Sunday
Oct172010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Light blogging
Oct 17, 2010 Blogs I'm off to the big smoke tomorrow. I'm giving a talk at the Institute of Energy and attending Vaclav Klaus's lecture on Tuesday.
Be good while I'm away.
Reader Comments (136)
The "greenest government ever" has just announced via Cameron's speech that it intends to put lots and lots of our money into offshore wind turbines and carbon (dioxide) capture. How wonderful (sarc)
That was the headline, the reailty is a 20% cut in the depts budget over 4 years eg 5% a year.
But nothing on whats to happen to FIT's, this is a big Green Con and also has the effect of stoppping DIY installations where the payback works only if you can sell surplus at market rates, with FITs if you DIY there is no market for selling surplus. As it is Cornwall will be covered in solar panels using imported panels from China.
I forgot to mention the Green Bank, that's coming too. Can someone explain why we should need one...?
10th November, Free public lecture in Reading by Professor Nigel Arnell titled 'Climate Change, The science explained'
More info here-
http://www.reading.ac.uk/publiclectureseries/
Professor Nigel Arnell : He has been involved in climate change research since the late 1980s, and is a key member of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Professor Arnell's research focuses on the impacts of climate change on river flows, water resources and their management. A lead author in the second, third and fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments, he has also contributed to the recent Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change.
http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsandevents/releases/PR4890.aspx
The lecture doesn't mention who'll be on the 'expert panel', but local for me so I'll be popping along. These lectures are non-ticket and can get busy, so wouldn't necessarily recommend people travelling unless they can get there early.
Mac,
"Or Mac the Blasphemer"
as you will forever be known from now on..
for this comment......"We lords temporal seem to be doing alright without 'the' lord spiritual".
The shock and horror caused by such an utterance must be punished in the most severe way and be deemed to be a heresy against our leader, His Eminence.
His holy book, "The Hockey Stick Illusion" is our bible and no one should even contemplate such a rebellion as you suggest.
To the stocks with you, for starters.
Say three Hail Marys and a decade of the Rosary for your penance.
Peter Walsh
Mac the Blasphemer has indeed strayed, but is surely not yet a lost soul. He enjoys the standing, the civility, the community of this site, the spiritual and temporal guidance of the Bishop, and yet he doth not wax lyrical about any of these blessings in sufficient measure. Let him repent forthwith!
Fascinating evening at the Klaus lecture. Most amusing moment, when someone asked Josh, 'Excuse me, are you George Monbiot ? .
I must apologise for my Calvinist tendencies.
Mac should be burned at the stake. He would die knowing that his death contributed to global warming.
Anybody have a link to the Klaus video?
As Caesar once said, "Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me." - circa 1964.
Do you think Sherlock Holmes should have been a Canadian?
Deductive senses, an inquistive mind, an eye for detail and precision.
In the climate debate the forensic skills of Canadians such as Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Timothy Ball and Donna Laframboise are second to none.
Why do we need a Green Bank? Because "it will be a bastard, but it will also be OUR bastard"
Messenger, I don't know why we need one but why we are getting one is so that the UK can be at the top of the pile, viz;
"The Government will provide £1 billion in funding for a green investment bank as part of efforts to make the UK a leader in the low-carbon economy, Chancellor George Osborne has said." (UK press asssoc)
Unfortuately I pay my taxes elsewhere so will not get any of the glory or join in on the inevitable street parties when Britain once again leads the world.
Re Mac:
Quickly, someone sell him a carbon indulgence (or two) for his sins, that'll serve him right.
Simpleseekeraftertruth
If you believe Monckton, the Green Bank is all part of the gradual global government take-over. The EU was the start, this is the next stage.
Am I getting paranoid or are they really out to get me...?
simpleseekeraftertruth:
Lucky you. Unfortunately George Osborne, like the Darling and Broon before him, have had one hand deep in my pocket and the other hand in my wallet for some time now. And what benefits have I seen since 1997? Hmm, can't think of many that are worth more than a few quid of my money.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8075563/Every-email-and-website-to-be-stored.html
They ARE out to get me...and the rest of you.
A good day to hide bad news....perhaps they were hoping we wouldn't notice.
Something else from C3, interesting especially to those north of civilisation! (Bink Winky Smilie!)
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/10/a-scottish-lochs-evidence-substantiates-two-significant-medieval-warming-intervals-study-shows.html
"“The Loch Sunart reconstruction for the late MCA suggests temperatures from AD 916 to 1035 were similar to those recorded over the late twentieth century.”..... Cage and Austin [Cage, A.G. and, W.E.N. Austin. 2010] point out “perhaps the most distinctive feature of the Loch Sunart temperature record is the short-lived event between AD 1540 and1600, which is characterized by a very abrupt warming transition at AD 1540. This period had an average temperature anomaly of 1.1ºC above the long-term mean, which is higher than most of the 20th century and the late MCA.”....."“The Loch Sunart temperature reconstruction exhibits a gradual cooling trend that continues from AD 1608 to 1941, with the coldest temperature anomalies (~0.75ºC) of this period occurring between the early 1930s and 1940s.” So in the last 400 years, the sea bottom of Loch Sunart cooled, the coldest period over the past 400 years occurred 70 years ago, and then the water warmed up to levels that were typical during the beginning of the 400-year period."
Messenger
Well, you can't lead the world if government is global. Besides, the United Nations are currently searching for HMD (heat of mass destruction) and have their hands full with that.
The lecture doesn't mention who'll be on the 'expert panel', but local for me so I'll be popping along. These lectures are non-ticket and can get busy, so wouldn't necessarily recommend people travelling unless they can get there early.
Oct 20, 2010 at 2:50 PM | Atomic Hairdryer
I'm in 2 minds on this one..
It is Very close to me. I even did my MSc at Reading....
Yet it is also rather 'close' to home,personally....
So I would probably choose not to say anything
Would be good to meet a few people if many decide to go.
Atomic and Barry
If they claim Greenland ice is melting, perhaps they could explain the accumulation of 268 feet of ice in 50 years between 1942 and 1992
http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl-recovery.htm
Messenger,
Pssst, VPN.
Mac,
Come home, all is forgiven.
You got to me with this oh so famous quote..
"As Caesar once said, "Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me." - circa 1964".
I remember listening to "Just a Minute" all those years back when Kenneth Williams won a point for actually saying "Infamy, they've got it in for me".
Needless to say, he got buzzed for repetition because other members of the panel thought he had repeated the word INFAMY.
Good one
Peter Walsh
P.S., Goes to show how long I've been listening to the BBC.
Perhaps one of these days, they will listen to us and stop being such nerds.
Then, we won't have it in for them.
SSAT: How do you know if the VPN you are in is real?
Messenger,
When you don't get a knock on the door in the middle of the night, I suppose.
Some could perhaps ask Arnell if he read any climategate emails..
Like the one he was copied on, that drew Phil Jones response - only to Mike Mann, with the comment
"PLEASE DELETE, do not copy even just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm"
Professor Azar had asked: (copied many people including N Arnell)
----------------------------------
Dear all,
I agree with most of what has been said so far. Reproducibility is the key word. If the
Mann el al material (to be) posted on the website is sufficient to ensure
reproducibility, then there is no compelling need to force them to hand it out. If not,
then the source code is warranted. Also, even if there is no compelling need to make the
source code public, doing it anyway would clearly be beneficial for the entire debate.
Yours,
Christian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Azar
Professor
Department of physical resource theory
Chalmers University of Technology
G
-----------------------------------------
A Professor asked, why not show the code if it is required for reproduciblity....
Phil Jones got very flustered, see his email to Mann here.
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=387&filename=1074277559.txt
In a reply to all: Phil said
"So there is peer review and peer review !! Here the peer review was done by
LIKE-MINDED colleagues. Anyway, I'm straying from the point. Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
and I felt we should put something on our web site about the paper and directs people
to Mike's site and also to E&E and the MM's site"
------------------------------
10th November, Free public lecture in Reading by Professor Nigel Arnell titled 'Climate Change, The science explained'
More info here-
http://www.reading.ac.uk/publiclectureseries/
Oct 20, 2010 at 2:28 PM | Atomic Hairdryer
Professor Nigel Arnell : He has been involved in climate change research since the late 1980s, and is a key member of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Professor Arnell's research focuses on the impacts of climate change on river flows, water resources and their management. A lead author in the second, third and fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments, he has also contributed to the recent Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change.
http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsandevents/releases/PR4890.aspx
One of the BIG ISSUES has (The Hockey Stick Illusion) been making CODE available
Have a look at the Above, given the topic they are discussing, MM paper (Mcintyre Mckitrick)
It really is quite explosive...
I wonder what Professor N Arnell would think about Phil Jones email to Mike Mann....I'm pretty sure Arnell won't have read any of the Climategate emails.
Phil Jones getting worried that other climate scientists are saying Mike Man should make all code available, to MM's papers....!
-------------------------------------------
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice - YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!
Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004
Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading - please ! I'm trying to redress the
balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the
kettle black - Christian doesn't make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian
message so you don't get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get
more advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
PLEASE DELETE - just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm
Cheers
Phil
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:37:29 +0000
To: Christian Azar <christian.azar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, christian.pfister@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: AW: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice
Cc: "'David G. VICTOR'" <dgvictor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 'Katarina Kivel' <kivel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
N.W.Arnell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, frtca@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, d.camuffo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, scohen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pmfearn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jfoley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pgleick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ahs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rwk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rik.leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, diana.liverman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mccarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ogilvie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, barrie.pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pollard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nj.rosenberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, h.j.schellnhuber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, F.I.Woodward@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gyohe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leonid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Steve et al,
I've been away this week until today. Although the responses so far all make valid
points, I will add my thoughts. I should say I have been more involved in all the exchanges
between Mike and MM so I'm probably biased in Mike's favour. I will try and be impartial,
though, but I did write a paper with Mike (which came out in GRL in Aug 2003) and we currently have
a long paper tentatively accepted by Reviews of Geophysics. With the latter all 4
reviewers think the paper is fine, but the sections referring to MM and papers by Soon and
Baliunas are not and our language is strong. We need to work on this.
Back to the question in hand:
1. The papers that MM refer came out in Nature in 1998 and to a lesser extent in GRL
in1999. These reviewers did not request the data (all the proxy series) and the code. So,
acceding to the request for this to do the review is setting a VERY dangerous
precedent. Mike has made all the data series and this is all anyone should need. Making model
code available is something else.
2. The code is basically irrelevant in this whole issue. In the GRL paper (in 2003 Mann
and Jones), we simply average all the series we use together. The result is pretty much
the same as MBH in 1998, Nature and MBH in 1999 in GRL.
3. As many of you know I calculate gridded and global/hemispheric temperature time
series each month. Groups at NCDC and NASA/GISS do this as well. We don't exchange codes
- we do occasionally though for the data. The code here is trivial as it is in the
paleo work. MBH get spatial patterns but the bottom line (the 1000 year series of global temps) is
almost the same if you simply average. The patterns give more, though, when it comes to
trying to understand what has caused the changes - eg by comparison with models. MM
are only interested in the NH/Global 1000-year time series - in fact only in the MBH
work from 1400.
4. What has always intrigued me in this whole debate, is why the skeptics (for want of
a better term) always pick on Mike. There are several other series that I've produced,
Keith Briffa has and Tom Crowley. Jan Esper's work has produced a slightly different
series but we don't get bombarded by MM. Mike's paper wasn't the first. It was in Nature and
is well-used by IPCC. I suspect the skeptics wish to concentrate their effort onto one
person as they did with Ben Santer after the second IPCC report.
5. Mike may respond too strongly to MM, but don't we all decide not to work with or
co-operate with people we do not get on with or do not like their views. Mike will say
that MM are disingenuous, but I'm not sure how many of you realise how vicious the
attack on him has been. I will give you an example. When MM came out, we had several press calls (I don't normally get press calls about my papers unless I really work at it - I very rarely do). This was about a paper in E&E, which when we eventually got it several days later was appalling. I found out
later that the authors were in contact with the reviewers up to a week before the
article appeared. So there is peer review and peer review !! Here the peer review was done by
like-minded colleagues. Anyway, I'm straying from the point. Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
and I felt we should put something on our web site about the paper and directs people
to Mike's site and also to E&E and the MM's site. MM have hounded us about this for
the last four months. In the MM article, they have a diagram which says 'corrected
version' when comparing with MBH. We have seen people refer to this paper (MM)
as an alternative reconstruction - yet when we said this is our paragraph MM claim they
are not putting forward a new reconstruction but criticizing MBH 1998 !! We have
decided to remove the sentence on our web page just to stop these emails. But if a
corrected version isn't a new or alternative reconstruction I don't know what is.
So, in conclusion, I would side with Mike in this regard. In trying to be
scrupulously fair, Steve, you've opened up a whole can of worms. If you do decide to put the Mann
response into CC then I suspect you will need an editorial. MM will want to respond
also. I know you've had open and frank exchanges in CC before, but your email clearly shows
that you think this is in a different league. MM and E&E didn't give Mann the chance
to respond when they put their paper in, but this is a too simplistic. It needs to be
pointed out in an editorial though - I'm not offering by the way.
I could go on and on ....
Cheers
Phil
At 10:36 15/01/2004 +0100, Christian Azar wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with most of what has been said so far. Reproducibility is the key word. If the
Mann el al material (to be) posted on the website is sufficient to ensure
reproducibility, then there is no compelling need to force them to hand it out. If not,
then the source code is warranted. Also, even if there is no compelling need to make the
source code public, doing it anyway would clearly be beneficial for the entire debate.
Yours,
Christian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Azar
Professor
Department of physical resource theory
Chalmers University of Technology
G
Barry Woods: "I would probably choose not to say anything"
Er, what are the error bars on that claim?
A very god friend is most likely to be on the panel...(oreven organising it)
I might just stay at home
Dreadnought: "The psychiatrists are at it again"
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/press/pressreleases2010/1010campaign.aspx
And that press release reveals that Great Ormond Street has also signed up to 10:10 -- to assist on the eugenic side, presumably.
Jane:
You might like to check out my post re Great Ormond Street on Unthreaded. No answer as yet.
Re: GOS Hospital Posted on 18 October at 5.41.
Messenger:
Thanks, I'd missed your post. Perhaps you'll report back if they respond.
Jane: No answer as yet, have emailed them again. While checking the GOS website I found this, oh dear, polar bears again...
http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/pressoffice/pressrelease_00867