Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace


Forgot to say the Norfolk Broads research was done by UEA.

Nov 26, 2011 at 8:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

On Today this morning around 7.30 there was an item about the Norfolk Broads wildife " by our environment correspondent, Daniel Bircher". Who is he? A new one? A replacement? A sub. for the absent Harrabin? Not much info. that I could find.

Nov 26, 2011 at 8:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger


Thank you for running such an informative blog. One small formatting change for your consideration:

Could you add access to the various comment pages at the top level? Many posts are acquiring more than 40 comments, and I find myself wanting to look at the last few comment pages. As it stands right now, you seem to have to bring up the post, scroll to the bottom of the first page of comments to access the later pages. Access at the top level or at least at the top of the first level down would make it much easier on this iPad user :)

Thanks again for the great blog and keeping the discussion at a civil level.


Nov 26, 2011 at 2:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames

That darn MWP rears its head again.
Jun 2003. Mann to Bradley, Jones, Wigley, Crowley, Briffa etc

I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back

Nov 25, 2011 at 7:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Green Sand

The response to Huhne's letter seems unanswerable, although no doubt he'll miss all the points completely. What I wish for is a simple question from any BBC interviewer when speaking to a warmist:

"Do you believe that warming is mostly caused by man-made CO2?"
If the answer is yes, then the follow-up is "Why?" and if the answer is no, then all bets are off!

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

The Grauniad rather over-egging things yesterday......

The science of climate change is firmer than it ever was. A 2C-4C temperature rise still means that Africa fries and the polar bears die out, that Bangladesh and Egypt drown, the droughts in Latin America and Ethiopia continue to worsen, and the poorest communities and small-island states, who have the least resources to adapt, will be hurt the hardest.

Here we are, they say, in the midst of a 10-year drought and food crisis in Africa, with unprecedented flooding in south-east Asia and Central America, and North America, Australia and Europe having just had some of their most extreme climatic years ever. Emissions and temperatures are higher than ever, people everywhere are genuinely concerned, but the big emitters are still not prepared to do anything. What more do they need to be persuaded to act swiftly?

Nov 25, 2011 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Email 1724 appears to be correspondence between a BBC journalist Dan Tipster and Mike Hulme where the BBC is offering to pay the scientist for reviewing his script on the Future of Britain.
The script is also attached.

date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:18:37 -0000
from: Dan Tapster <>
subject: Draft script for climate change
to: "''" <>

Dear Dr Hulme,
Thanks for taking the time to talk to me this morning. As discussed, I'm sending you the
latest copy of the script for this programme. It would be great for me if you could read
it and let me know your thoughts.

My background is zoology, so I'm no climate change expert so there may be errors or
serious omissions in there which would be very useful to know about. I'd be grateful if
you could send me your hourly/daily rate as a script consultant so that I can budget your
time and also advise you how long we can afford for you to help!!

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

The Guardian is in full Stasi mode and is looking for help?

"Help us find clues in climate email hacker's message"

"A README.txt file left by 'FOIA' with the hacked emails that were dumped online this week contains tantalising clues

• Post your thoughts in the comments below or email"

Quick look at the comments reveals not much help but an awful lot of comment about improving journalistic standards.

Nov 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

"Lord Lawson & Lord Turnbull Respond To Chris Huhne "

"We are pleased that you have decided that a public response to growing criticism of your climate policies is now required. We regret, however, that you do not address our main arguments and key concerns. Neither are we impressed by evidently ill-advised assertions."

Read it all, the pressure ia mounting:-

Nov 25, 2011 at 3:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Nov 25, 2011 at 2:27 PM | Turning Tide

Thanks for reply, Richard. Just to clarify, the email in which Ian Harris referred to this model as "shit" dates from 2001, and it seems to have been used in TAR.

Thanks - yes that's right. I also used it in a paper published in 2001. As with the TAR, the actual work was done in the two or three years prior to 2001.

BTW it's not the model he's calling s**t but the particular simulation (the sulphate one).

In the paper I just linked to, we used the sulphate run (on my recommendation) because it warms less than the GHG-only run due to the cooling effect of aerosols. So although the way aerosols were included was a bit of a fudge, it was the only thing that could be done a the time and was better than ignoring the cooling effect of aerosols altogether.

Nov 25, 2011 at 3:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Betts

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>