Bishop Hill Beddington quotes
Some excerpts from the Beddington's letters to Lawson:
The significance of urbanisation on the global temperature record is not contested by the vast majority of climate scientists. Most stations are not affected by the urban heat island effect and there are well-established ways of taking the effect into account for stations that are (such as comparing temperatures on still and windy nights and excluding urban stations). I refer you to my previous response for further information on this issue.
I should clarify that I did not seek to defend the original hockey stick analysis; I am aware that there are issues and uncertainties associated with it.
...you suggested that scientists at CRU delayed the release of temperature data they held. I hope that I can clarify this by laying out the situation as I understand it. The majority of the data in the CRU dataset are derived from the same freely-available raw data sets used by NOAA and NASA. However, the CRU dataset was compiled with the aim of comprehensiveness and therefore also includes data derived from station data obtained directly from countries, institutions and scientists on the understanding that this would not be passed on.
It is true that global average temperature has remained roughly constant over the past decade, but this in no way undermines the evidence that greenhouse gases are causing warming
[In response to Lawson's suggestion that models didn't predict the slowdown in warming] It remains very difficult, however, to predict year to year changes caused by short-term, internal processes in the climate system such as ENSO – primarily because the climate system is chaotic.
Reader Comments (92)
This is like life Soviet Russia between the wars... establishment Scientific figure:
Yes I know that black really appears to be black, but you have to realise that black is actually white. And to deny otherwise makes you a deviant and an enemy of the revolution. So be careful when you start claiming 'black is black'
Re: Lack of warming over past decade.
In observational studies, correlation never proves causation but lack of correlation disproves causation.
His basically just taken everything CRU have told him as self truth that cannot be challenged. That he takes such a view point and tries to brush all doubts away on the grounds of ‘consensus’ shows his lost real critical factor he had on this front .
As for this views on urban heat island, that merely shows how little he knows about the subject has his views simple make no sense. Of course has he knows ‘Most stations are not affected’ he can as a scientist produce the valid evidenced to back that claim up , any chance of this ?
How is it possible to do proper science (which I assume, kindly, that the majority of climate scientists are at least trying to do) if the essential raw data is forbidden to them? And for what reason?
Has any of these so called NDA's ever been released by CRU...or dud a dig eat them?
Mailman
Once a scientist admits a system is chaotic, then that scientist must then question everything about that system... looking back at the immense complexity and length of our planet's existence. You do not know where the boundary of a chaotic systems such as Earth's lies.
A 4 billion year old planet, and he admits predicting "year to year" is difficult, but 100 years is not? With all the possible drivers, some possibly 'random', others having different cycle times, possibly millions of years old?
B*******.
I wonder if Sir John actually understands the intrinsic unpredictability of chaotic system?
"Most stations are not affected by the urban heat island effect and there are well-established ways of taking the effect into account "
ROFLMFAO...:-))))
In para 1 relating to Urban Heat Island Effect, Beddington is relying on Jones et al 1990 Nature paper, relating to chinese data, which has never been checked or verified, and is now allegedly lost.
Mike's Nature trick "hide the decline"
Phil's Nature trick "lose the data"
Para 2. Is this the first official acceptance that the Hockey Stick is a sham?
The problem with the UK scientific mestablishment is that their career progresssion has been based on slavishly following the CAGW mantra. They don't know much about the science from their own personal research, hence Nurse's Big Mistake, also King's 2004 humiliation in Moscow.
Now of course they have a Bigger Problem: they're advising government when the politicians know very well that true scientists are rounding on the cheats and the whole basis of the scare, the faulty optical physics of clouds, is being shown up as having been wrong.
So, look very carefully at how they create distance from the scam; para 2 is a classic. In 6 months' time, I suxspect Beddington will be saying 'I always felt it was wrong but we were lied to by people we trusted and who have now been outed; science is still OK'.
Beddington writes:
Perhaps someone should forward Mike MacCracken's email on to Professor Beddington:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=947&filename=1231166089.txt
Para 3 CRU managed to find a reason to withhold the data that showed that in....
Para 4 there had been no warming despite a rise in CO2, and anyway...
Para 5 ENSO has far greater effect on global temperatures than CO2, and this is very evident.
Beddington is the UK's chief scientist. Could he be awarded an HSI prize? That is not Hockey Stick Illusion, but Homer Simpson Impersonator
Sir John Beddington appears neither to have grasped the science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming nor the scientific method. Goodness knows what he advises the government of. It is frightening that these people have any influence.
"obtained directly from countries, institutions and scientists on the understanding that this would not be passed on."
I thought the institutions/scientists/countries were only happy for their numbers to be used if they were not altered, and since they were 'adjusted' refused permission to use them as a source?
I have all the data and it proves categorically that there has been no warming at all since the rise in co2 levels. I cannot release the data as I have promised not to. So stop wasting any more money on climate research and just accept that it is caused by natural means. This science is so easy why did I not think of doing it this way before?
So according to neddington the proof of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) is that temps today are .75 degrees warmer than it was a hundred years ago?
The question is, how the he'll do you even detect that kind if warming given bow chaotic nature is?
Mailman
I have read Peter Whales message and I can confirm its validity. As usual, I did not ask for the data for my review.
Non disclosure agreements here...
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/agreements.pdf
Lawson's book came out three years ago. Has Beddington only just noticed?
The 'three year' delay issue may indicate an exit plan from the pro-CAGW camp. Watch for other such ploys as the more politically-aware desert the sinking ship.
What is the purpose of having a chief scientist?
Scientists pontificating outside their narrow field of expertise, just filter the work of others and stand between researchers and their critics to muddy the waters.
Jiminy Cricket writes:
'This is like life Soviet Russia between the wars'
I don't doubt there is significant pressure to tow the establishment line, but I presume you are exagerating - a lot - for effect? Either that or you don't know much about Soviet Russia between the wars.
Bishop Hill and many other blogs are free to publish. I am not complacent about civil liberties in Britain, but there are no gulags let alone gulag prisoners due to their position on climate. No one has been shot for their beliefs.
There are definitely funding pressures, and I am sure many people feel sometimes intense informal pressure to keep quiet, but so far as I know no one has lost their job for saying what they believe.
Jiminy Cricket later writes:
'Once a scientist admits a system is chaotic, then that scientist must then question everything about that system'
Not really. 'Chaotic' is not the same thing as 'magic'. We do not have to question the conservation of momentum, the laws of thermodynamics and so on.
and
'he admits predicting "year to year" is difficult, but 100 years is not?'
Have a look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymP6JTugZig
Observe the two side pivots. Try to predict which direction they will spin in next. Yet it is possible to make the long term statistical prediction that they will each spend 50% of their time spinning in each direction. In the short term 50% will be a poor prediction - for very short times it will be 100% or 0%. But the longer the time becomes the more accurate prediction of this statistic for a chaotic system becomes.
(I don't have anything personal against Jiminy Cricket, it's just his two remarks seemed to me the most comment-worthy things in the thread.)
If practicing scientists are true believers, then the chief scientist will just parrot their nonesense.
Persons called Professor this and Doctor that, sound authorative because they are very well practiced at pontifying and talking down to their audience, who usually know even less about their subject.
Their words are however meaningless when they speak outside their narrow field of expertise.
With any chief scientist, that's alost all the time.
JK writes "But the longer the time becomes the more accurate prediction of this statistic for a chaotic system becomes."
This would only be true if the measurement was subject to a statistically stationary process and also its time constants were known. Taking a simple example and pretending it is valid in a complex system merely demonstrates a lack of understanding of the science involved.
I am well aware that the climate is more complex than a few coupled oscillators. But the idea that chaos per se is a profound barrier to understanding seems to have taken on a significance with some skeptics similar to the idea that warming follows from 'basic physics' for some warmers.
Both have a grain of truth. But just as 3+ degrees climate sensitivity doesn't follow from 'basic physics', so 'all bets are off' doesn't follow from 'the climate is chaotic'.
None of the models can predict climate because they all assume substantial 'global dimming' by polluted clouds when by 2003, experiment had shown no evidence of the effect, e.g. no difference of average cloud albedo between the polluted northern and unpolluted southern hemispheres.
The problem is that in order to correct the error, the high-feedback hypothesis, justified by incorrect optical physics, has to be junked and that cannot be done so long as those whose careers developed on the back of the scare, remain in charge.
A couple of things struck me here. First, it's amazing that Lawson's scientific understanding is an issue. As he says himself, that's not his main focus. From where I'm looking, he makes some good points but is not strong on detail. Fair enough - it is not his task to be a scientist. The mock outrage at his minor errors - if they are errors - is pathetic.
Next, I fear Beddington may be conceding less than we'd like when he writes "I should clarify that I did not seek to defend the
original hockey stick analysis." The key word here is 'original'. The realclimate and co shtick is that the small problems with the 1998 stick have been done away with and newer better analyses give the same picture. HSI readers will not agree...
Third, JK speaks a lot of sense. Chaos does not remove all regularities. We can't say if it will be 7 or 17 this day in 2012 in Grimsby, but we can predict the average temp for the UK in March 2012 to within 2 or 3 degrees with some confidence.
Mar 27, 2011 at 2:50 PM | j
A 10 year old with a calculator could work out likely temperatures for Grimsby in March 2012, simply by averaging historic data.
How are climate scientists doing any better?
golf charley,
Climate scientists are doing much better than the 10 year old with basic math skills because the climate scientists have learned to make a great deal of money off of that average.
Beddington: "....also includes data derived from station data obtained directly from countries, institutions and scientists on the understanding that this would not be passed on."
But as noted at WUWT:
Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden....
But: All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain.
Link: What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.
JK: " 'all bets are off' doesn't follow from 'the climate is chaotic'. "
True, but the claim that long-term averages (climate vs. weather) are predictable where short-term is not, depends crucially upon knowing the system equations accurately. The claim is made rather broadly that there is an energy imbalance, which imbalance increases with the concentration of CO2, and that this is well-quantified. By the conservation of energy, although energy may be re-distributed locally (e.g. ENSO) in the short term, all that energy stays within the terrestrial environment, and therefore in the long term, we can expect that the terrestrial energy increases along a certain trajectory, and deduce a future temperature trajectory therefrom.
However, the terrestrial system is not isolated in energy terms, and I don't think we have a good handle on the quantitative imbalance. See the ARGO results; the trend there is more telling than global temperature trends.
An analogy has been made elsewhere to predicting coin flips. Although short-term predictions are hopeless, a long-term prediction of 50% is likely to be very accurate. However, our "coin" (climate) may be "loaded": the long-term average might well be 55%, we just don't know yet. And the further we predict, the more we may be off -- if we predict over 10,000 flips, we'd be off by 500 if the actual rate is 55% (predict 5000 heads but actual is around 5500); if we predict the course of 1 million flips, we'd be off by 50,000 heads (500K predicted vs. 550K).
It is a mistake of epic proportions to assume Oriental culture is the only one that has major concerns with matters of 'face', or as some would put it, a loss of personal credibility and dignity. As other posters have said, Beddington seems to be groping for an exit strategy that will allow him to ditch CAGW without personal loss of face. Once he has found it, watch the speedy exodus of former 'true believers'.
'It is true that global average temperature has remained roughly constant over the last decade, but this in no way undermines the evidence that greenhouse gases are causing global warming...'
So - let me get this straight in my head.
'There has been no increase in the global average temperature over the last decade.'
Ok - got that.
'...greenhouse gases are causing global warming..'
But you just said...?
'Look, laddie - you really are getting on my nerves. If I say that greenhouse gases are causing global warming, then that's what's happening - ok..??'
But you just said...
'DON'T argue with me, boy - go and sit in the corner with your hands on your head..!'
...and as far as the availability of temperature records go, I believe that McIntyre et al. were mostly asking for *which* records were used, rather than a pointer to a very large database from which certain stations were extracted. It strikes me that it should be easy to say that they used stations X,Y&Z from publicly-available dataset A, and stations T,U & V from a non-generally-available dataset provided by agency B. This would have been responsive to any non-disclosure agreements, while providing useful information to those trying to replicate the results. But it appears that Jones et al. were not trying to be useful.
I find the whole thing quite bizarre. But they attack when we are winning the arguement - the shriller their cries, the more we know who is winning.
BTW, it would be fascinating to know how many of our posters are scientists - quite a few I suspect. Quite a number of "that very small minority" who do not agree with "the consensus". Perhaps it is not such a very small minority at all.
DGH,
The first fax is not a NDA, its just a statement by CRU saying they wont share data with anyone. This only feeds in to the perception that CRU has purposely chosen to hide data from scrutiny further...and lets not forget that first fax was dealing with a Government body. quite why this government body needs to hide its data from...the public...is a mystery :)
Secondly, only the second one doesnt mention prior approval being given before data is released. It would be interesting to see if CRU had made any attempts at any time to get approval to release that data or whether CRU just immediately, without asking, rejected requests from McIntyre et al out of hand?
Mailman
@JK... History? Well here is some living history... My wife was one of the lucky few whilst dressed in her red kerchief and fetching Pioneer outfit who won a trip (whilst at the International Summer Camp) to Paris to see the decadent West. Her Grandfather turned up on his wife's doorstep a few years after WWII and said "Hello Love...". Having spent the time since the ceasefire in a nice friendly Soviet Labour camp.
Economics teaching was interesting. They leant everything about capitalism. And at the end the Teacher was duty bound to say "... but of course Marxism is the better system."
My point is related. Beddington seemed to accepting the uncertainty in the detail, yet his "Management Summary" is still "We are doomed. Doomed I tell ya...".
Now if you want to expand the argument to the relative benefits of Capitalism /Marxism please do so, but I think you are taking my comment a little out of the context for which it was intended.
So I am not allowed to make an analogy to any system of control/government if the fruits of that system is negative? Forgive me I shall just restrict myself to the imperialistic West ;)
Some interesting temperature series from Western Europe.
As far as I can see there has been no significant warming here since 1989/1990.
Let Beddington explain this.
Norway
http://eklima.met.no/metno/trend/TAMA_G0_0_1000_NO.jpg
Sweden
http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/temperatur/1.2430
Finland
http://i55.tinypic.com/1174sb7.jpg
England (CET)
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/
Netherlands
http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/lijsten/jaar_xtr.html (year ranking)
Spain
http://www.aemet.es/documentos/es/elclima/datos_climat/resumenes_climat/anuales/res_anual_clim_2010.pdf
France
http://www.onerc.org/category/classification-indicateurs/atmosphere-et-climat
Belgium
http://www.meteo.be/meteo/view/fr/5321173-2010.html
(In Germay the warming stopped in
@jk ... re chaos...
Now if you wish to define the boundaries of the climate system within the comments of this blog, then do so. I will come back in a few years when you have finished.
You have your idea of what is inside the box, I have mine (Earths's tilt, plate movements, closeness of the moon). These thing exist. State the reasons that they should be included with the box. For the boundary to be valid everything inside has to defined by proven laws of nature, or by empirical evidence gathered on time frames that relate sensibly to the body in question i.e. a 4 billion year old planet.
Forgive me, I have just realised you may be correct. All the billions of dollars spent on weather forecasting has produced accurate weather forecast maybe 6 day in advance (if I am generous.)
What a success story for predicting a complex chaotic system.*
*this is not related to the "weather is climate" argument, just an example of a chaotic system that has had money spent on it. Rather than a few low quality scientists looking at tree rings (for example.)
This Sir Beddington person does not seem to have any original understanding of the questions and issues raised by sceptics/pondered by scientists at all!
For every question, Lawson asks, Beddington refers him to this or that page in the IPCC report. Many of these are flat out wrong (UHI, temperature trends in last decade, the rate of rise being high in the second half of 20th century) or are complete nonanswers to Lawson's questions.
You have to feel sorry for the guy.
"Sir" John being a Population Biologist means the Dustman is probably as qualified or more so to answer the questions. The same responses are found at RC of Cook's swamp but he does not provide the "Expertise" that can be found in the Wabbit Hole or at Airhead. I have been reading those answers for years but when appropriate 10 or fewer years is enough time to say Global Warming is the trend as seen in Hansen's testimony before our Congress in 1988!
Actually, I'm a bit surprised that there hasn't been a bit more constructive criticism of Lord Lawson's involvement. He scares me stiff, not least because he's so easy to attack and, through him the anti-warming movement. I applaud his enthusiasm, but why should inaccuracies/loose logic on the Sceptic side be more acceptable than the same on the other side, if you're somebody in the middle trying to understand it all?
LDLAS, it is strange how populated countries have stopped warming (or have had increases revised down eg New Zealand) but unpopulated areas with few weather stations or even none still show warming eg Artic and Siberia.
"A 10 year old with a calculator could work out likely temperatures.."
Better than the Met Office, then! I listened to the 8 am forecast on R4 yesterday with amusement, as I was told that it was going to be a cold start to a gloomy and cool day, with a maximum temperature of around 8 deg.C. At that moment, there was bright sunshine, and the shade temperature in my garden (well away from the house) was 9 deg. The sun continued to shine and it got to 19.5 by lunch time. the same thing happened again today, after a similarly gloomy forecast. I don't expect them to get it dead right, but 10 degrees out a few hours before the event seems a bit wide of the mark...
James P
And the Met Office want an even more expensive computer
Ian UK
I posted this on the previous thread, but it seems relevant to your comment, so with apologies, here is is again:
It's the usual back-and-forth. Is it only me that's getting a bit fed up with the endless tussle over the obvious?
Yes, temperatures have warmed over the last 150 years by about 0.7C. Yes, the last three decades were each on average warmer than the preceding one.
Now it's time to stop arguing about the bleeding obvious - it's warming - and start trying to zero in on the correct value for climate sensitivity to CO2.
If there is a warm bias in some/all records (surface temp; tropospheric temp; SST; OHC) and the role of black carbon in Arctic, Greenland and NH glacial melt has been under-estimated, then there is a good case that the observations may not support the consensus median estimate of +3C per doubling of pre-industrial levels of CO2.
That's where the argument needs to be.
The big problem is Dr. Beddington has the ear of the politicians, who tell Dr. Beddington what they want him to relate, rather an unhealthy symbiosis, they're all in the 'loop', trouble is - we are not.
Beddington's manoeuvring above [quotes] is illuminating, his backtracking and 'chaotic' statements are testament to the confusion and miasma of lies and subterfuge of the alarmist camp and standpoint. Even Romm is struggling and he at least, has some relevant academic qualifications [which makes his stance questionable in that, is there something else at play?].
But in the end, the EU runs the show and according to Brussels; "the science is settled." For our politicians, there is no way around this fact, their hands are bound tight.
There is too much money, power and baksheesh riding on AGW and it's useless palliatives.
They so nearly had victory in Dopenhagen, now the tide turns but the rearguard action will become a, "hard pounding!"
Like Bob Ward, Beddington is a mouth-piece and pawn but three years after its publication, Lawson's book remains a large thorn in the alarmist's side, hence Beddington is sent forth............funny or pathetic?
If predictions of a 100 years in the future are possible by the models, the next ice age should be easy. So when is it going to be? Within a couple of centuries is good enough.
A very relevant and SCIENTIFIC presentation here
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/geophysicist-explains-how-sun-controls.html
Well worth a watch if you have missed it. A pdf version of his slides is linked as well.
Away from the science, I particularly enjoyed Prof. Courtillot's straight-face comments. One about how he could not let one of his students do the work of analysing the Sun's effects on climate, because where would the guy get a job afterwards? The second one was about how the paper hadn't been published because it was difficult to get such things published.
Why did the Carbon Brief write this article now, for the Guardian to use/report on?
Because it allows Beddington to be sent forth, because of a debate that Lawson is in on Tuesday!!!!
Lawson, Springer, Peiser vs Professor King, Professor Palmer and Singh...
http://www.spectator.co.uk/shop/events/6711083/spectator-debate-the-global-warming-concern-is-over-time-for-a-return-to-sanity.thtml
The Carbon Brief were the source of this story,, twittered to all at Guardian(Duncan Clark, Randerson, Carrington, Hickman,etc), the MSM media, etc and all enviroment groups...and UEA and the Committe of climate change..
ie get the damage limitation in first, try to discredit one of the participants before Tuesdays Spectator debate. I imagine someone will be there from the Carnbon Brief twittering about it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/18/the-carbon-brief-the-european-rapid-response-team/