhouse effect...
That people don't really want to do something about it doesn't change the science. We've seen such examples plenty of time in the past.
@itisi69: did you just seriously compare two time points? Read this paper, and then get back to me with your 40%: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JC004564.shtml
And please do get back to me on the *land* ice on Antarctica: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml (guess where it is going).
@itsibitsiteenyweeny hm, you said: 40% more since 1980. And as proof you give a comparison of two points? Are you serious? Nice work. Well done, top notch. You cannot do this. It is pretty wrong because you are comparing noise. You could compute linear trend line, at least. That would be a minimum. my link gave you this for free.
@Reiner
yes I am upset because I do not like misquotations and lies. And the facts are: Daily Mail lied and Akerman lied. So, why can you not say: oh, maybe they were a little bit dishonest because they have a political agenda? (at least, Akerman had, because it was a political column) Instead you looking for another quote. That is dishonest and a slimy discussion "style".
Anyway, you did not answer Georgs question. Give details, Mi Jung, give details. Where is the alarmistic tone in the IPCC report? Not your usual general blah, blah,please. Do you really claim Prof Georg Kaser is an alarmist? He is a co-author of the Copenhagen analysis. Explain it, please.
"Where is the alarmistic tone in the IPCC report? " Lemme see...
"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."
or
“By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.”
Ghost which of Georg's questions do you mean? I think I answered them above.
It would help the quality of this blog if you could stop using words like 'slimy discussion style', 'your general blah blah' etc. A bit more maturity and politeness. We mention netiquette on the sidebar. Maybe it is not clear why we do this, so I shall give a brief explanation: when the style becomes agressive people will respond with accrodingly thus leading to spiral. Or they prefer to ignore you. Either way is not good. Agreed?
you answered with a quote from Prof. Bob Watson. But the Times story seem to be dishonest again. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/now_its_timesgate.php Hm, the truth is not a simple thing.
I observed in the past that "skeptics" never answered with facts when I asked, only with quotes, insinuations, and general blah. On the hand, if I asked in scientific blogs, I got real replies. May be, this view is a bit biased, but in the rough picture it shows my personal experience. Therefore, I am upset about quote mining.
please accept my apologies, I must learn to be more polite, I am sorry.
Same as always - can we rely on Harrabin' report that the various quotes of Phil Jones are correct? I had once with Harrabin to do, and he had a somewhat liberal attitude in this respect, I remember. Any chance to verify independently the quotes?
ReplyDeleteHans
Mr. von Storch:
ReplyDelete"The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA's press office."
This probably means that mr. Jones has answered them in writing, which the general "language" of the answers, I think, also shows.
Mr von Storch, your comment has led to some confusion over at Bishop Hill's. Perhaps you could go there and clarify the matter?
ReplyDeleteSomeone should ask the BBC what form the interview took. There are rumours flying around that Harrabin DID do a recorded interview, but panicky high level meetings took place and a decision was taken not to use the recording because Jones didn't sound good.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI just looked up Phil Jones' interview in the Sunday Times. I didn't know about this. He says that he thought about killing himself, and that he is receiving death threats. Here the story:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece
Before you go on the next Phil Jones hunt, please keep in mind that this is all happening in the real world with real people.
Anonymous posters, I think it is not too much to ask that you post with your full names in this case.
Your concern for Phil Jones is admirable, but who says he really has received death threats? I don't actually believe him. I can believe he may have contemplated suicide, as he has been exposed as doing something quite terrible on a vast scale over many years with very serious repurcussions.
ReplyDeleteFor him to draw parrellels with between himself and Dr Kelly beggars belief. Dr Kelly died in suspicious circumstances having exposed a government lie.
By contrast, Phil Jones has been exposed for coniving and assisting in government deceit.
This is also a man, don't forget, who was cheered by the news of someone else's death (as revealed in one of the leaked emails.)
In the unlikely event that he has received death threats, I suspect they would have come from his own fellow travellers, furious at the recent turn of events.
If he feels remorse for what he has done, that's good and if it leads to him giving an honest aacount of what's been going on, then he will earn my sympathy and forgiveness.
Reiner,
ReplyDeleteThe Times has this story, which makes me curious, not about the story, which is not new, but about the Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
Could you give us a short account of how do you see the UK main papers (say Times, Guardian, Independent and Telegraph) on the global warming issue and whether there has been a re-adjustment of their positions in the past month or so ?
Honestly, could you find a way to get rid of those blood-thirsty letshavethetruth demagogues. They would never accept any explanation that would not fit in their conspiracy worldview. And they know exactly that they would not give Phil Jones any chance to explain himself. And they would never forgive. By the way your anonymous forgiveness is the least thing he needs. You probably do not even know what forgiveness is. Otherwise you would not offer such false deals.
ReplyDeletePS: This is not a defense of Mr. Jones but a defense of basic rules of human decency. Even if they would know everything and would be totally right this behavior is not acceptable.
ReplyDeleteI think this blog should discuss possible solutions and not add just another forum for those idiots.
Falk Schützenmeister: I cannot see what on earth I wrote that has provoked such an extreme response from you.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to the BBC, someone really should ask Harrabin if there was a recorded interview and why it wasn't used. I have it on good authority that there was, and it wasn't.
I did not respond to you but to letshavethetruth. Sorry, if you took the word anonymous personally. Even if I do not appreciate anonymity, your comments are totally fine.
ReplyDeleteSeems like death threats (I want to put the term in quotation marks but this is probably improper) are becoming a regular thing for some of the key players in this controversy.
ReplyDeleteThis is certainly unfortunate, but maybe a sign of what happens when scientists meet heated debate on the internet. Lack of accountability + fervent passion = stupid harmful statements on the internet.
If you'd like a slightly more comedic take on what threats can do to an expert in the GW debate check this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGfyFw5LI30
The persecuted expert shown is well-known for anyone following the Canadian climate debate.
Eduardo
ReplyDeleteAs you can imagine, so far there is no systematic work done and all I can give are impressions. The Independent does not stand out as a big player in this. Not surprisingly perhaps, the conservative press has latched onto climategate immediately while the Guardian is trying to come to terms with it. Telling that Fred Pearce has the main job and not those who were signed up to the cause. They have censored comments since December heavily (including my own). But now that we get human drama, they are coming back like any paper that needs to sell copy. Still, you get the sunday stories in the Telegraph and Times, not the Observer.
Here is a source about the pre-2004 situtation
Carvalho, A., & Burgess, J. (2005). Cultural circuits of climate change in UK broadsheet newspapers, 1985–2003. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1457–1469. Blackwell Publishing. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00692.x.
@eduardo: Considering the position of newspapers in the UK, while I do not follow them closely, I can make a few comments about the ownership of The Times.
ReplyDelete"The Times" (of London) is owned by News Corporation.
Other ventures owned by News Corp. are
- Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox News, USA)
- Dow Jones, publisher of "Wall Street Journal"
- News Limited (Daily Telegraph, Sydney)
All of which are a platform for climate change deniers.
CEO and founder of News Corp. is Rupert Murdoch.
Why should the Times be different?
"All of which are a platform for climate change deniers.
ReplyDeleteCEO and founder of News Corp. is Rupert Murdoch."
I just get a kick out of those who are so bankrupt of argumanets and get so frustrated that all they can do is resort to sophomoric name-calling and throw labels like "climate change deniers".
So I ask myself, just who are the the real climate change deniers?
Ironically it is the hockey stick manufacturers and their religious followers themselves. They're the ones who insist the climate is normally steady, and that it normally does not change much unless humans get involved. Look at how they insist the climate had not changed during the hundreds and thousands of years before humans embarked on industry. Indeed it is the warmists who believe that without humans the climate would continue going on being constant...much like Mann's 1000 years before industry appeared.
In reality, us so-called "climate change deniers" (sceptics) are the true believers of climate change. We believe that climate changes, that it always has and that it always will. Us "climate change deniers" (sceptics) have said this all along.
So, we all know who the real "climate change deniers" are.
It would be interesting to have Ms Hergerl's comments on this:
ReplyDeletehttp://climateaudit.org/2010/02/13/boulton-associate-archives-data/
hm, also interesting is what newspapers like the Daily Mail (unfortunately often quoted here) made from the interview...
ReplyDeletefrom " 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."
they come to "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995". What do you think about this? In the best case, the journalists were totally incompetent. In the worst case: they are dishonest.
Story: http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/journalism.html or http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/daily_mail_caught_in_another_l.php
Exactly such behavior I call "censored" "censored" (censored by me). It is normal in our time, but I do not have to accept it and I will not accept it. And I will name it... maybe in a more appropriate tone in the future.
@P Gosselin: The comment about Murdoch I added to put a face to "News Corp", since the company name is rather unprecise.
ReplyDeleteActually the case Rupert Murdoch is interesting, because he himself says that he wants his companies to be CO2 neutral. Which is 180 degrees opposed to the way in which they cover the topic of climate change and AGW.
Noone says that climate isn't changing without human influence.
It just takes longer without humans digging out coal and oil and burning it and putting CO2 into the atmosphere, thus creating GH-Effect (and acid in the oceans), thus melting glaciers, thus less albedo (and higher water level), thus more temperature rise, thus permafrost melting(?), thus more Methan in the atmosphere thus more GH-Effect... &c.
These are the facts. Religion has nothing to do with it. Religion is about belief, not about measurement, empirical analysis and proof.
These are not facts.
ReplyDeleteThey are hypotheses and they have yet to be supported by any data. And there is absolutely no consensus that says otherwise. The notion of consenus was also a big fantasy and I'm glad you seem to have come to terms with that, as you did not bring it up. Even Jones now admits the temp increase of 1979 - 1998 is no different than the increases in the past. They've known this for years, which is precisely why they went out and made bogus hockey sticks and sexed up the IPCC 2007 Report with phoney tree-hugger reports. If the data had been there, that would not have been necessary. Now, Pachauri is under fire.
Temperature fluctuations have been much more dramatic at many times in the past. This is well documented. Climate changes.
We are all waiting for data that shows CO2 is doing the things you claim above. If you have that data, then by all means show it. If you don't, then it's all faith-based and has nothing to do with science.
@P Gosselin:
ReplyDeleteI have a simple challenge for you:
Please explain the temperature increases during the interglacials and those of the PETM, as well as the temperature of the earth a few hundred million years after its inception *without invoking any warming effect by CO2*.
Now try it *with* CO2 forcing, and then explain us why the current increase in CO2 is nothing to worry about.
Oh, and just one minor hint as to climate changes in the past:
those have in several cases resulted in major changes of the earth's surface, as well as many a mass extinction event.
Hans -1
ReplyDeleteHarrabin explains how the interview was done on the
Today Programme
Back on topic:
ReplyDeleteRoger Harrabin says that the entire interview was conducted via e-mail correspondence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8513000/8513893.stm
Damned Reiner, you just beat me to it:-)!
ReplyDeleteAn OT layman question for the combined climate wisdom on this esteemed forum.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the (AGW) climate science reached the consensus that man can control the Earth thermostat by controlling human CO2 forcing (+2 degrees max, remember?)
But...what can we do in a more likely and much more devastating scenario when Climate decides to take a U-turn and instead of warming it will cool the Earth. It has happened before. What can we do about this? Increase human CO2 forcing? Or will the answer be as usual: warming is human instigated, cooling is natural?
And could we agree that warming of the planet (to a reasonable degree) will actually be more prefable than cooling?
Cheers.
@itisi69:
ReplyDeleteWe know what the main cooling forcings are:
1. solar output significantly diminishing
2. Milankovitch cycles.
The latter we know so well that there is no danger of significant cooling for thousands of years. The former is one that is more tricky: we have no evidence of long-term (many centuries) lower solar output in the past. We do have strong indications that the sun will get brighter and brighter and brighter. That's a very slow process, though. In short, the danger of cooling lies at best many thousands of years ahead.
Regarding the warming "to a reasonable degree": what *is* a "reasonable degree"? Equally important: where and how would it be better?
@P.Gosselin:
ReplyDelete- Humans dig out oil and coal and burn it (fact)
- burning oil and coal produce CO2 (fact)
- Glaciers are melting currently (fact)
- less Glaciers lead to less albedo (=energy reflection) (fact)
- less glaciers lead to rising sea levels (theory, sea levels are rising = fact)
So all that is left is whether CO2 leads to rising temperatures. While it might be a theory, it is theory so profound that without it the measurments of a lot of data from ice cores, maritim cores &c. do not make sense.
Take a look at the Bjerknes Lecture by Prof. Richard B. Alley at the AGU last December:
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
The facts are there, the fact are known. The theories are supported by the facts. The global events are consistent with the theories.
Sorry, my link was swallowed.
ReplyDeleteHere it is in compressed form
http://is.gd/8pTwO
Too bad there is no data to support the hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteNo data - no fact.
CO2 has pretty much exhausted its greenhouse effect at its current concentration. The effect that it is having is hardly measureable. Even Jones says there's been no warming for 15 years - "a travesty!".Indeed only about 45 of the last 110 years have shown warming - so no correlation. There's a huge difference between having a minor effect and being a major driver. It has never been any kind of major driver in the past. Again, show me the data, and not some half-baked hypothesis in a believer's ppt presentation. If it is a fact, then the data ought to be there. We're still waiting to see it. Anecdotes like one year of low Artic sea extent is not "data". You'll have to do better than that.
@ _Flin_said
ReplyDeleteYour facts look to me like facts without numbers. A drop in the ocean will make it bigger, but you won't notice it.
Glacier retreat, according to Oerlemans (2005):
Click.
¿Is there a human CO2 signal to be seen?
This is a distortion of reality. Jones says that from 1995-2010 there is a warming trend, but the trend is not significant. Which is exactly the opposite of "there's been no warming for 15 years".
ReplyDeleteAnd when NASA measures the hottest decade ever... well that is probably because of the cooling trend. http://is.gd/8qmq3
Flin
ReplyDelete"The global events are consistent with the theories."
"consistent with" does not win the science argument. It may convince people to mitigate agains GHG emissions as part of a political project.
Many things can be "consistent with" the theory, hotter and colder periods, more rain or draughts, etc.
Have a look here
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/beyond-consistent-with-canard.html
Milankovitch cycles are hihly speculative and not really accepted in climate science I believe.
ReplyDelete"In short, the danger of cooling lies at best many thousands of years ahead." Pure speculation and btw you haven't answered my question; can we control cooling?
Climate-Gate, Climate Change, and New Physics
ReplyDeleteDr. Gerhard Löbert*, Munich
o There is no direct connection between CO2 emission and climate warming. This is shown by the fact that these two physical quantities have displayed an entirely different time behaviour in the past 150 years. Whereas the mean global temperature varied in a quasi-periodic manner (mean period = 70 years), with temperature maxima in 1870, 1940 and 2006, (see Fig. 2.1 of www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm), the CO2 concentration - after having essentially remained constant for centuries - increased exponentially with the onset of massive hydrocarbon burning in the1950's.
In contrast, there is a close correlation between mean global temperature and the geomagnetic aa-index which reflects the effect of energetic solar eruptions on the Earth's magnetic field. The solar activity leads the terrestrial temperature by some 6 years.
These facts prove that climate change is not man-made but is driven by solar activity.
o There exists an extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean global temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth in the past 150 years (see Fig. 2.2 of www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm) - two, within present teaching, unrelated physical quantities. (Present physical theory is unable to explain the magnitude of the observed LOD changes.) This close correlation clearly shows that
a) these two physical quantities are driven by a common extraterrestrial agent, and
b) a new physical theory is required to identify this common agent.
Note that rotational velocity leads terrestrial temperature by some 6 years.
o The author has developed a new theory of gravitation that not only covers the well-known Einstein effects but also shows up a number of post-Einstein effects that are substantiated by geophysical and astrophysical observations. This new physical theory is, in contrast to Einstein's theory, based on quantum mechanics. It is called Seaon Theory and is explained in the post of September 19, 2008 in www.pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/a-new-book-elucidates-the-life-and-work-of-Dr.-Abdus-Salam
o The following paragraphs (see next comment) give a physical explanation for the strong correlation between fluctuations of the rotational velocity of the Earth and solar eruptions on the one hand and the corresponding retarded changes of the mean surface temperature of the Earth on the other hand.
*Physicist. Recipient of the Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics.
Conveyor of a super-Einsteinian Theory of Gravitation that explains the continual climate changes and the associated, closely correlated fluctuations of the rotational velocity of the Earth, as well as the triggering of devastating earthquakes as the result of the action of galactic vacuum density waves on the Sun and the Earth.
A new physical theory
ReplyDeleteDr. Gerhard Löbert, Munich
Seaon Theory, a new theory of gravitation based on quantum mechanics that was developed eight decades after Einstein's corresponding Theory of General Relativity, not only covers the well-known Einstein-effects but also shows up half a dozen post-Einstein effects that occur in nature. From a humanitarian standpoint, the most important super-Einsteinian physical phenomenon is the generation of small-amplitude longitudinal gravitational waves by the motion of the supermassive bodies located at the center of our galaxy, their transmission throughout the Galaxy, and the action of these waves on the Sun, the Earth and the other celestial bodies through which they pass. These vacuum density waves, which carry with them small changes in the electromagnetic properties of the vacuum, occur in an extremely large period range from minutes to millennia.
On the Sun, these galactic waves modulate the intensity of the thermonuclear energy conversion process within the core which is highly sensitive to small changes in the permittivity of the vacuum, and this has its effect on all physical quantities of the Sun (this is called solar activity). This in turn has its influences on the Earth and the other planets. In particular, the solar wind and the solar magnetic field strength are modulated which results in large changes in the intensity of the cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. Cosmic rays produce condensation nuclei so that the cloud cover of the atmosphere and the Earth albedo also change. A mere 1% reduction in cloud cover explains most of the temperature increase of the past 150 years.
On the Earth, the steady stream of vacuum density waves produces parts-per-billion changes in a large number of geophysical quantities. The most important quantities are the radius, circumference, rotational velocity, gravitational acceleration, VLBI baseline lengths, and axis orientation angles of the Earth, as well as the orbital elements of all low-earth-orbit satellites. All of these fluctuations have been measured. The modulations of the Earth's circumference (in the decimeter range) trigger large earthquakes. By closely monitoring the foregoing geophysical quantities, the approach of a devastating vacuum density wave can be detected in time for a global earthquake warning to be issued. Such a global earthquake warning system has to be supplemented with local earthquake alarm systems and suitable human protection devices.
Further evidence (in addition to the LOD-temperature-correlation) for the existence of super-Einsteinian gravitational waves and of their action on all celestial bodies of the Solar System is provided by the fact that all orbital periods of the planets of the Solar System are very close to integer fractions and integer multiples of the periods of the Hale and the Gleissberg solar cycles.
(See the post of September 26, 2009 in www.pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/a-new-book-elucidates-the-life-and-work-of-Dr.-Abdus-Salam )
@plazamoyua:
ReplyDeleteThank you for the providing the link.
@Dr. Grundmann: I do not intend to link weather to climate. All I am saying is that the measured events concerning temperature, glaciers, sea-level etc. correspond to the models that say: Global Warming. At least this was a key finding at Copenhagen Conference.
@anonymous: The sun. Who would have thought of that?
@Falk: "Honestly, could you find a way to get rid of those blood-thirsty letshavethetruth demagogues."
ReplyDeleteIt seems demagogue is the new word since "denier" has been declared not PC.
Not sure what you consider to be demagogic, but for me the latest rant in The Guardian by Joss Garman (Green Peace) certainly covers this very well:
"We climate activists need to ask ourselves how this whole incongruous state of affairs came about. The most zealous deniers, a subculture of outlandish paranoid conspiracy theorists, claim to speak for independent thinking when in truth they're the shock troops for a choking and insidious form of censorship, blotting out the truth with the ideology and interests of the world's most powerful Big Carbon corporates."
@fred
ReplyDeletenice quote and absolutely true... but still, just pointing on others is wrong.
some nice story how deniers like Monckton or Peiser (all achgut.de reader know him) are working: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html
one remark: many books of so called skeptics which write about so called climate alarmism misquoted Sir John Houghton. Every so called skeptic in the article claimed: he read it in many skeptical(!) books about climate alarmism. Nobody checked the original source. NOBODY. That is strange, isn't it? It comes from people who are claiming they are skeptics and all others are just believers of the church of Al Gore.
ReplyDelete@itisi69:
ReplyDeleteMilankovitch cycles not believed in climate science? What planet do you live on? It's a central concept in paleoclimatology of the ice ages!
@ghost:
With 'hilarious' comments at the end. Despite the article clearly noting that the false quote is *not* 15 years old, but only used since 2006...the first commenters repeat the claim it is already 15 years old blabla etc. Psychologists must have a real field day studying such behavior. Anyone know the term for this behavior?
@Marco: Selective Attention?
ReplyDeleteghost & marco: If Sir John now is claiming that sentence never passed his lips, there are others ready to take his place. Here's Stephen Schneiders take on the issue;
ReplyDelete"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
To me that's indicative of the way Stephen and sir John H thinks (nota bene: this is the full quote, so you can't claim it being missrepresented). He "hopes" it means being both, but if it doesn't it's okay not to tell the truth. This is markedly different from mr. von Storchs assertion that climate scientists simply conveying the science and letting others worry about policy - thus avoiding scientists becoming advocates alltogether!
Tobias
ReplyDeletethere is nothing wrong with individual scientists being advocates (on both sides). Many feel they have a moral responsibility and cannot afford to take a relaxed attitude. This is not a problem.
It becomes a problem when
a) individual scientists oversell their science, play down the uncertainties, etc.
b) scientific institutions engage in stealth advocacy.
@tobias W
ReplyDeleteIf Sir John now is claiming that sentence never passed his lips,
I am sorry to interrupt here: it was claimed, John Houghton wrote it in his book, and not it passed his lips or so. Show me the quote in his book. It should be easy. If you show me the quote there, I will apologize and rot in the climate hell. At least.
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2820429.htm
BTW: the Sunday Telegraph, where the fabrication occurred firstly is owned by the News Corporation.
@Reiner
ReplyDeleteIt becomes a problem when
a) individual scientists oversell their science, play down the uncertainties, etc.
b) scientific institutions engage in stealth advocacy.
yapp, that must not happen.
Stephen Schneider has a good site (but quite old site), explaining his quote and his views: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/MediarologyFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html
it is not so easy to act in the public, but should scientists should just shut up? I think not.
Considering the topic: The Daily Mail spins the Jones statetement about 1995 - 2009 not being statistically-significant" into Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Mail is not owned by News Corp.
"Milankovitch cycles not believed in climate science? What planet do you live on? It's a central concept in paleoclimatology of the ice ages!" I was talking about the current climate which (at least acc MBH99) counters a millennial-scale cooling trend which is consistent with long-term astronomical forcing. That's what I meant to say with not popular ("believed was the wrong wording) with the AGW advocates.
ReplyDeleteNow, as you seem to know all, could you kindly answer my question?
Who said :
"As a climate scientist who has worked on this issue for several decades, first as head of the Met Office, and then as co-chair of scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a "weapon of mass destruction"
.
.
.
.
.
(John Houghton http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jul/28/environment.greenpolitics)
a) if Dr. Jones is really receiving death threats, the perpetrators should be investigated and if necesssary, prosecuted for their threats
ReplyDeleteb) if Dr. Jones is suicidal, I would hope his friends, family, and colleagues get him the appropriate care, instead of just using it for a sympathy ploy in an interview
c) The Daily Fail and the Torygraph are hardly credible news sources; so if you discount the Guardian as "too liberal" you should just as easily discount the others as "insanely conservative"
Does anyone still take Stephen Schneider seriously?
ReplyDeleteCraig Bohren:
"In particular, Steven (sic) Schneider, now at Stanford, previously at NCAR, about 30 years ago was sounding the alarm about an imminent ice age. The culprit then was particles belched into the atmosphere by human activities. No matter how the climate changes he can correctly say that he predicted it. No one in the atmospheric science community has been more successful at getting publicity. NCAR used to send my department clippings from newspaper and magazine articles in which NCAR researchers were named. We'd get thick wads of clippings, almost all of which were devoted to Schneider. Perhaps global warming is bad for the rest of us, but for Schneider and others it has been a godsend."
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm?csp=34
Might be I havent read the interview attentively but what exactly is the big deal about what Jones said? Or what is somehow in contrast to what he said before his mails were stolen?
ReplyDelete@yarmy
ReplyDelete"In particular, Steven Schneider, now at Stanford, previously at NCAR, about 30 years ago was sounding the alarm about an imminent ice age."
really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4XUAM8A9bo
okay, the text is from 2006, one can argue what 30 years ago means.
In fact, Rasool & Schneider published this paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/173/3992/138.pdf in 1971. It is interesting... but 8 years of new insights and research may change the view of a young man.
@georg
there is nothing special from my point of view... but special (maybe not) is how the usual suspects spin their stories...
Reiner: Fair point, although as it seems almost impossible for scientists such as say Michael Oppenheimer, Stephen Schneider et al to give correct statements on the impacts, and seeing global warming wherever they go, I would suggest they should instead keep quiet. I saw just weeks ago Oppenheimer claiming that both Hurricane Katrina and the iceloss at the arctic 2007, etc, was due to "climate change" (i.e. global warming), when the peer reviewed papers say they can't establish a link between the events and global warming. That is advocacy, and it is his stature as a scientist that makes the viewers believe him. But I suppose these go into your two categories.
ReplyDeleteghost: I thought my point was that quite clear; if as he claims he never said or wrote it, there are still plenty of scientists (read above) that have no scrouples in doing exactly what the "Sir John quote" stated. I will not say that he ever made it, and now it is up to the ones that has used this quote to find it, or apologise. Mind you I think Sir J should apologise for his pathetic "WMD" metafor as well.
However it is quite interesting to see how a quote or a reference can get a "life of it's own" far beyond the original source. That is in fact a technique that warmists have used for years; someone says the world is warming ever more rapidly, or that the arctic ice is melting faster than ever before, that is then replicated ad infinitum. It becomes the truth even though it had no merit to begin with: "if you repeat a lie often enough people believe it."
I'm serously thinkin of taking you up on that rotting in climate hell business though, but I think I will wait untill the Green Party leader gives me the same opportunity:-).
to Carl C.
ReplyDeleteyour point b): why you say that? you think this is a movie, and you play the cool cowboy in it?
@Tobias W:
ReplyDeleteI quote here directly from Michael Oppenheimer:
"Katrina was not caused by global warming, and we will never know
whether, or how much, the greenhouse gases contributed to its intensity."
(Note, the following link is a pdf)
http://tinylink.com/?mIT7eFF670
Now, could you please link to *your* evidence that he said the contrary? Make sure it is a direct quote. We already know how 'trustworthy' newspapers are in reproducing what scientists say.
@Tobias W
ReplyDeletethe facts are hard: it was said, the quote is from the book. Show me the quote in this book, and I will be silent.
The dishonesty of some parts of the media can be seen in the case of Jones' BBC interview. Daily Mail, Times, other conservative medias, "skeptic" blogs distorted the Jones' answers. Everybody could see it clearly. I think, some parts of conservative media are not credible in the climate debate at all. Hm, but that is not a shockingly new insight.
If you compare the tone and message of the Jones interview to the alaramist tone and message of some parts of the IPCC report (and other statements such as the Copenhagen Diagnosis) you will see a a big shift.
ReplyDeleteScientists like Jones have started to hedge their bets. It is only natural that the media are interpreting this as a signal. A signal that there was some overstatement. And a feeling of betrayal and loss of trust. So don't blame everything on the 'dumb' media, or their 'agenda because of ownership'. Of course, some have been known to be on one side of the fence. But I know of no study that has investigated such biases on the level of detailed reporting in any systematic way.
Commentators on this blog sometimes seems to know it all, making sweeping assertions. But as in the case of climate, with regard to society and the media you need to do your research first.
@Reiner
ReplyDeleteAny chance that you can provide us examples of the tone of Phil Jones before and after stealing his mails? So where do you see another tone in this interview compared to the IPCC as you claimed. The BBC interview is full of precise and scientific questions (significance and stuff). He had few occasions to have a "tone".
We can start however killing his dog and then his mother-in-law. And see if this again changes his tone. Interesting experiment.
I am not comparing Jones before/after but Jones now to alarmist statements before. Here is another such example which has signalling function, this time from former IPCC chair Robert T. Watson who says about the recent spade of exposed IPCC errors:
ReplyDelete"The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."
Ghost
ReplyDeletehow about this
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/houghton-and-god.pdf
@Reiner
ReplyDelete"The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact."
The one and a half mistakes. Still a bit early to compute a regression line.
Any chance that you can provide us examples of the tone of Phil Jones before and after stealing his mails?
ReplyDeleteYes:
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.
That seems to be a pretty European problem that I sometimes encountered in my own interviews with climate researchers.
ReplyDeleteIn the US there are strict data release policies for publicly funded projects (e.g. NASA, NSF). After a short time data has to be transferred in the public domain. And it is pretty amazing what you can get. The situation with weather data is similar. In the US they are in the public domain in Europe they are commercial products. US climate researchers are often upset about this asymmetric situation. In addition, the code of some climate models is in the public domain as well (I know at least two).
Of course, that does not make the data collection and processing per se more transparent. The scientific users of the data often do not know a lot about the generation process, they speak simply about "products". They trust their colleagues and they have to (at least if they want to describe the whole Earth as a single complex system).
I do not say this is perfect. But it is an institutional setting that would be go start to begin with. It probably does not serve the general public. But young scientists can use the data without personal contacts to the big shots in the field.
@Reiner
ReplyDeletequote mining is stupid, the interview was about his belief in God, and he is showing why he said good policy needs a disaster. I do not agree with him, but maybe he is right. Many security and safety improvements and regulations were made after disasters. That is a pretty different meaning to the other quote.
But a problem is: Climate change is slow, inert, but long lasting. If we really see many climate change related disasters, then we have a huge problem.
PS: oh, Prof von Storch has nice interview about climate change and Donaldism... let me dream a bit: new IPCC head thinking Donald is real. Should we trust a crazy scientist? (http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/Media/interviews/091005.taz.pdf) (fand das Interview sehr entspannt und sympathisch, leider bin ich der DDR aufgewachsen, kein Donald mit 8)
marco: You're on top of things as usual. I went back and checked and in fact he didn't say anything about either hurricanes or Katrina (I was playing the sceptic's newspaper:-). What he did say was this:
ReplyDelete”…before this episode occurred [glaciergate] we knew the earth was warming, sea level was rising, glaciers are melting, the ice is retreating, the ocean is becoming more acidic, all due to the buildup of greenhouse gases.”
The fact is that the earth was warming without anthropogenic greenhouse gases being attributable (need I really quote Dr. Jones, or can we just state that clearly). He knows this.
Sea level, to my knowledge at least, started rising in the 19th century, before the IPCC report claims that anthropogenic global warming had anything to do with it. He knows this.
The fact is that the reason for melting glaciers are really situational, as the example of Kilimajaro shows where it is loss of precipitation from deforestation that has actually caused most of the glacierretreat, not global warming. He knows this.
The ice in the artctic was retreating in 2006 and 2007, this was attributable to unusually warm winds and currents sweeping up across the artcic, hence not caused by global warming. Equally he made an "IPCC-special" by leaving out that allthough sea ice is retreating in the greenland and the antarctic (I'm guessing this is what he's refering to), the glaciers are actually getting thicker, and that the sea ice in the antarctic actually was declining from it's top notation. He knows this.
Finally, something that he is correct of is ocean acidification, although it really is hard to see whether this actually is as bad as is inferred.
Are these impacts: "all due to the buildup of greenhouse gases" as he claims? I think not, and he knows this, hence he is lying. Why? - Because he is advocate first and scientist second.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oxFx41nE1c
ghost: Here is the quote attributed to him:
"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen."
Here's what he actually said:
“If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
Much difference? I don't think so. But he is right, it wasn't from his book, it was from an interview which he didn't dispute then (1995), and hasn't yet today.
source: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/16/no-he-did-say-it.html
Update on the Phil Jones-Roger Harrabin interview:
ReplyDeletehttp://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/16/a-comment-from-roger-harrabin.html
Interesting read.
@tobias W
ReplyDeletethe difference is, the actual quote is a simple observation, because the quote is longer (did bishop hill not give the complete quote... interesting, who ever had thought that). Many people noticed that.
The other, fabricated quote, hints an evil plan to make up disasters. Such a plan may evolve from the first quote, but that is your task to prove it.
I know, you will see it differently, but I really do not care.
Tobias W:
ReplyDeleteI see you decide to move the goalposts, and come with more distortions.
Yes, we have seen previous warmings, but that of the last 35 years can not be explained by any natural variation. In fact, the natural variation points *downward*, which you would have been able to read in Phil Jones' interview. Funny how you read one thing, and completely overlook the other. Also, glaciers *all over the world* are melting. Interesting that that everywhere is to be explained by local events, and supposedly has nothing to do with warming. You can learn something here: http://tinylink.com/?AfcvEcMLRl
And I wonder whether you ever looked at arctic sea ice extent:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Please do take a firm look at the trend. Down for 31 years already (it's not just the January, but I could not find the annual this fast).
Oppenheimer knows the only plausible explanation for all these observations is CO2 forcing. He's not lying, he's saying what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying. I guess they are all liars, in your opinion. Do note that that includes our hosts here, so tread carefully.
"Yes, we have seen previous warmings, but that of the last 35 years can not be explained by any natural variation" Act of God. Really how do you know all climate forcings are known? Your blind faith in AGW is touching. Reminds me of people when being asked "can you prove God exists?" they answer "can you prove that he doesn't exist?"
ReplyDeleteNow Ghost, what do you think about Houghton's WMD quote (see above link)?
marco:
ReplyDeleteWe must live on different planets, the one I live on is a planet which has been cooling (however slightly) for the last decade or so, and have had no statistical increase in temperatures since 1995. I also live on a planet where the word "all" means that there is no other explanation, and when someone knows there are other explanations, saying this, it means they are lying.
I'm repeating myself but note the word "all", that's what makes him a liar, not that he claims that they (the impacts) are somehow connected to a warming trend caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which seems to be mainstream within climate science. So, please, don't put words into my mouth.
You say: "Yes, we have seen previous warmings, but that of the last 35 years can not be explained by any natural variation."
Phil Jones said: "...we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing." Both you and he makes the assertion that all natural variabilities are known, and therefore can be discarded. But, if all natural variations are not known, then this means that this assumption would be wrong no matter how expensive computers is being used.
And by the way if it is only the last 35 years that can be attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then how could all these processes begin, sometimes ,100 years before this time, yet "all" be attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing? As you say: "Oppenheimer knows the only plausible explanation for all these observations is CO2 forcing." That really doesn't make any sense at all. But I guess you'll have your take on this from that parallel world that you inhabit.
And by the way where are those "hotspots" in the atmosphere that everyone was talking about all that time ago. It was one of those things that would prove that anthropogenic greenhouse gases produced extra heating, if I am not entirely mistaken. Well, that to me seems like falsifiable; are they or are they not there? Or maybe this was a falsifier cleverly put into the theory, like a trojan horse, by those nasty sceptics so that they could disprove the theory...?
And about the arctic ice, well, as both you and I know there were reports of an icefree arctic in the 1930s. That would actually make the last 80 years an upward trend - hurray (if you love ice anyway)! And the incredibly marginal decline in arctic ice since the satellite measures began in 1979 (year correct right?), actually shows a very stable arctic, with a very slight reduction in winter ice. And since the 2006-07 decline, caused by winds and currents not anthropogenic global warming, the ice has once again stablilized and regained almost all of the lost ice. Is this a catastrophic trend to you, on your planet?
@Tobias W: I guess I live on Earth and you...well...somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteI urge you to do the analysis yourself, and check my claims, but HADCRU gives about a 90% confidence that the earth has warmed since 1995. In other words, there is a 10% chance that the warming is 'not real'. Taking the last decade is reducing the confidence of the trend significantly. In short, your claim of a "cooling trend" is vastly less significant than your pounding on the slightly less than 95% confidence that we have had warming since 1995.
And while we may not know any and all natural forcings, all those we *do* know point downwards. And yet the temperature goes upward. Do you really put your faith in an unknown natural forcing that just happens to be upward? And no, GCR does not work (as I have understood it also would yield a cooling bias over the last two decades, assuming the hypothesis is correct).
The IPCC AR4 WG1 attributes quite nicely the most likely causes of warming of the first half of the 20th century. But they don't explain the current warming, and thus cannot explain all the observations we currently have.
Your comments on the arctic ice are getting laughable. First you point to "ice-free" in the 1930s. Was it? Well, let's get the evidence:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
Hmmmm....1930s and an ice-free arctic? The data doesn't fit the claims! Also note the downward slope since the 1950s. The annual ice cover, has dropped by about 20%! (and I corrected for the 'upward trend' of the last two years). "Incredibly marginal"?
Regarding hotspots, start here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/
Note also, if it isn't there, there is no warming. This would invalidate both the satellite measurements and land and ocean measurements.
Marco,
ReplyDeleteregarding the ice data:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
did you read the description of the dataset:
Please note that large portions of the pre-1953, and almost all of the pre-1900 data is either climatology or interpolated data and the user is cautioned to use this data with care (see “Expert user guidance”, below).
And the Expert User Guidance:
The temporal and spatial inhomogeneities in the data sources that went into the construction of this dataset require that any historical analysis of the data is done with caution and an understanding of the limitations of the data.
and the more detailed information about the 3 fundamentally different periods in the data set:
There are three periods for which the sources of the data change fundamentally:
1972-1998: Satellite period - hemispheric coverage, state-of-the-art data accuracy
1953-1971: Hemispheric observations - complete coverage from a variety of sources. The observational reliability varies with each source, but is generally accurate.
1870-1952: Climatology with increasing amounts of observed data throughout the period.
Guess you should be a bit ore critical when rejecting critical comments from ´skeptics´. Guess you did exactly what was not supported by the dataset.
It also well illustrates, that the strategy to hide these informations in an expert user guide instead of putting it front up in the graph is really misleading, the general public and even the educated public-
Corinna
Thread is drifting OT, but re Artic Sea Ice extent loss, the air temperature might not the (only) cause, there's a new research here: "Team finds subtropical waters flushing through Greenland fjord" http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=69134&ct=162.
ReplyDeleteAnd BTW, Marco, have you seen the Antarctic Sea Ice extent lately (+40% since 1980)?
And BTW, Marco, have you seen the Antarctic Sea Ice extent lately (+40% since 1980)?
ReplyDeleteit is wrong... http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=75&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=12&config=seaice_extent_trends&submit=Refresh&hemis0=S&img0=trnd&hemis1=S&img1=plot&mo0=02&year0=2010&mo1=03&year1=2010
either way, it is really idiotic how "may be intelligent people" try to quote mine. Even Reiner Grundmann. Quote mining is pretty much worthless. Even more worthless is, if the quotes are distorted and shortened.
Fact is: Akerman fabricated a quote and the source for it. Peiser and all the skeptics copied the fabrication. I am sorry, that I do not believe that a journalist tracks down the quote from a newspaper interview, changes it accidentally, and put totally accidentally a wrong source for it. WTF.
BTW: Fact is: Prof Jones was misquoted by the Daily Mail and the Times. It is fact because everybody with a little bit brain can read it for herself.
Case closed.
ghost
ReplyDeleteyou seem to be in a rage, this does not help making your point any clearer I am afraid
How nice, Corinna, that you attack me for using scientific data that has a disclaimer, but don't scold Tobias W for making a claim *without any evidence*.
ReplyDeleteThe data DOES support what I said: there is *no evidence* that the amount of arctic ice was less in the 1930s.
@itisi69:
ReplyDeletePlease provide a reference to your claim.
My reference indicate at best a few percent increase (and it's almost completely seasonal).
Start here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-overview-of-Antarctic-ice-trends.html
where you will also see the land ice *decrease*.
marco:
ReplyDeleteHere's an internal natural variability that the climatologists can't understand the causality behind, and which reduces the temperatures of the earth:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488
So when the surface temperature measurements shows this was the warmest decade on record (even though it has been getting cooler), and the modells say that should lead to more water vapor and therefore more warming, it actually reduces the water vapors, which in turn reduces the temperature. This shows the modells are wrong. Wow, an internal natural variability not known by the scientists - who would have known... By the way this proves that your assertion "And while we may not know any and all natural forcings, all those we *do* know point downwards" is wrong. Or does it not?
And now that we are at it:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/abs/nature08769.html
Wow, constraints on the climate sensitivity of the atmosphere which suggest 80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming than the climate modells projections. But, but, this means the modells are wrong... Who would have known? And here I was thinking the science was settled!
And as to the arctic sea ice I said: "with a very slight reduction in winter ice." That is the most important, since it regains almost all the ice lost during the "unstable" summers. And if you take in the regained winter ice extent of the last two winters it's quite close to where the records started in 1900 on the chart. Therefore not 20% lost, since almost all is regained. And as to the ice free antarctic of the 1930s, well let's just say that I "spiced" it up a little - like your green friends claiming the warm winds over Vancouver is due to anthropogenic global warming. But certainly there are interesting reports of the 1930s arctic being warmer than today:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2003)016%3C2067:VATOAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1 Quote: "In contrast to the global and hemispheric temperature, the maritime Arctic temperature was higher in the late 1930s through the early 1940s than in the 1990s."
Who wuold have known?
Regarding hotspots it was even taught in schools when I grew up, that's how settled the science was, that if there was anthropogenic global warming there would be hotspots in the atmosphere over the tropics. The "Teams" avoidance of this fact and their revisionism is quite astounding, even coming from them. And if there are no hotspots would it really invalidate the satellite measurements? It's not untill after they are calibrated against the surface temperatures that they show warming. Or am I wrong?
So, Marco, I would say that I live on planet earth were all is well, and you, well... you live on planet "Greenie Kaos" where every disaster known to man is, well, caused by man. But you can allways take comfort in the fact that if you're right I will die a horrible death on planet earth due to my own excesses. However, I will take my chances since every other dystopia being thought up by the environmentalists turned out to be complete bollocks.
I'll leave the last reply to you so you can say how "laughable" my arguments are getting. This thread is getting a tad long, and extremely OT.
@Tobias W, I'm glad you already added your own qualification to your claims. The natural variability that you refer to (Solomon et al) is a *cooling* forcing at the moment. Are we now to believe that it has been a *warming* forcing for, oh, say 30 years prior, without any evidence? Also note that it refers to stratospheric water, which is completely different from the expected trend in *tropospheric* water content.
ReplyDeleteThat you learned in school that the tropical hotspot was solely related to AGW is a failure of your educators. It's not. It's a feature of warming. The 'AGW' fingerprint is a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere. And lo' and behold, this is what is observed!
Your reference to the Frank et al article shows again that you get your information in all the wrong places. The amount of feedback amplification from CO2 is rather low compared to the actual decadal anthropogenic contribution to CO2. That is, the CO2 feedback amplification expected from AGW may be up to 80% lower (depending on the model), but that does not mean warming may be much lower. It's max 80% of a maybe 10-20% contribution to warming. And please tell us which climate models have this amplification in their modeling and are thus wrong.
Finally, if you claim winter arctic ice has hardly decreased, I really wonder where you get your info. It is also significantly down (10% over three decades). And that's sea ice extent. Volume is even more reduced.
Marco:
ReplyDeleteJeeez, you crack me up! Michael Oppenheimer is still a liar by the way, and the fact that it's warming at equal pace to other rises in temperature in the past makes me feel pretty assured that I will live forever, no matter what.
And by the way, the only thing that is being proven by the fact that climate scientists can't explain the warming since 1950, is that they don't know any other answer, not that the answer given is correct. I don't know any other answer to B, so it must be A. Sorry, but that just won't wash. Anyhow it wouldn't even matter if it did, because we (in the west) are not prepared to stop our way of life, and the people in the third world will never wan't anything less then what we have, and they really don't care what we think of that. That really is undisputable, and no green treehugging scarecrow is ever going to be able to do anything about that. Sorry!
"Please provide a reference to your claim."
ReplyDeleteFrom NSIDC - Co.:
03-1980 (3.5 Mio sq km) : ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/S_198003_extn.png
03-2009 (5.0 Mio sq km) : ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/S_200903_extn.png
@Tobias W: nice that you forget all the physical science we know. It's quite simple: we *need* to use the radiative forcing of additional CO2 to explain the warming. Without it, we can't. The radiative forcing of CO2 is basic physics. Unless you wish to deny the existence of the greenhouse effect...
ReplyDeleteThat people don't really want to do something about it doesn't change the science. We've seen such examples plenty of time in the past.
@itisi69:
ReplyDeletedid you just seriously compare two time points? Read this paper, and then get back to me with your 40%:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JC004564.shtml
And please do get back to me on the *land* ice on Antarctica:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
(guess where it is going).
"did you just seriously compare two time points?"
ReplyDeleteI'm using the same website as you did in your original Arctic message. Are you blaming me for that??
@itsibitsiteenyweeny
ReplyDeletehm, you said: 40% more since 1980. And as proof you give a comparison of two points? Are you serious? Nice work. Well done, top notch. You cannot do this. It is pretty wrong because you are comparing noise. You could compute linear trend line, at least. That would be a minimum. my link gave you this for free.
@Reiner
yes I am upset because I do not like misquotations and lies. And the facts are: Daily Mail lied and Akerman lied. So, why can you not say: oh, maybe they were a little bit dishonest because they have a political agenda? (at least, Akerman had, because it was a political column) Instead you looking for another quote. That is dishonest and a slimy discussion "style".
Anyway, you did not answer Georgs question. Give details, Mi Jung, give details. Where is the alarmistic tone in the IPCC report? Not your usual general blah, blah,please. Do you really claim Prof Georg Kaser is an alarmist? He is a co-author of the Copenhagen analysis. Explain it, please.
"Where is the alarmistic tone in the IPCC report? " Lemme see...
ReplyDelete"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."
or
“By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.”
Want more?
Ghost
ReplyDeletewhich of Georg's questions do you mean? I think I answered them above.
It would help the quality of this blog if you could stop using words like 'slimy discussion style', 'your general blah blah' etc. A bit more maturity and politeness. We mention netiquette on the sidebar. Maybe it is not clear why we do this, so I shall give a brief explanation: when the style becomes agressive people will respond with accrodingly thus leading to spiral. Or they prefer to ignore you. Either way is not good. Agreed?
@reiner
ReplyDeleteyou answered with a quote from Prof. Bob Watson. But the Times story seem to be dishonest again. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/now_its_timesgate.php Hm, the truth is not a simple thing.
I observed in the past that "skeptics" never answered with facts when I asked, only with quotes, insinuations, and general blah. On the hand, if I asked in scientific blogs, I got real replies. May be, this view is a bit biased, but in the rough picture it shows my personal experience. Therefore, I am upset about quote mining.
please accept my apologies, I must learn to be more polite, I am sorry.