Bishop Hill New solar paper
Mar 5, 2012 Climate: Models Climate: solar A new paper by Gareth Jones, Mike Lockwood and Peter Stott says that future reductions in solar output will have a limited impact on global warming projections, based on the output from their climate model.
During the 20th century, solar activity increased in magnitude to a so-called grand maximum. It is probable that this high level of solar activity is at or near its end. It is of great interest whether any future reduction in solar activity could have a significant impact on climate that could partially offset the projected anthropogenic warming. Observations and reconstructions of solar activity over the last 9000 years are used as a constraint on possible future variations to produce probability distributions of total solar irradiance over the next 100 years. Using this information, with a simple climate model, we present results of the potential implications for future projections of climate on decadal to multidecadal timescales. Using one of the most recent reconstructions of historic total solar irradiance, the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1 K, a very small fraction of the projected anthropogenic warming. However, if past total solar irradiance variations are larger and climate models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations, then there is a potential for a reduction in solar activity to mitigate a small proportion of the future warming, a scenario we cannot totally rule out. While the Sun is not expected to provide substantial delays in the time to reach critical temperature thresholds, any small delays it might provide are likely to be greater for lower anthropogenic emissions scenarios than for higher-emissions scenarios.
I hope they have made suitable caveats about the validation (or lack of it) of their computer model's ability to project future global warming.
Reader Comments (140)
http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/05/sorry-yet-more-2-studies-show-significant-part-of-warming-since-1850-is-caused-by-the-sun/
By examining the length of individual Schwabe solar sunspot cycles back to 1850 scientists have been able to demonstrate a systematic correlation with the annual mean temperature on earth during the following solar cycle pointing to a lag of about one decade between the solar cycle and the effect on Earth.
In science it is perfectly appropriate to say "this is what we think so far on the basis of the limited evidence we have available" and then refine your conclusions later if and when more evidence comes in.
That was not acceptable when I did physics research. You might say this appears to be what we know and these are the current limits as demostrated but now we will go away a prove it mathematically or experimentally.
I have to second Richard Betts' point re: vagueness vs. certainty.
I've not read the Jones et al. paper in detail, but it seems to me to be less agenda driven that people here assume. They note that they are neglecting UV: 'We here use the total solar irradiance as the primary solar influence on global climate. The TSI variability is dominated by variations in the UV but it has always been considered that changes in the shape of the solar spectrum were sufficiently small that changes in the visible and IR parts of the spectrum were in phase with, and has the same temporal variation waveform as, the UV and hence the TSI.' After some discussion of this point they also note that they are neglecting cosmic rays: 'Last, we note for the sake of completeness, that we have not considered a highly controversial proposed mechanism for solar-climate interaction, namely any modulation of cloud cover by air ions generated by galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) (see review by Gray et al. [2010]). The evidence for a significant influence of GCRs on global cloud coverage, and then climate change, is not considered to be strong and as the physical mechanisms behind this proposal are uncertain they are not parameterized in climate models [Gray et al., 2010; Forster et al., 2007].'
I think it is reasonable for a study to try to clarify a part of a problem without resolving everything. That's the way that science makes progress in other fields.
Breath of Fresh Air says:
'Richard, if in my former life as an engineer I was so vague about a project I would have been sacked. Now I know the climate as a chaotic system is not easily followed or forecast so they is more uncertainty but is it progressing science if you release a paper which essentially says nothing.'
But it seems to me that this is a fundamental problem in the climate debate. Doing science is not about absolute certainty. The political debate is very important one to have, but I think skeptics have as much of a tendency as alarmists to politicize every scientific publication.
On the one hand commentators here ridicule tentative conclusions: fnord says that 'observations of uncertain reliability' should be read as 'speculations', Barabara produces her vagueness index, Rhoda complains that 'don't really know' much so it all amounts to a 'guess'. But what you are all describing is the uncertainty inherent in scientific advance.
On the other hand scientists are often accused of being arrogant, of overstating certainty and ignoring criticisms.
Breath of Fresh Air says that vagueness is not the way it is in engineering, and a number of commentators here have in the past have drawn on experience in business and engineering to criticize climate scientists. But you are confusing two different processes. Practical people deal with uncertainty. That is what practical life is all about. Engineering and business do not function by eliminating uncertainty and attaining absolute knowledge. They work by coming to judgements about what to do on the basis of what is known.
I don't think that the job of scientists is to to come to judgements about what to do. That is for individuals, businesses or democracy, depending on the decision involved.
I think the job of scientists is to investigate the natural world.
Life Breath of Fresh Air, the Thatcherites, New Labourites and threatened to sack any scientist who didn't come up with an actionable decision. This is the approach continued by the present government. Like geronimo, they see scientists 'feeding at the public feet', and demand something in return. Produce something useful, like a threshold for CO2! Taxpayers want value for money, they say.
If you judge scientists by 'value for money' in this way then yes, they will put lines about 'critical temperature thresholds' in their papers. I don't think that government funding for science is an ideal arrangement, but I do think that pure scientific research is valuable from both a cultural and practical point of view. I would be very interested if climate skeptics who similarly value science would get into a serious debate about alternative ways of funding science.
Richard Betts 4.04pm
Hi Richard,
I'm sure you're right but over-stated certainties versus vague waffle isn't much of a choice, now, is it? Especially when billions of public money are riding on one (or both) of those two!
Now write out 100 times, 'We cannot predict the future' ;-)
Global circulation models really can't do clouds. Give that changes in cloud cover is the alternative mechanism for natural climate change, how could any other result for solar variation come out of the GCM's?
Mar 5, 2012 at 4:55 PM | stephen richards
Hi Stephen,
I take your point, but unfortunately I don't this works when making estimates of what changes may occur in the future. Clearly we cannot prove it experimentally until it happens (given that, unfortunately, similar things have not happened in the past, at least not in the well-recorded past), so we have to resort to "projections" based on models which synthesise current knowledge as best we can. I can't see how you can prove it mathematically either - I suppose we could use simple mathematical models but these will be even more highly parametrized than GCMs!
Somebody mentioned crystal balls earlier. No, GCMs are not crystal balls, just a "best estimate".
Cheers
Richard
Mar 5, 2012 at 5:11 PM | Barbara
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
We cannot predict the future
:-)
Science itself is usually less 'agenda-driven' than it finally ends standing for.
For example, the very interesting Cox and Betts authored papers used semi/quasiquantative modeling to predict Amazonian savannization in the mid 21st century.
Our George Monbiot, who is a 'policymaker', no doubt, used the predictions of the papers to browbeat criticism of catastrophic forest collapse, as conveyed by the IPCC.
As soon as a paper is published, skeptics are able to predict what the IPCC's take on it will be. Moderate consensus upholders, in turn, are defensive right from the start.
It is just interminable warfare.
Is there a copy of the paper available which is not paywalled? I've checked the authors' webpages (well, what I could find from Googling), but no joy.
Is that 100 times really? :)
Mar 5, 2012 at 4:16 PM Richard Betts
Richard - thank you for that. While not being altogether convinced, I would not attempt to contradict what you say.
All I would say is that, as a generalisation, when the top management of large research organisations put out clear messages about what results are looked for, it takes a strong individual to swim against the flow and bring in the unexpected.
I must look that up. I have a recollection of noticing a big disparity between the consensus of climate scientists on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere and the evidence given by the response to the impulse of radiocarbon injected by nuke testing, which seemed quite clear-cut to me. I never got around to seeing if the two could be reconciled.
Martin A --
I believe the discrepancy is between the lifetime of an individual molecule of CO2, and the persistence of atmospheric CO2 levels. The oceanic and biological fluxes of CO2 are quite large -- I seem to recall a small kerfuffle here some months back related to the topic. Hence, an individual CO2 molecule is liable to be cycled over a relatively short period, 5 to 10 years off the top of my head. However, the net imbalance in CO2 is a small fraction of the annual fluxes, and it is contended that CO2 levels will remain elevated for centuries even if all anthropogenic emissions ceased. Again going by memory -- always dangerous -- the evidence in favor of this is down to fitting the observed CO2 history to a model of carbon sinks. Perhaps Dr Betts will provide a more authoritative explanation.
JK, let me clarify. If you don't know much, that is a perfectly solid position. To know that you don't know much, at least. But does it really require publishing a paper? It seems they have taken their lack of knowledge and used it as a reason to support their prior position wrt the sun's influence. It amounts to nothing, in my perception at least. They don't know the past variations. They don't know the nature of any mechanism involved. They can't reasonably predict the future. In fact in their chart, they haven't even predicted the present. Useless.
RB is giving good value on this thread! I liked this 'If someone here did come up with conclusive evidence that CO2 was of relatively small conseqeunce, I can honestly say that it wouldn't threaten our programme in the slightest.'.
Sounds plausible to me, but I recall the immortal albeit doubly modified words to be sung to the tune of the Internationale, 'The alarmist class can kiss my arse, I've got the foreman's job at last.'
The Met Office grew fat and prosperous beyond all reckoning on the back of the rising wave of alarm over airborne CO2. As that wave crashes on the beach of history, what will remain? Well amidst the moral and intellectual rubble, the wasted resources, the frightened children, the enriched speculators, the lost opportunities, we shall at least have that bigger Met Office with its bigger computers, budget, and opinion of itself.
Or will we? I for one wish they would just do weather forecasting and leave the climate research in the leafy groves and ivory towers (where I imagine RB would be a fine catch). In other words, do applied meteorology - behave more like engineers with practical skills to deploy than scientists with speculations to explore. Speculations which have led to various CO2-fueled Frankensteins. In particular Policy Frankensteins and Educational Frankensteins. Maybe even NGO Frankensteins. And then there's a few in the UN, and, and and, ....aaaargh, gurgle, splutter, screech, help me!
Richard Betts,
Thanks for taking the time to answer questions.
Would I be right in thinking the following:
The model being used in this paper considers 3 forcings - solar, volcanic and CO2.
Solar is considered to haver a tiny influence.
Volcanic forcing is random and short-lived.
CO2 levels prior to the industrial revolution were stable.
Therefore a temperature graph of the last thousand years would look very much like... well, like a hockey stick.
Time to throw Abdussamatov's paper (published last month in Applied Physics Research) into the pot?
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v4n1p178
Clickable for full paper.
"We cannot predict the future":-)
Of course we can, not only predict it but actually control it!
"Advanced climate modelling for policymakers"
"The new Met Office model increases our confidence that reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 50% of current levels by 2050 would make it possible to meet a 2 °C global warming limit."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/policy-relevant/advance
Mar 5, 2012 at 4:01 PM | Richard Betts
Thank you for the link, I stand corrected. It's reassuring to know that at least some climate scientists are happy to acknowledge and confirm the well-established correlation between solar EUV and climate here on Earth.
But, have you any idea why the IPCC doesn't even discuss this, and claims that CO2, which shows almost no correlation with global temperatures, is the major driver?
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. ~ Niels Bohr
Unusually for an abstract, there are 6 graphs provided. What is no given is the climate model's reconstruction of temperature variations over the last 9000 years. What's then betting that recent temperatures are come out as significantly higher than at any other point in that period?
Why I am so cynical? On graph 2 try comparing the forcings in the period 1910 to 1950 with the Hadcrut3 temperature series. The three forcings (anthropogenic, volcanic and solar) cannot account for the warming phase to 1940-44, nor the sharp drop thereafter. There is some cyclical pattern that was repeated in 1975-2000. To me the figures don't stack up, but then I'm only a (slightly manic) beancounter, used to analysing complex budgets and forecasts.
... CO2, with its long lifetime...
My point, exactly, Martin.
And I notice that Richard has not come back on this.
Rhoda says:
'If you don't know much, that is a perfectly solid position. ... It amounts to nothing, in my perception at least.'
There is a small difference between nothing and something small. But that is an important difference. Actually it's the difference on which much science is built. The reality is that most scientific papers report small steps. To those who aren't expert in a field the steps look vanishingly small. That is partly because they really are small. But it is also the case that they add up.
This is a big reason I am skeptical of press releasing publication of individual papers as if they were newsworthy events, or bloggers (on any 'side') making too much into individual papers, or newspapers writing stories about them. Progress begins to be over the course of many studies. There can be exceptional breakthrough papers but really they can only be recognized in retrospect. I don't recall seeing any climate science paper that is worth, on its own, a report in a newspaper. Although I think the climate discussion is basically political rather than scientific, I can see there is public interest in climate science. Also taking apart individual studies as has happened on blogs has sometimes been useful. But in my opinion we need a better framework to hang public discussions on than paper-by-paper reporting.
As to the particular Jones et al. paper we are discussing I wouldn't want to say without studying it whether is exceptionally good or rather shoddy. But I think it can be worth trying to lay out what we do and don't know, and to draw conclusions from that - even if the conclusion is only to clarify in what direction future research would be most useful. (The last line of their paper, by the way, is: 'Long-term accurate measurements of solar irradiance, both total and spectral, will be required to further reduce some of the uncertainties in solar forcing [Kopp and Lean, 2011].')
Mar 5, 2012 at 7:06 PM | Hoi Polloi
Also relevant
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/24/lindzen-in-london-josh-152.html
We cannot predict the future, but where going to demand massive amounts of money is spent and call for massive changes in peoples lifestyles and attack anyone that suggest were wrong , and ensure peer review reflects our views , and grasp as much cash and glory as possible and call for changes that lead to people having to pay more tax , anyway .
Not being able to predict the future, isn't the problem what is the problem is lying about well claiming 'certainty' and demanded changes now or the words going to fry .
I loved Figure 4 of the Jones et al paper.
I'm always impressed at how well climate models hind-cast, almost perfectly matching several decades of climatic ups and downs.
But here's the kicker– as soon as they are asked to forecast anything (sorry "Make a projection"), there is rapid divergence.
What am I missing?
Of course, this make it difficult for policymakers, who generally want certainty so they can make a decision in confidence. Unfortunately we usually can't give them certainty, so they have to make a judgement call.
Mar 5, 2012 at 4:24 PM | Richard Betts
And here we see the decline of our 'political elite' hahaha. They are given necessarily uncertain advice from experts, spin it back to the public as "we are following the advice of the experts" so that (a) their decision can't be readily argued against and (b) should it all go wrong while they're still around, the experts who 'made us do it' are the convenient fall guys. What a shower.
The link for the full Jones Lockwood Stott paper is below, from WUWT
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf
Further versus from the climatology nursery rhyme book:
We cannot predict the past
We cannot predict the past
We cannot predict the past....
We cannot predict anything that we did not input
We cannot predict anything that we did not input
We cannot predict anything that we did not input
From the IPCC reports (more sophisticated chants, by Gavin, filtered through a literate UN secretary, who was smirking):
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=25
"Scenarios are images of the future, or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts. Rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how the future might unfold. A set of scenarios assists in the understanding of possible future developments of complex systems."
This is not a difference between science and engineering. This is simply a difference between honesty and BS. If what you are doing cannot be verified in some way, by comparison with the past, the future, or something, and simply depends on its unchecked input assumptions, you are dishing out BS.
Mar 5, 2012 at 7:40 PM | KnR
Hi KnR,
If you're talking about the Met Office Hadley Centre (which presumably you are since this thread is about one of our papers) then I think you've got us confused with another organisation. We don't "call for massive changes in people's lifestyles", "attack anyone who suggests we're wrong" (the Bish came and visited last week and made it out alive!), "ensure peer review reflects our views" or "demanded (sic) changes now or the words (sic) going to fry".
Cheers
Richard
Richard Betts: "Of course, this make it difficult for policymakers, who generally want certainty so they can make a decision in confidence. Unfortunately we usually can't give them certainty, so they have to make a judgement call."
I must be in a parallel universe. In my Universe scientists are telling the politicians that it is "very likely" that the late 20th century warming was caused by human emissions. I don't know what passes for uncertainty in climate science, but 90 - 100% certainty looks pretty certain to me. And in my universe the policy makers have been convinced by someone that unless drastic reductions in CO2 are achieved at any cost then then the ice-caps will melt and disease and pestilence will roam unhindered across the land. Nobody seems to have told them there is any uncertainty in these "forecasts" and those who try to are shouted down by climate scientists, described as anti-science and "flat earth, creationist, troofers". I have yet to here one voice from the climate science community say, "Wait a minute, ther are huge uncertainties at play here." I have heard people from the Met Office announcing that our grandchildren won't see snow in their lifetime. Why didn't someone tell the politicians it was just a guess?
In the meantime Richard we are paying 10%+ more for our energy with more rises in the pipeline under the harebrained impression that we can supply oour future energy needs from wind and solar sources. For comfortable placed professionals in the climate science community this is probably a price worth paying, but out in in the real world there are thousands of poorly paid people who are paying the price for the certainties being pushed thAt we are in the brink of disaster because of human emissions of CO2.
I think it's a bit of a cop out telling us the climate science community tell the politicians how it is and they, the politicians, then decide on the solutions, it's simply not true. The politicians have been persuaded of imminent disaster by the IPPC reports, and nobody who prepared those reports has made clear that they consist of educated guesses made by activist scientists. Guesses that have failed to transpire, remember the 50 million climate refugees forecast by UNEP? Why didn't the climate science community have a petition a la petition in support of the CRU telling our politicians that it was nonsense?
Sorry Richard I think climate scientists are trying to have it both ways, forcing policies on the public, and blaming the politicians for them. I don't see Hansen, Trenberth et al as neutral provenders of scientific information, they are activists pushing an agenda.
Richard Betts
Which would strike me as a very good reason not to assume that they will happen in the future.And an equally good reason to be exceptionally wary of any computer programmer whose model suggests anything other than a 1% chance that they might.
And an even better reason to assume that nothing needs to be done and therefore to do nothing.
GW - yes
AGW - perhaps
CAGW - No way!
Global Cooling, on the other hand - quite likely I would say, bearing in mind what has happened in the past.
"We don't "call for massive changes in people's lifestyles", "attack anyone who suggests we're wrong" (the Bish came and visited last week and made it out alive!), "ensure peer review reflects our views" or "demanded (sic) changes now or the words (sic) going to fry"."
I'm sure you're a nice bunch of people as we could find on the planet in Met Office Hadley, but didn't Julia Slingo organise a petition in support of the CRU who were clearly involved in ensurring peer review reflected their views and attacking people who disagreed with them. Additionally they were avoiding providing data and methods used in published papers and refusing to honour FOI requests. I believe 1700 of your colleagues signed a petition in support of the CRU, and have indeed remained silent on the subject since.
In 2010, US cloud physicist G L Stephens showed that the climate models are fiddled by incorporating twice real optical depth for low level clouds. The present aerosol optical physics is wrong and explains ice age warming and recent Arctic warming, now reversing [Arctic ice extent is nearing a 7 year high].
So, all the IPCC climate models, including the Met Office model, are wrong [there are other physics' errors as well, easy to see if you are a professional physicist]. Therefore there has to be a significant solar influence.
For the honour of science and to be able to predict weather and perhaps in a decade or so, climate, this CO2-(A)GW fixation has to stop. Explaining why there is no net such effect needs correct IR physics and that is turning in a surprising direction.
RB and perhaps TE probably rue that petition. Just about the only ones not signing were CRU themselves, and I think Paul Dennis, who declined on principle I think I recall, but may stand corrected.
Mar 5, 2012 at 5:27 PM | Martin A
Hi Martin,
Sorry, I must admit I was a bit sloppy in using the term "CO2 lifetime", as in AR4 we agreed we wouldn't use that term for CO2 (unlike other GHGs and aerosols), since it's removal from the atmosphere takes place through several processes operating on different timescales.
The response function used to represent the decay of atmospheric CO2 following a pulse emission is given in Table 2.14 of AR4, from Joos et al, 2001.
The bottom line is that even if global CO2 emissions peaked and then began to decline very soon, atmospheric CO2 concentrations would not fall anywhere near so rapidly - CO2 would remain near current levels for many decades. Contrast that with aerosol concentrations, which would drop off rapidly (in a few days) if emissions were shut off.
Cheers
Richard
Hi Geronimo
That petition (which I signed) wasn't in support of CRU, it was in support of the main 2 conclusions that (a) the world is warming and (b) it's probably due to human influence. Yes it was motivated by Climategate, but not in a "we love CRU" way but in a "we stand by our science" way.
Cheers
Richard
Mar 5, 2012 at 8:55 PM | Mike Jackson
Hi Mike,
The point is that the external forcing of the system that we are seeing now and expect to increase in the future hasn't happened for a long time, so we can't test the models' response to that forcing against observational data.
Cheers
Richard
'The point is that the external forcing of the system that we are seeing now and expect to increase in the future hasn't happened for a long time, so we can't test the models' response to that forcing against observational data.'
De-climatologifying the bafflegab:
'Our model is unable to make predictions. As scientific models go it is worthless.'
and on to activism:
'However, it would be a good idea if you all cut back on carbon fuels, a few of you may have to freeze to death for the cause, and it would be helpful if you could all purchase bird-choppers as a penance for your sins.'
Richard,
"The point is that the external forcing of the system that we are seeing now and expect to increase in the future hasn't happened for a long time, so we can't test the models' response to that forcing against observational data."
Suppose that it had happened. Suppose that 250 years ago there had been a blip in CO2 levels for some reason. What observational data would you be using to test against?
Shub,
Is that 100 times really? :)
It would have been except for TSI (Total Sum Inequality)
If you're talking about the Met Office Hadley Centre (which presumably you are since this thread is about one of our papers) then I think you've got us confused with another organisation. We don't "call for massive changes in people's lifestyles", "attack anyone who suggests we're wrong" (the Bish came and visited last week and made it out alive!), "ensure peer review reflects our views" or "demanded (sic) changes now or the words (sic) going to fry".
I am sure I read somewhere on the Hadley/MO website that we all need to change our ways to avoid a disaster of 'planet boiling magnitude'. I do remember clearly the news report by head of MO which said that his wonderful new weather model would produce accurate 10 year forecasts which would be for sale to all but more particularly commercial enterprises allowing them to plan for a co² global warming future where over half of the years between 2009 and 2015 would be warmer than 1998.
Mar 5, 2012 at 9:58 PM | stephen richards
Hi Stephen,
I really don't think "disaster of planet boiling magnitude" is anything we'd have said, can you post a link? However, I think you must have remembered wrong.
Cheers
Richard
Mar 5, 2012 at 8:34 PM | Richard Betts
I'm a bit late into this conversation, but KnR's question started
"We cannot predict the future, but where going to demand massive amounts of money"
I don't think you answered that bit, unless I missed it.
Thanks
Sandy Sinclair
The warming bias of the Met Office model has made them a laughing stock over the last decade. Yet still they worship its results in defiance of reality.
Richard - I suggest you take a look at the blatent alarmist propoganda the MO was publishing a few years ago - e.g. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/p/a/quick_guide.pdf
The Met Office has also collaborated with the Guardian with their climate change FAQ, a paper which has regularly denigrated and attacked sceptics.
Mar 5, 2012 at 10:50 PM | SandyS
Hi Sandy
KnR said "but where (sic) going to demand massive amounts of money is spent and call for massive changes in peoples lifestyles". I took the "massive amounts of money is spent" to be all part of the same thing we are supposedly demanding in terms of lifestyle changes. However, we're not demanding anything - our science may get used by others to support arguments to spend money on things like the FiT etc etc and to drive / fly less, but those "demands" don't come from us.
Cheers
Richard
Mar 5, 2012 at 11:05 PM | Schrodinger's Cat
Hi
Please see the discussion thread "Questions for the UKMO" for my responses to the claims of "warming bias"
What is the critical temperature threshold? I cannot stop laughing..........
geronimo (Mar 5, 2012 at 8:52 PM)
I think you should write that up as a 1,000 to 2,000 word essay and submit it for the Matt Ridley Prize (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7685558/announcing-the-matt-ridley-prize-for-environmental-heresy.thtml). Seriously, I think you are putting your finger on an important aspect, and you could help 'to gore one of the sacred cows of the environmentalist movement.' - which is something along the lines of selfless dedicated policy-neutral scientists just do the science, tell as it is, and it is up to the politicians to work out policy. I have myself heard one of these scientists blithely tell a meeting organised by the Edinburgh Royal Society that politicians don't want to hear about uncertainty if you want them to act, and he clearly wanted them to act. The meeting was about uncertainty! My impression was clear that the view from the platform was that you need to 'protect' our politicians from it - this curse of uncertainty - if you want them to do your bidding. Planet to save, and all that.
What is the critical temperature threshold? I cannot stop laughing..........
Think about how much public money is being wasted because of it and it will make your blood boil, Alex.
Not a laughing matter.