Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Best evidence: The story so far.

geronimo

BBD hasn't noticed it and is giving her fartherly advice when to all but the dumbest neutral she is, and has been, running rings round him using common sense.

I know you have not understood large parts of this thread. There is no need to repeat yourself.

Jul 30, 2012 at 7:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD - did you see my question? Please define what you mean by *climatologically significant* - just so as we all know what you are talking about. Thanks.

Jul 30, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Jul 30, 2012 at 7:58 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

BBD

You really are the same as us:

I know you have not understood large parts of this thread. There is no need to repeat yourself.

We post arguments and references but you are not convinced by them. Surely you can see that the same thing happens in reverse? It is not that people dont understand (apart from me of course ^.^), they understand but are not convinced, just like you.

Jul 30, 2012 at 8:28 PM | Registered CommenterDung

BBD:

"I know you have not understood large parts of this thread."

BBD, you still - obviously not only to me - do not seem to be reasonable and, apparently, you do not understand vital forms of communication. If you would try, for instance, to answer questions (even seriously), like that one there, I think we would be one step further.

Jul 30, 2012 at 8:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterSeptember 2011

BBD:

And nobody can find a *climatologically significant* GCR effect.
Jul 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM | BBD

How will I recognise a *climatologically significant* effect when I see one?

Or are you the sole arbiter?

Jul 30, 2012 at 10:59 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

Another one swirling down the BB drain.

That is the whole aim, isn't it?

Jul 31, 2012 at 1:32 AM | Registered Commentershub

Jul 31, 2012 at 1:32 AM | shub

Another one swirling down the BB drain.

That is the whole aim, isn't it?

Well, that's how it is with zealots: fire, shoot, aim ... whatever it takes to derail the grown-up conversations.

Jul 31, 2012 at 8:45 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

I can't answer for geronimo but the "large parts of this thread" that I haven't understood are, as usual, the bits from BBD. Probably because I lose the will to live after the third sentence.
One thing I would very much like to understand, along with matthu, is exactly how he defines "climatologically significant".
Another thing is why he believes that nobody having found anything "climatologically significant" in cosmic rays is a good reason to stop looking. I would have thought that a 0.92 correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover is the best reason there is to continue the research until a causation has either been proved or disproved.

Jul 31, 2012 at 9:00 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Re: Jul 31, 2012 at 8:45 AM | Hilary Ostrov

"Well, that's how it is with zealots: fire, shoot, aim ... whatever it takes to derail the grown-up conversations."

Yes, unfortunately, there are indeed those CAGW proponents who attempt to confound with nonsensical/meaningless blurb.

Jul 31, 2012 at 9:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterMarion

Re: Jul 30, 2012 at 3:34 PM | geronimo

"Marion too is an Oxfordshire housewife I believe, the WI meetings in that county must be humdingers"

Alas no longer and as for the WI, well they certainly had the measure of Tony Blair and his New Labour 'spin-machine' long before many others -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_2499000/2499641.stm

Perhaps a lesson for our 'Climate Scientists' ....

Jul 31, 2012 at 9:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterMarion

Jul 30, 2012 at 5:50 PM | rhoda

The ARGG Richard Betts possesses a fledgling albatross around his neck ever since he got a cover credit for a special "Theme Issue" of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A dated 13 January 2011.

The cover had an alarmist photograph of dried mud flats at "Lake Hume, Victoria, Australia (2007) at the height of the extended drought affecting southeast Australia in the first decade of the 21st Century. Image courtesy of Tim Keegan."

This image gets around a lot down under and it appears to be the southern hemisphere equivalent of the image of poor old polar bears balancing on weirdly shaped lumps of iceberg so beloved by northern hemisphere alarmists.

Anyway, back to bird round neck watching.

Theme Issue 'Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its implications' compiled and edited by Mark G. New, Diana M. Liverman, Richard A. Betts, Kevin L. Anderson and Chris C. West

January 13, 2011; 369 (1934)

One of the articles in this "Theme Issue" is

"When could global warming reach 4°C?"

Richard A. Betts1,*, Matthew Collins2, Deborah L. Hemming1, Chris D. Jones1, Jason A. Lowe1 and Michael G. Sanderson1

+ Author Affiliations

1Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, Devon, UK
2College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

*Author for correspondence (richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk).

Here are answers to the question taken from the final few words of the Abstract:

"Using these GCM projections along with simple climate-model projections, including uncertainties in carbon-cycle feedbacks, and also comparing against other model projections from the IPCC, our best estimate is that the A1FI emissions scenario would lead to a warming of 4°C relative to pre-industrial during the 2070s. If carbon-cycle feedbacks are stronger, which appears less likely but still credible, then 4°C warming could be reached by the early 2060s in projections that are consistent with the IPCC’s ‘likely range'" (my bold).

Rhoda, I think you are correct, "he is pretty certain".

I seem to remember asking the ARGG sometime last year whether he intended to do another "Theme Issue" but this time entitled "Minus Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature decrease of four degrees and its implications".

I do not remember getting an answer.

Jul 31, 2012 at 10:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrownedoff

Re: Jul 31, 2012 at 10:06 AM | Brownedoff

Indeed, and we can see how it is reported around the world -

"Climate scientist Richard Betts of the United Kingdom’s Meteorological Office in Exeter led a team that attempted to gauge how soon a global 4 degree C warming might occur. They considered seven different “business-as-usual” scenarios of energy use.

“We don’t really know which [energy use and emissions] trajectory we’re on yet,” Betts says. But by using the upper value for likely emissions into the future — based on what industrial nations are emitting and what rapidly industrializing nations like China and India probably will soon be releasing annually — “you get to this projection showing us reaching 4 degrees in the 2060s,” Betts says.

There’s plenty of uncertainty surrounding such a projection, he acknowledges. “But if our models are a good judge,” he cautions, greenhouse gas emissions will have to peak within about five years or so if humanity hopes to dodge temperature increases exceeding 2 degrees C. When Betts’ group used less extreme versions of the business-as-usual emissions trajectories, the time to excessive warming lengthened.

“But most of these business-as-usual scenarios still gave you a 4 degree warming at some point in the next century,” he reports. "

http://www3.ipst.ac.th/globethailand/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37:where-did-the-mambots-go&catid=35:2011-06-10-06-46-55&Itemid=64

And for those of you wondering what the Globe Program is -

"Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment"

"The GLOBE Program is a worldwide hands-on, primary- and secondary-school-based science and education program focusing on the environment, now active in 111 countries world-wide.[1] It works to promote the teaching and learning of science, enhance environmental literacy and stewardship, and promote scientific discovery. Students and teachers collect data and perform research in collaboration with scientists from numerous international agencies, and their work is made accessible though the GLOBE website"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLOBE_Program

Of course there are other GLOBEs as Lord Oxburgh could tell you -

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/24/climategate_oxburgh_globe/

Jul 31, 2012 at 10:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterMarion

Multiple 'GLOBE's it would seem, all somehow connected to the United Nations -


Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/04/globe-program.htm


Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLOBE


Green Globe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Globe

Jul 31, 2012 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterMarion

Can someone tell me:

If it is ever conceded that we need to re-apply all of the temperature adjustments (so that temperature trends at well-sited weather stations are no longer adjusted upwards to match poorly sited weather stations) is this likely to increase or reduce the correlation between temperature and CO2?

What bearing is that likely to have on the assumed amount of radiative forcing?

And how would that impact the *climatological significance* ?

Jul 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM | Registered Commentermatthu

matthu
There doesn't seem to me to be any reason for the revised figures to impact on the relationship between CO2 and temperature at all.
Assuming that the physics demands an increase of ~1.2C for each doubling of CO2 then you can call the figures anything you like — it won't make any difference.
What it will impact on is the accuracy of the recording and therefore the actual temperature trend which will tell us the size and sign of the feedbacks over and above that 1.2C.
In essence I think that what Watts' research (or should I say Leroy's research perhaps?) will do is make it more difficult for the fanatics to make scaremongering claims and might even confirm that the recent warming is nothing for us to get panicky about.

Jul 31, 2012 at 12:04 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Wow, 4°C ! That's about the difference between today and yesterday. And yet I am surviving the cold. Although by my calcs Oxfordshire will reach absolute zero around the 11th of October.

Jul 31, 2012 at 12:26 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

Sorry - my error. I meant to ask:

What bearing is that likely to have on the assumed size of the feedback?
And how would that impact the *climatological significance* ?

I mean if revised data smoothing results in less homogenous data my gut feel is that the correlation would be smaller i.e. less of the temperature variation would be explained by CO2.
Also if CO2 today is associated with a smaller temperature trend than previously thought, then feedbacks are smaller as well ...
So what bearing do these combined factors have on *climatological significance*?

These are really heavy questions.

Jul 31, 2012 at 12:37 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

Ok, more on 4°C. By my rule of thumb, a warming of 4°C is equivalent to the climate in Oxfordshire changing to reflect that of 4 degrees lat south of here. That is around Bordeaux. I understand people are able to endure the hardship of living there tolerably well. So what exactly is the problem?

Jul 31, 2012 at 12:39 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

One of environmentalism's unsaid catechisms is that 'global change' ought not to occur due to man. If Oxfordshire were to become like Bordeaux (permanently) then creatures that thrive down there would do well in Oxfordshire and those hardy enough to make in Oxfordshire would expand and find currently inhospitable regions up north welcoming. That ought not to happen. The earth should be frozen like a museum.

When creatures effect diffuse system-wide changes that affect and/or modulate survival of other species, it is termed ecosystem 'function.' For some reason, human activities cannot be called a part of ecosystem functioning.

Jul 31, 2012 at 1:08 PM | Registered Commentershub

No, shub, the environmentalist gospel is that if Oxfordshire became like Bordeaux then all the creatures that like Oxfordshire would be forced to move north because it would be too hot and they can't adapt to these hot climes or at least not quick enough to survive.
I'm about 1.5 degrees north of Bordeaux and on the other side of France. I do have lizards and crickets and a golden oriole and the redstarts are more frequent visitors than they ever were in the UK but what wakes me up in the morning is sparrows and collared doves and what steals all the best food are great tits, blue tits and goldfinches.
Not forgetting the blackbirds.
I can grow all the vegetables I used to grow 10 degrees north of here plus cucumbers and gherkins and tomatoes out of doors.
Sweet peas and busy lizzies seem to be a bit overtaken by the heat but the gladioli and the dahlias are thriving as are most of the other plants.
What no environmentalist ever seems able to understand (so why do they dare call themselves environmentalists, I ask?) is that "temperate" covers an exceptionally wide range of climatic conditions and within certain obvious limits almost all flora and fauna that can be described as "temperate" will thrive pretty well from at least Central Scotland to the south of France or beyond.
I will admit that if Bordeaux were to become like North Africa then there might be a bit of problem with the vineyards and Oxfordshire might suddenly find itself the centre of the claret business but I doubt that would be a matter of great worry to our Oxfordshire housewives and I'm sure the French wine growers (pissed off as they might be at the thought of the best vintages being English) would cope somehow.

Jul 31, 2012 at 2:01 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Re: Jul 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM | matthu

Using Occam's Razor it is far easier to attach a political significance to CO2 than a scientific one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

The UN had the 'solution' in place decades ago, simply needed the 'problem' on which to hang the solution hence the formation of the UN IPCC and the massive funding available to any scientists who could find an 'anthropogenic' cause.

http://www.crispintickell.com/page77.html

Initially (prior to the setting up of the IPCC) the problem had been 'Global cooling' (the usual alarmists, Hansen, Schneider, Tickell and co.) but then as mother Nature didn't play ball it became 'Global warming' then 'Climate Change', then 'Climate Disruption' etc etc. but still no empirical evidence could be found so they have had to resort to models and data 'adjustments'.

The EU has very much adopted UN policies and is pushing the agenda (and many of the methods employed in the creation of the EU are being similarly employed in this power grab by the UN)

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43291

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100017487/herman-van-rompuy-today-the-eu-tomorrow-the-world/

After all none of our politicians want to miss their place in this 'global governance'.

CO2 is the preferred problem simply because it would be difficult to apply their required 'solution' to solar radiation or cosmic rays for example!

Part of the propaganda in play was Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' (for which he recieved a share in the Nobel Peace Prize!!) in which he attempted to correlate temperatures with CO2. Unfortunately for him it was found that CO2 actually followed temperature (between 200 and 1000 years I believe albeit imperfectly, our climate system is chaotic in nature and there are many competing factors in play).

Still our 'Climate Scientists' attempt to claim that regardless of the past (which they still cannot fully explain) our present day warming is caused by our CO2 emissions. Although as has been seen the proposed 'solution' ie the trashing of the western economies has simply involved a migration of industry to India and more particularly China where there is a huge growth in CO2 emissions over and above what has been 'saved' in the west!!

http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/china-per-capita-carbon-emissions-reach-developed-nation-levels.html

And despite the massive growth in CO2 emissions temperatures appear to have flattened over the last decade or so (even discounting the problems with the temperature data itself where the warming has been greatly exaggerated by the Urban Heat Island effect and then further by the inappropriate adjustments made!!). I believe you will find that on these sorts of time scales, despite the hype, there is very little correlation with CO2.

Because the raison d'etre is political rather than scientific I very much suspect that the UN IPCC will do its utmost to ignore Anthony Watts report although this will be difficult thanks to the essential fanfare created and interest generated in the blogosphere. They will want to include the Mullers 'alarmist' report despite it not being officially published so it will be interesting to see what reasons they will have for including the one and not the other.

Nor do I see what the 'problem' actually is in warming towards the Interglacial 'Optimums' , we seem to have had far more 'ambient' global temperatures then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

And certainly more preferable to global cooling so I would rather not see our 'Climate Scientists' tinkering with 'geoengineering' in a climate they simply do not fully understand.

"The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!" (Kevin Trenberth October 2009)

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=198

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=6356

Jul 31, 2012 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterMarion

Oh and I for one would be delighted if our UK temperatures became more "Frenchified".

Jul 31, 2012 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterMarion

Marion
You might not like our thunderstorms!

Jul 31, 2012 at 3:29 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Love them!

Jul 31, 2012 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterMarion

"I know you have not understood large parts of this thread. There is no need to repeat yourself."

If you mean that I haven't understood your answers to rhoda you're right. They are incomprehensible, you're trying to drag her away from the killer point she made that there is no "best evidence" by dumping piles of published drivel on her doorstep and then telling her she doesn't understand your answers (is there a theme there I wonder, not understanding BBD?). The "best evidence" isn't in the scientific literature because no empirical studies have been made about the relationship between CO2 and temperature, if they had Kevin and co would be able to explain the hiatus in warming without having to resort it is caused by the Chinese burning coal.

As for understanding, I believe you still haven't answered why my statement that the "climate science establishment had a lot to answer for..." was translated by you as "climate science has a lot to answer for..."

You still haven't come back to me as to how the First Law of Thermodynamics acts as a damping factor for the positive feedback caused by water vapour. That I don't understand.

Meanwhile pick on someone your own size and address rhoda's questions.

Jul 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo