Monday
Sep232013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Bob's dinner
Sep 23, 2013 BBC Climate: IPCC Climate: Sceptics I think my radio appearance this morning may have spoilt Bob Ward's breakfast, judging by the spluttering this morning.
Dinner will be no better - I'm due to be on the BBC TV news tonight. As I understand it there are two slots, one at 6pm and one at 10pm, covering different angles of the climate/IPCC story.
Reader Comments (107)
Two thirds of the projected temperature increases being projected by climate scientists are in fact attributable to hypothesized amplification by feedbacks and NOT supported by basic physics. Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would not cause a temperature rise of more than 1.1 K.
No climate scientist disputes this, so Phillip Bratby is spot on.
Having just seen the 6 o’clock news, I take back my tentative suggestion that the BBC is starting to back-pedal – I doubt they are even thinking about it.
It started with a back drop of parched earth and the upcoming report is “…expect to confirm that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming…”
(BBC emphasis)
“The air we breathe is changing… it now holds more of the warming gas, CO2…”
Hmmm… I can guess where we are going, as the scare-mongering ramps up.
“…China … in heat no-one had experienced…” What? What temperature are we talking about, here? I have worked outside where the air temperatures were in excess of 50°C – are they saying that China was even hotter?!
Then we move into the oceans, where “…the deep ocean has, without doubt, warmed up since the 1980s…” As we had no deep ocean measurements then, how do you know that?
“…even a hundredth of a degree temperature change is significant in terms of the impact that that will have on the atmosphere above it…” So, how does the temperature change in the deep ocean affect the atmosphere above it? It makes me glad that I am not a scientist, as, if these blatant errors rile me, what would I be like if I were able to see even deeper into their flawed logic? Perhaps I would be scientific enough to blame my torn-out hair on alopecia.
“…The most plausible answer for many scientists does lie in the oceans with all the different currents…” Sorry, BBC, but the most plausible answer is that the scientists have no idea what they are talking about, and the real cause(s) of climate change are many and various, and most are outside the abilities of humans to affect them.
Well, done, your Bishness (very svelte, by the way; how jealous is your other half?), pointing out that there is no shame in science to admit that they do not know.
However, the BBC did manage to end on-message: “…global warming, in the long term, is a serious threat.”
One final point, to repeat questions I have made several times, on this and other sites: HOW many stations are we talking about, 100 years ago? HOW accurate were thermometers 100 years ago? HOW can we verify their accuracy?
Radical Rodent
Never mind 100 years ago, the temperature record wasn't reliable 10 years ago. I seem to remember a major question over Chinese stations.
Seems the public, particularly in the UK and the US are ahead of the curve.
34% (UK) or 42% (US) of surveyed respondents consider 'Climate change is mostly a result of natural factors'
http://www.ipsos.fr/sites/default/files/attachments/international-monitor-on-climate-risks-ipsos-axa.pdf
3% of climate scientists (we are led to believe) probably agree.
But only 1% of Westminster MP's (in 2008) had such reservations.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081028/debtext/81028-0021.htm#0810291400061
The problem is that there is a culture of liberalism that makes people think they are morally superior and that they can lie, cheat and steal in support of their moral superiority. It is easy to manipulate them and AGW is a classic example.
There is a wonderful section in 1984 where Winston agrees to murder and maim innocent people for the cause.
The background is that the climate models incorrectly claim imaginary 'back radiation' heats the oceans. However, IR is absorbed in the first few microns and the energy evaporates water rather than heating it. Heating is SW from the sun which, because it changes minimally, is ignored hence the report claimed heating in the 80s and 90s can only be explained by CO2.
The missing factor is that Asian aerosol pollution reduced cloud albedo. You get this by correcting Sagan's faulty aerosol optical physics. It explains the heating and has now saturated. This is why air and water temperatures have now stabilised.
Eventually, the IPCC will be forced to accept that CO2 warming is virtually zero and that they go the cloud physics wrong.
Thank you, eSmiff. So, how can it be said with such certainty that temperatures have risen by such a “terrifying” amount of just 0.8°C? Indeed, have temperatures really risen significantly? Perhaps it is that the measuring stations have become, or been moved to, warmer locations?
(Sorry if I seem to be labouring a point but, no-one has shot me down on these ideas, yet.)
Now is a good time to challenge BBC reporting by complaining. So when they talk about deep ocean heat, ask them for proof, evdience, publsihed (without "reanalyis" ie real observations - even HadCRUT4 suffers from this problem).
I complained about the fracking reporting. No response. I will up the ante. If they haven't responded, they have a problem as they have a duty to responde. They are a public service broadcaster.
Make formal complaints about the reporting, with justification examples. The BBC know they have to respond, they cannot shirk this. Every complaint adds weight. Keep the pressure on.
Bish - haven't seen the clip yet but well done.
Alex, thanks for the screenshot link - well worth a hyperlink: Reality finally dawns on BBC and Fiona Bruce
Radical Rodent -
I think the thermometers were accurate enough 100 years ago, but UHI, recent station selection changes, data homogenisation and bald adjustments don't inspire confidence:
Ross McKittrick graph of surface station closures in 1990: coincidence?
Harriban (if you are reading this): do you not know the Marcott graph has been completely discredited and the authors had to issue the following statement:
Since you appear to be clueless, here's very brief graphical explanation you should be able understand: Marcott method. And more with some text: Fixing the Marcott Mess in Climate Science. Your continual spin for 'the cause' within the BBC is a disgrace.
AlecM: I find your posts interesting, but they keep being repeatedly interjected as a byline into not necessarily relevent posts. Some of the points you make have attracted my attention (eg about the computation of GHE based on S-B)..
The problem you are running into is that you are starting to look a lot like Dale Huffman. Would it be possible for you to prepare an essay on your points and ask our host BH to present it as thread? I would happily support such an approach as I am interested in many points you raise.
ThinkingScientist
Impressive thinking today.
Well done.
You are starting to draw attention to yourself. Careful of those who smile at you offering friendship.
HOW accurate were thermometers 100 years ago?
Radical Rodent the real problem is the human factor , 100 years ago it . needed a human to go out and use the mark one eye ball to check them . Now it many cases its probable was OK , but have to be a dam fool suggest there was no problems .
The basic issue that its was just 'weather ' such random factors did not matter as people accepted that weather was hard to predict and so mistakes were made. Now its climate with its infamous claims of 'settled science; combined with silly levels of accuracy , such issue really do matter especially given the vast sum and large changes are demand of the back of these measurements.
In short as happens so often over egging the budding my have actually been counter productive for 'the cause'
eSmiff: Cheers mate. Loved your Pranja revelations! They were great (if slightly scary!)
I know radiative physics is banned, but I thin some sacred cows need to be challenged. Some of the basic assumptions of the GHE are non-physical and need to be debated.
Back to the 6 o/c clip- Good plug for the blog name. Liked the stack of books with the HSI strategically up-ended, title facing camera...
Actually it was the producer who arranged the books. Normally they're in a disorderly pile on the fireplace behind me.
"HOW accurate were thermometers 100 years ago?"
Professional instruments of that era were highly accurate, I am sure. I was impressed to discover that the Victorians were measuring CO2 levels very accurately well over 100 years ago.
Chesire Red
The last IPCC report used the 15-year 1990-2005 temperature trend (0.3C/decade) to derive greater confidence in its own predictions. The 1997-2013 trend however does not detract from it at all (apparently).
@ThinkingScientist: I am on my 2nd paper in which to develop the real ghe I establish correct coupled convection and radiation theory, including showing from statistical thermodynamics that the Tyndall experiment has been badly misunderstood. This explains how the atmospheric control system works.
Most scientists fail to understand the basics of radiative physics. 'Back radiation' is a failure to understand the difference between a net radiation field and the isolated radiation field; a potential energy flux, not real.
Because conventional publication of such heresy is not possible, I intend to publish a monograph.
AlecM: I would be interested in reviewing. I am not a high powered physicist or scientist, but I have a good sense of rational assessment of physical sciences. I have reviewed for peer reviewed journals and would be interested in providing some feedback and critique of your output. Our host can provide private email contact if you are interested.
Richard Verney (Sep 23, 2013 at 2:02 PM) re transcripts:
Alex Cull and I have spent many an hour transcribing things far less interesting. Having transcribed an hour of Lord Deben or Stephen Emmott out of a sense of duty, this will be a pleasure. If Alex can send me an audio version (BBC iplayer isn’t available here in France) I’ll transcribe it tomorrow, and post here or on Unthreaded when it’s finished.
Morph
reference please for the Monbiot interview
Thank you, Iapogus & mikeh.
To remain slightly o/t, I used to be a met observer, with obs every 6 hours (±30 mins); at 06, 12, 18 & 2400 GMT. The UKMO-provided thermometers were gauged to 0.5°C, though there was no way of knowing any error; we just presumed they were correct. There is, of course, the potential error of reading, particularly that of the sea surface; I knew many who would skip the bucket (after all, how accurate could the reading be, after hauling it up 30 metres?), and just take the sea water intake, which could be over 15 metres below the surface. I have read that it is only in the last 50 years that thermometers have been reliably accurate to within 0.5°C; so, what was the allowable error 100 years ago?
Have just seen our host on 10 pm BBC news. The acceptable face of climate scepticism.
How would the choir get a whole programme made and what would we focus on?
Just saw Bish on the 10pm news, saying that if scientists don't know what's going on they should say so. And the "no rise since 1998" picture snapped by Alex Cull appeared again (with Huw Edwards rather then Fiona).
The rest of the Shukman article was rubbish though. Who was the 'scientist' saying that a hundredth of a degree temp rise in the ocean is significant?
The clip is here on the BBC site though it doesnt seem to be working well at the moment.
Didn't see the 6pm version; was the 10pm cropped much? It seemed as if it had been shortened, due to other news priorities. It seemed to me that the Jane Austen item following had more time.
Well done Bish, you came across well. It can be frustrating when they use such a short clip of what would have been a lot of material, but you made your point well.
ThinkingScientist (Sep 23, 2013 at 10:26 PM)
What a question. The whole choir would produce a cacophony which would kill Andrew Montford’s credibility stone dead.I haven’t seen the TV interviews, but this is a key moment for many reasons. It may be the first time the BBC has accorded credibility to someone on the basis of an internet blog. I bet it’s a success, and I bet the Wards and the Monbiots are already working on their counterattack, combing through threads like these in order to destroy Montford by showing that his fans are a bunch of loonies. And let’s face it, with a bit of selective quoting, that won’t be hard.
Freedom of expression is precious. I wouldn’t for a moment suggest that the assorted crazies whose eccentric views I enjoy countering here should moderate their comments. But we should be prepared for savage reprisals. Are those who think Montford is a rightwing loony prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who think the Guardian is a Marxist rag? I hope so.
Geoff Chambers: I'm ready. Bring it on.
In a sense, this is deja vu following the Bishop's appearance at the S&T committee 'media-tack' session for the IPCC report.
The Bishop, true to his nom-de-plume, somehow was able in a few short words to summate, with quiet conviction, the flimsiness of the entire climate scare case, the need for humility in the face of unfolding reality and the need to reassess policy. That message seemed to strike a chord in the HoC, and I think also on national maintime News.
Radical Rodent,
I have no precise info on the accuracy of old thermometers; my comment was based on respect for the technical accomplishments of scientists and engineers of that era. That point is moot anyway, for the reasons you mention.
The real question is: how accurate were the temperature readings of 100 years ago? Not very, I would suspect, due to numerous factors, mainly human.
It is not, on reflection, amazing, that 15 years into 'the pause' ( or will it turn out to be 'the summit', if Abdussamatov is right,) it was only a few short months ago that the Metoffice were trying to rebut Rose's Daily Mail revelations on it, and such a stink went up about the Andrew Neil-Ed Davey interview confronting it. Now its on BBC headline news.
He's lost a lot more heat since then, but still hopes to find it in the ocean abyss. Hence the pitiful sight in the video linked to above by Paul Matthews, of a man telling the BBC the importance of a speculative 0.01 degree Celsius temperature change in the deep ocean, which they can't measure yet.
"Are those who think Montford is a rightwing loony prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who think the Guardian is a Marxist rag? I hope so.
Sep 23, 2013 at 10:54 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers"
How could anyone think that Montford is a right wing loony? It is beyond the powers of my imagination. I cannot imagine where such people might stand.
Also, consider that you are discussing the world of smear and hype. Montford and all non-mainstream scientists, not to mention skeptics, will be smeared to no end. That is coming regardless of what we do.
Here’s the BBC 6 0’clock News item transcription. Thanks to Alex Cull for providing the link and identifying the participants.
Theo Goodwin
It happens.My thoughts on transcribing the above BBC 6 o’clock news item:
- Word has gone out at the Beeb that both sides of any question should be aired. Shukman thinks he’s gone far enough by giving Andrew Montford ten seconds
- so-called “right-wing” climate scepticism (because espoused by Delingpole, Lawson and UKIP) is now getting the same treatment that the BBC handed out to left-wing non-conformism over the past fifty years. Andrew is getting the same minimum media access as was accorded to those pointing out the murderous policies of the South African government or the USA in Vietnam in the sixties - just enough to be able to say “we covered all angles” - not enough to upset the status quo.
- This is a huge advance. Maybe someone at the BBC will try to set up a debate. No doubt the chosen warmists will refuse. Journalists won’t like that. Montford will become a hot property. But will anyone other than us and Bob Ward notice?
Yay! It was on ABC24 too just now ... followed by Tim Flannery who is talking right now -as I am typing this- about re- launching his doom mongering office this time funded by ignorant cult members. He did his usual the sky is falling and somebody think about babies routine.
Apparently the first donation to the new 'climate council' was 15 bucks. Flannery the doom-monger will have to take a pay cut after his 180 grand a year part time job.
The thought of hippies and ferals and assorted religious nut jobs giving part of their welfare payments to maintain the lifestyle of the cult's lead preachers is a truly exciting prospect.
Apparently 35 grand has been pledged in the last ten hours. The trend is up! At this rate, the cult will be as rich as the church of Scientology in no time. They are actually claiming that this con job has something to do with science.
The live broadcast is now over. It was ... fun.
“…even a hundredth of a degree temperature change is significant in terms of the impact that that will have on the atmosphere above it…”
This is nonsense in 2 ways.
First, if the amount of water warmed by GHG forcings is much larger than previously thought, climate sensivity has to be lower as well.
Second, entropy can not decrease. The source of a 1/100 th degree in the deep ocean may have been a sinking layer of 1 degree or so at the surface, but that 1/100 th degrees can never recombine to warm the surface by more than 1/100 degree. This would be against the laws of physics.
Sep 24, 2013 at 1:12 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers
Now I understand your viewpoint. Thanks. I believe that it is a tad pessimistic. In the world of hype, you have to hope that one image or one sound bite will catch fire. (Keep in mind that many professionals make a living on that hope.) It doesn't hurt to be a master of hype or sound bites. I believe the Bishop is catching on. Judith Curry is doing a fine job.
David Shukman said that CO2 levels are the highest that they have ever been. Where does he think that all that coal, gas, White cliffs of Dover come from? Sequestered CO2 which was 5,000 parts per million 500 million years ago. Why were dinosaurs so big? All that CO2 to feed huge plants, which fed huge animals. Now everything is much smaller, and soon (in geological time scales) CO2 levels will take another drop and then presumably living things will become smaller still. Or have I got something wrong?
Well Bish you have even made into the New Zealand 6 O'Clock news with the Shukman piece.
Very pleased to report I have just seen Andrew on TV news in New Zealand. Good one Andrew!
Just had the pleasure of viewing our host on the main evening news, down under in New Zealand. The same BBC report others have commented on. But for NZ's Government owned channel to feature any doubts about climate change is a significant shift.
I saw Andrew on ABC news24 (Australia) came across well IMO with his point about uncertainty in climate science.
Meanwhile the Hockey Stick is alive and well at the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24204323
Thanks Geoff for the transcript.
It was noticeable that Fiona Bruce and Myles Allen both used the word "projection". There was no use of the word "prediction" and there was no explanation of what a projection is and why it is not a prediction. This difference won't mean anything to the average viewer, but the beeb can look back when the climate changeTM scam is over and claim that it was never predicting large temperature rises in the future.
I watched the news item and remembered in the past the BBC skeptic would more often than note be a loud aggressive American purposely done. You quiet controlled contribution spoke volumes.
My view for what it's worth is less explanation and more sound bites, nauseating I know.
" The computer models are wrong because they don't compare with real data."
Paul Matthews. Thanks for the link. I avoid the BBC as much as a I possibly can, for reasons such as the hysterical nonsense preceding Andrew as a good example.