Nic Lewis, best known as one of the co-authors of the O'Donnell et al paper on Antarctic temperatures has a must-read post up at Judith Curry's place. The title tells you all you need to know:
The IPCC’s alteration of Forster & Gregory’s model-independent climate sensitivity results.
This is pretty shocking stuff.
One of the questions I would have liked to ask at the Cambridge conference the other week related to a graph shown by John Mitchell, the former chief scientist at the Met Office. Although Mitchell did not make a great deal of it, I thought it was interesting and perhaps significant.
Mitchell was discussing model verification and showed his graph as evidence that they were performing well. This is it:
The BBC's Material World programme interviewed Prof Paul Valdes, a climate modeller. The message appears to be that climate models are very bad at reconstructing major climate shifts in the geological record and are probably bad at predicting future ones too.
The conclusion of the interview appears to be that it's worse than we thought. This struck me as slightly odd given that the rest of the interview appeared to revolve around the fact that the models don't tell us anything very useful.
Eduardo Zorita has further thoughts at Klimazwiebel.
Fred Pearce has an article up about Jonathan Jones' successful attempt to get the CRUTEM data from UEA. He has interviewed Prof Jones in the process:
"I am extremely concerned about the apparent pattern of secrecy and evasion," he said. "My sole aim [in pursuing the case] is to help restore climate science to something more closely resembling scientific norms."
Falkenblog looks at Chris Mooney's recent output and concludes that he doesn't understand standard errors:
[Mooney] concludes that 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. Yes, Mr. tendentious English major without an understanding of standard errors, it is.
Updated on Jul 1, 2011 by Bishop Hill
The AGW upholder community is all a-quiver with the news that Willie Soon received a lot of money from the oil industry. Even Monbiot himself is on the case, with a stream of tweets on the subject:
Secret funding of climate change deniers exposed again: bit.ly/m6Yjlp. Key issue here is that interests never declared.
UEA have relented and provided copies of the invoices I asked to see.
This has thrown some light on the issue I hoped to address, namely the status of the Russell panel. There are a couple of invoices in there that are addressed directly to the Climate Change Emails Review. This would appear to suggest that the panel was a "wholly-owned subsidiary". This would suggest to me that Muir Russell's emails are subject to FOI.
...the dangers from future climate change are ratcheting up year after year. The world’s media have become increasingly full of images of collapsing ice shelves, stranded polar bears, raging hurricanes, lands stricken by drought, fires sweeping across southern Australia and deserts spreading. The ice caps are melting in both the Arctic and Antarctic. But all this is only an overture to trouble on a much grander scale. The runaway transformation of the Earth’s climate may become the worst crisis of human history.
Now that's funny, because I read just this morning that Antarctic Sea ice is at an all-time high. Melting means something different when you are a multimillionaire it seems.
Via Richard Klein's Twitter feed comes this interview with Raymond Bradley in which he discusses his new book. Fascinating stuff, particularly this bit:
In 1998, a post-doc, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes and I published an article in Nature on climate in the last 600 years (Mann et al. 1998). Then, in 1999, we published another article in Geophysical Research Letters on temperature over the last 1000 years (Mann et al. 1999). The title was “Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations.” We were emphasising the uncertain nature of the problem. But nevertheless, when it got picked up by the summary for policymakers of the third Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, important caveats were left out.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science has issued a somewhat overwrought statement, parts of which look like a despairing plea for the Mann emails to be kept under wraps:
The sharing of research data is vastly different from unreasonable, excessive Freedom of Information Act requests for personal information and voluminous data that are then used to harass and intimidate scientists. The latter serve only as a distraction and make no constructive contribution to the public discourse.
This month's tip drive is now upon us. Last month's innovation of the "Subscribe" button garnered four readers who will make regular payments to keep the BH blog on the road. Thanks to them and to those who have hit the donate button too. If you haven't donated before, maybe now is the time...