Wednesday
Sep252013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Newsnight on AR5
Sep 25, 2013 Climate: IPCC BBC Newsnight featured a long segment on the Fifth Assessment Report last night, featuring Ed Hawkins, Myles Allen, Anastasios Tsonis, and Emily Shuckburgh. (From 22 mins)
Reader Comments (31)
Overall, I thought it was a fairly balanced piece. There was a steady stream of doubt, which I don't think would have been there a few years ago. Paxman said there was a lot that the scientists don't know, giving ammunition to those who say the whole thing has been overblown. Introduction from Susan Watts said what the report is going to say and mentioned the difficulty over the slowdown. In pre-recorded clips, Ed Hawkins insisted that warming had not stopped, using the excuses of volcanoes, the sun and the deep ocean heat, while Myles Allen played with little pieces of coal on a table. Live in the studio, Emily Shuckburgh was given a hard time by Paxman. Tsonis said the science isn't settled and we need to understand natural variation better. There's then an interview with Lord Stern, tedious except for the marvellous Paxman Sneer at 34:09.
BBC news is currently cheering for the Miliplan to turn the lights off in 2015 by surveying Europe over regulators and price controls. Apparently France is really cheap because of a regulator - nothing to do with all those nuclear stations or EdF transferring profits from here then ?
Sep 25, 2013 at 11:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterMorph
Miliband and Balls. Just the biggest idiots going and that's saying something when thay competeing with Cameron and Clegg. What a fosse sceptique british politics are.
I really must refrain from writing immedately after lunch.
Yes Stephen, I find a good wine goes well with a French electricity bill. Having received my English EDF bill as well it is fairly obvious who is paying the piper. It amazes me that Hollande is advocating windmills to replace our highly efficient nuclear and hydro power, but I suppose he has to dance to the greenies tune to keep himself in a job. The UMP will have him out at the next election if they can find time between having affairs, laundering money abroad and running prostitution rings to actually register a vote. C'est la vie.
I don't get BBC here so I am spared the Paxman sneer, and of course, the contents of Newsnight.
Very sad to see Shuckburgh state that that recent floods in the UK are a consequence of climate change, Paxman should have asked her for some evidence of this. There is of course extensive evidence for severe historical flood events on the UK river systems, long before the atmospheric CO2 concentration went above 350ppmv.
I'd like to see Stern and Shuckburgh cross examined by a QC. Wont happen in my lifetime but may in my children's. And Tsonis was the wrong man to put the sceptic case. Apart from that it is clear that the powers that be intend to continue with the madness.
And Paxman, dont let Stern get away with 'other things are happening more quickly'. Is the extent of the Antarctic ice happening more quickly? Did we never have floods before 1980? How are we doing on the tropical storm front? Sea level rise?
And before we get too excited 3 alarmists to one sceptic hardly gives a balanced debate.
I was phoned last Friday and provisionally asked to appear and talk about natural variability with specific regards to Arctic ice melt of the 1929-1950 period. Then the Bloom nonsense broke and it was all cancelled.
This has given the BBC the opportunity to line up some heavyweights and produce a reasonably balanced piece.
I thought it was ironic that Emily, who seemed very nervous and not on her main subject, but charmed Jeremy (as she did me) exactly proved my point about putting things into historic context when she likened climate change to the stock market which can go up and down 'but the overlying trend is one of increase.'
But if you step back and look at the historic context you will see stock market levels are still below that of 1999
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/stock-market
The IPCC and climate scientists seem poor at putting things into historic context. It HAS all happened before so their job is to convince us that radiative physics means things are now different, without pointing to the past which doesn't support their case.
Incidentally, can we set up a 'White lab coat' fund for any sceptic asked to appear on television? Wearing one would immediately provide them with the gravitas that the real scientists, who appeared on the programme in dress down mode (except Emily) lacked. Come on Bish, you have to admit your stock would have soared if you had worn a white lab coat on your appearance, rather than your jumper :)
tonyb
They have reached Stalingrad and are planning their retreat.
AGW was the idea of one crazy man, James Hansen whose lies convinced politicians like Gore and financiers like Soros. He created the self sustaining gravy train whose (scientist) passengers will support it as long as we let them.
Canada and Australia are leading the way towards a reasoned climate/energy policy.
We need to keep working on this.
Cowardly journalists take to manipulative press/controlled press like ducks to water, and most journalists are cowards, who turn bully when pushed.
The IPCC, being finalized by politicians in smoke filled rooms, is seen for the joke of a process it is by more and more. It is not science any more than a cross dresser is the gender he or she dresses up as.
Let this nasty popular madness play itself out. Let AGW kooks and fanatics and profiteers continue to lie steal and deceive. It is all they ever had.
The climate could care less.
"network of thousands of sensors in the oceans" - Shuckburgh
(argo data only goes back less than a decade)
so 3500 Argo Buoys - 1.3 BILLION CUBIC kilometres of ocean
1 sensor per 370,000 CUBIC kilometres...
And no-one is ever asked (or explains voluntarily) why the extra heat suddenly decided to go into the deep ocean. Why didn't it do this before the pause? Has someone changed the laws of physics in the last 15 years?
tonyb-
"Emily...exactly proved my point about putting things into historic context when she likened climate change to the stock market which can go up and down 'but the overlying trend is one of increase.'"
Emily can also conclude that increasing temperatures, due to whatever cause, have helped economic growth, as indicated by the stock market proxy...
:-)
Oceans - are you scared by a rate of temp rise of 2000ths of a degree C per decade.? (maybe)
Met Office Report:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF
"There are much fewer observations below 700m, and the ocean below 2,000m has remained
largely un-monitored. However, there is evidence of warming below 700m, and even below
2,000m. Careful processing of the available deep ocean records shows that the heat content
of the upper 2,000m increased by 24 x 1022J over the 1955–2010 period (Levitus, 2012),
equivalent to 0.09°C warming of this layer."
all three parts here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
Not with standing one ARGO buoy per 370,000 cubic kilometre of ocean, the accuracy is a joke, nobody has a clue what the ocean temperature was a decade ago or a hundred years ago.. (let alone being able to measure anything to that accuracy)
but scary ocean heat graphs get shown, with Joules on the Y-axis.. 0.09C over 55 years (maybe)
"...And no-one is ever asked (or explains voluntarily) why the extra heat suddenly decided to go into the deep ocean. Why didn't it do this before the pause? Has someone changed the laws of physics in the last 15 years?"
Sep 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM | Registered Commenterlapogus
A question I have asked myself many times. I look forward to a sensible explanation.
Paxman asked the wrong questions. He should have asked Shuckburgh why Antarctic ice levels are so high. He should have asked Stern why modest increases in temperatures aren't beneficial for people who are mostly too cold most of the time. Tsonis appeared to be included as the beeb's token skeptic, but came across more as an out-to-lunch maverick, not being given time enough to flesh out his thesis.
The assertions about extreme weather were taken with no challenge. No mention of climate sensitivity. Most readers of this blog could have put more pointed questions.
Having watched the segment, I thought that Paxman's cross examination was weak. Not a patch on Andrew Neil's grilling of Ed Davey a few weeks back. Why on earth didn't he challenge Shukburgh's assertion about an increase in flooding and drought. Stern also had an easy ride to state that ice is melting faster than ever etc. The programme lacked any real balance. Paxman should have called for evidence of any link. Stern said that CO2 was rising faster than ever, so Paxman could have retorted "why is the temperature at a stand still?" Clearly the BBC is still proselytising for the warmists.
I think the 'heat in the oceans' idea needs to be pursued much more vigorously. Climatologists can't simply say "everything's just as bad as we said, it's just that the heat's going into the oceans". If it were ever shown that the excess heat from increased CO2 goes into the oceans, and NOT into the atmosphere, then that's a massive game changer for the whole field, surely. If the heat goes into the oceans, and NOT the atmosphere, then all sorts of Bad Things that might have happened are off the table - in particular, if the atmosphere doesn't warm, then atmospheric water vapour won't (can't) increase, and the purported water vapour feedback is either massively reduced or eliminated altogether. Similarly, precipitation won't increase, tropical diseases won't migrate toward the poles, glaciers won't melt, etc etc.
Have any climate scientists actually published on the implications of this new hypothesis yet?
Can the physicists out there shine some light on the implications of 'heating the deep oceans'. My understanding of physics is that once heat energy has been dissipated by, for instance, heating a gazillion gallons of sea water and raising its temperature by 0.001C, that energy can never again become more concentrated. So if the alarmists are right (and yes I know this would be a first) and lots of heat energy is magically being sequestered in the deep oceans, is this not great news for the planet? Does it not mean that it cannot resurface to heat the atmosphere by more than 0.001C or whatever the minuscule amount is?
If the oceans are getting warmer and Solubility of CO2 is temperature dependent. Then the CO2 rise is more likely due to ocean temp change than anything else.
I wanted to give up with it; the levels of utter bollocks, particularly from yet another wavy-armed lady, became almost too much to swallow (if you pardon the inference): “The science is never settled … but this part is…” Like a car-crash, you don’t want to look but…
Lord Stern, sitting uttering absolute b/s, almost as if his job depends upon it … Oh. Wait a minute… it does, doesn’t it?
"historical flood events on the UK river systems"
Like the Severn at Worcester, 1670. Still not exceeded, despite urbanisation and the building of river embankments around the Severn-Vyrnwy confluence.
In the unlikely event that there is excess heat that is unphysically whisked away by Poseidon before the surface buoys can even detect it then surely that is classed as either a negative feedback or just a part of natural variation that they didn't know about. Either way if it went to the murky depths then it's not coming back from such a massive heat sink. I think even alarmist Hansen has deduced that.
It is a great pity that journalists continue to allow these pseudo-scientists to just make stuff up unchallenged.
As if it couldn't get worse, Stern then starts to go on about the tundra melting thus liberating methane and methane at the bottom of the ocean.being released, if we exceed 2 deg C warming.
Well try this http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Natur.346..160W
"We conclude that lowering of the water table in tundra as a result of a warmer, drier climate will decrease methane fluxes and could cause these areas to provide a negative feedback for atmospheric methane."
Or this
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5992/620
"The threat of global warming amplifying itself by triggering massive methane releases is real and may already be under way, providing plenty of fodder for scary headlines. But what researchers understand about the threat points to a less malevolent, more protracted process."
Emily Shuckburgh was a disgrace - either ignorant or blatantly telling porkies. Paxman was clearly unprepared. Tsonis was awful. Our country and politics is in a dreadful state if the best economic advice comes from Stern. Further evidence that our honour system is not fit for purpose.
As for heat hiding in the deep oceans without warming the surface then this can not be caused by so called infra-red back radiation from CO2 as IR only penetrates a few mms below the surface. The warmists must be asked the mechanism by which this unmeasurable warming occurs.
Derek,
"Having watched the segment, I thought that Paxman's cross examination was weak. Not a patch on Andrew Neil's grilling of Ed Davey a few weeks back."
That's the difference between someone who has done some research and has gained a point of view, and someone who merely sneers at everything.
That's why I stopped watching Newsnight several decades ago. It's also why I stopped watching Have I Got News For You several decades ago. Simply believing that you are brilliant and everyone else is shit, is not an engaging program format for me.
link wiki
Remember 10:10 and the exploding heads 'lark'?
It is surprising, Nicholas Stern is a mathematician and an Oxbridge don at that. A scientific mind, trained in the purest science of logic - there is no room for lies in logic and maths.
Yet, there he sat, squirming and discomfited, eyes wary and shifty - spouting outrageous guff and showing the world too.
Why, is he so comfortable with dissimulation, bending the truth and misdirection - what is it that he wishes to cover up and does he love money and power so much?
Has he not worked out, that, green palliatives hold back development in the poorer nations only cheap energy makes jobs and gives people hope - what is China's industrial revolution based on? Fossil fuel.
Biofuels, push up food prices and cause starvation. Energy prices are rising - green policies in developed nations raise death rates in the winter, they kill real jobs and cause misery and deprivation all over the western world.
Then, green investment funds make some very rich men, investment bankers and the like - ever richer - but then you'd know that.
One can only surmise, these days Lord Stern - he leaves his conscience behind in his safety deposit box.
Shameful.
I didn't watch the Newsnight article and sorry for this slightly OT post...but I'm literally just watching Brian Cox in Science Britannica and they have covered journals and peer review. They had the editor of Nature and they talked about global warming (Brian's own words).
In general the view of peer review was correct: it is a snapshot of what we know and yes bad papers slip through. The Nature editor said that he would like to believe that climate change wasn't real but there just aren't enough papers being published about it. I think a few people could tell him why.
Nature has published some great papers over the years but it has also managed in recent years to publish advocacy. This just stank of BBC bias.
Can the physicists out there shine some light on the implications of 'heating the deep oceans'. My understanding of physics is that once heat energy has been dissipated by, for instance, heating a gazillion gallons of sea water and raising its temperature by 0.001C, that energy can never again become more concentrated.
Sep 25, 2013 at 3:08 PM | Dolphinhead
////////////////////////
Quite so.
The deep ocean takes a millenia to resurface. if that process were to speed up, so that the deep ocean suddenly say resurfaced in the next 10 or 30 years, that would cool planet Earth, not warm it.
The deep ocean is about 3degC. if with this extra warming it is now about 3.09degC if this were to resurface, it would be siggnificantly cooler than ocean surface temperature and hence it would cool the surface water. Since exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean takes place at the surface, the atmosphere would be cooled by the now suddenly cooled surface water.
We see this on a much smaller scale in La Nina. La nina is an upwelling of cooler water from the deep. it cools the surface water and this cooler surface water in turn cools the atmoshere.
AGW is dead if the effect of increasing CO2 is now to no longer to heat the atmosphere but instead is to heat the deep ocean 9without in someway having heated the 0-700m layer on its way down to the deep). the heat in the deep ocean is either trapped there for millenia, or if it were to re-emerge along with the deep ocean in which it has been absorbed, it willl cool the atmosphere, not warm it. Either way, AGW is over.
I thought, for once Newsnight did a good job. But did fail to point out that the models prior to 1995 are hindcasts so the real prior do interest is after that time.
Overall Paxman was great. Stern looked like a fool tripping himself up at times.
The only time a BBC journalist pulls his head out of his arse is to read the Guardian - then he shoves it straight back up.