Bishop Hill Pinning down the debate
Mar 23, 2012 Climate: Models In his Radio 5 interview, James Delingpole correctly framed the argument over AGW as being over (a) how large the effect is (b) how much warming there will be and (c) how much of a problem it is.
Vicky Pope at the Met Office has taken a different approach in an article in the Guardian today.
You can see research by the Met Office that shows the evidence of man-made warming is even stronger than it was when the last IPCC report was published. A whole range of different datasets and independent analyses show the world is warming. There is a broad consensus that over the last half century warming has been rapid, and man-made greenhouse gas emissions are very likely to be the cause.
Long-term changes in our climate system have been observed across the globe, from shifts in rainfall patterns to a decline in Arctic sea-ice. The changes follow the pattern of expected climate change and bear the fingerprint of human influence, providing the clearest evidence yet that human activity is impacting our climate. The rate of warming and ice melt varies and some regions warm faster while others don't warm at all for a while. Again, it's the big picture that's important.
Given the overwhelming evidence for man-made climate change, it could be argued that it shouldn't be necessary to keep going over old ground to prove it time after time. In fact, it's essential we move on and focus on the future, because climate change will pose challenges for humanity.
Saying that it warmed in the last century is not really helping anyone get to grips with the debate, since everyone agrees that this is the case (we can quibble over UHI and stuff like that, but this is not going to make the warming trend go away). How these changes are "rapid" somewhat eludes me, since even Phil Jones has agreed that warming at similar rates has been observed in the past.
Likewise, "overwhelming evidence for manmade climate change" is a point of agreement across all sides. Man has affected the climate since the forests were cleared for agriculture. The question, as I say, is how much raised carbon dioxide levels will affect the climate and to what extent it is a problem. The evidence for this, I would say, is not overwhelming at all, relying on models that have no proven skill in predicting the temperature.
Reader Comments (56)
Did I say prestidigitation??
From here at Mr. Goddard's place.
How Vicky does spin these lies ....er 'adjustments' - statistics and anybody can play especially those boys and girls at the
Ministry of Alarmist propagandaHadley centre/UEA-CRU...... ."In his Radio 5 interview, James Delingpole correctly framed the argument over AGW as being over (a) how large the effect is (b) how much warming there will be and (c) how much of a problem it is...Saying that it warmed in the last century is not really helping anyone get to grips with the debate, since everyone agrees that this is the case (we can quibble over UHI and stuff like that, but this is not going to make the warming trend go away). "
Dream on, Dellers-- Michaels and Singer issued this flat-out denial of the satellite record of warming in 2004
Meltdown for Global Warming Science
How many times have we heard from Al Gore and assorted European politicians that "the science is settled" on global warming? ... Well, the science may now be settled, but not in the way Mr. Gore... would have us believe. Three bombshell papers have just hit the refereed literature that knock the stuffing out ... The surface temperature record shows a warming rate of about 0.17 degrees Celsius (0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 1979. However, there are two other records -- one from satellites, the other from weather balloons -- that tell a different story.
So, which record is right, the U.N. surface record showing the larger warming or the other two? ... The odd-record-out turns out to be the U.N.'s hot-surface history...This is a double kill,... The science is settled. The "skeptics,"...have won."
Alas for the authors, in 2006 the senior author of the underlying satellite record wrote in Science :
"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming...
This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
Source: Skeptical Science (http://s.tt/17R9z)
FAO Richard Betts,
You wrote elsewhere, "What if, say, HadCRUT5 includes further revisions which put the central estimate of the 1998 anomaly warmer than that of 2010 again? Giving these minor revisions more attention than they deserve is, in my opinion, a hostage to fortune.".
Such a statement begs the question; did your organisation publish those minor revisions in HadCRUT4 just to get the Met Office off the hook for the 2010 forecast? Do you hope that flagging up a possibility that HadCRUT5 could reverse those estimates, will act as a salve for your conscience? Forget that, pal.
What has been perpetrated by the MO is out & out pandering to vested interests that benefit from any fiction of increased temperatures, in order that they can benefit from their pseudo environmentalist solutions. All this will be remembered and those who thought they had gained the whole world, will suffer the loss of their souls. Matthew 16:26.
Do the right thing now and make your confession. Cognititive dissonance will be no defence for your actions, when you are arraigned before the Most High.
Russell,
You really are a dunce. Fancy referencing Skeptical Science as a source for sound scientific rationality. Cookie boy has been caught with his trousers down round his ankles, metaphorically speaking.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/from-skeptical-science-interesting.html
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/secret-skepticalscience/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Skeptical-Science-hacked-private-user-details-publicly-posted-online.html
What a hoot!
Delingpole almost gloats in his combativeness.
There are over 4600 comments logged into his after action bog report. "After the interview, Watermelons shot up over 1100 places on Amazon and has remained in the sub-300 zone ever since."
He is gratified by the attention. And so am I.
From the Gran article:
After a couple of cold winters in the UK, the common question was "has climate change stopped?" despite that fact that many other regions of the world were experiencing record warm temperatures.
I can confirm that while you were having shitty cold winters in the UK, we were having shitty cool, rainy summers in NZ.