The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[Chris Knight]

I don't know if your readings have or haven't been inadvertantly biased by instrument changes and/or location changes, because the stats don't match up with my own:

http://tws27.50webs.com/Weather/index.html

or the more reliable data from the Met Office site at Durham:

http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/projects/we...66/Default.aspx

It's easy for even the slightest change in instrument positioning to affect the records. For instance, when I compared the readings I get from my Stevenson screen with readings I got from equipment for my earlier records, and readings from nearby stations, there were often strong anomalies, particularly on warm sunny days in summer. Thus, I calibrated the earlier readings accordingly to try and rmake my records as homogeneous as possible. Even these days, I calibrate the screened readings downwards by up to 2C on warm sunny days in summer, to account for the sun-trap effect in my back garden.

I included a link to the Durham site's readings, as those are Met Office quality-controlled and therefore less prone to such issues.

The underlying trend in the North East still seems to be upwards, with 2006 and 2007 being the warmest years, and also an appreciable decline in winter snowfall and snow cover.

I am immensely saddened by this post. I wonder how many other honest, dedicated weather watchers bias their results because a "trusted authority" gives results that differ from those from their own instruments? By all means, publish your doubts, but don't change your data because nearby stations differ from yours. Who is to say that their data is more correct than your own? Who knows whether they themselves bias their published data on that from other stations that they believe are better than theirs? If nothing else, you could help to accurately define the extent, magnitude, and growth of the Durham/ Tyne and Wear UHI.

The Met Office is no better than the NHS as an organisation that rests its reputation on excellence, but has to balance it's reaction because it is a branch of the Civil Service. The bottom line is that as an individual, TWS, your results stand alone, you have no-one above you to say "This is not acceptable - make it fit, because policy dictates it."

[laserguy]

On Friday March 4, 2008 the BBC published a story on Global Warming which it subsequently redacted later that same day............ Mike

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002906.html

No time to read those links right now, Mike.I've a lil' boy who needs to be prepared for school . But here's another one I posted recently which inexplicably generated no response...

[Roo]

Laserguy, Michael, etc:

Or perhaps, as Harrabin has himself said: 'There is no conspiracy. All you have caught by capturing our first version [is] a sub-optimal piece of writing. We changed it because we like to get it right. '

Standard journalistic practice. No issue. No conspiracy. Just accurate reporting.

[stormchaser1]

Chris Knight

Thanks for those words,

However since our last post by myself and TWS, TWS and myself have spoken to each other regarding this {by Pm} and this has been resolved, im not going to take this any further ,no need too , I respect TWS and his comments, just like i respect everyone elses comments on here , there are no hard feeling betwen TWS and myself .

Everyone has there own views, and opinions and should be allowed to voice these without any grievences

Regarding my data i have gathered, this is my own data from my own weather station, unfortunately my weather station isnt recognized by the Met office, The nearest obeservation post to me which is recognized by the Met office is Newcastle airport which is around 5 mile away from me , however, when i compare my data to theres , the temp can vary by as much as 2c simply because i am lower then what they are, Durham station is situated around 25 mile away from me to the south and Boulmer about the same distance to the North

I apologise if i have upset anyone regarding this matter

Thanks again

nigel

[laserguy]

Standard journalistic practice. No issue. No conspiracy. Just accurate reporting.

Sorry Roo but IMHO that is utter twaddle. Took an awful lot of arm-twisting and reluctance it seems to 'get it right'. Fact is GW has stopped (did it even start,outside of normal variance which no-one can define?),even in the face of all these millions upon millions of tonnes of CO2 we've added since the wheels came off. For the 3rd time now: 2008 - the year AGW's cloak falls off and it leaves the room amid boos and jeers,exposed and embarrased at the monumental joke that it is. I do not want,nor will enter another futile argument. Let folk read what they will into the matter and reach their own conclusions. I also urge perusal of the comments after the article I linked to in order to judge feeling,though I accept they are not necessarily wholly representitive.

Regards,LG.

[jethro]

Laserguy, Michael, etc:

Or perhaps, as Harrabin has himself said: 'There is no conspiracy. All you have caught by capturing our first version [is] a sub-optimal piece of writing. We changed it because we like to get it right. '

Standard journalistic practice. No issue. No conspiracy. Just accurate reporting.

Speaking as someone who has trained and worked in publishing from magazines and newspapers through to writing and publishing books, I'd say this falls outside the bounds of usual correction and editing. Editing and proof reading come before a piece is published anywhere, it is an internal process. If it were possible to "capture a first version" then the first version had already completed the editing process and been passed for publication.

The fact that anyone can come out with "It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics. Their voice is

heard everywhere, on every channel. They are deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth." and be listened to, smacks of censorship to me.

To follow this with "Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter."

And

"I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution, unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics." beggars belief.

Cannot decide if the reporter had a "can't be bothered, whatever" moment because he had a mountain of work to get through, or he felt pressured into just going along with the changes as a deadline was looming. Or whether he felt he had to toe the party line. Whatever the reason for the compliance with such bullying tactics, as had clearly been employed, it speaks ill of an organisation which used to be respected worldwide as the pinnacle of unbiased, tell it as it is, journalism. Sad.

[Devonian]

Sorry Roo but IMHO that is utter twaddle. Took an awful lot of arm-twisting and reluctance it seems to 'get it right'. Fact is GW has stopped (did it even start,outside of normal variance which no-one can define?),even in the face of all these millions upon millions of tonnes of CO2 we've added since the wheels came off. For the 3rd time now: 2008 - the year AGW's cloak falls off and it leaves the room amid boos and jeers,exposed and embarrased at the monumental joke that it is.

What I like about you is the way you respect those you disagree with . As to 2008, we'll see. I'm not inclined to write of a change to climate by using just part of one year's data.

I do not want,nor will enter another futile argument.

I think you just have

Let folk read what they will into the matter and reach their own conclusions. I also urge perusal of the comments after the article I linked to in order to judge feeling,though I accept they are not necessarily wholly representitive.

Regards,LG.

People do have to makes their own minds up.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Devonian

[Roo]

The thing is, this doesn't matter: it is one article on a fast moving internet site. Even if the BBC didn't do things that well, it still doesn't disprove the scientific consensus regarding AGW.

This has no relevance to the evidence or the debate.

There are many on here who have protested at length about how they are only driven by a search for the truth and who only wish to know all the evidence. Well, if they truly do, why do they feel the need to post this kind of thing: it has nothing to do with evidence or truth, just with conspiracy theory.

It is, however, interesting to see that the deniers (and I do not mean those skeptics who are genuinely questioning and evaluating the data) are resorting to this kind of material as 'evidence'. It proves, yet again, to me that the huge consensus of evidence for AGW is still holding.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Roo

[VillagePlank]

It proves, yet again, to me that the huge consensus of evidence for AGW is still holding.

An interesting comment - and it will continue to hold, but, perhaps, not quite for obvious reasons.

Of course those who, and I'm looking for the right word, here, question the validity of the CO2/Climate hypothesis, will still need to wait at least another twenty years before there is sufficient data to backup their claims, with, as you put it, evidence, from the real world.

I say 20 years, because thirty years is about the agreed length of time where anything meaningful can be said about climate. 10 years of flat temps + another 20 years = 30 years. This is, of course, also long enough to edge out that wooly time, climate variability.

But just because the evidence isn't available it doesn't logically extend to mean that the alternate hypothesis is untrue. For now, the null hypothesis stands - hence consensus. How could it be any other way? It stands on the basis of lack of evidence for the alternate, not strength of proof of the null - otherwise it would be a lay-science with no room for argument.

This my t'ppence worth, anyway.

** runs and takes cover **

(Edited for typos, and clarity)

Edited April 11, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Roo]

Of course those who, and I'm looking for the right word, here, question the validity of the CO2/Climate hypothesis, will still need to wait at least another twenty years before there is sufficient data to backup their claims, with, as you put it, evidence, from the real world.

I say 20 years, because of thirty years is about the agreed length of time where anything meaningful can be said about climate. 10 years of flat temps + another 20 years = 30 years. This, of course, also long enough to edge out that wooly time, climate variability.

But just because the evidence isn't available it doesn't logically extend to mean that the alternate hypothesis is true. For now, the null hypothesis stands - hence consensus. How could it be any other way? It stands on the basis of lack of evidence for the alternate, not strength of proof of the null - otherwise it would be a lay-science with no room for argument.

Start running......

Hi VP! Thing is I do agree with you (twice in a week or two, wow!) in one respect: people should be questioning every aspect of scientific research, climate science and related disciplines included. Questioning is good. However, to be able to question you do have to understand what you are questioning and that's where, sometimes, it all falls apart.

Also, the scientists are questioning. They question, look at the evidence, then question it again. That is what they do. That's what science is.

As I see it, on the one side there are a large number of very, very skilled people out there who can show why they believe what they do and whose theories intermesh across a number of disciplines and research areas. On the other side there are a few people with little or no evidence, no peer review and who a large percentage of seem to believe that it's a conspiracy theory dreamt up to get their taxes and ruin their winters....

I know that the final theory has yet to be refined in all aspects, but there is enough solid, provable and replicable evidence to show AGW is a big factor for this to be beyond doubt. When there is evidence to the contrary, then all well and good, but at present, I just don't see it.

[jethro]

The thing is, this doesn't matter: it is one article on a fast moving internet site. Even if the BBC didn't do things that well, it still doesn't disprove the scientific consensus regarding AGW.

This has no relevance to the evidence or the debate.

There are many on here who have protested at length about how they are only driven by a search for the truth and who only wish to know all the evidence. Well, if they truly do, why do they feel the need to post this kind of thing: it has nothing to do with evidence or truth, just with conspiracy theory.

It is, however, interesting to see that the deniers (and I do not mean those skeptics who are genuinely questioning and evaluating the data) are resorting to this kind of material as 'evidence'. It proves, yet again, to me that the huge consensus of evidence for AGW is still holding.

I agree, it has no relevance to the evidence but it has a great deal to do with the debate.

Conspiracy theories arise when people feel they are not being told the whole truth, it matters not one jot if the portion which isn't told is irrelevant; withholding information creates credibility problems. When the information which is withheld or as in this case, changed to appease one side of the debate, it is inevitable the "other side" will seize upon it, possibly making more of the situation than is really necessary.

The pro side of the debate, IMO do themselves no favours by indulging in such actions as it gives rise to "what are you scared of, is the consensus and proof so dodgy you are afraid of a little questioning?"

As for consensus holding or being reinforced, well suppressing any information which may question that consensus creates an illusion of security but in no way counters any science which questions the validity or accuracy of the AGW theory. The theory will continue to be tested for a long time to come, it will be refined, new information will be added, some taken away; we're a long way from having an overall picture which is complete or even close to being complete. I really don't understand the pro side's desire to cling to the knowledge we have now as being the be all and end all of what we need to know, tis nothing but the tip of the iceberg surely?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I am immensely saddened by this post. I wonder how many other honest, dedicated weather watchers bias their results because a "trusted authority" gives results that differ from those from their own instruments? By all means, publish your doubts, but don't change your data because nearby stations differ from yours. Who is to say that their data is more correct than your own? Who knows whether they themselves bias their published data on that from other stations that they believe are better than theirs? If nothing else, you could help to accurately define the extent, magnitude, and growth of the Durham/ Tyne and Wear UHI.

The Met Office is no better than the NHS as an organisation that rests its reputation on excellence, but has to balance it's reaction because it is a branch of the Civil Service. The bottom line is that as an individual, TWS, your results stand alone, you have no-one above you to say "This is not acceptable - make it fit, because policy dictates it."

I realise that my earlier post could have been misinterpreted as being close to "I copy other sites' readings" or something to that effect, but that's not the case at all.

Over the 15 years I have used different instruments for my temperature readings, and when I compared my current AWS readings with the readings from earlier instruments I found that the earlier instruments consistently gave readings 2 to 3C higher on hot sunny days in summer. Comparisons with nearby stations suggested that it was the earlier instruments that were anomalous.

The reason for calibrating the earlier readings, therefore, was to try and make the record as homogeneous as possible, not to make it as in line with nearby stations as possible. For instance, I know that I often get significantly lower readings than Neil Bradshaw does at South Shields Weather, especially on calm clear nights, and this can easily be explained by Marsden being a more urban site than Cleadon.

I do compensate in the summer half-year for my garden being a sun-trap on sunny days, but otherwise the readings you see are the raw values from my AWS, and this has been the case throughout the past few years, and I never make any adjustment to the overnight minima.

As for Stormchaser, I certainly wasn't trying to imply that his records were invalid, what I meant was that they don't, in themselves, show that Newcastle as a whole is cooling. For instance, there could be other reasons for the cooling trend- it might be, for instance, that the instrument sitation was consistent throughout the period but there had been land use changes nearby that caused a localised cooling, etc.

Apologies for any confusion caused.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Thundery wintry showers

[Roo]

well suppressing any information which may question that consensus

Examples of? And, please, not just a string of websites: the actual evidence, where it has been suppressed and by whom.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Roo

[Devonian]

An interesting comment - and it will continue to hold, but, perhaps, not quite for obvious reasons.

Of course those who, and I'm looking for the right word, here, question the validity of the CO2/Climate hypothesis, will still need to wait at least another twenty years before there is sufficient data to backup their claims, with, as you put it, evidence, from the real world.

I say 20 years, because thirty years is about the agreed length of time where anything meaningful can be said about climate. 10 years of flat temps + another 20 years = 30 years. This is, of course, also long enough to edge out that wooly time, climate variability.

But just because the evidence isn't available it doesn't logically extend to mean that the alternate hypothesis is untrue. For now, the null hypothesis stands - hence consensus. How could it be any other way? It stands on the basis of lack of evidence for the alternate, not strength of proof of the null - otherwise it would be a lay-science with no room for argument.

This my t'ppence worth, anyway.

** runs and takes cover **

If it's not warmer in 20 years I'll have my doubts. Indeed, I'd expect the next El Nino to push temperature to a new record.

(Edited for typos, and clarity)

Not good enough if your name is Roger Harrabin

[biffvernon]

Having read countless reports from Roger Harrabin over the years, I regard him as a trustworthy journalist.

Earlier this week my local weather station at Donna Nook recorded temperatures of 25 C. Ha, proof of global warming. Then the record dropped to absolute zero till next day. Then they fixed it.

Folks who are so quick to doubt the science may sometimes not realise just how much questioning goes into any piece of scientific work. Long before a paper gets peer reviewed prior to acceptance for publication in a professional journal with a reputation to uphold, there is usually an enormous but unseen amount of discussion amongst co-authors and colleages within the departmant both formally and in the coffe bar. It just does not do the carear of a scientist any good to have his or her name on a paper that subsequently is shown to be rubbish. I'm not saying that rubbish does not occassionally get through the system, but it is a lot less common than some would like to imagine.

[VillagePlank]

Having read countless reports from Roger Harrabin over the years

More on Rog, here No idea if this lot is tosh, though -so standard caveats, apply.

[jethro]

Examples of? And, please, not just a string of websites: the actual evidence, where it has been suppressed and by whom.

Lol. Perhaps the word "suppressed" wasn't the best choice. What I meant was information which isn't presented with absolute clarity, which is presented without pressure being placed by one side or the other on the journalists involved. The BBC thing is a classic example; someone with an active role in the debate not only felt the need to become involved but also brought so much pressure to bear, that the article was adjusted accordingly. Wrong. I don't care if it was a pro side activist or a sceptic side activist, it is bad practise.

Time and again, this kind of thing crops up and does no one any favours; IMO the way forward is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. No spin, no half truths, no skipping info because it doesn't suit and definitely, no outside pressure from either side to control what the public are told. Transparency is the way forward, not back room discussions of what can and cannot be published.

[Roo]

Lol. Perhaps the word "suppressed" wasn't the best choice. What I meant was information which isn't presented with absolute clarity, which is presented without pressure being placed by one side or the other on the journalists involved. The BBC thing is a classic example; someone with an active role in the debate not only felt the need to become involved but also brought so much pressure to bear, that the article was adjusted accordingly. Wrong. I don't care if it was a pro side activist or a sceptic side activist, it is bad practise.

Time and again, this kind of thing crops up and does no one any favours; IMO the way forward is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. No spin, no half truths, no skipping info because it doesn't suit and definitely, no outside pressure from either side to control what the public are told. Transparency is the way forward, not back room discussions of what can and cannot be published.

But again, this has no bearing on the evidence. The facts are still the facts. Anyone who cannot be bothered to look beneath the media spin does not have any real right to complain. Also, the media, even if they have made a 'story' out of it, haven't posted anything that is lies: whatever they have written has some substance in fact. If that doesn't fit the 'there is no AGW' agenda then so be it, but then again nor does the scientific evidence fit that agenda, so what hope has the media got?

EDIT: And as for telling the truth. Wouldn't that be great? No more blogs, dodgy science and iffy websites and just solid peer reviewed science.......hurrah!

Edited April 11, 2008 by Roo

[laserguy]

Earlier this week my local weather station at Donna Nook recorded temperatures of 25 C. Ha, proof of global warming. Then the record dropped to absolute zero till next day. Then they fixed it.

-273C?? Well if that's not a sign that warming has stopped and ice age 2 is coming,I don't know what is!

[Chris Knight]

TWS, Nigel, sorry for the misunderstanding

[Admiral_Bobski]

What I found particularly interesting about this BBC/Jo Abbess story was this comment from Jo (climate change activist):

"As time goes by, the infant science of climatology improves."

CB

[Thundery wintry showers]

It's an accurate comment IMO- understanding of climate science is improving all the time, but it would be extremely naive to claim that we know everything- there is so much more to learn and understand. I remember Stratos Ferric having an appropriate quote on his sig about how the more we know, the more we realise there is still to know.

In my own pro-AGW posts, I don't say anywhere that AGW is definitely a serious issue, or even that it definitely exists. What I do, though, is talk in terms of probabilities, i.e. given the current state of evidence, there is a significant risk of X and Y happening, etc.

I do agree that a lot of scepiticism gets suppressed, and that many legitimate challenges are elbowed aside alongside nonensical/circular reasoning against AGW. But that's not primarily the climatologists' fault. Indeed, people here at the UEA Climatic Research Unit are mostly agreed that it's good to hear logical reasoned counter-arguments against AGW as it helps to advance science when the counter-arguments are taken into account and addressed. But the media, unfortunately, often seems to think otherwise.

[Roo]

it's good to hear logical reasoned counter-arguments against AGW as it helps to advance science when the counter-arguments are taken into account and addressed.

Exactly! And it is the words 'logical' and 'reasoned' that are so important......

[Admiral_Bobski]

It's an accurate comment IMO

I largely agree with your post. I also agree that Jo's comment was an accurate one, and yet when I had the audacity to suggest a short while ago that climatology was an infant science (I used those exact words) I was pounced upon for saying it, told that I was talking rubbish (in so many words). Obviously it is a comment that is acceptable for Pros but unacceptable for Antis.

CB

[VillagePlank]

'there is no AGW'

I think that you are trying to polarise and divide when there is no need to. I don't recall anyone, seriously suggesting, around here saying, and I paraphrase, 'man has NO influence on the climate'