Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« That IoP submission | Main | Stephen Schneider »

Revkin on the Hockey Stick

Andy Revkin is interviewed on America's NPR on the subject of the aftermath of Climategate. A transcript can be seen here. During the course of the interview, a member of the public asks AR about the Hockey Stick.

The original paper was riddled with caveats, all these could, would, might, to be sure, kind of phrases. And it - but then it quickly got spun, including by the IPCC in 2001. In the illustration they derived from it, they removed the gray bands that showed you the error, the possible up and down error. And as you go farther back in time, the range of possible error in these estimates is much, much higher. So that was where the problem was. The National Academy of Sciences did a study that assessed this. And largely, there were some problems that they raised with the way it had been done. But since then also, the main thrust of that work has been repeatedly replicated by other groups of scientists.

So the idea that we're in a period of unusual warming in the last 50 years has not been erased. The - what's been returned is - for the original paper - the sense that it's important to be sure you talk about the things we don't know, even when you talk about what's been learned in climate science. And if you don't do that, then you can be accused of, kind of, oversimplifying things.

All very strange. Can Andy really be unaware that Mann was a lead author on the paleoclimate chapter of the Third Assessment Report? Does he also not know that the "repeated replications" mostly rely on the same faulty data as the Hockey Stick itself? And I can't say I was aware that the IPCC had removed the error bars from the graph either (perhaps he means in the spaghetti graphs?).

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (51)

Comments are "as clear as mud", as my mother used to say.

Jul 19, 2010 at 8:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Wright

I've been around for more than 50 years and I've not noticed any unusual warming. It's been cold in winter and it's been warm in summer and it's warmed up from winter into summer and it's cooled down from summer into winter. Some winters are colder than others and some summers are warmer than others. I guess that's just weather though. I'm just not old enough to have lived through the Holocene climate optimum or the Roman warm period or the medieval warm period to know how unusual the warming in my lifetime has been. I hope the unusual warming continues for the rest of my life - I don't want any many more winters like the last one.

Jul 19, 2010 at 9:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

From reading him now and then I gather he is not an unintelligent man. But I imagine that most NYT staffers aren't either, and this reads just like something one would expect from a NYT staffer (even if his job description has changed). One might think that all of the commentary on how climate science has lost much of its crediblity would lead climate journalists to some introspection about their own profession, and maybe even some concern for their futures, but I sure ain't seein' it.

Jul 19, 2010 at 9:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaulM

Note the nuance of 'unusual' warming, rather than 'unprecedented'.

Jul 19, 2010 at 10:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

Can Andy really be unaware that Mann was a lead author on the paleoclimate chapter of the Third Assessment Report? Does he also not know that the "repeated replications" mostly rely on the same faulty data as the Hockey Stick itself

I think you may be overestimating the intellectual effort most journalists put into analysing these things.

Jul 19, 2010 at 10:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter B

This is like claiming that while Lord Oxburgh's review was somewhat sparing on thoroughness, this doesn't really matter because other, independent, investigators have reached the same conclusion!

Jul 19, 2010 at 10:54 PM | Unregistered Commenterroyfomr

Very disappointed with Revkin, who seems to have returned to his fox-hole.

But one of his comment's rang alarm bells:

'One of the lead authors for the new IPCC round, who's been an author before, Chris Field, was - he co-signed a piece in, you know, hardly National Geographic website or NPR, or that kind of thing. And there was a line about urgent need for action. And I asked him, just last night - I haven't had time to blog on this, so this exclusive to SCIENCE FRIDAY. He strongly defends the idea of stepping into the public realm and behaving, not just as a scientist, but also as a human being and saying this what I feel.'

Jul 19, 2010 at 11:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Perhaps the good bishop will send Andy a copy of his hockey stick bible. Perhaps Andy will read it, see the light and be converted. I know I'm immensely enjoying my own copy. But I'm now about 2/3 of the way through it. Whatever will I read as interesting as this when I get done?

Jul 19, 2010 at 11:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterChuck Norcutt

I've always read the most nauseating comments on the warmist side at the Andy Revkin blog. I don't know why, it always seems like a torrent of platitudinous urbane worldy wisdom peppered wtih climate cliches and the word 'tweet' thrown in, in generous doses,...iugh!

Sample: "Wake up and smell the CO2"

Jul 19, 2010 at 11:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Revkin is Monbiot minus the irritating and smug.
He can't allow his ideology to be contradicted by fact.

Jul 19, 2010 at 11:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris S

Andy is being careful to stay on the reservation.
Journalists irt climate science are sold on the consensus as journalists of the early years of Leninism were sold on the glories of the new socialist man.

Jul 20, 2010 at 2:32 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Revkin merely chooses to illustrate that old axiom -- 'thinking is hard which is why so few people try it.' He regurgitates the same ole boilerplate he's been fed by his boy Mikey. To do otherwise would require reading, comprehension, analysis, contemplation, formulation of new thoughts .... Why he might get a headache from that kind of effort!

Jul 20, 2010 at 2:42 AM | Unregistered Commenterstan

Whatever do you expect from NPR? The only difference between it and the BBC is the American government cut off the public teat years ago, although they still suck out about 10% of their budget from the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Created by Lyndon Johnson in 1968, it has been a very left wing organisation since it was founded. Now with Obama in the White House, it has moved to the left even more.

A list of its 2008 donations, broken out by size is


Jul 20, 2010 at 3:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

The sponsors list shows they are in the pay of Big Oil: CITGO Petroleum Corporation;
BP; ConocoPhillips Company. Clearly, we can ignore anything anyone says on NPR that we don't agree with!

Jul 20, 2010 at 5:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterAynsley Kellow

Aynsley Kellow,
Does the list of sponsors make what Andy said correct?
And does it sound like commenters here are ignoring what he said or disagreeing with what he said?
And finally, if you were following the issue as closely as you imply you do, do you realize that 'Big Oil', especially BP is backing cap-n-trade and the AGW consensus?

Jul 20, 2010 at 8:20 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Sorry Hunter - you must have had the irony by-pass.

Jul 20, 2010 at 9:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterAynsley Kellow

My bad. Still recovering from a humorectomy reversal.

Jul 20, 2010 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

A "humorectomy reversal." Now that's funny! Thank you Hunter.

Jul 20, 2010 at 9:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaulM

I like it Hunter!
It's a sore point with me, and Bob Ward is playing the 'Six Degrees of Exxon Mobil' in The Times. Ignoring the point that funding those who might (incidentally) espouse heretical views is never a problem if 'the science' is robust, I keep trying to point out, as a political scientist with some expertise in politics and business (chair of the relevant IPSA Research Committee, RC38), that Exxon is a major holder of natural gas assets (second after Gazprom). Gas producers are the most immediate beneficiaries of decarbonisation policies, as the most cost-effective quick fix is to emulate the dash to gas that produced the UK reductions post-1990.

Exxon has no coal assets, so why would it actually oppose policies that advantage its interests? Fact is, Exxon (as James Dellingpole has pointed out) has donated $100m to Stanford University to do work on climate change. It also spends about $1 billion pa internally on its corporate response to climate change, but Bob Ward (and Bob May, under whose Presidency at the Royal Society Ward started this nonsense) think that the $1m or so Exxon gives to bodies that might have some connection, however tenuous, to someone who once might have questioned climate orthodoxy (form total annual corporate philanthropy of around $125m) is something we might loose sleep over.

This is voodoo political science,and I find it an insult to my discipline that this nonsense was ever promulgated by the Royal Society.

For those interested in some sound political science/political economy, I can recommend Lindblom's Politics and Markets, where he sets out the reasons for the 'privileged position of business', It stems, inter alia, from its structural power - its ability to promise investment or threaten disinvestment. Money in brown paper bags delivered to think tanks who promulgate (shock, horror) ideas as a means of corporate influence is a naive fantasy.

Jul 20, 2010 at 10:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterAynsley Kellow

@Aynsley K,

What if patronage etc is the only political system they understand? They will then see and donation as evidence of that which they themselves 'know' is the only path to advancement.
Pure projection of their own limited worldview?

Jul 20, 2010 at 11:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterChuckles

Welcome back Bish! Thought G.P. really did, "Know who you are and where you are"! ;-)

Jul 20, 2010 at 11:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete Hayes

I don't want speculate too much as to the reasons, but I think you might have something of it. They see themselves as being on the side of the angels - they have only noble motives. Anyone who does not agree with them MUST have venal motives. The perfectly defensible position that there might be some (but not catastrophic) warming from a doubling of carbon dioxide (perfectly reasonable if one questions the absence of evidence for strong positive feedback) must mean that the holder of such views in the pay of somebody, or has been misled by someone who is. Its a bit like the old Marxist 'false consciousness' arguement.

Jul 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterAynsley Kellow

Interesting piece by Revkin. I was intrigued by a caller who enquired of a source of reliable information on climate change. Revkin referred him to a site run by Spencer Weart.

At the site we have a claim that GCMs are supported by Antartic ice core data, thus, "Meanwhile striking news came from studies of ancient climates recorded in Antarctic ice cores. For hundreds of thousands of years, carbon dioxide and temperature had been linked: anything that caused one of the pair to rise or fall had caused a rise or fall in the other. It turned out that a doubling of carbon dioxide had always gone along with a 3°C temperature rise, give or take a degree or two — a striking confirmation of the computer models, from entirely independent evidence. "

This is highly misleading statement.

The Antartic ice core data are robust and the conclusion is certain - it is temperature that drives CO2 atmospheric concentrations, an average lag of 800 years between temperature increase and a corresponding increase in CO2, and crucially there is no runaway effect. This is factual science.

The models, however, are based on an entirely different premise that human CO2 emissions cause an increase in global temperatures and that there is an almost instantaneous positive climate feedback effect. This is an unproven hypothesis.

Perhaps this explains Revkin's apparent confusion over the Hockey Stick controversy, he would appear that Andy Revkin cannot separate fact from scientific tricks and green propganda.

Jul 20, 2010 at 12:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Spencer Weart link here;

Jul 20, 2010 at 12:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac


From the following BBC news report they don't back up the Global Warming claim, I wasn't aware that there was any proof that global warming was causing a meltdown on the mountain.

Sherpas tackle Everest 'death zone' rubbish dump

"The team filmed its expedition before showing footage to the Nepalese Tourism Board, to illustrate how junk is becoming exposed as global warming causes snow to melt."

Jul 20, 2010 at 12:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterJason F

Thank you for your gracious acceptance of my apology.
My take irt to the inability of the AGW community leadership to tolerate dissent is that at heart they effectively know that they are not pushing a response to a physical reality but are instead pushing a social movement. They are using the tools of social movement- status, shunning, peer pressure, etc. to maintain their position. If they had robust facts that would stand up under scrutiny, or were interested in finding factual truth, they would not resist challenges by political means but would instead offer data and facts.
The reality is that not one AGW prediction regarding manifestations of climate change have held up under scrutiny as simple as time passing. They look worse when critical reviews are performed, as in the Hockey Stick, for instance.

Jul 20, 2010 at 2:09 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Revkin is hopelessly compromised in the effort to distinguish between propaganda and reality.

Jul 20, 2010 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Aynsley Kellow

Now you know why I pointed to the donor list. :)

And it should be no surprise to anyone that big energy (coal, oil, nuke, as well as wind, solar) are big contributors. This came about during the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989. The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) received so much money from Exxon and other oil companies, and ran so many "feel-good" spots for the oil companies as a result that those of us in America said PBS stood for Petroleum Broadcasting Service.

They discovered the propaganda value of PBS (and its sister NPR) and entered into a unholy alliance with the left -- we will pay for your programming if you make us look nice.

Thus I am not surprised that ding-a-lings like Revkin show up there. And I might add that I see VERY little on PBS about the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Funny, that.

Jul 20, 2010 at 2:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

JF: The death zone, greater than 25,000 ft, in the Himalayas is completely unaffected by climate change because the temperature there is always way below freezing, so for the BBC to state, "The team filmed its expedition before showing footage to the Nepalese Tourism Board, to illustrate how junk is becoming exposed as global warming causes snow to melt" is simply just junk journalism.

The snow does not melt at such high altitudes due to changes in temperature, but ice can be turned directly into water vapour at low pressures due to a process called sublimation.

Hence, the only way that glaciers can retreat at such high altitudes is due to a lack of snow, and not snow melting.

Since AGW predicts an increase in Monsoon rainfall/snow over the Himalayas in winter then the retreating glaciers at high altitudes must be due to natural factors and not man-made global warming.

Post Climategate you simply cannot get away with such alarmist nonsense now being spouted at the BBC. It all undermines the case for AGW with a resultant increase public scepticism.

Jul 20, 2010 at 2:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

The BBC's idea of sublimation is to do with the psychology of propaganda, nothing to do with sub-zero snow ablation, as in :

Jul 20, 2010 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

When it comes to World Climate, the Russians ought to pick up the ball and run with it. They still have many very credible SCIENTISTS and actually live a lot closer to the roof of the world than the rest of us. Western Psyentists seem more Soviet than the Ol'Soviets themselves these days. After the IPCC toilet papers, Mann's Hocky Sthick, and the Glorious Copenhagen Summit, there's more to be gained in real knowledge from our old enemies and new best friends. Da?

Jul 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterPascvaks

Is a revised and hopefully cheaper edition on its way?

Jul 20, 2010 at 4:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterBernie

So what I think I am reading is that the original work was very uncertain and that since then there have been numerous studies replicating that.

Jul 20, 2010 at 4:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterHankHenry

Strong, pertinent column at The Atlantic by Clive Crook: "Climategate and the Big Green Lie"

""The climate-science establishment ... seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause."

Crook is careful to note he's not a skeptic. Interesting reading. It's striking how much criticism of the UEA "audits" we're seeing in the MSM.

Cheers -- Pete Tillman

Jul 20, 2010 at 4:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter D. Tillman

Pascvaks does us all a great favour by drawing our attention to Russian work. In particular I found these remarks most helpful.

'Basically, none of the assertions made in the Kyoto Protocol and the "scientific" theory on which the Kyoto Protocol is based been borne out by actual data. We are not seeing any high frequency of emergency situations or events. There has been no increase in the number of floods. Just as there has been no increase in the number of droughts. We can see that the speed of the wind in the hails in some areas is decreasing contrary to the statements made by the people who support the Kyoto Protocol. We are not witnessing a higher incidence of contagious diseases, and if there is a rise, it has nothing to do with climate change.

If there is an insignificant increase in the temperature it is not due to anthropogenic factors but to the natural factors related to the planet itself and solar activity. There is no evidence confirming a positive linkage between the level of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. If there is such a linkage, it is a reverse nature. In other words, it is not carbon dioxide that influences the temperature on Earth, but it just the reverse: temperature fluctuations are caused by solar activity influence the concentration of carbon dioxide.

The statistical data underpinning these documents and issued in millions of copies are often considerably distorted if not falsified. The most vivid example of that is the so-called "ice hockey stick", or the curve of temperature changes on the planet over the past 1000 years. It is alleged that there were insignificant temperature fluctuations for 900 years but there was a sharp rise in temperature in the 20th century.

A number of scientific works published lately show that in order to produce this "ice hockey stick", nine intentional or unintentional, I don't really know, mistakes were made that led to distortions in initial data and final results. Using the words of famous poet Vladimir Vysotsky, everything is not the way it should be'

Andrei Ilarionov (2004)


I think we can safely assume that he, and other Russian scientists, are not fully paid up members of the Hockey Team, nor of the consensus.

Jul 20, 2010 at 5:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

"He strongly defends the idea of stepping into the public realm and behaving, not just as a scientist,...": how nice it would be if any of the buggers, just once, behaved like a scientists.

Jul 20, 2010 at 6:08 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

"It's striking how much criticism of the UEA "audits" we're seeing in the MSM." Journalists are probably better at recognising bent enquiries than bogus science.

Jul 20, 2010 at 6:09 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

However big the error bars were, Mann's public statement that 'There was no Medieval Warm Period' removed nuance for the 99.99% who did not read the journal paper.

Jul 20, 2010 at 6:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Eagar

Agreed. If you have a good sausage, you don't need to spend as much time trying to sell the sizzle. The test is whether climate 'science' can generate predictions that are falsifiable: increasing water vapour with temperature? a 'hotspot' in the tropics? It hasn't done too well against this kind of tests, and relies too much on rhetorical devices like 'consistent with' — which commits the fallacy of bringing evidence to the theory. And that is before they get to the political defence of the science.
The biggest problem would appear to be the modest OBSERVED warming with past increases in GHGs from pre-industrial levels, while we are required to believe models telling us that (despite the declining effect of carbon dioxide) future increases will have a much greater effect. Well, let's see the evidence for rising water vapour levels before we accept that.
The following is useful in the context of climate change politics:
Levy, David L. and Daniel Egan (1998) ‘Capital Contests: National and Transnational Channels of Corporate Influence on the Climate Change Negotiations.’ Politics and Society 26: 337-361. But Sage wants to charge you for access to that!
As they show, business influence is less in international politics than in domestic politics.

Jul 20, 2010 at 9:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterAynsley Kellow

Thanks for the info regarding that BBC story, knew it was alarmist junk is it just me or has the agw propganda machine gone into overdrive?

Jul 20, 2010 at 10:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterJason F

Speaking of American journalists and compromised ethics, over here today we had another peek at the way they really think. See

What is striking is how similar these comments seem to what we read in the Climategate e-mails. Same politics, same idology, same tactics, same lack of ethics.

Jul 21, 2010 at 12:46 AM | Unregistered Commenterstan

I agree, Stan, that's a key observation.

Jul 21, 2010 at 2:24 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

AGW- the fabricated crisis.
I think, in light of the revelations about the press and Obama, that that is enough.

Jul 21, 2010 at 2:40 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

I do not know where else to post this, I hope it depresses you as much as it did me!

AR5 UK accepted authors:


PhD in Physics and a Bachelor’s degree in Philosophy and Physics from the University of Canterbury, in New Zealand.

Recent work includes
Meinshausen, M., Meinshausen, N., Hare, W., Raper, S., Frieler, K., Knutti, R., Frame, D.J. & Allen, M.R. (2009) Greenhouse gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 458, 1158-1162.

Allen, M.R., Frame, D.J., Huntingford, C., Jones, C.D., Lowe, J.A., Meinshausen, M. & Meinshausen, N. (2009) Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458, 1163-1166.

BA (Hons.) Physics plus PHD Cambridge

In October 2009 Reuters carried the following quotes:

Global warming will leave the Arctic Ocean ice-free during the summer within 20 years, raising sea levels and harming wildlife such as seals and polar bears, a leading British polar scientist said on Thursday.
Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, said much of the melting will take place within a decade, although the winter ice will stay for hundreds of years.
Scientists say evidence of melting Arctic ice is one of the clearest signs of global warming and it should send a warning to world leaders meeting in Copenhagen in December for U.N. talks on a new climate treaty.
“The data supports the new consensus view — based on seasonal variation of ice extent and thickness, changes in temperatures, winds and especially ice composition — that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within about 20 years,” Wadhams said in a statement. “Much of the decrease will be happening within 10 years.”
Research Scientist, National Oceanography Centre

Area of research:
Modelling the interaction of sound with suspended sediments and bed forms, to obtain measurements of the dynamic interacting triad of the flow, the bed and sediment movement, to advance process understanding and improving predictions of regional sediment transport.

National Oceanography Centre, Southampton

British Antarctic Survey

Recent work includes:
Vaughan, D. G. et al. Recent rapid regional climate warming on the Antarctic Peninsula. Climatic Change, 60, 243-274 (2003).
Vaughan, D. G. & Spouge, J. R. Risk estimation of collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Climatic Change 52, 65-91 (2002).10.
Lythe, M., Vaughan, D. G. & BEDMAP Consortium. BEDMAP: a new ice thickness and sub glacial topographic model of Antarctica. Journal of Geophysical Research 106, 11335-11352 (2001).
Vaughan, D. G., Marshall, G. J., Connolley, W. M., King, J. C. & Mulvaney, R. Climate Change: Devil in the Detail. Science 293, 1777-1779 (2001).
Professor of glaciology, University of Wales
1st class Hons Physics & Computer Science (University of Wales)
Ph.D Glacier Geophysics, University of Wales

No obvious pro AGW in published papers


Research interests:
Applications of remote sensing data to problems in climatology, in particular to the Polar Regions.

Recent work includes:

Bamber, JL, Alley, RB & Joughin, I. 'Rapid response of modern day ice sheets to external forcing', Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 257 (1-2), (pp. 1-13), 2007. ISSN: 0012-821X 10.1016/j.epsl.2007.03.005


Research interests:
cover the fields of natural climate variability (particularly that driven by changes in the thermohaline circulation of the ocean [info], related to the North Atlantic Oscillation [info], or forced by natural external factors [info] [info]), as observed, modelled and recorded in climate proxies (particularly tree-rings [info]); uncertainties in observational records; and the climatology of daily precipitation (including the influence of the spatial scale under consideration and relationships with atmospheric circulation)
National and International roles:
From 2002-2006, I was joint co-ordinator (with Keith Briffa) of the SO&P project, an EU-funded project spanning 8 institutions and with resources of €1.9 million.
• The SO&P project (Simulations, Observations & Palaeoclimatic data: climate variability over the last 500 years) used proxy data and model simulations to enhance our understanding and knowledge of climate variations over the past millennium.
• Executive summary: Osborn and Briffa (2006)
• Full final report: Osborn and Briffa (2006)

Professor of Geographical Information Systems in the School of Computer Science at Cardiff University

Recent publications:
• Jones C. B., R. S. Purves; P. D. Clough; H. Joho (2008) "Modelling vague places with knowledge from the Web". International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(10), pp. 1045 – 1065.
• Jones C. B. and R. S. Purves (2008) “Geographical information retrieval” (editorial article) International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 22(3), 219–228.


Corinne Le Quéré is Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia and researcher at the British Antarctic Survey. She is a physicist by training, and now conducts research on the interactions between climate change and the marine carbon cycle. She recently led a team that uncovered the weakening of the Southern Ocean CO2 sink in response to human-induced climate change. Prof Le Quéré was author of the 3rd and 4th Assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). She co-Chairs the Global Carbon Project, a non-governmental organization that fosters International research on the carbon cycle and publishes global CO2 budgets every year.


Olivier is a science strategic head in the Met Office Hadley Centre. He leads and coordinates the work of the team on Earth System modelling and contributes to defining the strategy within Climate Research. His research interests include climate change, regional to global air pollution, aerosol-radiation-cloud interactions, data assimilation of satellite observations in atmospheric models for monitoring the atmospheric composition of the atmosphere, atmosphere-biosphere couplings and biogeochemical feedbacks in the Earth System, impact of irrigation on climate, impact of aviation on climate, climate mitigation policies, climate metrics, and integrated assessment modelling.

Olivier leads the Climate, Chemistry and Ecosystems team. His research is about biogeochemical feedbacks in the climate system and their relevance to climate mitigation policies.

PhD on aerosol-cloud-radiation interactions at the University Pierre and Marie Curie in Paris in 1995.


Recent work:
Korhonen, H; Carslaw, KS; Forster, PM; Mikkonen, S; Gordon, ND; Kokkola, H (2010) Aerosol climate feedback due to decadal increases in Southern Hemisphere wind speeds, 37, . doi:10.1029/2009GL041320
Heymsfield, A; Baumgardner, D; DeMott, P; Forster, P; Gierens, K; Karcher, B (2010) CONTRAIL MICROPHYSICS, 91, 465-+. doi:10.1175/2009BAMS2839.1
Wuebbles, D; Forster, P; Rogers, H; Herman, R (2010) ISSUES AND UNCERTAINTIES AFFECTING METRICS FOR AVIATION IMPACTS ON CLIMATE, 91, 491-+. doi:10.1175/2009BAMS2840.1
Rap, A; Forster, PM; Jones, A; Boucher, O; Haywood, JM; Bellouin, N; De Leon, RR (2010) Parameterization of contrails in the UK Met Office Climate Model, 115, . doi:10.1029/2009JD012443
Haywood, JM; Allan, RP; Bornemann, J; Forster, PM; Francis, PN; Milton, S; Radel, G; Rap, A; Shine, KP; Thorpe, R (2009) A case study of the radiative forcing of persistent contrails evolving into contrail-induced cirrus, 114, . doi:10.1029/2009JD012650
Andrews, T; Forster, PM; Gregory, JM (2009) A Surface Energy Perspective on Climate Change, 22, 2557-2570.

This is an interesting one  I googled William Collins and only 2 came up in the
First 100 entries that were scientists. Both were from the USA:

William (Bill) Collins
Senior Scientist and Department Head Professor in Residence Professor, University of California, Berkeley Climate Science Department

• B.A., Physics (cum laude) Princeton University, 1981
• M.S., Astronomy and Astrophysics University of Chicago, 1984
• Ph.D., Astronomy and Astrophysics University of Chicago, 1988
Contributor (lead author) for the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Bill Collins contributes to next IPCC report
Bill Collins is one of six lab scientists selected to contribute to the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Bill Collins, Climate and Carbon Sciences Program, Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

The other William Collins is from the University of Colorado but is it possible
That it is the Berkeley man who has been nominated by the UK?

PhD in atmospheric Science from Manchester Metropolitan University

David Lee is the director of the Centre for Air Transport and Environment (CATE) and professor of atmospheric science at Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU). Within the Omega project, David is the senior science technical advisor.

In addition to his role as director of CATE, David leads the climate change area within CATE and works on a number of UK and European projects relating to the effects of aviation and transport on climate change. His key interests include modelling the impacts of aircraft on the global atmosphere, emissions inventories, urban air quality, and the effects of photochemical oxidants.

Doctorate in Meteorology
Professor Physical Meteorology, Reading University
Fellow of the Royal Society

Keith Shine FRS is the head of the Atmospheric Radiation and Climate group and previous head of department at the University of Reading's meteorology department. He was a lead author of Climate Change 1995, the 1995 IPCC report on global warming. He held the University's annual Children's Christmas lecture on Clouds in 2008. Keith Shine was admitted as a fellow to the Royal Society in 2009.

People need to be aware that it isn’t just CO2 that’s the problem" ... "CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas-there's no question about that," and "Greenhouse gases come in different strengths," Shine said

Recent publications:

V. Ramaswamy, M.-L. Chanin, J. Angell et al. 2001. "Stratospheric temperature trends: Observations and model simulations" Review of Geophysics Vol. 39, no. 1, February 2001, pages 71–122.
G Myhre, EJ Highwood, KP Shine, F Stordal 1998 "New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases" Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 25, Issue 14, p. 2715-2718. abstract
Shine, K.P., and Piers M. de F. Forster 1995. "The effect of human activity on radiative forcing of climate change: a review of recent developments" Global and Planetary Change, Volume 20, Issue 4, May 1999, Pages 205-225. DOI:10.1016/S0921-8181(99)00017-X
P.H. Haynes, M.E. McIntyre, T.G. Shepherd, C.J. Marks and K.P. Shine 1991. "On the 'Downward Control' of Extratropical Diabatic Circulations by Eddy-Induced Mean Zonal Forces" Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 48, Issue 4 (February 1991) pp. 651–678. DOI:10.1175/1520-0469(1991)048<0651:OTCOED>2.0.CO;2
J.M. Haywood and K.P. Shine. 1995. "The effect of anthropogenic sulfate and soot aerosol on the clear sky planetary radiation budget" Geophysical Research Letters 1995, vol. 22, no5, pp. 603–606.

Professor of Climate system dynamics Exeter University (Mathematics)

Previous Jobs
Until September 2006, Prof Cox was the Science Director - Climate Change at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and prior to that he was at the Hadley Centre for Climate prediction and Research (1990-2004).
• Lead-author on Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment report
• Founding member of the Coupled Climate-Carbon Cycle Intercomparison Project (C4MIP)
• Member of Royal Society Working Group on Ground-level Ozone in the 21st Century
• Highly-cited author in Global Warming Research
• Winner of Royal Met Soc Adrian Gill Award 2007
• Member of Royal Society Working Group on Geoengineering the Climate

TV Coverage
• "High Anxieties: The Mathematics of Chaos" - BBC4, 14th October 2008
• "Climate Change: Britain Under Threat" - BBC1, 21st January 2007
• "Dimming the Sun" - PBS, 5th August 2006
• "Can We Save Planet Earth" - BBC1, 31st May 2006
• "Are We Changing Planet Earth" - BBC1, 24th May 2006
• "Global Dimming" - BBC1, Horizon, February 2005
• "The Venus Theory" - Finnish TV, 2004
• "The Day the Ocean Boiled" - Channel 4, Equinox, June 2001


Peter A. Stott is a climate scientist and Manager of Understanding and Attributing Climate Change at the UK Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, U.K.[1]
He was a lead author of the IPCC WG I report, chapter 9, for the AR4 released in 2007.
Wu, Peili, Richard Wood, and Peter Stott, 2004. Does the recent freshening trend in the North Atlantic indicate a weakening thermohaline circulation?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L02301, doi:10.1029/2003GL018584, January 20, 2004
PA Stott, Jones GS, Mitchell JFB, 2003: Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?, Journal of Climate, Volume 16, Issue 24 (December 2003) pp. 4079–4093 DOI: 10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<4079:DMUTSC>2.0.CO;2 Abstract
PA Stott, SFB Tett, GS Jones, MR Allen, JFB Mitchell, GJ Jenkins 2000: External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings, Science 15 December 2000: Vol. 290. no. 5499, pp. 2133 - 2137. DOI: 10.1126/science.290.5499.2133


Following Research Fellowships in the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he returned as a University Lecturer in 2001 and currently leads the Climate Dynamics Group in the Department of Physics. His research focuses on how human and natural influences on climate contribute to observed climate change and extreme weather risk. He served on successive Assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 (undergraduate training in philosophy proved invaluable in the IPCC process).

A collaboration with the Met Office in the late 1990s provided some of the core evidence that most of the warming over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities and, in 2004, first quantified the role of human influence in a specific damaging weather event – the European summer heat-wave of 2003. Alongside this work on attribution, the Climate Dynamics Group has a long-standing interest in using the evidence for human influence on climate to constrain climate forecasts. One of the highest profile applications of this work is the experiment, running Monte Carlo climate model simulations on personal computers signed up by the general public. This ongoing project has been the subject of two BBC television documentaries, winning the 2007 Prix Europa Internet Project of the Year.
Dr. Allen’s latest research addresses the question of how scientific evidence can best be used to inform climate policy. This work has shown that limiting cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide may be a more robust approach to climate change mitigation policy than attempting to define a “safe” stabilization level for atmospheric greenhouse gases.


Research Interests: Interface between climate modelling and climate observation, in climate diagnostics and statistical climatology; variability and changes in climatic extremes, on constraining future climate change by estimating the magnitude of already observed radiatively forced climate change, and on the use of palaeo proxy data to study climate variability and change during the last millennium.


No publications


Tim Palmer is Head of the Probability Forecast Division at ECMWF. His research straddles the weather/climate divide and he is a keen promoter of the concept of "seamless prediction" which attempts to bring the insights and constraints of numerical weather prediction into the climate arena. He is co-chair of the World Climate Research Programme's CLIVAR Scientific Steering Group, was coordinator of two EU climate prediction projects and was a lead author in the IPCC third assessment report.

My DPhil was in general relativity theory from Oxford in the mid 1970s, after which I moved into the field of weather and climate dynamics and prediction, first at the UK Meteorological Office and then at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts. I have been a visiting scientist at the University of Washington.
My research spans a wide variety of areas, from the theoretical to the practical, in issues related to the predictability and dynamics of weather and climate. On the theoretical side, I am especially interested in aspects of the climate system which exhibit nonlinear behaviour, for example where atmospheric processes on different space and time scales interact. This has led me to try to recast the basic equations for climate prediction as stochastic rather than deterministic. On the practical side, I have worked on the application of weather and climate forecasts for malaria prediction, flood forecasting, and crop yield estimation.
I have been a lead author of the IPCC third assessment report, have coordinated two European Union climate projects, and was co-chair of the international scientific steering group of a World Climate Research Programme project on climate variability and predictability. I was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 2003, and served on the Royal Society Council in 2008-9. I am president-elect of the Royal Meteorological Society, and am a member of the government's Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Climate Change Committee, chaired by the Principal of Jesus College, Lord Krebs. I have won prizes from a number of learned societies and academies, in the UK and overseas.


Can not find any qualifications or history of any importance
But this guy is coordinating Lead Author. (Maybe I got the wrong guy?)
In Preparation

1. Collins, M, Booth, BBB, Bhaskaran, B, Harris, G, Murphy, JM, Sexton, DMH, Webb, MJ. A comparison of perturbed physics and multi-model ensembles: Model errors, feedbacks and forcings. In prep for Climate Dynamics.

2. Sexton, DMH, Murphy, JM and Collins, M. Multivariate prediction using imperfect climate models part I: Outline of methodology. In prep.

3. Sexton, DMH, Murphy, JM, Collins, M and Webb, MJ. Multivariate prediction using imperfect climate models part II: Using a large number of observations to constrain a prediction. In prep.

4. Collins, M. An anthropogenic influence on the El Nino Southern Oscillation. In prep.

5. Hemming, D, Betts, R, Collins, M, Webb, MJ, Sexton, D. Responses and uncertainties in global climate model projections of terrestrial net primary productivity with doubled atmospheric CO2. In prep.

Peer-Reviewed Journal Publications - Submitted

6. Yokohata, T., Webb, M.J., Collins, M., Williams, K.D., Yoshimori, M., Hargreaves, J.C., and Annan, J.D. Structural similarities and differences in climate responses to CO2 increase between two perturbed physics ensembles. J. Clim., submitted.

7. Booth, BBB, Jones, CD, Collins, M, Totterdell, I, Cox, P, Sitch, S, Huntingford, C and Betts, R. Global warming uncertainties due to carbon cycle feedbacks exceed those due to CO2 emissions. Nature, submitted.

8. Ho, C. K., Stephenson, D. B. and Collins, M. What is a good model for heat-related mortality? Journal of Biometeorology, submitted.

This guy is or has been a visiting professor at Bristol University but no way is he a UK scientist.
Pierre Friedlingstein
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement (LSCE)
Orme des Merisiers, Bat. 712, Point courrier 132

Research Projects:
Constraining the response of a global coupled carbon-water-nitrogen ecosystem model to enhanced CO2 concentrations by observations.


Tim joined the Met Office in 1986, and has spent his Met Office career working on climate research and climate model development. He played a significant role in the original design and implementation of the Met Office Unified Model system, and in the subsequent development and operational introduction of the HadCM2, HadCM3, HadGEM1 and HadGEM2 climate models.
Before 1986, he was a post-doctoral researcher at University College Cardiff, where he gained his PhD in 1984, working on code development and numerical simulation of galactic dynamics. In that work he designed and programmed a galaxy model code that ran on the world's first commercial massively parallel supercomputer, the ICL Distributed Array Processor. Tim completed Part III of the Maths Tripos at the University of Cambridge in 1980, specialising in astrophysics and relativity theory, having previously graduated in Mathematics from the University of Southampton in 1979.
Tim investigates global climate change, leading a modelling team that works on advancing understanding and simulation of coupled climate processes.
Current activities
In addition to managing the Global coupled modelling team, Tim is currently working on analysis of multi-model climate change experiments completed in the European Union ENSEMBLES project , which included simulations with two versions of the Met Office Unified Model. He is interested in understanding and reducing modelling uncertainties in projected warming and water cycle changes over the next century on global to continental scales, including the role of aerosols. Tim has a broad interest in scientific and technical aspects of global climate modelling. Tim is jointly responsible for leading the Met Office's IHP project and aims to facilitate joined-up research across the Met Office and with external scientific activities in this field, including partnerships with the NERC Changing Water Cycle programme .


I can be found in room 351, Grant Institute, Kings Buildings. I joined the University in July 2007 and before then I worked for the Met Office's Hadley Centre. I joined the Hadley Centre in 1991 where I worked on mechanisms of Climate Variability and the detection and attribution of climate change. In 2001 I got promoted to manage a team of scientists who researched observed climate change. I improved their information technology so that the systems used for near-real-time climate monitoring were more robust. I also focused the team on producing error estimates. On the side I attempted to model the climate of the last 500 years and found that early CO2 emissions may have had a significant effect on tropical temperatures by the early 19th century.

My research interests are very broad ranging from methods to reconstruct past climate from proxy records, such as tree rings, and instrumental data, through to modelling future climate. At the heart of my research is the quantitative analysis of models and observations of climate change in order to constrain the future. I'm also interested in extreme climate events and their causes. In coming to Edinburgh I'd like to improve my knowledge and understanding of the carbon cycle and try and develop ways of constraining its possible futures. I'd also like to improve estimates of the natural variability of the earth system and device ways of ruling out strong climate feedbacks from observations. This all seems to fit into NERC's Climate System Strategy.

Jul 21, 2010 at 3:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterDung


Sounds like a wonderful set of "science fair" reports. I wonder who will read it?

Cheer up. They are on their last Hurrah.

Jul 21, 2010 at 4:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra


This list is just the tip of a huge iceberg of talent that is wasted. It could be used to solve real-world problems. If only the money they consume were put into nuclear fusion.

Jul 21, 2010 at 7:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

I agree, Phillip. Put the Sun in a bottle and light up the world.

Jul 21, 2010 at 2:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

What I am trying to hilight is:

Many have published recent papers which are pro AGW.
I did not find one who had published anti AGW papers.
One scientist living and working in the US is nominated by UK?
One scientist living and working in France is nominated by the UK?

We dont need to wait for AR5, we can see already what it will say.

Jul 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

BTW the stuff I posted is not posted anywhere else, I put it together by researching each UK author.

Jul 21, 2010 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

If you look at Chapter 12, LONG TERM CLIMATE CHANGE, we have a UK coordinating lead author.

His list of peer reviewed publications contains only "In preparation" and "Submitted" so he has had nothing published???

How does this guy get to be a coordinating lead author?

Jul 21, 2010 at 4:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

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>