In The News

[RedShift]

..........and for a major beneficiary of government funding and grants, step forward Dr. Rajendra Pachauri....

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ

It appears to me that there is an awful lot of self-interest and feathering of nests on the part of both "sides". It's part of the reason why I can't be bothered much with it all any more. I will continue to do my bit towards a cleaner world but it's the big guns that have the power to make a difference and they all seem more concerned with how it benefits their pockets more than anything else.

What to do, eh?

What to do eh? Well, stop reading the nypost for a start. These claims are simply untrue.

This nonsense was initiated last December by an article in the Telegraph. Since then, Dr. Pachauri, in his role as the director of the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) has been audited by KPMG, international auditors.

Here is the verdict...

“No evidence was found that indicated personal fiduciary benefits accruing to Pachauri from his various advisory roles that would have led to a conflict of interest."

Dr. Pachauri earns about £40,000 a year from his salary plus another ~£2,000 from book royalties and lectures.

The Telegraph has issued an apology Telegraph apology

It’s tempting to think that the Telegraph will learn, but I’m not holding my breath.

[Guest mycroft]

Your link doesn't work

This sounds like a good idea:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100905/full/news.2010.448.html

Like you say a good idea ..... but do we still have a unadjusted, untampered,original temp data set, from before all adjusting up,down, discounted temp site etc.Hansen has been messing around with this for years.Bet he could'nt even tell??

Edited September 5, 2010 by mycroft

[osmposm]

This isn't said with a MOD hat on, just little old me and my Englishness.....

Please, please, please don't use the word "gotten"; it's one Americanism too far.

Well, it is....but it's also (as I'm sure you know) one of many examples where the American usage/spelling is actually the older, more traditional English one - it is the British version that's changed to some new-fangled, corrupt thing that would have appalled your ancestors! A few other examples that spring to mind are the way we spell "programme", saying "ill" instead of "sick", and "autumn" for "fall". And would you object if I wrote the phrase "ill-gotten gains"? And if not, why not?!!!

[noggin]

What to do eh? Well, stop reading the nypost for a start.

I don't read the New York Post. I was merely "batting" back a link to Gray-Wolf as he had provided me with a link to The New Yorker.

I am quite capable of deciding on my own reading material. But thank you for your concern.

[Methuselah]

It seems that, due to a total absence of any evidence that says that global temperatures are not rising, the deniers have turned their attention back to messenger-shooting??? I await the equally predictable rebuttals from the True Believers...

No-wonder the subject goes around in ever-decreasing circles!

[Guest mycroft]

It seems that, due to a total absence of any evidence that says that global temperatures are not rising, the deniers have turned their attention back to messenger-shooting??? I await the equally predictable rebuttals from the True Believers...

No-wonder the subject goes around in ever-decreasing circles!

what! Phil Jones was not telling the truth when he said

sarc

"for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming"

Seems the true believers are not playing, not one post about my two previous posting ref

the new investigation by Parliament, and the fact that Muir Russell was paid 40k by UEA

But then defending the undefendible is rather hard going at the best of times.

Edited September 6, 2010 by mycroft

[Timini Cricket]

This isn't said with a MOD hat on, just little old me and my Englishness.....

Please, please, please don't use the word "gotten"; it's one Americanism too far.

"Gotten" is not an "americanism", it's an obsolete, anachronistic pre-Mayflower anglicism, which modern english evolved away from centuries ago. Had you forgotten? :blink:

[Thundery wintry showers]

"for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming" :blink:

This is true of the period 1995-2009, but it's also worth adding some context here. Here's the website with the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

...and here's the comment:

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

In addition the mid to late 1990s saw that exceptional El Nino of 1997/98, a weaker one in 1995 (only partly offset by that La Nina in 1999) and a predominantly positive winter NAO, which boosts Northern Hemisphere winter temperatures. Those indices were mostly near-neutral during the mid to late 2000s.

Given that the trend is close to the significance level, and given that 1996 was a much cooler year globally than 1995 (we haven't had a similarly cool year since) and that 2010 is looking highly likely to be one of the top 3 warmest years, it may well be that if we shift it forward a year, using 1996-2010 as the timespan, the trend may reach statistical significance.

So, while the comment you have picked out is true, it can be misleading to read too much into individual comments. It is not the same as saying "AGW has stalled" or "it has not warmed at all".

[Yorkshiresnows]

This is true of the period 1995-2009, but it's also worth adding some context here. Here's the website with the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

...and here's the comment:

In addition the mid to late 1990s saw that exceptional El Nino of 1997/98, a weaker one in 1995 (only partly offset by that La Nina in 1999) and a predominantly positive winter NAO, which boosts Northern Hemisphere winter temperatures. Those indices were mostly near-neutral during the mid to late 2000s.

Given that the trend is close to the significance level, and given that 1996 was a much cooler year globally than 1995 (we haven't had a similarly cool year since) and that 2010 is looking highly likely to be one of the top 3 warmest years, it may well be that if we shift it forward a year, using 1996-2010 as the timespan, the trend may reach statistical significance.

So, while the comment you have picked out is true, it can be misleading to read too much into individual comments. It is not the same as saying "AGW has stalled" or "it has not warmed at all".

Yes, fair enough comments here.

If we look at the last 10 years or so:

Then you could make a case for a stalled warming, or as some already have then a still upward trend.

Of course we have two big El Nino Spikes of 1998 and this year (though interesting to note that we have not peaked higher this year). The real deal will be seen as to how low the dip in temperatures gets with La Nina (change in PDO etc). If thIS is anywhere close to the dip in temps as say the CPC forecasts are suggesting (as well as say Joe :blink: then there will be further weight behind arguing that global temps have not warmed in the last 10 years or so ........... guess we shall see.

What can be stated is that the temperature profile of the past few years has not matched the IPCC computer modal forecasts. Thats not to say that AGW is wrong, but raises a question or two (well to me it does?

Y.S

[Thundery wintry showers]

One thing to take note of is that I often see alternate references to the lower atmosphere temperatures (usually from UAH) and the surface temperatures (usually from NCDC, GISS or HadCRUT). There is a difference- the lower atmosphere temperatures are based on satellite data rather than surface measurements, and show less warming overall because there has been less warming in the "upper lower atmosphere" (if you get what I mean) than at the surface.

Here's the HadCRUT version of the surface temperatures:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

For a second opinion, here is the NCDC version (this version includes the Arctic, but with the caveat that coverage of the Arctic is more prone to error than other areas of the globe, as was recently explored in a recent paper from the people at GISS)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2009/global-jan-dec-error-bar.gif

Note that the two charts use different baselines (CRU uses 1961-90, NCDC uses 1901-2000) and that partly accounts for NCDC showing more warming, though the inclusion of the Arctic is also a factor.

The current global temperature levels are still in line with IPCC projections (0.4-0.5C above 1961-90 levels)- they rose at a faster rate than IPCC projected during the 1990s, and have then warmed at a much slower rate during the 2000s, and the two have approximately cancelled each other out. Anomalies over periods of a few years don't really tell us much, because even when the average is rising there will always be short-term variability either side of the mean- like the way we can get warm spells in February or snow in April despite a generally rising trend as spring gets underway.

[blitzen]

Not sure if anyone else has listened to this interview before (apologies if it has been posted already)

http://itsrainmakingtime.com/2009/climate-part1/

[Gray-Wolf]

Investment bankers don't seem to have much truck with current 'skeptikal' viewpoints as this weighty paper outlines

http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/DBCCAColumbiaSkepticPaper090710.pdf

[Guest mycroft]

This dammed thing just will not go away

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/08/uea-emails-inquiry-science

[Guest mycroft]

This just keeps getting better and better, a few quotes from the the Select Commitee.....

This failed to impress Committee member Stringer, the MP told us today.

"One of the biggest attacks on Jones was by Professor [Doug] Keenan, it directly accused him of fraud. One would expect Jones' use of Chinese data to come up. They had been very selective with what they'd put in and left out of their graphs, even if they hadn't fiddled the figures," said Stringer.

Stringer says the practices exposed at CRU undermine the scientific value of paleoclimatology, in which CRU is a world leader.

"When I asked Oxburgh if [Keith] Briffa [CRU academic] could reproduce his own results, he said in lots of cases he couldn't.

"That just isn't science. It's literature. If somebody can't reproduce their own results, and nobody else can, then what is that work doing in the scientific journals?"

The depth and rigour of Oxburgh's panel also raised eyebrows. Oxburgh said the intensive interrogation (described above) had taken several days, but FOIA requests show his team of seven spent just two days on the job, clocking up "45 man hours" including lunches and coffee breaks. The final report amounted to five pages of assessment.

Particularly like these two first paragraphs..from none other than Professor Micheal Kelly

"Although the Science Assessment Panel didn't publish notes, MPs have seen a highly critical assessment of CRU's work by Cambridge physics Professor Michael Kelly. [PDF, 540kb], who has acted as a scientific advisor to government.

Kelly quoted Ernest Rutherford, who once said that "if your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment". Complex simulations that can't be exhaustively tested against 'real' data have limited value.

"I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of 'computer' experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as a real data. This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real 'real data' might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models."

Wonder if some one will be asking for the £40,000 back after this!next month Muir Russell turn on the naughty step

Just a little bit more....this time about peer review

The issue of publication and peer review is a troubling one. MPs didn't raise it yesterday, but may well follow-up with Muir Russell who is scheduled to appear before the Select Committee next month.

The emails show the academics rubber-stamping each other's work, pressuring publications to suppress critical academics, and in promising to subvert academic conventions to exclude papers from the IPCC. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" wrote Jones in 2004. Another practice cited by critics is "check-kiting", where a climate paper cites a work that is never published.

scientists?....pah

Edited September 13, 2010 by mycroft

[Thundery wintry showers]

The emails show the academics rubber-stamping each other's work, pressuring publications to suppress critical academics, and in promising to subvert academic conventions to exclude papers from the IPCC. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" wrote Jones in 2004. Another practice cited by critics is "check-kiting", where a climate paper cites a work that is never published.

Do you have any sources for this?

[Guest mycroft]

Do you have any sources for this?

came off this site, the whole thing is here,

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/10/oxburgh_science_select_committee/page2.html

[Yorkshiresnows]

Do you have any sources for this?

Hi TWS

What's really interesting is that you can easily get a taste of what has been going on by looking in on the 'Hockey stick papers' and the face-off between Mann and Mcintyre.

I've read the book ' The Hockey stick Illusion' by A.W Monteford and you really get a feel for the 'closed shop' approach (at least that is what the author brings across). But, you can also look at all the articles, data and various e-mail exchanges (that are still occurring) on Climate Audit - http://climateaudit.org/.

The CRU leaks are in my opinion ultimately a good thing, in that hopefully the paleoclimatology fraternity will learn that good science means transparency and reproducibility. It just such a shame that 10 years have been spent with the usual bullying and closed shop mentality against anybody with a different view on things.

When will we all learn ?

Nice post from Myrcroft (in my opinion)

Y.S

[Essan]

Ah, but was the context of the comment? :winky:

They were discussing what they considered to be badly written, error-ridden papers - in much the way we might suggest that a PWS long range forecast should not be taken seriously. And no I'm not going to go through all the bl**dy emails to find the right one to prove it!

Edited September 13, 2010 by Essan

[Thundery wintry showers]

There are positive signs re. the undermining of the "closed shop" approach, but I can also see one problem arising. Some of the "closed shop" approach may well be down to a fear of having data misused, misquoted and taken out of context rather than a desire to stifle opposing views. This of course doesn't make it right (as others have said, science should be about reproducibility, transparency etc), but at the same time, the latest episodes are hardly likely to fill scientists with confidence regarding the hope of their work not being misused.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100913080827.htm

The above seems to show how responsive the Atlantic is to solar and volcanic influence in it's cyclical circulation changes. This level of sensitivity is a worry as the study also shows that we need to mimic our inputs to model the latest data. If a volcanic 'pop' or short term solar energy fluctuation can have such influence what of the long term forcing we are placing into the atmosphere? (volcanic dust/gasses are very short term by comparison). When I look at the heat the Atlantic today I kinda hope the 'cooldown merchants' are bang on otherwise we'll end up with a faux Nino' across the Atlantic Basin from hereon in!

[Guest mycroft]

There are positive signs re. the undermining of the "closed shop" approach, but I can also see one problem arising. Some of the "closed shop" approach may well be down to a fear of having data misused, misquoted and taken out of context rather than a desire to stifle opposing views. This of course doesn't make it right (as others have said, science should be about reproducibility, transparency etc), but at the same time, the latest episodes are hardly likely to fill scientists with confidence regarding the hope of their work not being misused.

How can data be misquoted and taken out of context,Answer withhold, obfuscate,and refuse to tell people how came to the result.

This lot are reaping what they sowed,and it should be a lesson to sciencetist everywhere and operating in every field of science.

Essan

Surely thats what peer review is all about,let a paper go though the process,if its wrong

some one else points out the mistakes/errors and the person who wrote the paper goes back and sorts out the errors/mistakes and then puts the paper forward again.

Not having a person/persons simply saying they will not let papers go forward in due course of the process, that is not how peer review works, who are they to say/tell any scientist that!.And how would they feel if it happened to them!!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=greenman3610&annotation_id=annotation_984683&feature=iv#p/u/1/uE6at2IEUOU

Maybe some of you guys could free up enough time to work through a few 'crock of the week' presentations (and check the data contained!) in case you've been running on no more than a crock of $hite for a while?

[Thundery wintry showers]

How can data be misquoted and taken out of context,Answer withhold, obfuscate,and refuse to tell people how came to the result.

This lot are reaping what they sowed,and it should be a lesson to sciencetist everywhere and operating in every field of science.

Err no, it is a lot harder to misquote and take data out of context when it is withheld and therefore isn't acceptable, hence that being a factor in why it often gets withheld. The leaked emails made it pretty clear what was going on, and as it happens they were misquoted and taken out of context more than anything else.

Even if the scientists were guilty of exactly the same things as those who have misquoted and taken emails & data out of context, the maxim "two wrongs don't make a right" would be applicable in this case. This, of course, is not saying that withholding data is right, but rather that the post above is somewhat wide of the mark in its assertions.

I get a sense that the real moral judgement here is resting not on who does what, but rather who agrees with AGW and who doesn't.

[Guest mycroft]

Err no, it is a lot harder to misquote and take data out of context when it is withheld and therefore isn't acceptable, hence that being a factor in why it often gets withheld. The leaked emails made it pretty clear what was going on, and as it happens they were misquoted and taken out of context more than anything else.

Even if the scientists were guilty of exactly the same things as those who have misquoted and taken emails & data out of context, the maxim "two wrongs don't make a right" would be applicable in this case. This, of course, is not saying that withholding data is right, but rather that the post above is somewhat wide of the mark in its assertions.

I get a sense that the real moral judgement here is resting not on who does what, but rather who agrees with AGW and who doesn't.

Well of course! thats what the debating is all about. The "deniars" and the "dollys"

one pro AGW,the other non AGW to some extent!

The context of the email should be who are these people to by-pass peer reveiw process or to say what go's in what does'nt.IE :the team who all singing from the same hymn sheet

and anyone who seems to be saying anything remotely different can say goodbye to the paper

they submit.It's hardly science by definition or by the principle of science study/methodology,when you get people like Michael Kelly making criticism should not the alarm bell's be ringing..obviously not to some on here.

[Guest mycroft]

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=greenman3610&annotation_id=annotation_984683&feature=iv#p/u/1/uE6at2IEUOU

Maybe some of you guys could free up enough time to work through a few 'crock of the week' presentations (and check the data contained!) in case you've been running on no more than a crock of $hite for a while?

GW

my works computer can not access youtube, so will have to wait til am home.

Thanks for you worthwhile contribution though