ClimateGate busts things wide open

World news discussion forum
Post Reply
User avatar
rick
udonmap.com
Posts: 2451
Joined: January 9, 2008, 10:36 am
Location: Udon, or UK May-August

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by rick » November 3, 2011, 5:14 pm

Sorry, Ronan, that's not on. you can't just take the warmest year last century and say there is no warming since then. Annual mean temperatures vary a lot (because of weather!), up to 0.3 degrees or more, enough to hide 50 years of warming! and if plotted as such the graph just zigzags and trends are not clear. So let's be scientific. if we look at the 5 year rolling mean (which is used by many climatologists), for the last 10 years (that includes 1998 for some of them, ok?), and we plot it, it still shows a weak warming trend, even if it peaked about 3 years ago. this warming trend is about 0.05 degrees for the decade - which if continued, would see global temperatures up another 0.5 degrees in a century. Not a lot, but actually not substantially less than last century. So although more tenuous, the data still supports the hypothesis that global warming hasn't stopped. The next 10 years will tell.

Anyway, global warming is only one symptom of climate change - the climate could flip to a more stable model, which may not be warmer, but could be a lot different - warming in earlier days which caused massive ice sheet loss led to short term cooling - in some areas- as a result of probable disruption of Ocean currents . The issue is that we DO NOT KNOW what climate effects global warming leads too; we are conducting the experiment right now and we are part of it.



ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » November 4, 2011, 8:13 am

rick wrote:Sorry, Ronan, that's not on. you can't just take the warmest year last century and say there is no warming since then. Annual mean temperatures vary a lot (because of weather!), up to 0.3 degrees or more, enough to hide 50 years of warming! and if plotted as such the graph just zigzags and trends are not clear. So let's be scientific. if we look at the 5 year rolling mean (which is used by many climatologists), for the last 10 years (that includes 1998 for some of them, ok?), and we plot it, it still shows a weak warming trend, even if it peaked about 3 years ago. this warming trend is about 0.05 degrees for the decade - which if continued, would see global temperatures up another 0.5 degrees in a century. Not a lot, but actually not substantially less than last century. So although more tenuous, the data still supports the hypothesis that global warming hasn't stopped. The next 10 years will tell.

Anyway, global warming is only one symptom of climate change - the climate could flip to a more stable model, which may not be warmer, but could be a lot different - warming in earlier days which caused massive ice sheet loss led to short term cooling - in some areas- as a result of probable disruption of Ocean currents . The issue is that we DO NOT KNOW what climate effects global warming leads too; we are conducting the experiment right now and we are part of it.
There are some interesting quotes from climate scientists in this article that highlight a large degree of uncertainty with respect to the climate system, and the human role in it, even among scientists closely involved with the IPCC reports. The long article focuses on the question

‘Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?”

Kevin Trenberth:

The hiatus [in warming] was not unexpected. Variability in the climate can suppress rising temperatures temporarily, though before this decade scientists were uncertain how long such pauses could last. In any case, one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on climate; as one forthcoming paper lays out, 17 years is required

JC question for Kevin Trenberth: Please remind me of when you first thought there would be a hiatus in the warming.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/27/candi ... #more-5489
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1

Rick: So many words to avoid addressing the central issue: why has the planets temperature stalled despite increased co2 (and other gases)?

Trenberth implies 17 years of data is required. Not long to wait - 3 or 4 years - depending on how you measure it. I will wait. And as Curry asked of Trenberth: when did you first think there would be a hiatus in the warming?

Even the diehard warmists agree there has been no warming.

Q: When did the models predict the hiatus? A: Never.

Q: Do the models outputs match observed measurement? A: No

THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING FOR ABOUT 13 YEARS DESPITE INCREASED CO2

TJ
udonmap.com
Posts: 1055
Joined: September 9, 2005, 9:16 am
Location: Udon Thani and USA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by TJ » November 4, 2011, 8:55 am

Here's an excellent middle-of-the-road article or us who think that neither of the extreme opinions are proper. but the cures applied are almost disasterous.

"The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a angerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be."

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... ey_rsa.pdf

User avatar
rick
udonmap.com
Posts: 2451
Joined: January 9, 2008, 10:36 am
Location: Udon, or UK May-August

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by rick » November 4, 2011, 10:35 pm

THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING FOR ABOUT 13 YEARS DESPITE INCREASED CO2
As i have pointed out, using 1998 as a baseline is not sensible, as it was exceptionally warm. Use practically any other year and there has been warming. What is perhaps surprising is that 2 years have been as warm as 1998 already. Global temperatures vary a lot from year to year - it is averages that count. To compare everything to 1998 is clutching at straws. There have been dips in temperature for a few years before (and this isn't a dip, just a slowdown). I expect that 2011 will provide another 'warmish' year - certainly saw some new records in the UK.

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » November 5, 2011, 6:33 am

even james hansen concedes there has been no warming since 1998. as does phil jones.

hardly runaway global warming. the hansen /jones /ipcc best case scenarious forecast we should be 1-2 degrees hotter.

i recall some 20 years ago that we would be in a "death spiral" if we dont act NOW. not quite right! we are being still told we must act now to save ourselves.

if averages count, what is the point of citing "some new records in the uk". a review of individual country records show no warming at all over the long term. is this the same uk where snow was predicted to be a thing of the past and then experienced record cod winters (and more along the way)? - much to the embarrassment of the uk met office (who are still requestng even more money for an even bigger computer so they can provide "better" forecasts - using the same data and models). oh dear!

i understand they are preparing for another record cold winter in the uk, but i guess thats weather, not climate.

but i forgot - global warming does not just mean a hotter drier world - it also means a colder wetter one also. it seems that "climate change" means whatever the zealots want it to mean as long as it gets us all to reduce our carbon footprint.

the simple point is there has been no warming for about 13 years - the models did not show this and the models fail when compared to observed data.

the same models that predicted runaway global warming and underpinnned the subsequent demand for immediate action to save us from disaster.

the same people are using the same models to make the same alarmist predictions. and all based on fractions of a degree, which in turn are based on averages of averages.

the previous dips you mention occured with "less" co2. the theory is more co2 = more heat. the dips from about 1940 to about 1960 were in a world with less people and less emmissions. since then co2 has increased "alarmingly", but the temperature has not. maybe this is natural variability?

coversely, the large rise from about 1910 to about 1940 is also attributed to co2. does not make sense.

there in no way of avoiding the simple fact that temperatures have not increased for about 13 years despite "huge" increases in co2.

i am happy to wait another 3-4 years and suspect the temp will drop, and this will be statistically significant according to trenberth. there is not much of a case for immediate action to save us from runaway warming.

none of the models can replicate the past trends, but we are expected to accept their doom and gloom forecasts. just like the uk met office predicted snow as a thing of the past. cry wolf!

as TJ posted:

"The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be."

User avatar
rick
udonmap.com
Posts: 2451
Joined: January 9, 2008, 10:36 am
Location: Udon, or UK May-August

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by rick » November 6, 2011, 6:54 pm

Well, everything about predicting what causes climate is down to probability; you need a whole planet as a test bed to find out the effects. All we know is that what laboratory tests and scientific measurements that can be done tell us that our climate is the result of a certain amount of solar radiation, internal heat from within the planet (mainly from radioactive decay), greenhouse effects from gases in the atmosphere and changes to the planets albedo. If all these things were the only things affecting our planet then it's climate would be very stable and predictable. Unfortunately it is not. From year to year, weather can change a lot and it is nearly impossible to predict what next year's weather will be like. So one, two even 5 years provides a very unstable base on which to predict anything. All we can say, is that in the absence of any other evidence, that the warming over the last 150 years is LIKELY to be due to increased Carbon Dioxide. No-one can suggest another LIKELY cause. Of course, other things have affected the climate during this period also, such as changes to Albedo, sunspot cycles, volcanic eruptions and ocean current fluctuations (such as el nino, our understanding of what effects ocean currents is still quite poor). But as far as can be told these effects are small or short term - but this and other weather effects causes a lot of noise on the global climate record. No-one really know what caused the temperature drops recorded in the 1880's, 1900-1910 or the 1940's (and a period from 1945-1975 when temperature basically fairly stable). but anyway, the dominant trend in the 20th century was warming (temperature up about 0.7-0.8 degrees Centigrade).

One suggestion is that weather patterns may change, with greater variability. This is what the Northern hemisphere is currently experiencing, with colder, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers being more frequent. As for CO2, well, levels are going up and we know it causes a greenhouse effect (without it the planet would be in a deep ice age). It is possible that their are mechanisms that alleviate some of that, but some of this will feed through to global warming, it is not if, but how much. We also need to bear in mind that it takes a long time for the oceans to warm - 500 years it has been estimated - so the oceans are still acting as a heat sink for say the next 400 years. Also, as oceans warm, they can hold less CO2 - so levels may go higher (feedback). There are other feedback events - warming increases the release of other greenhouse gases, like methane, as it is released from thawing Arctic soils and warming ocean floors - evidence of this is already being seen. These feedbacks could increase global warming considerably and be difficult to stop - but are impossible to quantify accurately.

I am not a mad climate mitigation believer, but i do think the precautionary principle is a good idea. Also, we should think about sustainable development - resources are not infinite and sustainable development conserves resources and at the same time should have some benefits in reducing CO2 emissions.

Finally, it has been estimated that a temperature rise of 4 degrees would make parts of the planet uninhabitable and cause breakdown in human society, while natural environments would nearly all be totally disrupted - including farming. i am sure the human race will survive, but only a small part of it. Two degrees is now generally accepted as the point at which global warming becomes extremely dangerous. Climate models predict (typically) 2.5 - 4.5 degrees of warming in the 21st century. So we could be at a critical point within 50 years. Due to thermal inertia, it will take some time for warming to stabilise, so a further 0.5 degrees centigrade of warming is expected even if carbon dioxide levels stop rising. So far, no-one can explain why the temperature rose in the 20th Century except as a result of Carbon Dioxide levels. The fact that the increase has fluctuated is due to other factors, some known, some probably not. Unfortunately science has only been in a position to measure the inputs in recent times, historical climate factors have to be inferred indirectly.

User avatar
rick
udonmap.com
Posts: 2451
Joined: January 9, 2008, 10:36 am
Location: Udon, or UK May-August

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by rick » November 6, 2011, 10:05 pm

And here is an extract from Richard Black's blog for the BBC suggesting that warming HAS occurred:
De-bunking the Mail/GWPF claim that the Berkeley data shows warming has stopped takes marginally longer.

They produce a graph of monthly average temperatures from the Berkeley dataset that is, as far as I can see, accurate in the sense that it has put the dots in the right place.


GWPF's graph lacks error bars and a trend - and is skewed by a pretty obvious data "outlier"
It claims that the graph shows "a statistically perfect straight line of zero gradient". But there is no line given, and no error bars.

Worse, they produce no statistics. It's just a graph, and we're implicitly invited to use our eyes to validate the claim that it shows a flat trend.

A second issue is that weird penultimate data point, which even to the most casual observer would surely stand out as oddly low.

Did the world suddenly get 2C colder in April 2010, and then return to its previous balmy state in May?


There is little sign of cooling in the Arctic, where sea ice volume is decreasing year on year
Of course not. And when you go into the Berkeley dataset, you see that the last two readings it gives for 2010 - April and May - come with huge uncertainties attached, nearly 3C in fact, way bigger than anything else in their records.

I suspected - and when I spoke to Prof Muller on Monday, he confirmed it - that this was down to a dearth of readings.

Blogger Nick Stokes delved more deeply than I did, and found out that the only data for those two months came from 47 weather stations in Antarctica.

Simply put, at the time Berkeley did their analysis, they had not taken delivery of anywhere enough data to say anything meaningful about those two months.

GWPF and the Mail neither mention the huge uncertainties, nor put them on their graph.

Even visually, if you take these data points out, it begins to look as though there might be an upward trend.

Anyway, visual inspection is something best left for paintings and photos. For numbers, you need statistics.

Tamino, the enigmatic climate blogger who runs the Open Mind site and keeps his identity deeply under wraps, has run the numbers.

He calculates that if you omit those two Antarctic-only data points and end the run at March 2010, you see an upward warming trend of 0.14C/decade - smaller than the average that Berkeley found for the late 20th Century, but still positive.

Tamino also calculates that if you start just one year further back, the warming trend increases to 0.27C/decade.

For a quick comparison, we ran the Berkeley numbers through a standard spreadsheet package and came up with very similar numbers to Tamino. And if you start a year further back, in 1999, you see a bigger rate still - 0.30C/decade.
So it seems my analysis has been vindicated by experts with access to the latest data - in fact they find a higher rate of warming.

And:
Starkly, it shows that when you come down to a period as short as a decade - and GWPF/Mail used less than a decade - the uncertainties swiftly get too big to show anything reliably.

Andy Revkin of Dot.Earth tweeted a reminder this week that this issue was addressed formally two years ago, in a paper in Geophysical Research Letters by David Easterling and Michael Wehner.

Their top-line conclusion: "The climate over the 21st Century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming".

Simply put, there are just too many short-term wiggles in the data because of the El Nino Southern Oscillation and other factors. You need more time.

Richard Muller made the same point in our brief phone conversation.

"You could equally well take a period between about 1980 and 1995, and it would be equally 'flat'," he said.

"It simply shows that if you allow yourself to use the non-scientific process of picking your starting point in order to get the result you want, you can do that."

Hmm - 13 years .... odd number.

Full text: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15538845

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » November 7, 2011, 8:09 am

Richard Black from the BBC - hardly a scientific expert. Widely acknowledged as a crank. He incorrectly points to other "flat spots" in his talk - very wrong:

After this amateurish display things get a little more confused. When describing the data (HadCRUT3v Global data this time) Black spoke of a “relative plateauing” in the past decade, even though his crude trend analysis given a moment before didn’t show it. He then said, “you could make a case that global warming has plateaued, but if you are going to say that you would also have to say global warming has plateaued there, and there and there.”

He was pointing at the much shorter standstills seen in the data in previous decades. These are well understood, and not comparable to the past decade. In two cases they are due to volcanic eruptions (Mt Pinatubo in 1991 is obvious in the data, and there have been no such eruptions in the past decade). It is highly misleading to compare apples and oranges in this way. Science can explain the slight pauses seen in the two decades before this one, though it has a harder task explaining the 1940-1980 standstill.

The point is that previous flat periods, the cause of which is debatable, occurred before the date given by the IPCC at which mankind’s influence on the global climate was dominant (sometime around 1960 – 80). A hiatus in warming nowadays is a somewhat more important part of understanding what mankind’s influence on our planet is, hence the current considerable discussion about possible decadal influences on climate.

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/ ... stics.html

Sometine in the 1980's (forget exact date) but some 20 to 30 years ago, Hansen (the godfather of global warming of alarmism), testified to a US congressional hearing that unless we stop co2 emmissions NOW there would be runaway global warming. Since Hansen started this scare campaign temperature has behaved more in line with naural variabilty.

The theory does not accord with real world observations. According to the "experts" it should be 2 to 4 degrees hotter. Its not. They are wrong.

The 2 degrees you mention as being the accepted number that will reach the "tipping point" is not based on any scientific principle or study - it was created by german policy makers to scare the bejusus out of a gullible public.

The so called Precautionary Principle is not a scientific principle either. It is a cheap put-down to prevent discussion. If ths principle was applied in the course of human development we would still be sitting in caves, freezing in the dark, afraid to bang two rocks together in case we made fire.

No matter how you look at it - the planet has not "warmed" in about 13 years - despite massive increases in co2.

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » November 7, 2011, 1:49 pm

Of course its not all about carbon (doixide):

McKibben and his allies figure the $7 billion Keystone XL — which was barely on their environmental radar screen a year ago — could be a galvanizer because the 1,702-mile underground pipeline would be a "fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet."

"If the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over," Hansen, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration climatologist, explained about reclaiming a stable climate. "The principal requirement is that coal emissions must be phased out by 2030 and unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands, must be left in the ground."

Another Hansen prediction of thermageddon! I wonder how well this one will stack up against his other (failed) predictions?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/ ... 3820110627

User avatar
rick
udonmap.com
Posts: 2451
Joined: January 9, 2008, 10:36 am
Location: Udon, or UK May-August

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by rick » November 13, 2011, 12:06 am

The GWPF is hardly an independent body. It exists purely to debunk global warming and further 'energy interests'. it has 80 members but 98% of it's funding is secret. No wonder that in it's recent reports the only things they are for is exploiting shale gas.... and they claim they have no funding from energy companies ...... Yeah. And here's a comment about them-
Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute, as saying "some of those names are straight from the Who's Who of current climate change sceptics...It's just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn't been through scrutiny".

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » November 13, 2011, 8:31 am

"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statisically significant" Phil Jones 07/05/05

It's now 2011, nearly 2012, so about 13 of "global cooling" (according to Jones), or at least "no warming" (to be kind).

Trenbert/Santer reckons it will take about 17 years of data to be statisically significant. Not long to wait.

As for quoting the 2000's as the hottest decade ever: the planet has been warming since the little ice age. In general terms 1890 was warmer than 1900, 1920 was warmer than 1910, etc. These increases cannot be attributed to CO2.

Saying the 2000's are the hottest decade ever is meaningless drivel.

THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING FOR ABOUT 13 YEARS DESPITE INCREASED CO2

User avatar
rick
udonmap.com
Posts: 2451
Joined: January 9, 2008, 10:36 am
Location: Udon, or UK May-August

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by rick » November 14, 2011, 12:36 am

The natural variability in Annual mean temperature from year to year has been pretty consistent, with the Maximum difference between consecutive years being about 0.3 degrees centigrade. With a rate of warming of about 0.1 degree centigrade per decade (depends over which time period you choose, but average of 0.07 if you use the whole of the last century) it means that an exceptionally hot year WILL be above the average for a long time (about 15 years, roughly). it is also why you cannot really work off of individual years. It is still a fact that if you were to take average temperatures by decade, the last decade is the warmest. What you can say, is that temperatures like 1998 are now normal, having been approximately reached at least twice since. But to be sure that warming is continuing, you need a long time frame as the natural variability can obscure changes for a long period. As Phil Jones said - 7 years data is not statistically significant. He didn't say that 13 years from a cherry picked date was either.

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » November 14, 2011, 11:49 am

Repent ye sinners the end is nigh

Here we go again - more alarism from the eco-loon nutjobs:

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ate-change

I have been told this many times over the past 20 years, but it never happens. More "tipping point'" bulldust.

Climate change is inevitable.

User avatar
rick
udonmap.com
Posts: 2451
Joined: January 9, 2008, 10:36 am
Location: Udon, or UK May-August

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by rick » November 16, 2011, 3:24 pm

Well, some other changes are happening which are presumably related to the climate. Must be the cooling :-" this from the last 10 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15721263

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » November 16, 2011, 4:27 pm

rick wrote:Well, some other changes are happening which are presumably related to the climate. Must be the cooling :-" this from the last 10 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15721263
And this from the IPCC (via Richard Black of all people):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15698183

And for the future, the draft gives even less succour to those seeking here a new mandate for urgent action on greenhouse gas emissions, declaring: "Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability".

It's also explicit in laying out that the rise in impacts we've seen from extreme weather events cannot be laid at the door of greenhouse gas emissions: "Increasing exposure of people and economic assets is the major cause of the long-term changes in economic disaster losses (high confidence).

"Long-term trends in normalized economic disaster losses cannot be reliably attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change."

I think thats long-winded IPCC speak for "we're not sure if its getting hotter or colder. Even Black expects that governments will insist on "different conclussions" in the final report because so much money is at stake.

The good news is that we will be able to notice the extreme efforts the warmists go to in order to alter the text. The next version will likely say: if it warms it is due to mankind and CO2, if it cools it is due to natural variability.

Funny - the experts at the IEA say we are doomed within 5 years because of CO2, but the experts at the IPCC say its not? Go figure

Rick - for once I think you are right - it is due to the cooling of the last 10 years :-"

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » November 17, 2011, 12:03 pm

rick wrote:Well, some other changes are happening which are presumably related to the climate. Must be the cooling :-" this from the last 10 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15721263
I note the article is based on 10 years of data. Does not really align with climate "notion" that 30 years (?) is required for a trend?

Also, the recording of "firsts" (first cuckoo call, etc) is an age old practice - from memory George Washington / Thomas Jeffereson (or similar group) were into this - references can be found on net (i dont have time to find today - sorry). But recording first "buds", etc was very important at that time - basically agrarian society. Easy to check changes in "budding" from these records. Would be interesting to see what comes up?

I know nothing about "growing" friut n vegies, but wonder if "warmer" weather would extend the season, and colder weather shorten it? Would plants be attuned to this? If they "sense" cooling would they fruit sooner?

Points for discussion only, not for scoring points.

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » November 17, 2011, 6:41 pm

With respect to the BBC Richard Black article posted above (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15698183) it is interesting to note the following extracts from the "assassination of science" website (http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/):

=====================================================================================================

July 5, 2005: email 1120593115
Phil Jones sends an article and a blog entry to climate scientist John Christy:

"This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant."

.................................................................................................................................

Mike Mann responds:

It is extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on the BBC. It’s particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at the BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy (Hudson) was formerly a weather person at the Met(eorological) Office.

It seems that their “man on the ground” at the BBC (Richard Black, an environmental correspondent) has been displaced by a person with a scientific background who worked for the Met(eorological) Office for ten years.

.............................................................................................................................................

Usually, we would expect a chorus of agreement with Mann. But something has changed. Kevin Trenberth, of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research:

Well I have my own article on “where the heck is global warming?” We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. …
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The … data published in the August … 2009 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

The belief system of these scientists is undergoing crisis. For decades, they have predicted catastrophic, accelerated warming—but someone forgot to tell the Earth about it.

Rather than draw the obvious conclusions—that their predictions are wrong; that the models that their predictions come from are inadequate—they instead start to question the measured temperatures themselves!

October 14, 2009: email 1255532032
Mike Mann responds to Kevin Trenberth:

Thanks Kevin, yes, it’s a matter of what question one is asking. To argue that the observed global average temperatures of the past decade falsify the model projections …, as the contrarians have been fond of claiming, is clearly wrong. But that doesn’t mean we can explain exactly what’s going on.

Mann is almost right, but his logic is slightly muddled. Not being able to “explain exactly what’s going on” does invalidate their model projections, without any doubt. What it doesn’t do is “prove” any opposing view, either.

The simple fact of the matter is that the incompetence of these “scientists”—covered up with decades of manipulation and “stacking the deck” of peer review—has left us with absolutely no idea whether the Earth’s climate has been affected to any appreciable degree by mankind.

............................................................................................................................................

October 27, 2009: email 1256735067
It is appropriate that Mike Mann’s last words in the Climategate repository explain what it’s all about. To Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt:

"As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all; it’s about plausibly deniable accusations."

====================================================================================================

It is clear from reading these email exchanges
(from start to end of http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/)
that Jones, Mann, et al fully understood the uncertainties of their "predictions" and were fully aware that little or no warming was expected from about 2005 onwards.

Even Richard Black see that now. Hopefully this global warming scam will die soon.

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » November 23, 2011, 7:25 pm

CLIMATEGATE 2

Too good to be true!!!! \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://joannenova.com.au/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... tegate-ii/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... -of-grief/

Cant wait to hear the excuses!!!!

The science is settled and they were all cleared by many investigations :confused: :confused: :confused:

Where are you Rick? [-( And Jack? :-&

ronan01
udonmap.com
Posts: 2226
Joined: February 15, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: PERTH, AUSTRALIA

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by ronan01 » November 23, 2011, 8:06 pm


User avatar
jackspratt
udonmap.com
Posts: 10382
Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Post by jackspratt » November 23, 2011, 8:39 pm

Seems like you have shot your bolt, ronan - 2 x huge, capitalised, bolded headlines. :D

Lets wait for the cold hard light of day to see if these "new" emails (conveniently released just prior to the upcoming Durban conference) are as relevant as the first lot. :-k

Rather than relying on unbiased interpretations by Ray Hadley, Andrew Bolt, Ms Nova, Delingpole etc etc (where is the mad Viscount?). :shock:

Will you be able to sleep tonight? :D

Post Reply

Return to “World News”