Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Exodus | Main | Dad rock »

Climate cuttings 30

John Goetz, writing at Watt's up With That?, estimates the effect of fixing a bizzarre programming step used by NASA/GISS in calculating their surface temperature trend. The error has added 0.1oC to the trend over the last 100 odd years. That's out of a total warming of 0.8 degrees.

Richard Lindzen has a new paper coming out which looks at observational data and finds that there appears to be a lot more by way of negative feedbacks in the climate system than climate models include. This means that CO2 will have less of an effect than previously thought.

A new paper by Lean and Rind reports that warming is about to resume, faster than ever before (!). This rather seems to contradict earlier reports that warming was going to pause for 20 years. Wasn't the science meant to be settled?

A mole within the Climate Research Unit leaked raw temperature data to Steve McIntyre. These figures, long-withheld are an important ingredient behind the HADCRUT temperature index.

There have been no tropical storms in the Atlantic so far this season. Typically there would have been nine or more by this point. Global warming is supposed to cause more storms. Why haven't we had any then? Roy Spencer reckons it's down to, erm, global warming.

Hockey Team members Benestad and Schmidt wrote a paper knocking solar theories of climate change. Nicola Scafetta fired back forcefully.

Two years ago, Buenos Aires had its first snow in a hundred years or so. It snowed again this year.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (5)

The Guardian's report of the Lean and Rind paper, 'World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns', failed to mention that the study also predicted almost no warming for the five years after 2014 and that for the two decades to 2029 warming will probably be ever-so-slightly slower than the 2007 IPCC report predicted^projected^Wscenario'd - i.e. World will warm pretty much as fast as predicted.

The Telegraph's rewrite of the Guardian article was even worse. 'World temperatures are set to rise much faster than expected as a result of climate change over the next ten years, according to meteorologists.' Where did the 'ten years' come from? It's the standard activist doubling of climate numbers, innit. See Dr Geoff Meaden's testimony at the Kingsnorth enquiry.

Aug 4, 2009 at 10:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterVinny Burgoo

The Benestad & Schmidt (2009) paper is now routinely referred to as BS09.

The final error noted by Nicola Scafetta in his reply to BS09 is so fundamental that it is indefensible. This has led to some strange behaviour in real climate circles.

On August 3 two posters brought the Scafetta reply to the attention of realclimate.

On August 4 a poster asked if Scafetta's reply had altered realclimate's previously low opinion of Scafetta & West. Gavin Schmidt responded 'No, watch this space'

On August 6 Gavin finally issued a response with an admission of guilt: 'I plead guilty to not being perfect'.
However that admission was not at realclimate but here:

Today, August 8, there is still no reply to the posts at realclimate.

I guess Gavin just can't bring himself to own up in front of the children?

Aug 8, 2009 at 2:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterWansbeck

Can I ask a general question about Climate Matters?

What ever happened to the hole in the ozone layer? Wasn't that supposed to be the climate catastrophe of its day? Is it fixed now? Or did we just forget about it?

Aug 10, 2009 at 4:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterDom

There was some talk a year or so back about the hole closing up at a rate that suggested that the original hypothesis was completely wrong. I don't know what happened after that.

Aug 10, 2009 at 6:57 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Here's an interesting piece, written by a Swedish professor for the benefit of local politicians, whom he is trying to educate about the effect of atmospheric pressure on temperature, and thereby demonstrate the minimal contribution of CO2. (H/T to Martin Atkins on WUWT.)

Either Swedish politicians are better educated than ours in the UK (quite likely) or he's a bit optimistic about their abilities, but I'm sure it's as clear as he could make it. One useful demonstration, perhaps, would be to herd them all into a polythene greenhouse (poly-tunnel) on a sunny day and ask them why they think it's so hot when there is no glass to 'trap' to radiation...

Aug 11, 2009 at 11:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>